Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[kyear2]

Strange how Kyear can recognize this to argue against a no8 but not a no6.

I literally have them rated 3rd, the vote isn't private.

You just need some **** to complain about?

What is your problem.

 

[Coronis]

There's a difference betwen not having value and not being selected primarily on the basis of it.

Nobody is saying Imran is only being selected based on his batting, in fact the opposite, its the sum value of his batting and bowling. i.e their bowling is similar enough that their secondary skill(s) make a notable positive difference - e.g Warne vs Murali. Same with other allrounders.

In a team full of Zach Crawley's, they're not likely to be winning much, and a lower order batsman who's worse than they are, isn't changing that. Not consistently.

How that team does win is to get as strong an attack as possible, trying to limit the opposition even more.

Not to add that Marshall could hold a bat as well.

So no you wouldn’t select Imran if he is ~best batsman in the team + his bowling, because Marshall is a slightly better bowler, despite the bowling already being world class, got it. Makes sense.

 

[kyear2]

Pretty sure Symcox and Klusener were in the 90s.

You do realise we were talking about the current SA team.

 

[subshakerz]

But that's 2nd and 3rd, what about 1st?

In a close match up, dropping catches at 1st, which guys like Root and Khwaja have routinely been doing, especially if it's the opposing team's best batsman, isn't exceptionally costly?

Warnes pretty good.

 

[subshakerz]

If you're batting lower than 6, you're really not an all rounder.

Kallis isn't an AR?

 

[subshakerz]

I literally have them rated 3rd, the vote isn't private.

You just need some **** to complain about?

What is your problem.

You aren't consistent. You have a different set of standards for criticizing bowling ARs than batting ARs.

 

[kyear2]

Nobody is saying Imran is only being selected based on his batting, in fact the opposite, its the sum value of his batting and bowling. i.e their bowling is similar enough that their secondary skill(s) make a notable positive difference - e.g Warne vs Murali. Same with other allrounders.





So no you wouldn’t select Imran if he is ~best batsman in the team + his bowling, because Marshall is a slightly better bowler, despite the bowling already being world class, got it. Makes sense.

For Pakistan, of course he's selcted for both.

Now if he's up for selection for a team where there are better bowling options, and if he is then picked, it is primarily because of said batting.

For your second point, I don't think he's ~ the best batsmen for that team. You think as a batsman he's ~ as Crawley, an English opener in this bowling era?

You've had a few questions for me, I beg your indulgence and ask that you kindly answer a couple of mine, of you don't mind of course.

You haven't voted above, if you were to, which option would you choose?

And, I know you don't rely on, nor do you particularily care for peer opinion. But a scenario for you.

Martin Crowe and David Gower, they both played against Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee and Imran. Crowe even played with Hadlee, and I belive that they both grasp the nuance of batting down the order.

For Crowe his bowlers in his AT XI were Lillee, Marshall and Wasim. Gower in his top 50 has Marshall over Imran and Hadlee.

When every batsman names the best bowlers of the era the names first mentioned are Marshall and Lillee, next is generally Hadlee, though I've seen Holding ahead, but generally Hadlee, Holding, Imran.

Not trying to tell you to take them seriously, but is it possible that other can view all of them, rate them as cricketers and still not automatically rate them higher?
That not every one would view lower order batting as highly as you do, or would factor it into ratings or selections?

CMJ, Wisden and others, have also not come to similar conclusions.

So not saying you're wrong, but you can't definitively say I am either.

It's objective.

 

[subshakerz]

For Crowe his bowlers in his AT XI were Lillee, Marshall and Wasim. Gower in his top 50 has Marshall over Imran and Hadlee.

Ok just to fact check. The general cricket consensus is Imran is a superior cricketer to Marshall, this is a fact.

Wisdens list at the end of the century had Imran at 10, Marshall 26.

ESPNs 2001 list had Imran at 8, Marshall at 16.

Sky Sports list had Imran at 10, Marshall at 34.

TMS list had Imran at 18, Marshall at 75.

Woodcock had Imran at 16, Marshall at 68.

Scyld Berry had Imran at 2, Marshall at 4.

Geoff Armstrong had Imran at 5, Marshall at 7.

Richie Benaud and Dickie Bird had Imran in Their XIs, not Marshall.

 

[Bolo.]

In real.world scenarios, how much are you selcring your attack based on their batting. In a wirld where it's already hard to find good far less great bowlers, how much are you factoring in batting to that scenario.

What players have RSA selected in the last 7 series who would not be selected on bowling alone? Mulder (usually considered more of a batting AR TBF, but has played as 1/4 bowlers on this time). Bosch and Muthasamy (bits and pieces). Presumably Subrayen (bowler who can bat) and vaguely possibly Yusuf (same). So... plenty.

It happens pretty often in the real world. It is really just a case of resources.

And can you say a tail failed? It's not their job to win or even consistently bail out a team. If you get bowled out for 180, it's the batsmen that fail. The reason it generally stands out when the tail was the dog, is because it's not a regular occurrence. Even when they do, as I've repeated said, it's quite often genuine tail enders that pull it off.

I don't think it's beyond the norm to expect the tail to contribute without stacking it, often at rhe expense of the bowling.

I understand why you dont like the world failed. 'Did not succeed with the bat' instead.

But you recognize that stacking the tail will result in it happening more often?

That aside, your vote above is for the 5th bowler ahead of both.

In the CW tradition of batting adds to everything, that seems to have over shadowed the arguments for the 5th bowler. Interested for your arguments for them, their impact and value. Personally when I look at really sucessful.teams they really don't seem to feature highly, what's your take?

I did say earlier in thread that I was voting for the batting of 1 tail ender vs a 5th bowler. Which is reasonably close. Comparing the secondary disciplines of 4 players vs 1 is a farce, and not worth considering.

I love my extra batting, and extra bowling. I am far less committed to picking sides in this than you.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Which of the South African bowlers were selected on the basis of anything other than their bowling. Their attacks is generally dictated by conditions, but Jansen is in the team primarily because of his bowling.

There's a difference betwen not having value and not being selected primarily on the basis of it.

Oh here's that strawman again. Do you actually think people who pick Imran/Hadlee any other bowling AR in an XI are selecting them primarily for their batting?

 

[Coronis]

For Pakistan, of course he's selcted for both.

Now if he's up for selection for a team where there are better bowling options, and if he is then picked, it is primarily because of said batting.

No, he’s being selected as a roughly equivalent (usually considered inferior but not with a huge gap) bowler and a far superior batsman. He’s still being primarily selected for his bowling. If a team is short on batting, and strong on bowling, he is a better fit.

For your second point, I don't think he's ~ the best batsmen for that team. You think as a batsman he's ~ as Crawley, an English opener in this bowling era?

There’s not a huge difference between him and Crawley imo.

You've had a few questions for me, I beg your indulgence and ask that you kindly answer a couple of mine, of you don't mind of course.

You haven't voted above, if you were to, which option would you choose?

I don’t know. Slipping would likely end up third.

And, I know you don't rely on, nor do you particularily care for peer opinion. But a scenario for you.

Martin Crowe and David Gower, they both played against Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee and Imran. Crowe even played with Hadlee, and I belive that they both grasp the nuance of batting down the order.

For Crowe his bowlers in his AT XI were Lillee, Marshall and Wasim. Gower in his top 50 has Marshall over Imran and Hadlee.

When every batsman names the best bowlers of the era the names first mentioned are Marshall and Lillee, next is generally Hadlee, though I've seen Holding ahead, but generally Hadlee, Holding, Imran.

Not trying to tell you to take them seriously, but is it possible that other can view all of them, rate them as cricketers and still not automatically rate them higher?
That not every one would view lower order batting as highly as you do, or would factor it into ratings or selections?

You’re right, I won’t take them seriously. Even considering their lists you’ve taken an XI and a top 50 which again, the criteria are different for, and one player may fit your XI better whilst being a worse player.

CMJ, Wisden and others, have also not come to similar conclusions.

So why bother bringing them up as evidence when you have different reviews by peers and pundits all saying different things (mostly disagreeing with you btw) if you only believe a select few? Why ever bring them up ever if they’re all so contradictory unless you’re consistent with the use of them.

So not saying you're wrong, but you can't definitively say I am either.

It's objective.

Its pronounced subjective.

 

[kyear2]

Warnes pretty good.

He was definitely not.

 

[kyear2]

Kallis isn't an AR?

Can you read?

 

[kyear2]

You aren't consistent. You have a different set of standards for criticizing bowling ARs than batting ARs.

I see you just like arguing.

No reason to, no one made any arguments for them.

You just take every damn thing personally.

But I've said all of this before.

They have to be selected because of the balance and utility provided.

But they don't have to be exactly "specialists" and I think it's enough to hold down an end as required with out releasing too much pressure.

Ideally on a good wicket, unless one of the other bowlers is being taken to the cleaners, contribution should be minimal. One a flat pitches, even if contribution is higher, don't expect the production to be.

Also would prefer it it isnt my best batsman, but that's beyond control at times and just requires the situation to be managed.

So even though it is for me rated 3rd, unlike the others is must be directly factored in the XI because you can't go into a test series with only 4 bowlers in a rotation. Just don't need him to be the greatest, and the least amount of work required the better.

Think SA has probaly the best set of examples for all 3 currently.

 

[subshakerz]

He was definitely not.

Warne was very good at slip.

You were the one who kept talking about how Aus 2000s had a great slip. Now you are reversing yourself.

 

[subshakerz]

But they don't have to be exactly "specialists" and I think it's enough to hold down an end as required with out releasing too much pressure.

Ideally on a good wicket, unless one of the other bowlers is being taken to the cleaners, contribution should be minimal. One a flat pitches, even if contribution is higher, don't expect the production to be.

If 5th bowler role is so minimal why are you selecting Kallis over Hammond? Can you just stick to one standard please?

 

[subshakerz]

Can you read?

If you're batting lower than 6, you're really not an all rounder

So Kallis isnt an AR then

 

[kyear2]

Ok just to fact check. The general cricket consensus is Imran is a superior cricketer to Marshall, this is a fact.

Wisdens list at the end of the century had Imran at 10, Marshall 26.

ESPNs 2001 list had Imran at 8, Marshall at 16.

Sky Sports list had Imran at 10, Marshall at 34.

TMS list had Imran at 18, Marshall at 75.

Woodcock had Imran at 16, Marshall at 68.

Scyld Berry had Imran at 2, Marshall at 4.

Geoff Armstrong had Imran at 5, Marshall at 7.

Richie Benaud and Dickie Bird had Imran in Their XIs, not Marshall.

First off, you read to respond, not remotely to understand, and you and @themissed the entire point of the post.

Not to add, ignore the entire question.

First off there's no such consensus, and we can go through the list.

Unless you're acknowledging Imran is 16th or 18th, the least said about those two abominations, the better. Unless you belive Marshall is the 68th greatest player of all time. Let me know.

Scyld's list was i think since the '80's also has Mitchell Johnson as a top 5 fast bowler, and his all time openers if I recall correctly Graeme Smith and Viru. Think you called me insane for the Smith pick.

Geoff has a solid list... don't agree with all the picks, but we're not supposed to.

Dickie Bird has Barry which you think is disqualifying, has Pollock and Chappell over Tendulkar and the 2nd spinner is Lance Gibbs.

Benaud's exclusion of Marshall and the West Indians were questioned in real time by Nicholas. It was biased, agenda driven and racist. I make no apologies for the last one as it's backed up by more than enough evidence that's readily available on YouTube. He was the tip of the spear orchestrated by the UK establishment and press that targeted the West Indies because of their pacers.
And all that doesn't even him openly saying it wasn't the best team, but the one he wanted to represent him. Don't know how one could exclude Marshall, Knott and Murali. But if you believe, or belive that he belived that there are 6 fast bowlers better than him, again please let me know.

Would you like me to now list exponentially more credible AT XIs where Marshall was chosen and Imran wasn't? I guarantee you it's a much longer list. Don't know why you would even bring them up. Not to mention in all of those XIs there were a bunch of specialists ahead of him, Hobbs, Tendulkar, Warne, Richards. So that kinda undermines your "all rounders are always better" theory.

But back to the original question. The fact that that from the xi and lists of Gower and Crowe, two players that went against all top 5 bowlers of the era, and they both went with Marshall over Imran and Hadlee, and we would belive that they knew Imran could bat a bit, that it's possible that not everyone adds the disciplines together as you do, and glean value and importance by impact? That not everyone believes all rounders are automatically better and that it's more nuanced than that?

That Fazeer Mohammed, Christopher Martin Jenkins, David Gower, Martin Crowe, Cricinfo, Wisden, Cricketweb, E.W. Swanton and Geoffrey Boycott all have Marshall ranked higher or in their XIs over Imran, even Patrick Eager chose a bowling attack of Marshall, Lillee and Holding, that it's not quite as clear cut (or consensus) as you wish to believe?

 

[kyear2]

Ok just to fact check. The general cricket consensus is Imran is a superior cricketer to Marshall, this is a fact.

Wisdens list at the end of the century had Imran at 10, Marshall 26.

ESPNs 2001 list had Imran at 8, Marshall at 16.

Sky Sports list had Imran at 10, Marshall at 34.

TMS list had Imran at 18, Marshall at 75.

Woodcock had Imran at 16, Marshall at 68.

Scyld Berry had Imran at 2, Marshall at 4.

Geoff Armstrong had Imran at 5, Marshall at 7.

Richie Benaud and Dickie Bird had Imran in Their XIs, not Marshall.

Dude, sorry, I was only just able to find the Benedict Bermange list you referneced. OH my god, that one has Kallis over Imran, you were desperate weren't you, lol

Dude that list was ****, and was roundly panned in the thread in real time.

 

[subshakerz]

Would you like me to now list exponentially more credible AT XIs where Marshall was chosen and Imran wasn't? I guarantee you it's a much longer list. Don't know why you would even bring them up. Not to mention in all of those XIs there were a bunch of specialists ahead of him, Hobbs, Tendulkar, Warne, Richards. So that kinda undermines your "all rounders are always better" theory.

But back to the original question. The fact that that from the xi and lists of Gower and Crowe, two players that went against all top 5 bowlers of the era, and they both went with Marshall over Imran and Hadlee, and we would belive that they knew Imran could bat a bit, that it's possible that not everyone adds the disciplines together as you do, and glean value and importance by impact? That not everyone believes all rounders are automatically better and that it's more nuanced than that?

That Fazeer Mohammed, Christopher Martin Jenkins, David Gower, Martin Crowe, Cricinfo, Wisden, Cricketweb, E.W. Swanton and Geoffrey Boycott all have Marshall ranked higher or in their XIs over Imran, even Patrick Eager chose a bowling attack of Marshall, Lillee and Holding, that it's not quite as clear cut (or consensus) as you wish to believe?

No.

The easiest way to see who is regarded as a better cricketer is to see who is ranked higher.

This point is so elemental it cannot be debated.

The only reason you are bringing in ATG XIs is because you know in a direct ranking, Marshall generally gets ranked behind Imran.

I gave you seven lists just now where Imran is ranked higher. Please show me as many lists where Marshall is higher, and we can talk.