Ranking the Auxiliary skills in test cricket

[Johan]

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

No Reverse.

 

[Johan]

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.

Bumrah is a great example of being aided by perfect pitches overseas, his match factor overseas is lesser than that of IK's in the timeframe he was a bowler. Now, don't cry that people don't count IK's record when he was a batsman against his record as a bowler, Bumrah is welcome to learn how to average 70 with the bat at the bog end of his career, we will happily forgive his bowling record at that point.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

You are sidestepping the point.

 

[subshakerz]

No Reverse.

Bumrah can reverse

 

[Cipher]

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

See I just find it hard to believe that there would be so much natural variation between pitches at the same grounds within the same decade. Surely over that period of time pitch variance would even itself out? I'm aware of the 1987 India series where the pitches were doctored but is there documented evidence elsewhere of batting friendly pitches being prepared against Pakistan? I would find it surprising that host nations would do that for Pakistan & not the West Indies with a superior bowling attack.

I don't doubt the overall strength of the West Indies batsmen was better than Pakistan's but I'm wondering if there's a different reason for this disparity. For example if the West Indian bowlers are getting out the opposition for considerably lower scores, wouldn't that also mean that the requirement for their batsmen to make big scores is lowered? There'd be fewer opportunities to bat twice if they'd already made a big first innings score. They would have been trying to play for draws on much fewer occasions than other sides too, such situations would boost the batting average per wicket because you're playing for not outs rather than forcing game winning scenarios. Pakistan by comparison on the road would have been in far more draw orientated scenarios.

I'd be more inclined to consider batting personnel differences between the two bowlers bowling periods too. Imran would have played against stronger Indian, West Indies, Australian & English batting sides than what Marshall played with/against which could also explain the batting average differences.

I'm happy to be wrong on this pitch argument if it's proven outside of those team batting average stats, I'm just doubtful about the claim atm.

 

[Johan]

See I just find it hard to believe that there would be so much natural variation between pitches at the same grounds within the same decade. Surely over that period of time pitch variance would even itself out? I'm aware of the 1987 India series where the pitches were doctored but is there documented evidence elsewhere of batting friendly pitches being prepared against Pakistan? I would find it surprising that host nations would do that for Pakistan & not the West Indies with a superior bowling attack.

I don't doubt the overall strength of the West Indies batsmen was better than Pakistan's but I'm wondering if there's a different reason for this disparity. For example if the West Indian bowlers are getting out the opposition for considerably lower scores, wouldn't that also mean that the requirement for their batsmen to make big scores is lowered? There'd be fewer opportunities to bat twice if they'd already made a big first innings score. They would have been trying to play for draws on much fewer occasions than other sides too, such situations would boost the batting average per wicket because you're playing for not outs rather than forcing game winning scenarios. Pakistan by comparison on the road would have been in far more draw orientated scenarios.

I'd be more inclined to consider batting personnel differences between the two bowlers bowling periods too. Imran would have played against stronger Indian, West Indies, Australian & English batting sides than what Marshall played with/against which could also explain the batting average differences.

I'm happy to be wrong on this pitch argument if it's proven outside of those team batting average stats, I'm just doubtful about the claim atm.

Batting friendly tracks don't need to be prepared, they just appear at times. A big example is the 1987 Pakistan tour of England, a flat series all around where both sides made heaps of runs and 700 was crossed somehow. Some series are just flat and some are lively, it's entirely about variance.

 

[Prince EWS]

Batting friendly tracks don't need to be prepared, they just appear at times.

One appeared in my living room last week, extremely annoying.

Vernon Philander has just cancelled his RSVP to my dinner party too, unrelated I'm sure.

 

[SteveNZ]

No love for fine leg

No love earned by fine leg. Once saw Chris Martin fielding there, drop a catch while eating a banana.

 

[Cipher]

Batting friendly tracks don't need to be prepared, they just appear at times. A big example is the 1987 Pakistan tour of England, a flat series all around where both sides made heaps of runs and 700 was crossed somehow. Some series are just flat and some are lively, it's entirely about variance.

Hmmm okay 2 series having significantly more batting friendly conditions than usual due to variance I can understand. I do not think it would apply over their entire career however. There would be many more series where the pitches would appear as expected/have a standard balance between bat & ball. I do think having 2 more batting friendly test series over Marshall would create a partial difference in average in their head to head comparison but I wouldn't go so far as to say Imran was always bowling on significantly flatter pitches than Marshall over his entire career.

I think the main reasons for this disparity between Imran & Marshall's own/opposition teams batting average is:
1- The West Indian bowling attack being about 7 average points better than their next best competitor in the 80's (1980's away bowling averages)
2- The strength of the batting lineups Imran faced in the late 70's/early 80's were better than the lineups Marshall faced in the mid 80's.
3- The decline of the west Indian batting in the 2nd half of Marshall's career meant that Pakistan's batting average was comparable, slightly better even to his own team (1986-1991 Batting averages)
4 - Road-like batting conditions in a handful more away games for Pakistan compared to West Indies.

Again I have no problem admitting that Marshall had an easier time of it compared to Imran with a number of things, just think it's a bit unfair/incorrect to strongly base the difference in away records because Imran played on 5-10 more roads than Marshall did.

 

[subshakerz]

Again I have no problem admitting that Marshall had an easier time of it compared to Imran with a number of things, just think it's a bit unfair/incorrect to strongly base the difference in away records because Imran played on 5-10 more roads than Marshall did.

You can also check the two series in NZ that Imran played that were, four tests, four high scoring draws in which Hadlee was also neutralised.

Obviously I think overall Marshall has a bit better overseas record though but I think we e agree its closer than it seems.

 

[Bolo.]

You can also check the two series in NZ that Imran played that were, four tests, four high scoring draws in which Hadlee was also neutralised.

Obviously I think overall Marshall has a bit better overseas record though but I think we e agree its closer than it seems.

It doesnt change the fact that pitches were flat, but Hadlee was injured that series. He went 4/101 in the first innings he bowled.

 

[kyear2]

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.

So just to be clear. The fact that absolutely no one ever has had such a top 4 means that everyone has different criteria. Agreed, because it's very subjective, not to add impossibly to quantify.

That they are mostly biased and silly people? Probably, but that somehow, for all the permutations out there that not a single one of those people have come up with those 3 in the top 4 must surely say something. Someone should have at least lucked into such an order. I mean, Sobers is always 2, so surely they understand the premise of all rounders, yeah? Could it be that people who watched Kallis bat for two decades didn't find that his batting was impactful, forceful or team focused as others around him? That the primary skills of said cricketers didn't line up with those of Sir Garry's? Possible? Who really knows?

But to definitively say that those 3 are automatically better than other ATGs and that anyone who doesn't agree are somehow biased or even just silly, might just entail some bias themselves, perhaps even a bit silly?

Thanks for randomly mentioning me here, and not responding to my earlier post.

Yes inherently imo, comparing batsmen and bowlers directly is stupid. However its easy for me to say Sobers, Kallis, or Imran are better players than other ATG’s, since they are ATG in one discipline and have another discipline where they far outstrip the other primary ATGs.

So by that theory if two is better while ATG in one, then three while being ATG in two must be inherently better?

I mean Sobers, Hammond and Kallis must then be better than any other ATG as well no?

See how that goes?

Then how about the ones who are ATG in two? Ponting, Chappell, Vivian? Do they get pushed up as well?

 

[Coronis]

So just to be clear. The fact that absolutely no one ever has had such a top 4 means that everyone has different criteria. Agreed, because it's very subjective, not to add impossibly to quantify.

That they are mostly biased and silly people? Probably, but that somehow, for all the permutations out there that not a single one of those people have come up with those 3 in the top 4 must surely say something. Someone should have at least lucked into such an order. I mean, Sobers is always 2, so surely they understand the premise of all rounders, yeah? Could it be that people who watched Kallis bat for two decades didn't find that his batting was impactful, forceful or team focused as others around him? That the primary skills of said cricketers didn't line up with those of Sir Garry's? Possible? Who really knows?

But to definitively say that those 3 are automatically better than other ATGs and that anyone who doesn't agree are somehow biased or even just silly, might just entail some bias themselves, perhaps even a bit silly?



So by that theory if two is better while ATG in one, then three while being ATG in two must be inherently better?

I mean Sobers, Hammond and Kallis must then be better than any other ATG as well no?

See how that goes?

Then how about the ones who are ATG in two? Ponting, Chappell, Vivian? Do they get pushed up as well?

Well when it comes down to it we’re all biased and silly people, including both me and you.

re: “ATG in 3 and 2 comments”… lets be real here, the impact of a single fielder vs either a batsman or a bowler is minimal. You won’t be selecting a specialist fieldsman in an ATG XI nor would you be placing one high on a list of greatest cricketers based on fielding skills.

Also calling Viv and Chappell ATG fielders is a big stretch imo.

 

[kyear2]

Well when it comes down to it we’re all biased and silly people, including both me and you.

re: “ATG in 3 and 2 comments”… lets be real here, the impact of a single fielder vs either a batsman or a bowler is minimal. You won’t be selecting a specialist fieldsman in an ATG XI nor would you be placing one high on a list of greatest cricketers based on fielding skills.

Also calling Viv and Chappell ATG fielders is a big stretch imo.

Every single human being is inherently biased, that comes alone with being similarity selfish and the rest of is. The only thing we own our fellow man is to keep it a minimum as much as possible.

I don't know why you make this difficult. None of the secondary skills on their own makes it near such a team (shifting the goal posts though I see, but I'll ignore), nor would qualify a player to be in the top 10 all time, a deliberately ridiculous straw man argument.

Unless you think that Kallis's 35 bowling average gets him there.

There's a ridiculously large difference betwen batting or bowling as a primary skill as opposed to that or secondary. That shouldn't have needed to have been said.

The same way substandard batting or bowling as a secondary skill can elevate a cricketer, so can elite level catching. The premise is very much the same.

And I see someone needs educating on Sir. I.V.A. Richards.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't know why you make this difficult. None of the secondary skills on their own makes it near such a team (shifting the goal posts though I see, but I'll ignore), nor would qualify a player to be in the top 10 all time, a deliberately ridiculous straw man argument.

Unless you think that Kallis's 35 bowling average gets him there.

As opposed to the 34 bowling average of Sobers?

It is beguiling that you can claim that Sobers bowling and fielding can help bring him to Bradman level yet you can’t see Kallis bowling and fielding bringing him ahead of Tendulkar.

 

[kyear2]

Along with Hooper and Waugh, and ahead of Kallis and Taylor as the best I've seen.

The value this brings to a team is near immeasurable in the field and to the bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

Along with Hooper and Waugh, and ahead of Kallis and Taylor as the best I've seen.

The value this brings to a team is near immeasurable in the field and to the bowlers.

Thanks. You really stuck it to the anti-slips brigade we have here at CW.

 

[kyear2]

As opposed to the 34 bowling average of Sobers?

It is beguiling that you can claim that Sobers bowling and fielding can help bring him to Bradman level yet you can’t see Kallis bowling and fielding bringing him ahead of Tendulkar.

Every time I unblock you I see why I shouldn't.

It's beguiling to me that you should need to ask that question considering you were making the same arguments agaist Kallis not a year ago.

You claimed his batting had little to no impact compared to Sachin, he was selfish and an accumulator. His bowling output was around half of Sobers's and that not only did he now bowl enough, you questioned if he was e enough actually an all rounder. You claimed that the 200 catches number was irrelevant and that it shouldn't be even brought up. You also claimed that his ranking as an all rounder only came into play at the end of his career when people relaised the totality of the numbers he accumulated, rather than the impact of them during his career.

All your arguments, not mine, yours.

I would question how you got so many to go along with your argument but I see that it's the usual crowd.

But I shall answer, yet again.

Sir Garfield Sobers is a top 5 bat, seen by many to be the absolute best since Bradman and overall very much in that discussion. He was a match winner with the bat with iconic innings and series vs the very best of his era.

I assume you can see how he already differs from Kallis.

As a bowler he had match winning and series defining performances. Probaly his best performance was stripped of test status only after it was played, and was against the team belived to be at that time the best in the world.

What are Kallis's similar performances?

As a slip fielder as great and as solid as Kallis was, Sobers was in a different tier. I posted a video just above this post, and the only other cricketers that I've seen or read about who were at or above that level were Hammond (only one I have no video evidence to corroborate), Simpson, Sobers, Waugh and Hooper. Barlow bears mention and du Plessis from the modern era was special as well, even if not quite in that tier. Kallis was top 10, but didn't quite have the range.

But finally, in the spirt that we all very much love and revere, there are 3 players and 3 players alone that find themselves into the pantheon of the sport. If it is reduced purely to the test version of the game those names are reduced to two. Sir Donald Bradman and Sir Garfield Sobers, that's it. The discussion for anyone else starts at 3.

So you're telling me that the only person in the same pantheon as Bradman, and note, there was no minimum amount of crickets who were allowed to be considered in such rarefied air, doesn't have claim or even warrant a discussion to be considered at least alongside the great batsman?

I don't know how you haven't as yet grasped that cricket is much more than a collection of accumulated numbers.

 

[Coronis]

Every time I unblock you I see why I shouldn't.

It's beguiling to me that you should need to ask that question considering you were making the same arguments agaist Kallis not a year ago.

You claimed his batting had little to no impact compared to Sachin, he was selfish and an accumulator. His bowling output was around half of Sobers's and that not only did he now bowl enough, you questioned if he was e enough actually an all rounder. You claimed that the 200 catches number was irrelevant and that it shouldn't be even brought up. You also claimed that his ranking as an all rounder only came into play at the end of his career when people relaised the totality of the numbers he accumulated, rather than the impact of them during his career.

All your arguments, not mine, yours.

I would question how you got so many to go along with your argument but I see that it's the usual crowd.

But I shall answer, yet again.

Sir Garfield Sobers is a top 5 bat, seen by many to be the absolute best since Bradman and overall very much in that discussion. He was a match winner with the bat with iconic innings and series vs the very best of his era.

I assume you can see how he already differs from Kallis.

As a bowler he had match winning and series defining performances. Probaly his best performance was stripped of test status only after it was played, and was against the team belived to be at that time the best in the world.

What are Kallis's similar performances?

As a slip fielder as great and as solid as Kallis was, Sobers was in a different tier. I posted a video just above this post, and the only other cricketers that I've seen or read about who were at or above that level were Hammond (only one I have no video evidence to corroborate), Simpson, Sobers, Waugh and Hooper. Barlow bears mention and du Plessis from the modern era was special as well, even if not quite in that tier. Kallis was top 10, but didn't quite have the range.

But finally, in the spirt that we all very much love and revere, there are 3 players and 3 players alone that find themselves into the pantheon of the sport. If it is reduced purely to the test version of the game those names are reduced to two. Sir Donald Bradman and Sir Garfield Sobers, that's it. The discussion for anyone else starts at 3.

So you're telling me that the only person in the same pantheon as Bradman, and note, there was no minimum amount of crickets who were allowed to be considered in such rarefied air, doesn't have claim or even warrant a discussion to be considered at least alongside the great batsman?

I don't know how you haven't as yet grasped that cricket is much more than a collection of accumulated numbers.

He’s not saying that Kallis is better than Sobers…

Also I didn’t realise Sobers was bowling to South Africa in 1970.

 

[kyear2]

He’s not saying that Kallis is better than Sobers…

Also I didn’t realise Sobers was bowling to South Africa in 1970.

Neither was I.

I'm saying that the arguments that can be used for Sobers can't be necessarily used for Kallis.

And technically the SA team was no more, so....