Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[subshakerz]

Kyear2 has recently softened his stance on the value of the different skills after some of the recent Test matches. It was in a different thread which could easily have been missed. Maybe that's why he feels attacked with those old posts/views being mentioned again.

He does a bad job explaining himself.

 

[subshakerz]

You???

Not really.

 

[kyear2]

Kyear2 has recently softened his stance on the value of the different skills after some of the recent Test matches. It was in a different thread which could easily have been missed. Maybe that's why he feels attacked with those old posts/views being mentioned again.

Anyway the Kimber post where he thought lower order batting was the least important. He's probably right, but it's only the least important if you actually have a reliable top/middle order. Ideally you'd have that, but the less reliable they are the more important good lower order batting becomes.

5th (and 6th) bowler and the slip cordon are important even if the bowling is good.

Yeah, firstly I think a complete team should have some presence in all aspects of the game.

My thing with the Kimber quote is also,.if the bowling isn't top tier, the batting contributions do mean **** all. As I've said multiple times, balance.

The last paragraph though is where I intimately believe as well. Think Kimber said it as well, there's always going to be scenarios where lower order batting is needed, times where you wish you had an Imran or Pollock at 8 when things go wrong.

But regardless of scenario a team will always need to have a good slip cordon if they're contending for victories, and the 5th bowling spot is viable to the functionality of the attack.

Where it becomes tricky is that I don't need a game breaker from my 5th bowler, I need someone who can come on 2nd change if conditions aren't yet right for the spinner and most importantly, economically navigate the dog overs and break the odd partnership. Keep my guys fresh and don't be a liability. Also don't need him bowling more than he has to either.

So in terms of needs
Cordon
5 + bowlers
Lower order batting

But when it calls to the skill / proficiency levels
Cordon
Lower order
Supplementary bowling

None are useless, and as you've said, the rank of the latter two depends on the strengths of the team. I want consistency / reliability from my 5th, solid from the tail, but honestly excellence from the cordon.

Now for an AT XI, with that level of batting lineup, it really negates the need to stack the lower order, and the fact that Marshall and Warne are already there, it's that much less of a requirement again. There's depth there. And then there's the obvious, in the case of a collapse or route, do we think Hadlee is standing up to what ever decimated Bradman, Hutton, Sachin and Sobers?

Over the course of a series, Sobers will always be needed to contribute with the ball, though hopefully wayyy less than he did during his career.

Now with the bowlers selected and the quality of any supposed opposition, a brilliant slip cordon is a necessity. You not only can't afford drops, you want those half chances taken as well.

As you intimated, the better the batters, the less reliance on the tail, and the better the attack, the less reliance on the 5th, though it still wears on the bowlers, but the better the attack, it still requires just as much, if not more of the catchers.

 

[kyear2]

Now, a better phrasing and framing of the conversation (though captured in the poll) could have been lower order batting, vs the cordon vs the supplementary bowling, with emphasis (as required) on the most critical aspect of each, no. 8 vs, 2nd slip, vs the 5th option. But ultimately the groups...

Results would have been mostly the same, but eliminated some of the questions up front. But it was very much in the poll.

Cordon vs tail vs back up bowlers is kinda straight forward.

Yes you don't want a capitulation, and want the tail to wag, someone to hang around with the top order as required, but the further down you go the value drops considerably, and the less batting is factored into selection (if at all).
The 5th bowler is key, after that it's just about who can be called upon in a pinch.
The codon though is important 1st through 3rd (through 3rd is in place the least), if not gully as well.

Edit...
I had an entire summary written, but literally talked myself out of it as I was writing.

Twice....

Every metric gives me a different result.

The position I'm least likely to have to prioritize or select in any XI is the no. 8 (simply because a all rounder at 6 is normally a must).

All rounders also weren't a feature of many of the greatest modern teams, though Australia did have decent batting depth, and Marshall had some match winning knocks. None had high use 5th bowlers, Viv wasn't great, though Harper seemed to bring a boost when he was in the team, Waugh was past his best and Symonds was a sporadic presence at the end of the dynasty. Yes Jacques was there for SA, but he too was well past his bowling best in 2008.
Do great teams need either all rounder? I would suggest vs top end opposition or close contests, yes. Especially that 5th bowler when you're not blowing through the opposition.

On the individual perspective, each have their detractors.

Some have questioned the volume of chances to the 2nd to justify consideration, while most no. 8's in critical situations or challenging conditions are not nearly reliable, and finally every over your 5th option continues to bowl, it's an over your front liner isn't. There is an inherent drop off in quality. (AT scenario, you don't want Sobers bowling as many overs as the front line attack)

Id @subshakerz and I had to sit and create a world XI to take on the Europans, we would generally settle on 9 and would compromise to each get our guy in.
We've argued about this and while I believe that vs a comparative attack his batting contributions would be minimal (especially on result pitches), he believes that over the course of a series, in at least one match he would have a match saving innings.
While I know that with that bowling attack, Sobers would get multiple opportunities and half chances to complete chances. If every run is vital, every wicket is more so. While neither of us wants to have Sobers bowling too many overs, it's accepted that it's essential to maintaining the bowlers health through the series.

So I've asked some if the longest tenured and most respected posters on the forum and they unanimously went cordon, lower order and supplementary bowling.

Mr. Kimber on the other hand went cordon, supplementary bowling, then lower order batting.

Grok (for what it's worth) went cordon, lower order batting, then supplementary bowling, (for average teams, great teams and AT XI's)

So I think I have it, finally.

While the 5th bowler is the only position of the three that's directly mandated into team selection, and passively is crucial to the functional rotation and viability of an attack, it is a passive role, and they don't feature actively in many results. Grok calls their role moderate, while the other two are high (importance).

For me personally, even though in a couple years my AT pace attack may be Marshall, McGrath and Bumrah, for now Wasim, Marshall and Warne still constitutes a good 8, 9 and 10, who while wouldn't lead a counter attack, are capable of sticking around with a top order bat. And while the top order and a strong no. 7 makes it less of a priority, it's always preferable not to have a full tail of complete rabbits.

From any perspective, it's imperative to take your chances, and it's been a feature of the game since fast bowlers started to rule the roost. So be it the Australian squad from the early to mid 70's and all the genuinely great squads since, they all had AT cordons... The WI just lost a match because they forgot how to catch, one of the biggest factors in the victories of the BGT was the catches dropped by the Australians in the cordon, same for the 1st test of the current series.

In an AT XI, the one that would be most critical is likely the one standing at 2nd to the greatest pace attack ever assembled and at 1st to the leg spinning Warne.

Even today I trust and value a Markham / Brook at 2nd / 1st more than I do a batting Woakes / Jansen / Cummins or even any of the plethora of 5th bowling options that exists around the world today.

 

[Coronis]

Now, a better phrasing and framing of the conversation (though captured in the poll) could have been lower order batting, vs the cordon vs the supplementary bowling, with emphasis (as required) on the most critical aspect of each, no. 8 vs, 2nd slip, vs the 5th option. But ultimately the groups...

Results would have been mostly the same, but eliminated some of the questions up front. But it was very much in the poll.

Cordon vs tail vs back up bowlers is kinda straight forward.

Yes you don't want a capitulation, and want the tail to wag, someone to hang around with the top order as required, but the further down you go the value drops considerably, and the less batting is factored into selection (if at all).
The 5th bowler is key, after that it's just about who can be called upon in a pinch.
The codon though is important 1st through 3rd (through 3rd is in place the least), if not gully as well.

Edit...
I had an entire summary written, but literally talked myself out of it as I was writing.

Twice....

Every metric gives me a different result.

The position I'm least likely to have to prioritize or select in any XI is the no. 8 (simply because a all rounder at 6 is normally a must).

All rounders also weren't a feature of many of the greatest modern teams, though Australia did have decent batting depth, and Marshall had some match winning knocks. None had high use 5th bowlers, Viv wasn't great, though Harper seemed to bring a boost when he was in the team, Waugh was past his best and Symonds was a sporadic presence at the end of the dynasty. Yes Jacques was there for SA, but he too was well past his bowling best in 2008.
Do great teams need either all rounder? I would suggest vs top end opposition or close contests, yes. Especially that 5th bowler when you're not blowing through the opposition.

On the individual perspective, each have their detractors.

Some have questioned the volume of chances to the 2nd to justify consideration, while most no. 8's in critical situations or challenging conditions are not nearly reliable, and finally every over your 5th option continues to bowl, it's an over your front liner isn't. There is an inherent drop off in quality. (AT scenario, you don't want Sobers bowling as many overs as the front line attack)

Id @subshakerz and I had to sit and create a world XI to take on the Europans, we would generally settle on 9 and would compromise to each get our guy in.
We've argued about this and while I believe that vs a comparative attack his batting contributions would be minimal (especially on result pitches), he believes that over the course of a series, in at least one match he would have a match saving innings.
While I know that with that bowling attack, Sobers would get multiple opportunities and half chances to complete chances. If every run is vital, every wicket is more so. While neither of us wants to have Sobers bowling too many overs, it's accepted that it's essential to maintaining the bowlers health through the series.

So I've asked some if the longest tenured and most respected posters on the forum and they unanimously went cordon, lower order and supplementary bowling.

Mr. Kimber on the other hand went cordon, supplementary bowling, then lower order batting.

Grok (for what it's worth) went cordon, lower order batting, then supplementary bowling, (for average teams, great teams and AT XI's)

So I think I have it, finally.

While the 5th bowler is the only position of the three that's directly mandated into team selection, and passively is crucial to the functional rotation and viability of an attack, it is a passive role, and they don't feature actively in many results. Grok calls their role moderate, while the other two are high (importance).

For me personally, even though in a couple years my AT pace attack may be Marshall, McGrath and Bumrah, for now Wasim, Marshall and Warne still constitutes a good 8, 9 and 10, who while wouldn't lead a counter attack, are capable of sticking around with a top order bat. And while the top order and a strong no. 7 makes it less of a priority, it's always preferable not to have a full tail of complete rabbits.

From any perspective, it's imperative to take your chances, and it's been a feature of the game since fast bowlers started to rule the roost. So be it the Australian squad from the early to mid 70's and all the genuinely great squads since, they all had AT cordons... The WI just lost a match because they forgot how to catch, one of the biggest factors in the victories of the BGT was the catches dropped by the Australians in the cordon, same for the 1st test of the current series.

In an AT XI, the one that would be most critical is likely the one standing at 2nd to the greatest pace attack ever assembled and at 1st to the leg spinning Warne.

Even today I trust and value a Markham / Brook at 2nd / 1st more than I do a batting Woakes / Jansen / Cummins or even any of the plethora of 5th bowling options that exists around the world today.

 

[Prince EWS]

View attachment 48404

Cordon, lower order batting, supplementary bowling prioritised; 2nd slip critical, No. 8 less vital, 5th bowler passively supports attack.

 

[Coronis]

Cordon, lower order batting, supplementary bowling prioritised; 2nd slip critical, No. 8 less vital, 5th bowler passively supports attack.

So basically an extended repost.

 

[kyear2]

The recent all rounders conversation brought me back to this thread.

A cricket team is dynamic organism and requires contributions from all and sunder and a level of symbiosis to thrive.

But there's also a reason why most teams have a basic structure of 2 openers, 3 middle order batsmen, 4 bowlers (primarily 3 pacers and a spinner), a keeper and one top order all rounder.

The foundation of almost every great team has been their specialists and I think that is demonstrated quite clearly if one just glances at the top teams of our sport over the decades. And not only did they rely on specialists, their best, most impactful and valuable players were specialists, often bowlers.

And that's because the most important aspect of the sport is to take 20 wickets and as such the most important member of the team is the guy most responsible for taking those wickets, especially at the top of the order with the new ball, your opening strike bowlers.
And with 4 bowlers compared to 6 top order batsmen, it's that more critical to get it right and make less sacrifices. You're not winning without taking 20 wickets, and for the least amount of runs possible.

And that brings me to the point at hand. You often want to select your best attack, and anything that takes away from that, is reducing your chance of 20 wickets and victory. Whilst you do need quality men in the slips to secure and complete thise chances. And while a 5th bowler can be a pivitol member of the team, ideally the less he bowls the better.

You have given the exact reasoning for why I think lower order batting is more valuable.

The 5th bowler is useful but how many times are they going to bail out the mess of the first four bowlers?

However, a good lower order and tail, unless there is a declaration, will be useful much more frequently than a 5th bowler simply based on batting every innings.

They will either ensure a good score is an even better score or allow the other bats to bail out the team and repair a score.

It's amazing how you contradict your self literally one sentence after the next.

A fifth bowling option can't be counted upon to bail out an attack, even though that's not their role, but we proceed.

But somehow a bunch of mid 20's production, highly inconsistent batsmen is expected to bail out the batting unit at a more regular rate. Spoiler, they don't. They bat in the lower order not to give them a rest from bolwing, but because they're not good batsmen.

Oh, and they don't bat every innings. McGrath played 124 matches and batted in 138 innings, Marshall 81 matches and 107 Innings. Imran you wonder? 88 and 126 respectively. That's why they have such low rpm compared to rpi, and even more drastically compared to inflated n/o influenced averages. As lower order batsmen, the lower you go, the least you have to bat diminishing your value even further.
And oh, if you are batting twice more often, it's because you're losing and you have bigger issues than your tail. That's not the fix all.

A single great slip catcher is not going to be as useful as a good no.8. A good no.8 just is a more regular contributor.

And that's the 2nd fallacy. They're not consistent. Of all of the secondary skills it is without doubt the most inconsistent, and as such the least reliable. For every rear guard action you want to point out for Gillespie, how many failures were they that lead him to an rpi of around 12? Most of the runs, especially the big scores are from low impact situations, ie high scoring draws in dead situations. They are hardly associated with wins and even less the driving force for them.

I've always said that secondary skills are more tie breakers than determinators and in a team scenario, especially for the slip specialists and bowling "all rounders" and outside of "need", you go with the specialists. And again, if your batting is struggling, you fix your batting not weaken the attack to strengthen no. 8 or 9.

When it comes to the actual all rounder postions, the no. 6 and keeper bat, the weighting comes into a bit more, but there the compromises might have to occur, though batting leaning for the no 6 and a slight keeping slant is preferred for the keeper.

 

[subshakerz]

But somehow a bunch of mid 20's production, highly inconsistent batsmen is expected to bail out the batting unit at a more regular rate. Spoiler, they don't.

They did for late 90s SA and 2010s India. And the idea isn't to bail out every time but just allow the main bats to stretch the innings.

 

[kyear2]

And yes, the two recognized all rounder positions, where a duality is an actual factor in selection is actually the batting all rounder and the keeper.

The bowling "all rounder" is much more akin to the slip specialist where a dual speciality doesn't have to factor into selection, bit can be an asset, especially if there is a need, or in a tie breaker situation.

There is no need to have a "bolwing all rounder" in a ream, and most teams don't. It's much more, of the bowlers selected, the most capable bats at 8.

Furthermore, a plurality of contributors to this thread, even if marginally, state that slip specialists are ahead of lower order batting and the relief bowler in terms of importance and utility.

So how on God's green earth does the belief now does the belief exist that all rounders are more important and valuable than specialists when neither secondary skill even clears slip specialists. By those idiotic arguments it's Hammond with the valid claim to be 3rd overall.

And again, when one loos at the hierarchy of the test game, the priority is to take 20 wickets, which of the three most aids in that priority? Which potentially takes away.

Again, looking at the most successful teams in history, which was a greater priority and strength for them.

And for those who argue for the "average team", the same way one doesn't set fields for bad bowling, one doesn't build a structure for average.

And of course @subshakerz not only did you go from railing against batting all rounders in several threads, including this one, to promoting them above all but, of course bowling "all rounders".

But the biggest piece of hypocrisy is going from calling Kallis overrated with the bat and low volume and inconsequential with the ball and just numbers innthe slips, rhe a top 5 player of all time to fit an agenda. The usual one of course.

So the batting all rounder and the keeper batsman are the only actual all rounders, and the only ones mandated in selection.

But the slip specialists are the actual only one of the three being discussed that can be rated as specialists. As good as the best lower order bat is, they are still lower order bats, they don't contribute nearly often enough, inconsistent and requires some level of sacrifice for uncer t ain gain. The 5th bowler is exactly thay and best served in limited capacity. Hammond is an ATG slip, he's brilliant there, the skill gap is palpable. And I can argue contributes much more to wins. It's also the only one that doesn't negatively scale vs stronger teams.

A few weeks back @peterhrt was referencing the '63 WI team and giving a recount of the series. The mentioned the bowling, the batting and the spectacular catching efforts as reasons for the win, playing with 4 bowlers (all be it inclusive of Sobers) and strong top order batting being key. This isn't by any means new.

 

[subshakerz]

But the biggest piece of hypocrisy is going from calling Kallis overrated with the bat and low volume and inconsequential with the ball and just numbers innthe slips, rhe a top 5 player of all time to fit an agenda. The usual one of course.

Hahahahaha

So for years I was accused of having an agenda against Kallis. No apparently my agenda is overrating Kallis.

Dude it's quite simple.

As cricketers, any AR who is world-class in a primary discipline is better than an ATG specialist.

But the role of 5th bowler itself is overrated. Kallis wasn't used as fifth bowler. He was used as a 3rd/4th bowler most of.his career. Same with Sobers.

 

[Coronis]

The foundation of almost every great team has been their specialists and I think that is demonstrated quite clearly if one just glances at the top teams of our sport over the decades. And not only did they rely on specialists, their best, most impactful and valuable players were specialists, often bowlers.

Yes, but again, team composition =/= overall rating. For example, if you have a team of 10 club cricketers (i.e non entities), and one available spot, are you choosing Imran or Marshall? When the rest of us are talking about the greatest cricketers we’re looking at them in isolation, not whoever fits best in a particular team. Do you understand?

 

[kyear2]

They did for late 90s SA and 2010s India. And the idea isn't to bail out every time but just allow the main bats to stretch the innings.

For reference, my top 10 teams, ones that at least had a claim to be best in the world.

2002 Australia
1984 WI
1948 Australia
2008 SA
1954 England

1928 England
1963 WI
1975 Australia
1970 SA
1918 India

The late '90 SA doesn't quite get there, the '18 India team had Ash at 8, but nothing behind him

 

[Johan]

1954 England is a good example, At Sydney in that great Ashes, Brian Statham made a combined 39 runs while being the English number 11, England won by 38 runs, in that match Bob Appleyard contributed with 19* as a tailender and Johnny Wardle at number 9 made valuable 35 in the first dig to carry England to 154 from 99-8.

 

[subshakerz]

For reference, my top 10 teams, ones that at least had a claim to be best in the world.

2002 Australia
1984 WI
1948 Australia
2008 SA
1954 England

1928 England
1963 WI
1975 Australia
1970 SA
1918 India

The late '90 SA doesn't quite get there, the '18 India team had Ash at 8, but nothing behind him

Patel.

Invincibles also bat deep.

 

[Coronis]

For reference, my top 10 teams, ones that at least had a claim to be best in the world.

2002 Australia
1984 WI
1948 Australia
2008 SA
1954 England

1928 England
1963 WI
1975 Australia
1970 SA
1918 India

The late '90 SA doesn't quite get there, the '18 India team had Ash at 8, but nothing behind him

I had no idea

 

[peterhrt]

In 1932 experienced cricket writer and statistician FJC Gustard selected his all-time England XI. Auxiliary skills were at the forefront of his mind.

If Lockwood and Rhodes are chosen, the batting will be strengthened enormously.

Lilley was picked as wicket-keeper partly for the same reason as the author boasts that all his team can bat. He considers fielding even more important.

Lohmann shall be chosen as the medium right-hander, and not Sydney Barnes: there is no room for both. Lohmann was a dashing bat, and an even more valuable asset, a great slip fielder.

The one and only GL Jessop must go in – a great Number 8 and magnificent in the field at extra cover.

Tyldesley, who has some fine performances on difficult wickets in the highest class of cricket to his credit, is chosen chiefly for his great fielding in the deep.

Team: Grace, Hobbs, Ranji, FS Jackson*, JT Tyldesley, Woolley, Rhodes, Jessop, Lohmann, Lilley+, Lockwood.

In Gustard’s World XI, six of the above held on to their places: Grace, Hobbs, Ranji, Woolley, Rhodes and Lockwood. They were joined by five Australians: Bradman, Trumper, Noble (capt), Blackham and Spofforth, with Macartney named as 12th man.

 

[Randomfan]

Yes, but again, team composition =/= overall rating. For example, if you have a team of 10 club cricketers (i.e non entities), and one available spot, are you choosing Imran or Marshall? When the rest of us are talking about the greatest cricketers we’re looking at them in isolation, not whoever fits best in a particular team. Do you understand?

10 club cricketers are non-starter because no one is asking who is most valuable in club cricket.

Question is about international cricket. And yes, your point is correct about team composition. Perhaps , it should be asked as ,

• More valuable in ordinary international team ( I think all rounders can add more value here )
• More valuable in good teams ( Here, it will depend on parts which is stopping the team from being a great team. if it's an all rounder then putting a gun all rounder will help, If it's batsman then putting a gun batsman will help, If it's elite pacer then putting an elite pacer will help )
• More valuable in great teams ( Here, teams are not lacking anything specific and players are put in the team based on whatever makes the team better. Here we have enough data sample to see that elite pacers are preferrred in varoius all time XIs. All rounders are not going to win the test match that often due to lower order runs. Teams are picked to take 20 wickets first )

I know it's too simplistic, but just a thought in terms of priorities.

 

[The Sean]

In 1932 experienced cricket writer and statistician FJC Gustard selected his all-time England XI. Auxiliary skills were at the forefront of his mind.

If Lockwood and Rhodes are chosen, the batting will be strengthened enormously.

Lilley was picked as wicket-keeper partly for the same reason as the author boasts that all his team can bat. He considers fielding even more important.

Lohmann shall be chosen as the medium right-hander, and not Sydney Barnes: there is no room for both. Lohmann was a dashing bat, and an even more valuable asset, a great slip fielder.

The one and only GL Jessop must go in – a great Number 8 and magnificent in the field at extra cover.

Tyldesley, who has some fine performances on difficult wickets in the highest class of cricket to his credit, is chosen chiefly for his great fielding in the deep.

Team: Grace, Hobbs, Ranji, FS Jackson*, JT Tyldesley, Woolley, Rhodes, Jessop, Lohmann, Lilley+, Lockwood.

In Gustard’s World XI, six of the above held on to their places: Grace, Hobbs, Ranji, Woolley, Rhodes and Lockwood. They were joined by five Australians: Bradman, Trumper, Noble (capt), Blackham and Spofforth, with Macartney named as 12th man.

Really interesting, as always. And it reinforces two trends - first, that Monty Noble was extraordinarily highly rated by observers in his era and for quite a while after, and second, that virtually everyone who ever picks him in an all time XI also makes him captain. What a player, and what a leader of men, he must have been.

 

[Bolo.]

10 club cricketers are non-starter because no one is asking who is most valuable in club cricket.

Question is about international cricket. And yes, your point is correct about team composition. Perhaps , it should be asked as ,

• More valuable in ordinary international team ( I think all rounders can add more value here )
• More valuable in good teams ( Here, it will depend on parts which is stopping the team from being a great team. if it's an all rounder then putting a gun all rounder will help, If it's batsman then putting a gun batsman will help, If it's elite pacer then putting an elite pacer will help )
• More valuable in great teams ( Here, teams are not lacking anything specific and players are put in the team based on whatever makes the team better. Here we have enough data sample to see that elite pacers are preferrred in varoius all time XIs. All rounders are not going to win the test match that often due to lower order runs. Teams are picked to take 20 wickets first )

I know it's too simplistic, but just a thought in terms of priorities.

Good teams who benefit from an added bat/bowler are generally going to be benefiting more from a batting/bowling AR. When the gap in primary becomes significant, it starts to become case by case.

ATG teams are hypotheticals. They are evidence of the preferences of the person picking the team, not which team would perform better. I don't see any reason to say lower order runs would not win you matches in ATG teams specifically (against similar opposition) if you think lower order runs win you games against similar opposition in regular games.