Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[subshakerz]

There's multiple reasons why you'll still never see a list with that top 4.

Wait so do lists matter or don't they?

 

[Bolo.]

Stacking the tail could result in it happening more often, but also decreasing the potency of the attack.
Hence why it doesn't happen more often.

Don't know how it's 4, it's at max 3 and more often than not it's only two. Not to mention the lower batting examples included contributions from way more than no. 8's.

And yes, you may like your extra batting and bowling, but over the history of this great game, especially since the war, and the emergence of the pace emergence, imo there's no doubt which has been more important, more aligned to successful teams and if that aspect of your team is weak, that it's extremely difficult to overcome.

But I know there's a subset of the forum that stubbornly adheres to preferences based on favorite players than actual anecdotal and empirical evidence, not to add personal grievances.

But the amount of great teams that dominated home and away without "extra batting and bowling" is is testament to this. Regardless of your preferences.

If you are recognising that tails do win games and that teams do sometimes pick bowlers to strengthen the tail, we are getting into much more reasonable territory.

You know that nobody in this thread is advocating for sacrificing a lot of bowling for a little batting from primary bowlers? Or even a little for a little. We are saying giving up a little bowling for a lot of batting is often going to be worthwhile. How often are teams have to make a choice between a marginally better bowler or a bowler that is a mch better bat? It is very rare. You are trying to say that teams (mostly) picking their best bowlers is evidence that teams should pick their best bowlers. What it actually shows is that teams mostly pick their best bowlers when they dont have good alternatives. Not picking a poor option says nothing at all about the best way to construct a team when you have good ones.

As for actual evidence, I have given some. Can you give some slightly worse bowlers who give a big boost to batting from the last few years who have been left out?

 

[Coronis]

What about Miller?

A bit harder to judge, given his bowling isn’t quite ATG, but his batting is at a completely different level to those bowlers so I’m comfortable putting him above most of them.

 

[Coronis]

There's multiple reasons why you'll still never see a list with that top 4.

Well because the writers of those lists all have different criteria to both me and you. Plus they’re mostly silly people and quite biased.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You know that nobody in this thread is advocating for sacrificing a lot of bowling for a little batting from primary bowlers? Or even a little for a little. We are saying giving up a little bowling for a lot of batting is often going to be worthwhile.

Well explained.

 

[Cipher]

I've done a 3-2-1 points tally for voters who ranked the Auxiliary skills unequally (3 points for top rank - 1 point for bottom rank)
Currently it is ranked:
1st place - 5th Bowler (82 points)
2nd place - Lower Order Batting (80 points)
3rd place - Slip Cordon (72 points)

 

[kyear2]

I gave you seven lists, including one from a peer rated ESPN panel, from Widen, and others. Do you have seven lists showing Marshall above Imran? No, you don't. Because consensus is Imran is better.

Great glad you agree Marshall doesn't compete with Imran, Wasim does. That lays to rest your argument about using Imran's ATG placement.

I never had issues with those putting Wasim in an ATG XI instead of Imran because of the left armer reasoning and Wasim can still bat.

ESPN, Armstrong.

Lists where Marshall is ahead

Christopher Martin Jenkins
David Gower

The interesting thing about the ESPN list is that, Bradman apart the specialists higher than Imran are Viv, Warne, Hobbs, Lillee and Tendulkar.

That directly contradicts your theory of all rounders being better. So are we taking their word on that as well?

Armstrong had Warne 4th, Imran 5, Hobbs 6 and Marshall 7. That's hardly ridiculous.


Gower had Marshall 9 and Imran 11

Is that ridiculous?

CMJ had Marshall 11th and Imran 14th

Is that egregious?


How about we exchange lists and leave it at that?

Bradman | Sobers | Marshall | Hobbs | McGrath | Warne | Tendulkar | Richards

Next is Imran, but after that is still very much a work in progress. Any combination of

Hammond, Steyn, Lara, Smith, Gilchrist, Murali, Hadlee, Ambrose, Hutton, Richards, Kallis, Gavaskar, O'Reilly, Headley, Lillee, Wasim.

Why the top 10?

We can skip the top 2.

The batsmen who are best after Bradman, the bowlers in contention for the GOAT. If I went back as far as Barnes, he would be 3rd and make up the top 10. And the two greatest all rounders.

Marshall, he and Hobbs are near identical but why start a list with 3 straight batsmen when bowlers are the match winners? Hobbs self explanatory, 2nd greatest batsman ever. McGrath? Warne is normally top 5 and McGrath was no doubt more important to that team than Warne was. Tendulkar and Richards self explanatory, one for longevity, the other impact.

I know you don't remotely agree, but are either the order or names totally ridiculous or egregious?

 

[subshakerz]

That directly contradicts your theory of all rounders being better. So are we taking their word on that as well?

How about we exchange lists and leave it at that?

No. Let me spell it out for you so it is very, very clear.

I don’t really factor in these lists at all in my own rankings, except that my own views dont really diverge dramatically from general consensus.

You are accused of citing ATG XIs and rankings when it suits you.

You constantly use them to downplay Imran, Hadlee and others.

Yet when I bring up many lists that show Imran ahead of Marshall, somehow they don’t matter, or are racist, or too biased, or whatever.

So do lists and rankings matter? Because you can’t justify Marshall so high if they do. Or do they not matter? In which case why bring them up for Hadlee and Imran?

This double standards why you are being critiqued.

 

[Johan]

IK 76-89 ( In 1989 he bowled the 4th most overs in his entire career so its just does not make sense to remove that from his bowling career). Marshall and Hadlee were in different class. Holding is averaging 22.5 in that period.


View attachment 53184


Now we don't these adjustments for for most players otherwise Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee can get to 18-19 for their best away 35-40 tests in one stretch.

IK's entire away career Marshall and Hadlee were in different class. Holding was 3 runs better here.

View attachment 53185

I will leave the discussion for home here.

Batting average in Marshall's overseas games — 26.53 (29.59 by West Indies)

Batting average in Imran's overseas games – 30.56 (30.39 by Pakistan)

Makes sense. Imran bowled on flatter pitches so ended with a slightly higher average than deserved, still took more wickets per dig than Maco too.

 

[kyear2]

No. Let me spell it out for you so it is very, very clear.

I don’t really factor in these lists at all in my own rankings, except that my own views dont really diverge dramatically from general consensus.

You are accused of citing ATG XIs and rankings when it suits you.

You constantly use them to downplay Imran, Hadlee and others.

Yet when I bring up many lists that show Imran ahead of Marshall, somehow they don’t matter, or are racist, or too biased, or whatever.

So do lists and rankings matter? Because you can’t justify Marshall so high if they do. Or do they not matter? In which case why bring them up for Hadlee and Imran?

This double standards why you are being critiqued.

You are so full of ****. Go back to the threads where each of those lists were discussed, they were absolutely trashed. The worst part is that you know this. But you would be willing to utilize discredited nonsense just to prove a point. Despite all of those lists going against everything else that you argue for.

Of the nonsense you listed, two of them have Imran ahead, have no issue with that. Literally everyone sees the game differently.

I also presented you with two lists where Marshall is ahead, again that's fine, these lists are very subjective. You blatantly ignore the two I referenced. And keep repeating noises about slop.

Now, the part that's really ridiculous and patently intellectually dishonest is where you have decided that an AT XI, very similar an all pro, all NFL, all NBA, cricket team of the year type list that's used in most sports as the indicator of greatness, can't be used because only you know how these teams should be selcted, and while all of them obviously rate Imran higher, they dont include them in their team. I mean, they do it for literally every other postion, but they neglect to do it for your guy, the only guy they do it for.

Crowe did a top 50 list, but then decided not to name the best players to his list to the first team.

Wisden in all their Wisdom did the same thing.

Only Geoff Armstrong knew what he was doing right? Boycott obviously just forgot his name when he repeatedly named XIs.

Everything abiut your argument screams "I have to be right, no matter what" and you're pulling crap out of your ass.

I'm going to look back at those different lists and post what your reactions to them were when they were discussed on the forum.

Anyways, I'm done engaging with you.

 

[subshakerz]

Anyways, I'm done engaging with you.

Ok but do you promise not to bring up ATG XIs and ranking lists to downplay cricketers?

Then we don’t have to point out your double standards.

 

[OverratedSanity]

and while all of them obviously rate Imran higher, they dont include them in their team. I mean, they do it for literally every other postion, but they neglect to do it for your guy, the only guy they do it for.

Crowe did a top 50 list, but then decided not to name the best players to his list to the first team.

Wisden in all their Wisdom did the same thing.

Isn't this evidence of precisely what we're saying? If those people say they rate Imran higher than Marshall but include Marshall in their XI first, it's probably because they're doing it for team composition reasons instead of how highly they rate him as a player.

 

[Cipher]

Batting average in Marshall's overseas games — 26.53 (29.59 by West Indies)

Batting average in Imran's overseas games – 30.56 (30.39 by Pakistan)

Makes sense. Imran bowled on flatter pitches so ended with a slightly higher average than deserved, still took more wickets per dig than Maco too.

For counterpoints sake there are other reasons for this too. West Indies had the best bowling attack so the opposition's batting average would be lower. Imran was more relied upon than Marshall for their bowling attacks & bowled more overs so he would be expected to take more wickets.

 

[OverratedSanity]

For counterpoints sake there are other reasons for this too. West Indies had the best bowling attack so the opposition's batting average would be lower. Imran was more relied upon than Marshall for their bowling attacks & bowled more overs so he would be expected to take more wickets.

West indies also had very strong batting (particularly when it comes to overseas batting compared to Pakistan) though so it kinda cancels out.

 

[Johan]

For counterpoints sake there are other reasons for this too. West Indies had the best bowling attack so the opposition's batting average would be lower. Imran was more relied upon than Marshall for their bowling attacks & bowled more overs so he would be expected to take more wickets.

The inverse is also equally true. Imran had to do more work, and therefore naturally his average would be a point or so upped, there is no reason to assume Marshall can maintain greater output at a similar average. West Indies was much stronger batting wise than Pakistan, and yet Pakistan scored higher, showing Pakistan did indeed have flatterz roadier tours.

 

[Cipher]

West indies also had very strong batting (particularly when it comes to overseas batting compared to Pakistan) though so it kinda cancels out.

I was probably a bit hasty to comment, I'm not sure how these numbers were calculated, e.g. whether West Indies batting contributed to that overall number or whether it was separated. Depending on the time frame applied West Indies & Pakistan's away batting record are pretty close (e.g 80's batting away records). I do think Imran bowled on more batting friendly decks in India (Particularly the 1987 series which was planned). I'm just not sure about how much these stats boil down to pitch conditions vs the quality of the bowling which impacted the batting.

 

[Cipher]

The inverse is also equally true. Imran had to do more work, and therefore naturally his average would be a point or so upped, there is no reason to assume Marshall can maintain greater output at a similar average. West Indies was much stronger batting wise than Pakistan, and yet Pakistan scored higher, showing Pakistan did indeed have flatterz roadier tours.

Yeah I'm not denying Imran had a harder job bowling for his side than Marshall did & it would have impacted his average. Having a greater share of bowling duties/team wickets would also offset the difference imo. Hadlee also carried his attack and performed significantly better away. But I'm not enough of a stats whizz to figure out which would have a bigger bearing. I do think there is a significant enough difference between Marshall & Khan's away performances that it must also involve a personal difference in bowling skill level but that's merely opinion & something I can't really prove. To each their own.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah I'm not denying Imran had a harder job bowling for his side than Marshall did & it would have impacted his average. Having a greater share of bowling duties/team wickets would also offset the difference imo. Hadlee also carried his attack and performed significantly better away. But I'm not enough of a stats whizz to figure out which would have a bigger bearing. I do think there is a significant enough difference between Marshall & Khan's away performances that it must also involve a personal difference in bowling skill level but that's merely opinion & something I can't really prove. To each their own.

Once you analyse their away records, it is clear that they are closer then they seem. Marshall had the advantage to play fewer series all concentrated around his peak.

Im not convinced Marshall is better than Imran in Australia for example, where Imran had multiple great series and a WSC against stronger lineups than Marshall faced, whereas Marshall faced Australia at their worst and did only moderate against a better Aussie lineup.

Imran also has a better record than Marshall in head to head contests when they faced each other, the most high profile contests of their age.

Marshall is better overall but we tend to exaggerate the differences.

 

[Cipher]

Once you analyse their away records, it is clear that they are closer then they seem. Marshall had the advantage to play fewer series all concentrated around his peak.

Im not convinced Marshall is better than Imran in Australia for example, where Imran had multiple great series and a WSC against stronger lineups than Marshall faced, whereas Marshall faced Australia at their worst and did only moderate against a better Aussie lineup.

Imran also has a better record than Marshall in head to head contests when they faced each other, the most high profile contests of their age.

Marshall is better overall but we tend to exaggerate the differences.

Agreed with the volume of away peak matches argument & playing better opposition in Australia. That does impact his away record vs Marshall's.
The head to head record holds less weight imo, 10 out of 12 games they both played were in Pakistan where Imran has a distinct advantage & Marshall was still comparable with 50 wickets @ 20.7 vs 44 @ 17.81.

I don't have an issue with them being considered a similar calibre of bowler, I'm more just interested in clarifying what's generally true vs what is a narrative. More players of the time do rate Marshall as the best bowler they faced over Imran but I agree with you that the difference between them isn't huge.

 

[Cipher]

And there are multiple perspectives on what is an acceptable trade off during selection of a team. But lets take away the names, and if you were selecting a club team and had a hierarchical list built on bowling ability / effectiveness, and one guy was 9th on that list. Are you immediately inclined to have him included in your final 4 attack, because he had the potential to score 10 more runs per innings?

Just out of curiosity which bowling attack with the same top 7 ATG batsmen & spinner would you prefer/think wins more games and why?

Khan, Hadlee & Akram
or McGrath, Bumrah & Marshall?