Are ARs just better by default?

[The Sean]

Imrans and Kallises dont grow on trees.

I've been generally staying out of this discussion, but this is just such a core point. All-rounders of that quality are unicorns. Some people in this thread (and others) seem to be acting like all the great teams - and every other team - had a player of that calibre available to them and simply chose not to pick him.

 

[Johan]

Why didn't great teams play more Bumrah or Murali? clearly not great players.

 

[subshakerz]

You will find very, very many examples of teams fielding bad ARs. Why do they do this? How many good ARs dont make the cut unless they are horrible for team balance?

80s WI literally did this. They played Roger Harper who batted at 7/8,

Aus 2000s at various points had Shane Watson and Symonds too.

 

[Johan]

Yeah but did you consider that taking such knowledge into account hurts the Imran bad agenda?

 

[kyear2]

You've never answered my question regarding why should we give any importance to All time XIs, which are fantastical imaginations, any relevance or regard when evaluating real Cricketers.

Why should they pay attention to all time ranking lists when you're trying to compare players from different eras, playing different positions against varying levels of opposition and on teams of varying strengths.

Basically fantastical imaginations.

Basically why even come onto a forum to discuss cricket, and long passed or retired cricketers, surely there's plenty of real life, touch grass activities that are much more grounded in reality. Lots of comic books out there to read.

But to answer the question, the same reason why sports leagues have all pro / all NBA teams at the end of seasons. It's the best way to recognize greatness where players are pitted agaist their peers who actually play the same position.

It's less arbitrary and abstract than a list, where its near impossible to compare players of different positions and responsibilities.

It's the ultimate honor where you have a selection pool of everyone who's played the sport and choose the premiere select few who would make up the best possible XI to take the field.

It's also an interesting thought process, and the only avenue where one can, with all variables being totally equal, discuss the merits and importance of various aspects of the game.

With everyone who's ever played at your disposal, who is chosen, which skills are prioritized. It's a reflection of the real world where everyone is on par. The philosophies remain constant, notjing changes, we use known names to visualize impact.

But for you, subz and others it's not valid because it doesn't back up your stated beliefs and goals. But you aren't the arbritor of these things.
Though that doesn't stop you from trying. As you have attempted in the batsman rankings by lobbying to first remove strike rate then introduce positions weighting.

You aren't remotely trying to discover what's determined, not nearly as much as to determine it, to ensure the results coincide with your views and currently favored players. That's where you are right now with batting, all rounders and captaincy. You don't cite anything or one, you just state your preferences as fact.

 

[kyear2]

These are Disney teams because they don't actually exist.

The idea of a team so overflowing with talent that they basically render secondary disciplines meaningless is the only way specialists can have a shot against All rounders.

That's just idiotic.

It's the same as normal teams with the base line talent elevated, that's it.

And not to let facts ruin a good lie, but this part is really important, they don't render secondary skills meaningless, because they all include, feature and require a batting all rounder and an elite cordon. Those remain constant. what you meant to say was that they don't feature "bowling all rounders", but they're at least 2 good reasons for that.

The two really life best teams ever had no specialists batting all rounder nor bowling all rounders. They did have batsmen who could provide solid support with the ball to ease their bowlers, which remains a necessity.

And no team sees the necessity regardless of real or fantasy, to choose two specialists batting all rounders because of yes, diminishing returns. Why weaken the batting for a 6th bowling option that will hardly get the ball.

In another thread, I've presented multiple takes, videos and articles authired by test captains, historians, statisticians, pundits and commentators alike regarding team building and all say the same thing. The priority of a bowling attack is to take twenty wickets at all costs, and that the responsibility for runs rest with the top 7 (bats and keeper all rounder).
It was also pointed out how the keeper becoming an all rounder position has pushed the selection of an attack even further away from batting consideration.

So no, it's not only because of overwhelming talent that diminishes the need for "bowling all rounders", because it happens in every day real life cricket as well.

The value isn't perceived to be there. Certainly not among a plurality far less universally.

The priorities remains, take 20 wickets, that's universal.

There's actually a pretty damn clear template for greatness, it also includes a couple batsmen in the top 4, capable of going through the gears and providing impetus if not causing destruction, but that isn't convenient for your beliefs either. But continuing on that vein...

And coming back to this, do know though what secondary consideration is a constant priority regardless of overwhelming talent for an All Time team, or any of the greatest teams ever, to even an average one? The cordon. Go figure.

That's where the value is, as you have also referenced.

There is also the factor that the three greatest batting all rounders (Sobers, Kallis, Hammond) also excelled on historic levels in the slips which can and does often help win games.

Want a secondary skill to focus on, focus on that one.

 

[Johan]

Basically why even come onto a forum to discuss cricket, and long passed or retired cricketers, surely there's plenty of real life, touch grass activities that are much more grounded in reality. Lots of comic books out there to read.

But to answer the question, the same reason why sports leagues have all pro / all NBA teams at the end of seasons. It's the best way to recognize greatness where players are pitted agaist their peers who actually play the same position.

It's less arbitrary and abstract than a list, where its near impossible to compare players of different positions and responsibilities.

It's the ultimate honor where you have a selection pool of everyone who's played the sport and choose the premiere select few who would make up the best possible XI to take the field.

It's also an interesting thought process, and the only avenue where one can, with all variables being totally equal, discuss the merits and importance of various aspects of the game.

With everyone who's ever played at your disposal, who is chosen, which skills are prioritized. It's a reflection of the real world where everyone is on par. The philosophies remain constant, notjing changes, we use known names to visualize impact.

Aren't you practically describing the same thing in six different lines?

Anyway, the reason an all time XI is a terrible measure is because it gives you an hypothetical where your team is disgustingly overflowing in all three dimensions of the game and those with secondary disciplines don't bring much anymore.

For example, if you have a slip cordon of Hammond and Sobers, and you have Hammond and Sobers sharing fifth bowler duties, there's no need for Kallis anymore as both the spots for fifth bowler (Hammond and Kallis) and the spit for a slip (Hammond, Sobers, Viv) are more than fullfilled, so you can pick someone like Sachin over him because both of Kallis's tertiary and secondary skills are more than negated because the team is unrealistically strong in those regards, to both the fifth bowler split and the slip.

that does not mean, however, that Sachin is a better Cricketer. He is better in primary and due to circumstances primary was the only thing that mattered as Kallis's secondary and tertiary disciplines were neutered due to the presence of Sobers and Hammond.

Now, in a normal team, Kallis would bat four like Sachin, but also bowl dry overs, keep things tight, get breakthroughs and a wicket a dig. He would also be in the slips, taking blinders, never dropping one, taking some game changing catches that others would drop

what is closer to reality? obviously the normal team version, because that reflects what Kallis was, in a hypothetical where his tertiary and secondary are neutered he is a completely different Cricketer, but the actual value of a cricketer shows in reality and not in hypotheticals where entire disciplines are neutered because of over-resourcing that doesn't exist in real life. For all we know, ignoring Logie, Botham won't get picked in the West Indies team that toured Australia in 1988-89 and had Marshall/Ambrose/Walsh/Patterson bowling, doesn't mean anything as he was a greater Cricketer than lots in that team.

But for you, subz and others it's not valid because it doesn't back up your stated beliefs and goals. But you aren't the arbritor of these things.
Though that doesn't stop you from trying. As you have attempted in the batsman rankings by lobbying to first remove strike rate then introduce positions weighting.

Ofcourse not, it's you who is offended by the idea of people having different views, and you can't debate without going on this superiority complex rant about how all others have ulterior motives and you stand as the good hearted one with no ulterior motives and blah blah blah.

I mean, it's common sense batting Position matters more than strike rate, a batsman is by far at his most vulnerable in the first part of the innings, the first 30 or so balls, having to face the best bowlers all at their most fresh from the first ball equipped with a ball that seams, swings, bounces more and also comes at you faster and sharper just means you have to cope with a far higher probability of dismissal regardless of your style of play, and an opener or a number three batsman who consistently neuters the new ball and builds good foundation is just more valuable than a Chanderpaul type who scores from 90/4. That's just basic common sense.

You aren't remotely trying to discover what's determined, not nearly as much as to determine it, to ensure the results coincide with your views and currently favored players. That's where you are right now with batting, all rounders and captaincy. You don't cite anything or one, you just state your preferences as fact.

I am a big advocate of independent thought, unlike you who has a few Cricketers you champion for whom you would bend your standards and do meticulous research to justify the greatness of, I simply don't. All of my views on batsmanship, captaincy and all rounders are simply objective.

 

[kyear2]

We have plenty of data sets of experts and cricketers directly ranking other cricketers. Isnt that a better measure of how they rate allrounders and specialists?

Why would you ignore lists where they tell you directly if they see allrounders as better or not?

Shows the plenty lists that shows Imran, Kallis and Hadlee in the top 5 over Warne, Richards, Hobbs or Tendukar.

I'll save you the time, there are none.

Even in his highest of all time rankings Imran is always behind Richards / Warne / Tendulkar / Hobbs

There has never been a list with all allriunders at the top, because that's not how value and impact works.

 

[subshakerz]

Shows the plenty lists that shows Imran, Kallis and Hadlee in the top 5 over Warne, Richards, Hobbs or Tendukar.

I'll save you the time, there are none.

Even in his highest of all time rankings Imran is always behind Richards / Warne / Tendulkar / Hobbs

There has never been a list with all allriunders at the top, because that's not how value and impact works.

Yeah but we aren’t basing our assessments on these ATGXI and lists.

You are the one bringing in pundits or player opinion like some authority.

Hence it makes sense to see why you value some and not others based on which agree with you.

 

[subshakerz]

It's less arbitrary and abstract than a list, where its near impossible to compare players of different positions and responsibilities.

HAHAHAHA!

The guy who justifies virtually every assessment of a player based on where they rank in which tier in your own ranking list suddenly finds rankings as untrustworthy.

There is no way an ATG XI is less abstract than an actual ranking in knowing which players are viewed as better. Thats literally the purpose of a ranking.

 

[subshakerz]

The two really life best teams ever had no specialists batting all rounder nor bowling all rounders.

Roger Harper and Andrew Symomds.

And no team sees the necessity regardless of real or fantasy, to choose two specialists batting all rounders because of yes, diminishing returns. Why weaken the batting for a 6th bowling option that will hardly get the ball.

This was our point. So why make a deal if a team doesnt include Kallis, Hammond and Sobers?

 

[kyear2]

These trade offs come in context of teams that are unrealistic and overflowing with resources in all dimensions of the game, ofcourse Kallis wouldn't be picked over Tendulkar if the team is so overflowing in resources that his slip fielding and fifth bowling is rendered irrelevant, but it's impossible for such a team to exist in reality except maybe one or two in history at most and therefore the datapoint is based upon circumstances that are non-existent.

What you seem to miss is that of his batting was good enough, he would be selcted over Sachin. Period.

The primary dictates.

If India had a choice of only one of Jadeja or Bumrah, they're choosing Bumrah.

If you had to lead an unknown team into the world test championships, and was allowed only one player of your choosing are you taking Marshall or Kallis?

 

[Jane Austen]

Aren't you practically describing the same thing in six different lines?

Anyway, the reason an all time XI is a terrible measure is because it gives you an hypothetical where your team is disgustingly overflowing in all three dimensions of the game and those with secondary disciplines don't bring much anymore.

For example, if you have a slip cordon of Hammond and Sobers, and you have Hammond and Sobers sharing fifth biwler duties, there's no need for Kallis anymore as both the spots for fifth bowler (Hammond and Kallis) and the spit for a slip (Hammond, Sobers, Viv) are more than fullfilled, so you can pick someone like Sachin over him because both of Kallis's tertiary and secondary skills are more than negated because the team is unrealistically strong in those regards, to both the fifth bowler split and the slip.

that does not mean, however, that Sachin is a better Cricketer. He is better in primary and due to circumstances primary was the only thing that mattered as Kallis's secondary and tertiary disciplines were neutered due to the presence of Sobers and Hammond.

Now, in a normal team, Kallis would bat four like Sachin, but also bowl dry overs, keep things tight, get breakthroughs and a wicket a dig. He would also be in the slips, taking blinders, never dropping one, taking some game changing catches that others would drop

what is closer to reality? obviously the normal team version, because that reflects what Kallis was, in a hypothetical where his tertiary and secondary are neutered he is a completely different Cricketer, but the actual value of a cricketer shows in reality and not in hypotheticals where entire disciplines are neutered because of over-resourcing that doesn't exist in real life. For all we know, ignoring Logie, Botham won't get picked in the West Indies team that toured Australia in 1988-89 and had Marshall/Ambrose/Walsh/Patterson bowling, doesn't mean anything as he was a greater Cricketer than lots in that team.


Ofcourse not, it's you who is offended by the idea of people having different views, and you can't debate without going on this superiority complex rant about how all others have ulterior motives and you stand as the good hearted one with no ulterior motives and blah blah blah.

I mean, it's common sense batting Position matters more than strike rate, a batsman is by far at his most vulnerable in the first part of the innings, the first 30 or so balls, having to face the best bowlers all at their most fresh from the first ball equipped with a ball that seams, swings, bounces more and also comes at you faster and sharper just means you have to cope with a far higher probability of dismissal regardless of your style of play, and an opener or a number three batsman who consistently neuters the new ball and builds good foundation is just more valuable than a Chanderpaul type who scores from 90/4. That's just basic common sense.


I am a big advocate of independent thought, unlike you who has a few Cricketers you champion for whom you would bend your standards and do meticulous research to justify the greatness of, I simply don't. All of my views on batsmanship, captaincy and all rounders are simply objective.

The last word of your post Johan should be SUBJECTIVE not objective!!

 

[Johan]

That's just idiotic.

It's the same as normal teams with the base line talent elevated, that's it.

And not to let facts ruin a good lie, but this part is really important, they don't render secondary skills meaningless, because they all include, feature and require a batting all rounder and an elite cordon. Those remain constant. what you meant to say was that they don't feature "bowling all rounders", but they're at least 2 good reasons for that.

The disgust you write the term bowling all rounders with, it really shows how unbelievably scared you are of Imran and nowadays even Hadlee, you've been scared a long time, haven't ya?

Anyway, frankly speaking a single slip is nowhere near as impactful as bowling or lower order batting so I'm just gonna skip that. Why do we need a batting all rounder anymore than a bowling one?

The two really life best teams ever had no specialists batting all rounder nor bowling all rounders. They did have batsmen who could provide solid support with the ball to ease their bowlers, which remains a necessity.

Except they couldn't. If they had better batting all rounders they'd win more games, especially if they had a spin one. For example, QPO in 1984 in Border's game, would've comfortably won the game if they weren't forced to have Viv and Gomes bowl 52 of the 112 overs in the next innings.

And no team sees the necessity regardless of real or fantasy, to choose two specialists batting all rounders because of yes, diminishing returns. Why weaken the batting for a 6th bowling option that will hardly get the ball.

and Yeah, that's my point. Realistically if you have Sobers and Hammond you don't need a Kallis, they can share bowling duties and slip duties, sadly there's been three of them over the last hundred years born in vastly different times and vastly different corners of the world and therefore this situation doesn't actually exist for a normal team.

Therefore, of the great all rounders, none of their secondary or tertiary disciplines become irrelevant due to diminishing returns IN THE REAL WORLD, in a fantasy world sure, but it's very much like saying if Hannibal and Napoleon were born under Phillip in Macedon they won't actually be great and just be under Alexander, sure, doesn't mean anything because their actual achievements in the real world prove their worth.

Same with the secondary discipline of all rounders.

In another thread, I've presented multiple takes, videos and articles authired by test captains, historians, statisticians, pundits and commentators alike regarding team building and all say the same thing. The priority of a bowling attack is to take twenty wickets at all costs, and that the responsibility for runs rest with the top 7 (bats and keeper all rounder).
It was also pointed out how the keeper becoming an all rounder position has pushed the selection of an attack even further away from batting consideration.

So no, it's not only because of overwhelming talent that diminishes the need for "bowling all rounders", because it happens in every day real life cricket as well.

The value isn't perceived to be there. Certainly not among a plurality far less universally.

The priorities remains, take 20 wickets, that's universal.

There's no point to taking twenty wickets if you can't outscore your opposition.

At this point you're just fundamentally ignorant to the game, teams take 20 wickets and lose literally all the time, you can't outscore your team and lose. Fundamentally, outscoring your team is important, bowling them out won't do anything if your batsmen themselves get bowled out for under 200 both digs, same way huge scoring won't mean anything if you don't take 20 wickets consistently, like this is super basic.

That's why when Imran just makes more runs, conceding a few more runs while bowling isn't going to actually do anything in comparison to a McGrath, those extra 25-30 runs and his ability to finish games, score crucial runs or fight out crucial draws is much, much more valuable than McGrath's one point superior bowling average that would amount to basically nothing.

Basically, you're saying for an all rounder, we need to ignore their actual value (contribution to both batting and bowling) and just focus on what specialist bowlers are supposed to do. Just how ignorant of Cricket are you? should we ignore Sobers's bowling too? it's not the job of a 1-7 batsman to bowl after all, it's the job of number 8-11 to bowl and dismiss people.

Like you can't be for serious, you're literally an advocate for proper keeping, have Knott in your all time XI and know that for vast majority of Cricket history keepers have been specialists, so you're conceding for vast majority of the Cricket history that bowling all rounders DID HAVE VALUE? Oh, nice.

There's actually a pretty damn clear template for greatness, it also includes a couple batsmen in the top 4, capable of going through the gears and providing impetus if not causing destruction, but that isn't convenient for your beliefs either. But continuing on that vein...

And coming back to this, do know though what secondary consideration is a constant priority regardless of overwhelming talent for an All Time team, or any of the greatest teams ever, to even an average one? The cordon. Go figure.

I don't care.

I already said I'm willing to give people credit for having higher range, and having an ability to accelerate and decelerate at will. It's you who is so ridiculously biased towards strike rate, scoring rates and all that, that you've been personally wounded by the concept of people not automatically giving people like Viv or Brook points for their scoring rate, it actually grinds my gears how ridiculous your belief is and how willing you are to be aggressive and honestly borderling unstable when people don't view the game the same incoherent way you do.

And coming back to this, do know though what secondary consideration is a constant priority regardless of overwhelming talent for an All Time team, or any of the greatest teams ever, to even an average one? The cordon. Go figure.

That's where the value is, as you have also referenced.


Want a secondary skill to focus on, focus on that one.

You know what's also valuable, lower order runs which win games all the time, varied fifth bowling which exerts pressure, gets breakthroughs and ofcourse, slip Cordon, which is a three man job tbf.

but you have decided only one matters, Sobers did bowling so a bowling secondary discipline matters to an extent, and lower order batting is done by sources of evil like Hadlee and Imran and Miller and therefore must be banished at all costs.

 

[Johan]

What you seem to miss is that of his batting was good enough, he would be selcted over Sachin. Period.

The primary dictates.

If India had a choice of only one of Jadeja or Bumrah, they're choosing Bumrah.

Bad equivalence.

Jadeja is a Stuart Broad level bowler, in actuality even worse, he is a damn good bowler and no more, his home and away averages are reminiscent of Kemar Roach and his advantage is he plays less overseas and especially on tough tours and doesn't have to lead weak attacks on flat surfaces but rather benefits from having a strong attack behind him. Overall his bowling is as far from Bumrah's bowling as someone like Andy Caddick from Malcolm Marshall.

Not the same with Kallis, who averaged 55 to Sachin's 53, he is an inferior batsman no doubt but in 90% of the cases they will perform similarly, playing in the same team on the same pitches Sachin might score some more runs but it's more than made up by slip catching and seam bowling of Kallis.

Basically, if Sachin is to be McGrath, Kallis on primary would be about the same level as Allan Donald. Much closer than the garbage Jadeja and Bumrah analogy.

Oh by the way, Jadeja is much, much, much closer to Marshall or Bumrah as a Cricketer than Sobers is to Bradman.

If you had to lead an unknown team into the world test championships, and was allowed only one player of your choosing are you taking Marshall or Kallis?

Bad example. Bowlers just have more value than Batsmen in short term, much higher probability Marshall has some huge 30-35 wickets series than Kallis winning games by himself for the average team, batsmen have to make up to bowler impact by generally having way longer careers or performing in low scoring games.

Let's put it like this...

I would pick Hammond and Kallis over Viv and Sachin for this unsubstantiated team.

I would pick Hadlee and Imran over McGrath and Ambrose/Marshall for this unsubstantiated team.

 

[subshakerz]

The last word of your post Johan should be SUBJECTIVE not objective!!

Jane with a rare potshot here hehe.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Bad equivalence.

Jadeja is a Stuart Broad level bowler, in actuality even worse, he is a damn good bowler and no more, his home and away averages are reminiscent of Kemar Roach and his advantage is he plays less overseas and especially on tough tours and doesn't have to lead weak attacks on flat surfaces but rather benefits from having a strong attack behind him. Overall his bowling is as far from Bumrah's bowling as someone like Andy Caddick from Malcolm Marshall.

Not the same with Kallis, who averaged 55 to Sachin's 53, he is an inferior batsman no doubt but in 90% of the cases they will perform similarly, playing in the same team on the same pitches Sachin might score some more runs but it's more than made up by slip catching and seam bowling of Kallis.

Basically, if Sachin is to be McGrath, Kallis on primary would be about the same level as Allan Donald. Much closer than the garbage Jadeja and Bumrah analogy.

Oh by the way, Jadeja is much, much, much closer to Marshall or Bumrah as a Cricketer than Sobers is to Bradman.


Bad example. Bowlers just have more value than Batsmen in short term, much higher probability Marshall has some huge 30-35 wickets series than Kallis winning games by himself for the average team, batsmen have to make up to bowler impact by generally having way longer careers or performing in low scoring games.

Let's put it like this...

I would pick Hammond and Kallis over Viv and Sachin for this unsubstantiated team.

I would pick Hadlee and Imran over McGrath and Ambrose/Marshall for this unsubstantiated team.

Jadeja and Bumrah's bowling aren't as far apart as Marshall and Caddick, come on now!!! Marshall and Broad maybe

 

[Johan]

Jadeja and Bumrah's bowling aren't as far apart as Marshall and Caddick, come on now!!! Marshall and Broad maybe

sure

 

[Bolo.]

And no team sees the necessity regardless of real or fantasy, to choose two specialists batting all rounders because of yes, diminishing returns. Why weaken the batting for a 6th bowling option that will hardly get the ball.

This isnt specifically directed at you FTR. Just my new kick.

Dimishing returns are a very fair point. But they dont diminish to zero.

If we were picking an ATG team to play against regulation strength teams, I would actually be tempted to drop Sachin, and play all of Kallis, Sobers and Hammond, despite diminishing returns. I dont really trust Hammond or Kallis to level up with the bat to the degree I do others. Hammond is the best MO bat IMO after Sachin. He is a fair shout as a pure bat despite not fully trusting him to level up. Kallis is already a bit behind some other bats in real world cricket, and likely falls significantly behind them at this hypothetical level. I would still play him if Sobers and Miller werent options, but they are.