Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[Coronis]

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.

The main thing that is ridiculous is people on one side calling people on the other side ridiculous for their contrary but reasonable opinion on the topic.

 

[Randomfan]

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.

Then question becomes why majority are not lining their all time XIs with all-rounders? I am sure they do think about lower order runs and yet they don't go with 3-4 all rounders. This indicate that elite primary are seen as adding more value for those great teams by most. I am mostly thinking aloud here.

 

[Bolo.]

Then question becomes why majority are not lining their all time XIs with all-rounders? I am sure they do think about lower order runs and yet they don't go with 3-4 all rounders. This indicate that elite primary are seen as adding more value for those great teams by most. I am mostly thinking aloud here.

People find the idea of leaving out the best in primary discipline unpalatable. Sometimes it is a case of believing the specialist provides more value. They may or may not be right. Taking this position is not evidence in either direction.

Sometimes value as a player doesn't even enter the equation, and the idea of playing the best x number of players in primary is just a principle they follow. Not loading up on ARs is a position that is easy to find appealling. 'How can you not play the GOAT bowler?' is a position that seems to make a lot of sense. Pesonally, I will happily drop the GOAT if I think another player will add more value (from batting or otherwise).

And also people are very attached to their idea of team construction. Pick your 4 best bowlers + some kind of option at 5th (AR/part timer) is an idea that often holds true in the real world. But this just shows that quality ARs are rare. Teams with 2+ good ARs have generally played 2+

 

[kyear2]

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.

And I can find posts where you swore up and down that wasn't the case.

And in any event, looking forward to seeing Hammond / Kallis ahead of Sachin in your XI.

 

[subshakerz]

And I can find posts where you swore up and down that wasn't the case.

And in any event, looking forward to seeing Hammond / Kallis ahead of Sachin in your XI.

Yes but @Bolo. explained it well to me how Kallis the bowler functions.

I don’t think a fifth bowler is that useful though.

My ATG XI already has Sobers.

 

[kyear2]

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?

There's no scenario I'm not choosing Marshall.

In a team of no bodies, is Imran's batting going to elevate the batting and subsequently the team to where it's viable?

No.

A 26 rpi bat isn't making your team better of it's that bad.

And as per tour statement about team composition not correlating to overall rating is where this entire forum has gone off the deep end. I swear this is the only sport where empty calories super seeds impact.

If it doesn't correlate to team selection and improvement, it doesn't matter.

What brings success is what brings value.

This cannot be this hard.

 

[kyear2]

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.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. I've seen rank no. 11s stick with batsmen to secure draws or victories.

It's happened consistently throughout the history of the game, and quite frankly just as often by the tail enders as the no. 8s.

All I've said is that it's not a primary consideration.

Don't think that's unreasonable. That's traditionally been the standard.

 

[Johan]

I don't get what you're trying to say here.

Lower order runs = extremely valuable in close games or against teams close in quality.

Hence, a lower order which can be relied to score and play support to 1-7 = good.

 

[Bolo.]

There's no scenario I'm not choosing Marshall.

In a team of no bodies, is Imran's batting going to elevate the batting and subsequently the team to where it's viable?

No.

A 26 rpi bat isn't making your team better of it's that bad.

And as per tour statement about team composition not correlating to overall rating is where this entire forum has gone off the deep end. I swear this is the only sport where empty calories super seeds impact.

If it doesn't correlate to team selection and improvement, it doesn't matter.

What brings success is what brings value.

This cannot be this hard.

Where do you get the idea that the tail doesn't change results from?

The tail has won RSA a game and swung the series in 5ish of their last 7 series. Is this not bringing success and value?

 

[kyear2]

Patel.

Invincibles also bat deep.

1948 Australia

Sid Barnes
Arthur Morris
Don Bradman
Lindsay Hassett
Keith Miller
Bill Brown
Ian Johnson
Don Tallon
Ray Lindwall
Bill Johnston
Ernie Toshack

Not really. Ian Johnson averaged 18 at 7, Tallon 17, it's only Lindwall at 21 that's borderline and that's mitigated by Johnson at 7. That's actually quite the lengthy tail.

And more pertinently how is that any better than a tail of Wadim, Marshall and Warne. Even less solid.

But no, was quite that tail, starting at 7.

 

[kyear2]

I had no idea

You know what I meant.

 

[Johan]

And as per tour statement about team composition not correlating to overall rating is where this entire forum has gone off the deep end. I swear this is the only sport where empty calories super seeds impact..

What he means is the value of a Cricketer should be noted by the impact he had and his accumulatives can have rather than on what round of imaginary mental masturbation XIs they make.

 

[kyear2]

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.

But that is the question, and if they do, at what regularity or consistency?

That's the issue, some of you guys like to treat or pretend the lower order guys are actually specialist bats. They're not.

They're much less reliable than top order guys.

 

[subshakerz]

That's the issue, some of you guys like to treat or pretend the lower order guys are actually specialist bats. They're not.

Strawman

 

[subshakerz]

And more pertinently how is that any better than a tail of Wadim, Marshall and Warne. Even less solid.

I don't mind that tail because you have Wasim at 8.

 

[kyear2]

Then question becomes why majority are not lining their all time XIs with all-rounders? I am sure they do think about lower order runs and yet they don't go with 3-4 all rounders. This indicate that elite primary are seen as adding more value for those great teams by most. I am mostly thinking aloud here.

Basically

 

[Coronis]

There's no scenario I'm not choosing Marshall.

In a team of no bodies, is Imran's batting going to elevate the batting and subsequently the team to where it's viable?

No.

A 26 rpi bat isn't making your team better of it's that bad.

Ok… lets say your tail currently looks like this.

Knott+
Muralitharan
McGrath
Bumrah

The top order is full of Zak Crawleys

Who do you think is a better fit, Imran or Marshall?

 

[subshakerz]

Ok… lets say your tail currently looks like this.

Knott+
Muralitharan
McGrath
Bumrah

The top order is full of Zak Crawleys

Who do you think is a better fit, Imran or Marshall?

Expect him to deflect.

 

[kyear2]

People find the idea of leaving out the best in primary discipline unpalatable. Sometimes it is a case of believing the specialist provides more value. They may or may not be right. Taking this position is not evidence in either direction.

Sometimes value as a player doesn't even enter the equation, and the idea of playing the best x number of players in primary is just a principle they follow. Not loading up on ARs is a position that is easy to find appealling. 'How can you not play the GOAT bowler?' is a position that seems to make a lot of sense. Pesonally, I will happily drop the GOAT if I think another player will add more value (from batting or otherwise).

And also people are very attached to their idea of team construction. Pick your 4 best bowlers + some kind of option at 5th (AR/part timer) is an idea that often holds true in the real world. But this just shows that quality ARs are rare. Teams with 2+ good ARs have generally played 2+

It does hold true in the real world, and has for a while. Teams than tend to stock their teams with bits and pieces all rounders tend not to do as well.

And does it show that there's a shortage of all rounders? If you have a better bowler, most teams aren't going to give than up for a more solid tail. Think we've seen that doesn't work.

And again that brings up the fundamental question over all of this.

We can definitely say that there are two all rounder positions. The no. 6 and the keeper at no. 7.

So simply put, is the no. 8 position even an all rounder position, or more akin to the batsman / slip where it's more of a bonus and voluntary consideration rather than a mandatory inclusion of both skills as with the all rounders.

I think history / precedent and even contemporary selections would suggest the former. And quite clearly so.

 

[kyear2]

Yes but @Bolo. explained it well to me how Kallis the bowler functions.

I don’t think a fifth bowler is that useful though.

My ATG XI already has Sobers.

Hammond is arguably the greatest slip ever and fills that void at 1st, especially if the openers are Hobbs and Hutton.

That has just as much value as a no. 8 bat. Arguably more.