Ideal No.6

[kyear2]

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.

I believe that's it's beneficial, even borderline critical to have a viable 5th bowler. I don't think that the particular quality is as important as having that viable 5th option to facilitate the rotation and give relief ro the 4 main bowlers.

Doesn't nearly have to be a Kallis or Stokes calibre, but preferably above a Viv or Sachin. A Hammond or Sompson for me is more than good enough (note just talking about the bowling qualities of those players)

If one of your bowlers gets knocked out of the attack or even to maintain the viability of the attack to make it through a series, the value of that player is there.

So specifically as per the question of the thread, yes, having that 6th bowler type is the most ideal scenario.

The make up of teams today are often limited as to what's available, with somewhat limited numbers of legitimate world class players.

I hesitate to use this example, but it's the only way to gauge value without worrying about a limited selection of players.

If Sobers never played cricket, and you're selecting an all time team to play right now. At the no. 6 pisition, are you choosing a Kallis / Hammond type or just another batsman?

Similarly if you're choosing a current World XI, are you choosing an all rounder in your top order?

 

[ma1978]

Ideally a wicketkeeper who can make the team as a specialist bat (Pant)

 

[subshakerz]

I believe that's it's beneficial, even borderline critical to have a viable 5th bowler. I don't think that the particular quality is as important as having that viable 5th option to facilitate the rotation and give relief ro the 4 main bowlers.

Doesn't nearly have to be a Kallis or Stokes calibre, but preferably above a Viv or Sachin. A Hammond or Sompson for me is more than good enough (note just talking about the bowling qualities of those players)

In other words, you were wrong in saying a batting AR is a necessity based on ATG team template. Good.

 

[kyear2]

In other words, you were wrong in saying a batting AR is a necessity based on ATG team template. Good.

What are you talking about?

 

[subshakerz]

What are you talking about?

Arent you saying that the ATG template is wrong? Since WI and Aus had Viv or Steve Waugh level bowlers?