Ideal No.6

[TheJediBrah]

But we will never see eye to eye on this.

You think

 

[subshakerz]

I'll leave it here.

Of course you will leave it here because you never actually addressed the argument.

And you shift it to discussing the ATG World XI as if you never actually discussed using the 80 WIs and 2000s Aus as templates, which you constantly did, only to conveniently walk away from it comes to batting ARs.

 

[kyear2]

Of course you will leave it here because you never actually addressed the argument.

And you shift it to discussing the ATG World XI as if you never actually discussed using the 80 WIs and 2000s Aus as templates, which you constantly did, only to conveniently walk away from it comes to batting ARs.

I did address it, multiple times, don't know how to more clearly address it. You've ignored it.

The part you're being most obtuste about is that the AT team argument was but one of multiple arguments used.

You've completely refused to acknowledge the others because you have no argument against them, instead clinging to this one like a toddler throwing a tantrum.

It was never based on that one tenant alone.

The thing is, that there's legitimate arguments for both the batting all rounder and slip fielding specialists to be no. 1.

For slip fielders it's 3 simple reasons.
1. The AT argument, all of the great teams had equally AT cordons, that's not a coincidence.
2. That's where most of the wickets are taken, self explanatory. Espcially the ATG bowlers.
3. 99% of the great AT bowlers had them.

For batting all rounders, even simpler, almost every single team from grade through club, test and up to ATG selects them. You select Sobers when you're making an ATG XI, everyone does. You need 5 bowlers in an attack, one preferably who can bat in the top order.

It's structural, integral, essential.

What you are intent on, and need to cling on to is that the WI didn't have one.

But you miss two things.

1. They had 3 ATG bowlers and kne world class one. No other team ever would have that. And even then...

2. They wanted one. They didn't bring in Harper to strengthen the batting, they weakened the batting to bring him him on the occasions they needed a 5th bowler. Think they wouldn't have wanted a Simpson or Faulkner type?

Australia had the twins, then spent forever looking for a replacement, and South Africa had Kallis.

What they all had were superb cordons, even if we get past the '84 Windies, '02 Aussies and '08 SA squad, you come to the '70 SAs and '75 Aussies, and what do they have in common? Very argubaly the 5 greatest slip cordons in history.

While the WI and Australia were great with Marshall and Warne at 8. SA had either Morkel or Philander. Basically, anything in the 18 range was ideal.and more than good enough. And none of them went hunting for upgrades.

I've had multiple conversations with Peterhrt about this stuff, as he confirmed for me, none of the great teams compromised their bowling looking for batting depth, they simply selected the best attacks.
I've shared a Boycott video talking about what you need to selct a winning team. He mentioned an all rounder, a keeper who can bat, guys who can catch in the slips. He never mentions batting depth, the only reference to the attack being that it should be varied and capable of taking 20 wickets.
Greg Chappell.wrote an entire article on the importance of slip catching while at the same time and very clearly advocating for selecting you attack purely based on bowling merits and stating that batting shouldn't factor into the equation.
Kimber had an entire piece on how lower order batting doesn't matter, while in another video stressing that test cricket again needs slip specialists.

Even tou can't say all-rounders aren't importsnt when you, yourself select Sobers in every ATG team as one, and as I said above, so does everyone else. Bowling all rounders?

Well if there's an official all time World XI, it's Wisden, if there's another, it's Cricinfo, neither feature a bowling all rounder. Hell I just did a compilation world XI and the attack was literally the same as Wisden's. Marshall, Barnes, Wasim, Warne and Sobers. No BAR there either. Your perveived value doesn't seem to be shared.

Kallis meant more to SA with the ball than Hadlee or Pollock meant to their teams with the bat, so did the aforementioned cordons. Back end runs are simply not as important as wicket tsking potential, and this applies to both secondary skills being discussed.

And all this is before we address that for the vast majority of historical or contempoary cricket, almost noone selects bowling all rounders the same way they do for keepers or batting all rounders, where both skills are (almost) equally factored into selection. It just doesn't happen that way. The wicketkeeper is the 2nd all rounder in a team, and has been for quite some time now.

At least put some.effort into understanding what I'm saying. And I do address what you're saying.

 

[subshakerz]

For batting all rounders, even simpler, almost every single team from grade through club, test and up to ATG selects them. You select Sobers when you're making an ATG XI, everyone does. You need 5 bowlers in an attack, one preferably who can bat in the top order.

Problem is all your historical ATG team template arguments against bowling all-rounders also apply to batting all-rounders.

Neither the ATG WI or Aus side sacrificed batting at no.6 for a batting AR nor did they sacrifice bowling at 8 for a bowling AR.

The twins and Viv were the equivalents for Marshall and Warne for batting.

Harper was selected as a bowling AR and batting no.7.

Hence saying a batting AR is a necessity is wrong if you are using the historical ATG team template.

Neither was a high quality batting or bowling AR available otherwise likely BOTH would have been selected. If you say those teams would have loved a Faulkner type they would have also loved a Shaun Pollock type. Goes both ways.

And please, DO NOT confuse the issue by bringing in hypothetical ATG XIs, we are talking the WI and Aus sides you brought up. Anything else you bring will be ignored as deflection.

 

[kyear2]

Problem is all your historical ATG team template arguments against bowling all-rounders also apply to batting all-rounders.

Neither the ATG WI or Aus side sacrificed batting at no.6 for a batting AR nor did they sacrifice bowling at 8 for a bowling AR.

The twins and Viv were the equivalents for Marshall and Warne for batting.

Harper was selected as a bowling AR and batting no.7.

Hence saying a batting AR is a necessity is wrong if you are using the historical ATG team template.

Neither was a high quality batting or bowling AR available otherwise likely BOTH would have been selected. If you say those teams would have loved a Faulkner type they would have also loved a Shaun Pollock type. Goes both ways.

And please, DO NOT confuse the issue by bringing in hypothetical ATG XIs, we are talking the WI and Aus sides you brought up. Anything else you bring will be ignored as deflection.

I swear you just read to argue, I don't think you even pretend to digest anything said.

 

[subshakerz]

I swear you just read to argue, I don't think you even pretend to digest anything said.

I am keeping my argument relevant only to the points you make concerning historical ATG team templates. Everything else is irrelevant as you tend to give meandering responses.

 

[kyear2]

I am keeping my argument relevant only to the points you make concerning historical ATG team templates. Everything else is irrelevant as you tend to give meandering responses.

Translation, you literally can't refute a single thing I said, so you bitch out. Understood.

And it wasn't meandering, it was thorough.

And actual question, if the takes of former captains, players and pundits don't matter, if historical prescedence of success doesn't matter, if team building structure doesn't matter, what does?

 

[subshakerz]

Translation, you literally can't refute a single thing I said, so you bitch out. Understood.

I addressed all the relevant points in the post above which you failed to address yourself.

 

[Bolo.]

I had a look at most consecutive wins that the main nations have managed, and simplified the selections (hopefully correctly) to see how teams were approaching extra bowling/batting on hot streaks. Dates are just one of the years involved.

16 wins Aus- part timers. 1999 and 2006
11 wins WI- typically 2 bowling ARs/bits and pieces players. 1984
10 wins RSA- no stability in selections, anywhere from 0-3 players who wouldnt make the side on on 1 discipline alone. 2025
10 wins Eng- 1 AR who leant more bowling, and 1 bits and pieces. 2005
9 wins SL- batting AR. 2000
7 wins Ind- typically 1 bowling and 1 balanced AR, some balanced AR and a parttimer. 2019
6 wins NZ- switched from a balanced AR to a bat after injury. 2020.
6 wins Pak- 1 to 2 bits and pieces players with 4 bowlers. 2002.

Every type of pick is represented here, apart from 5 specialist bowlers. Teams are picking based on resources (and conditions), which we shouldnt need this data to tell us. What does surprise me is the number of bits and pieces players who get in.

 

[subshakerz]

I had a look at most consecutive wins that the main nations have managed, and simplified the selections (hopefully correctly) to see how teams were approaching extra bowling/batting on hot streaks. Dates are just one of the years involved.

16 wins Aus- part timers. 1999 and 2006
11 wins WI- typically 2 bowling ARs/bits and pieces players. 1984
10 wins RSA- no stability in selections, anywhere from 0-3 players who wouldnt make the side on on 1 discipline alone. 2025
10 wins Eng- 1 AR who leant more bowling, and 1 bits and pieces. 2005
9 wins SL- batting AR. 2000
7 wins Ind- typically 1 bowling and 1 balanced AR, some balanced AR and a parttimer. 2019
6 wins NZ- switched from a balanced AR to a bat after injury. 2020.
6 wins Pak- 1 to 2 bits and pieces players with 4 bowlers. 2002.

Every type of pick is represented here, apart from 5 specialist bowlers. Teams are picking based on resources (and conditions), which we shouldnt need this data to tell us. What does surprise me is the number of bits and pieces players who get in.

Kyear is concerned more with the first two teams

 

[Majestic]

Jadeja post 2018 is an ideal no.6 in my view. You get an economical line and length bowler who can bowl long spells and be genuine wicket taking option in favourable conditions and then a good batsman who is averaging 42-43 with runs across all conditions.

 

[kyear2]

I addressed all the relevant points in the post above which you failed to address yourself.

You've literally ignored all of them

 

[kyear2]

Jadeja post 2018 is an ideal no.6 in my view. You get an economical line and length bowler who can bowl long spells and be genuine wicket taking option in favourable conditions and then a good batsman who is averaging 42-43 with runs across all conditions.

Basically

 

[subshakerz]

You've literally ignored all of them

Will you just admit that to call a batting AR a necessity means that the historical ATG teams aren't the template, because they looked for the strongest top 6?

 

[subshakerz]

Jadeja post 2018 is an ideal no.6 in my view. You get an economical line and length bowler who can bowl long spells and be genuine wicket taking option in favourable conditions and then a good batsman who is averaging 42-43 with runs across all conditions.

If you are looking at peak then why not peak Sobers or peak Botham?

 

[DJellett]

6 is batting role
Key one in 2nd part of innings
Can your 4/150 become 300+ can your 4/280 become 500+
So the question is really what kind of batter you want or need there and it's different depending on when they might come in (old 1st ball? New ball? 100 overs+?) and where you're playing. Traditional oz conditions it's someone who scores, leg sideish and aggressive, England someone who is solid and straight af, rotator, India it's a leader to steer, good on the feet,,, so on
Yes the side balance comes into the equation but that's gonna be determined by the strategy you go for here and what is available.
Given it's an ideal scenario I've got a top 5 bat who's a top 5 bowler too (need of 5th bowler often overrated, especially in top tier side) no match or touring conditions so I'm picking my #3 now and forever not a 6 to displace them, the best available. If you've got a keeper who can do it cool but not many suitable for 7 behind that
Hussey good pick, Walters, all timers maybe devilliers, there'll be other brilliant picks too
My views cheers

 

[DJellett]

For medium to top tier side um definitely a sturdy and effective batter, medium tier it's more important he's very good one disciplined mature and sound, top tier can be more expressive

 

[kyear2]

Will you just admit that to call a batting AR a necessity means that the historical ATG teams aren't the template, because they looked for the strongest top 6?

I'll keep this exceptionally simple.

They are a necessity because almost every team ever structurally builds their team inclusive of one.

Can you say that about bowling all rounders? Simple question.

Re the 2nd part, heard Lloyd in an interview revently speaking about prioritizing hunting for 20 wickets over scoring one more run than the opposition.

In a quarter of their matches Logie batted at 6 because they preferred a 5 man bowling attack and didn't have a test standard batting all rounder. The matches rhey didn't do this, Viv, Gomes, Lloyd and others had to put in the work, which obviously wasn't seen as being enough in all scenarios. And all this with the greatest attack ever assembled.

Australia spend how long trying to find that all rounder to be the 5th bowler, especially after the twins departed?

South Africa, the next team in line, had Kallis, problem immediately solved.

You need a 5th bowler in some form for a team to succeed, The WI didn't have one and was forced at times to experiment with the line up, weakening the batting.in the process. You need a above proficient to great slip cordon to succeed, every great team had an ATG one that it depended on.

This isn't nearly as difficult as you're making it. Pick your 5 best batsmen, factoring in some slip catching along the way, a batting all rounder to round out the top order, a 2nd all rounder in the form of a wicketkeeper batsman, and your 4 best bowlers, ordered by their proficiency in batting.

Tell me what I'm missing here.

 

[subshakerz]

I'll keep this exceptionally simple.

They are a necessity because almost every team ever structurally builds their team inclusive of one.

Can you say that about bowling all rounders? Simple question.

Except WI and Aus ATG teams largely didn’t build their teams inclusive of one.

Even the Logie example you gave is wrong because he was their best batting option they had at no.6.

And yes WI selected Roger Harper as a bowling AR.

 

[peterhrt]

There is no set formula for the structure of a Test team. This is apparent when looking at the most recent side selected by each of the nine leading nations. Each has a different structure, partly due to conditions.

England: 7 batsmen (including wk), 4 bowlers (all seamers).
Australia: 4 batsmen, 2 all-rounders, 1 wk-bat, 4 bowlers. (4 seam, 1 spin, 1 mixed).
South Africa: 5 batsmen, 2 all-rounders, 1 wk-bat, 3 bowlers. (2 seam, 3 spin).
West Indies: 5 batsmen (including wk), 2 all-rounders, 4 bowlers. (4 seam 2 spin).
New Zealand: 5 batsmen, 1 wk-bat, 1 bowling all-rounder, 4 bowlers. (4 seam, 1 spin).
India: 6 batsmen (including wk), 1 all-rounder, 4 bowlers. (2 seam, 3 spin).
Pakistan: 6 batsmen, 1 wk-bat, 4 bowlers. (3 seam, 1 spin).
Sri Lanka: 5 batsmen, 1 batting all-rounder, 1 wk-bat, 4 bowlers. (2 seam, 3 spin).
Bangladesh: 5 batsmen, 1 wk-bat, 1 bowling all-rounder, 4 bowlers. (3 seam, 2 spin).

England and Pakistan don't have an all-rounder and make do with four bowlers. England don't have a spinner.

Australia, South Africa and West Indies have two all-rounders. Australia and West Indies enjoy six bowling options.

New Zealand and Bangladesh have a bowling all-rounder at number seven and a long tail on paper. Both won their most recent matches.

India, Sri Lanka and South Africa all played three spinners.