Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[subshakerz]

Agreed with the volume of away peak matches argument & playing better opposition in Australia. That does impact his away record vs Marshall's.

Just to lay this out, Imran (80 to 88) had a longer bowling and notably better peak than Marshall (83 to 89), but ended up playing less tests In it which reflects in less impact on his overall career numbers. If he played 60 matches in his Peak he would average somewhere in McGrath zone overall.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[kyear2]

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?

Ive already said that if Bumran passes 300 that the latter will be my team.

This isn't because I hate all rounders or have some vendetta vs Imran, this is the way teams were elected. From the 75 Australian tean that shaped even (the collective) our perspective on how it was done, you chose the best attack. And these guys had heart, and while the wouldn't go along on the the down hill skiing trips, when the chips were down they were capable of holding an end at the crease, and often did.

Additionally I'm telling you that while Hadlee was rated a bit higher than Imran, neither were seen as being up there with Marshall and Lillee as bowlers, some even had Holding rated higher than both.

And because he gets under my skin I got into a stupid argument with Subz, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter who was better, it matters who gets selcted as the best fit in a team. Can't be the best if you're not on the pitch. And everyone knew and knows that the primary objective is to take 20 wickets to win the match, and for as little runs and in as many conditions as possible.

I saw an old post the other day, I sincerely can't recall if it was 2008 or 2013, but it was a post from when we selected out AT XI after months of voting. The attack was Marshall, McGrath, Warne, Murali.
I don't want to imply that I saw all since, but I saw a couple and it was generally the first three and Imran, but was always relatively close for that 3rd spot. I didnt see Hadlee making any until last year. The further we get away from Viv the shakier his spot gets as well. Though Smith contributes to that as well.

Tldr;
Went on wayy too long,

Definitely the latter one, you pick your best attack. Marshall and Warne held down the no. 8 spot for the best two teams ever, they will do fine here, especially with the guys above them.

So to quote Din, this is the way.

 

[Randomfan]

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)

Yah, surprise surprise.

Who would expect all time great WI bowling unit to bring down the average in those matches. To make it obvious,










Batting average of opposition teams facing Hadlee and IK was in the same range (in fact a bit higher in case of Hadlee) and yet Hadlee had a far better output than IK. WI batting was averaging 34 on the same surfaces, but WI bowlers averaged 11-12 points lower due to having the best bowling side by huge margin.

Flat wickets, yah on Pakistani flat wickets he was averaging 12 for 100 wickets, lol. Suddenly outside Pakistan flat wickets he averages 25-26. That's the reason I don't take his home numbers literally.

IK skill sets allowed him to average 25-26 when playing outside Pakistan as a bowler. That direct data is present and there is no need to do this round about way. That's very good output but falls shorts of elite teir pacers. Elite tier pacers don't average 25-26 away against non-minnows specially when peer group is doing drastically better. It was not due to era or flat pitch. There is nothing more to see in that. His bowling was not close to Hadlee let alone Marshall. That's probably the best exlanation of most not having him in all time XI instead of Marshall. Auxiliary skill was surely present, but the gap in primary was too large for auxiliary to cover it for most making all time XI. If IK was really at level of Marshall, he will make in to All time XIs by a landslide.

Anyway, IK is firmly in my top 10 pacers and top 3 all rounders. There could be surely case for Ik to be included in all time first XI. Nothing wrong in taking that approach, but he was not close to Marshall as a bowler. I will personally never replace Marshall with IK in my all time XI and most don't do it as well for exactly same reason.

 

[kyear2]

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?

How about you?

 

[kyear2]

Yah, surprise surprise.

Who would expect all time great WI bowling unit to bring down the average in those matches. To make it obvious,

View attachment 53187


View attachment 53188


View attachment 53189


Batting average of opposition teams facing Hadlee and IK was in the same range (in fact a bit higher) and yet Hadlee had a far better output than IK. WI batting was averaging 34 on the same surfaces, but WI bowlers averaged 11-12 points lower due to having the best bowling side by huge margin.

Flat wickets, yah on Pakistani flat wickets he was averaging 12 for 100 wickets, lol. Suddenly outside Pakistan flat wickets he averages 25-26. That's the reason I don't take his home numbers literally.

IK skill sets allowed him to average 25-26 when playing outside Pakistan as a bowler. That's very good output but falls shorts of elite teir pacers. Elite tier pacers don't average 25-26 away against non-minnows specially when peer group is doing drastically better. It was not due to era or flat pitch. There is nothing more to see in that. His bowling was not close to Hadlee let alone Marshall. That's probably the best exlanation of most not having him in all time XI instead of Marshall. Auxiliary skill was surely present, but the gap in primary was too large for auxiliary to cover it for most making all time XI.

Anyway, IK is firmly in my top 10 pacers and top 3 all rounders. There could be surely case for Ik to be included in all time first XI. Nothing wrong in taking that approach, but he was not close to Marshall as a bowler. I will personally never replace Marshall with IK in my all time XI.

Basically all.of that.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Every quote, interview, article i could find over the years has persons either choosing Marshall.or Lillee. Even watching their legends of cricket video, no one refers to the latter two as the best they faced and that was also the real time perception in the 80's.

 

[subshakerz]

And because he gets under my skin I got into a stupid argument with Subz, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter who was better, it matters who gets selcted as the best fit in a team. Can't be the best if you're not on the pitch.

HAHAHAHA

I love this argument.

Player A is better than Player B.

Player B is selected in a side.

Therefore, Player B is default better than Player A, even if Player A is better than Player B.

How can you say this with a straight face?

I understand you want to inflate Marshal, but c’mon..

 

[OverratedSanity]

but at the end of the day it doesn't matter who was better, it matters who gets selcted as the best fit in a team.

This has to be a bit

 

[subshakerz]

This has to be a bit

He is saying this because I effectively destroyed the idea he had that there was somehow a consensus that Marshall was better than Imran.

There isnt. So now in desperation, he has to concede that Imran maybe seen as a better player, but it doesnt matter, because of SHIFTING GOALPOSTS.

 

[Johan]

Yah, surprise surprise.

Who would expect all time great WI bowling unit to bring down the average in those matches. To make it obvious,

View attachment 53187


View attachment 53188


View attachment 53189


Batting average of opposition teams facing Hadlee and IK was in the same range (in fact a bit higher in case of Hadlee) and yet Hadlee had a far better output than IK. WI batting was averaging 34 on the same surfaces, but WI bowlers averaged 11-12 points lower due to having the best bowling side by huge margin.

Flat wickets, yah on Pakistani flat wickets he was averaging 12 for 100 wickets, lol. Suddenly outside Pakistan flat wickets he averages 25-26. That's the reason I don't take his home numbers literally.

IK skill sets allowed him to average 25-26 when playing outside Pakistan as a bowler. That direct data is present and there is no need to do this round about way. That's very good output but falls shorts of elite teir pacers. Elite tier pacers don't average 25-26 away against non-minnows specially when peer group is doing drastically better. It was not due to era or flat pitch. There is nothing more to see in that. His bowling was not close to Hadlee let alone Marshall. That's probably the best exlanation of most not having him in all time XI instead of Marshall. Auxiliary skill was surely present, but the gap in primary was too large for auxiliary to cover it for most making all time XI. If IK was really at level of Marshall, he will make in to All time XIs by a landslide.

Anyway, IK is firmly in my top 10 pacers and top 3 all rounders. There could be surely case for Ik to be included in all time first XI. Nothing wrong in taking that approach, but he was not close to Marshall as a bowler. I will personally never replace Marshall with IK in my all time XI and most don't do it as well for exactly same reason.

Ah the art of a long post to scare off opposition, sadly mate, it's not going to be of effect against me as I've dealt with longer ones very comfortably. First thing, let us put actual team by team statistics of the 80s in their overseas games. Imran is taken from the timeframe we have always and consistently discussed.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Pakistan — 31.09

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

West Indies — 29.27

This is even though West Indies is far stronger batting wise, especially overseas, a clear give away of batting on more difficult wickets.

I checked where you got the 34 number from, couldn't find where, but here you go on the research being done regarding what they averaged overseas. Imran's games were so much more higher scoring they allowed Pakistani bats to outscore West Indian bats despite the large gulf in quality.

Nah, I don't care how you take his home numbers, he has a far better home record than Marshall, if one tampered then sure The West Indies also tampered, and both of them had biased umpiring. Marshall is better overseas, albeit marginally while Imran is better at home, albeit marginally as Imran did a bit of minnow bashing at home. All performers perform better at home than overseas, even ones with unproductive home wickets, I guess you ignore home averages of Travis Head at all then? or Muttiah Muralitharan? or Jadeja? or Lara? I guess their home records just aren't a part of their legacy, or is this logic only applicable to Pakistani cricketers?

I like how you inflate numbers, Imran is doing 2.6@25 on significantly flatter pitches than Marshall is doing 2.5@21.5, yet somehow it's Imran who is falling off the elite tier.

Hadlee has a superior overseas record to either on blanket, From 78 to 90 he was averaging under 19 overseas. The concept of "let alone Marshall" is funny considering Hadlee is statistically superior to either overseas, you're simply adhering to the conventional hierarchy to suggest Marshall is well ahead when he takes less wickets a dig at a 3.5 less average on spicier wickets with better bowling support, lol. I get that you can't think of Cricket beyond stats and averages but please, why do you think India made the most lifeless and flat tracks in their historu in 87/88 until the Bangalore test.

Now, 2.6 @ 25 falling short of elite pacers is new delusion, sadly it's just not true. Imran's average is slightly higher because the cowaring teams like India in that series and England in the 87 series made the flattest wickets possible to neuter him and he still ended with amazing stats. Another thing I forgot to mention, it's not like Marshall had to bowl to West Indies who were the most dominant batting side of the time, one more.

Basically your argument of Marshall having a 3.5 better average while .1 less WPI in significantly nicer bowling conditions just collapses because you're trying to overstate the gap.

Nobody says Marshall isn't better than Imran, to pretend their is some humongous gap is just being dense and idiotic, a 3.5 average gap overseas just don't cut it, you need more, a lot more infact to suggest there is a huge chasm between a 20 and 21 averaging bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

Every quote, interview, article i could find over the years has persons either choosing Marshall.or Lillee.

I just shared you seven lists of folks rating Imran above Marshall.

And you are aware of several ATG XIs where Marshall is selected and Imran is not.

 

[Randomfan]

I like how you inflate numbers, Imran is doing 2.6@25 on significantly flatter pitches than Marshall is doing 2.5@21.5, yet somehow it's Imran who is falling off the elite tier.

Singnificantly flatter away pitches made IK average 25 but on Pakistani flat pitches he picked 100 wickets at avg of 12. One of them has to reflect his actual ability on flat wickets, right?

3.5 runs per wicket difference seems small to you, it's exponentially harder as we keep going down. 33 and 30, close enough. 17 and 20, difference is much larger. 0.1 higher wickets per inning, lol. I am not sure if you are trolling here. Some one bowling a lot more with sigificanty worse avg and SR can get more wickets by bowling more, Hardly makes the bowler better , it just shows that a bowler bowled more.

You think there was not a signanificant gap between Marshall and IK. I think gap is siginificant. Not much going to be achieved by going round and round about it. Let's just agree to disagree here.

 

[subshakerz]

Singnificantly flatter away pitches made IK average 25 but on Pakistani flat pitches he picked 100 wickets at avg of 12. One of them has to reflect his actual ability on flat wickets, right?

3.5 runs per wicket difference seems small to you, it's exponentially harder as we keep going down. 33 and 30, close enough. 17 and 20, difference is much larger. 0.1 higher wickets per inning, lol. I am not sure if you are trolling here. Some one bowling a lot more with sigificanty worse avg and SR can get more wickets by bowling more, Hardly makes the bowler better , it just shows that a bowler bowled more.

You think there was not a signanificant gap between Marshall and IK. I think gap is siginificant. Not much going to be achieved by going round and round about it. Let's just agree to disagree here.

The only way you think there is a significant gap is completely ignoring Imran’s home achievements and lazily chalking it all up to ball tampering.

You also for some odd reason never seem to give Imran credit for being the best bowler of the era against the best team of the era, WI. I have never seen you raise that point.

 

[Johan]

Singnificantly flatter away pitches made IK average 25 but on Pakistani flat pitches he picked 100 wickets at avg of 12. One of them has to reflect his actual ability on flat wickets, right?

3.5 runs per wicket difference seems small to you, it's exponentially harder as we keep going down. 33 and 30, close enough. 17 and 20, difference is much larger. 0.1 higher wickets per inning, lol. I am not sure if you are trolling here. Some one bowling a lot more with sigificanty worse avg and SR can get more wickets by bowling more, Hardly makes the bowler better , it just shows that a bowler bowled more.

You think there was not a signanificant gap between Marshall and IK. I think gap is siginificant. Not much going to be achieved by going round and round about it. Let's just agree to disagree here.

Form is a thing, so are the pitches, not that the pitches for Imran's games at home were total roads either all the time. I don't know if you're trolling by acting like home and away performances are the same, Murali got wickets after wickets at home on the flat SSH, couldn't buy a wicket in India or Australia, just one of many examples.

Yeah that's just cope, 21.5 being significantly better than 25 despite the latter bowling in tougher conditions by a lot isn't going to be a huge gap, it's better but not by a big margin. Bowling more = higher workload = tougher to maintain a better average, just Cricket and you would know that

You just don't get the game if you think their is a big gap between any of the top ten.

 

[Randomfan]

You also for some odd reason never seem to give Imran credit for being the best bowler of the era against the best team of the era, WI. I have never seen you raise that point.

I do consider that along with many great tours, otherwise I won't rate anyone as the top 10 with away average of 25-26 in that era.

 

[subshakerz]

I do consider that along with many great tours, otherwise I won't rate anyone as the top 10 with away average of 25-26 in that era.

No sorry that is not good enough.

Imran takes 6WPM in the WI.

In the 80s, he took 51 wickets@16 in 10 games against the best team in the world. That includes a series at home with neutral umpires where he averaged 11. He played three series against them that decade and was MOS in all of them.

You are downplaying that record in a very disingenuous way.

Are we to expect you would react this muted way if it was Bumrah with those figures against a no.1 side?

 

[subshakerz]

No sorry that is not good enough.

Imran takes 6WPM in the WI.

In the 80s, he took 51 wickets@16 in 10 games against the best team in the world. That includes a series at home with neutral umpires where he averaged 11. He played three series against them that decade and was MOS in all of them.

You are downplaying that record in a very disingenuous way.

Are we to expect you would react this muted way if it was Bumrah with those figures against a no.1 side?

@Randomfan so no response to the above?

 

[Randomfan]

@Randomfan so no response to the above?

You are asking as if I sit entire time in this forum, lol. Some time I have more time and some time i just check for 5 minutes if sitting front of computer and even then I forget to reply.

No one is removing performance against WI for IK or performance against Aus for Bumrah or for any other pacers against best opposition.

After including all performances we can see output of Marshall, Hadlee, Bumrah , IK and others. IK is already getting a leg up by removing this or remving that from his record which we don't do for anyone else. You can always assign more points for something and then see it with career record.

 

[Coronis]

All performers perform better at home than overseas, even ones with unproductive home wickets, I guess you ignore home averages of Travis Head at all then? or Muttiah Muralitharan? or Jadeja? or Lara? I guess their home records just aren't a part of their legacy, or is this logic only applicable to Pakistani cricketers?

I disagree extremely, for batsmen at least. Off the top of my head, Barrington, Hammond, Border, Waugh, Smith.

 

[Cipher]

How about you?

Prefer McGrath, Bumrah & Marshall because I think it's a slightly stronger & varied bowling attack. Plus Marshall & Warne is fine at 8 & 9 when you've already got an ATG batting lineup ahead of them. It's ~50 runs difference in batting average between the 2 groups though, I wouldn't fault anyone for picking the other group because they're still ATG bowlers but I'm more concerned about bowling variety rather than more runs from my tailenders