Most important position in Cricket ?

[happy_eagle]

This may not be the easiest question to answer, but what position in a Cricket starting XI do you think has the potential to add the most value to a team across all conditions?


Hypothetically lets say you were building a new team that would be touring all cricketing locations and conditions, and you could pick one of the following player types to build the team around

1. An elite opening batsman
2. An elite middle order batsman
3. An elite batting all rounder (if so, Spin or Pace bowling ?)
4. An elite bowling all round (if so, Spin or Pace bowling ?)
5. An elite Wicket Keeper Batsman
6. An elite Spin Bowler (if so, Off Spin or Leg Spin ?)
7. An elite pace bowler

Which of these would be your first picked in the starting XI ?

Also would you pick the same player type for Test Cricket vs Limited Overs ?

Initially I was thinking clearly an elite all rounder would add the most value. But then thinking back to the dominant Australian team of the early 2000s, and that team never really had a dominant all rounder. A lot of the times whilst amazing players (Kallis, Botham, Hadlee) they often aren't enough on their own to build a successful team around. Compare that to the impact that a Shane Warne type can have on a team, and its a bit more significant.

 

[Gethelred]

This may not be the easiest question to answer, but what position in a Cricket starting XI do you think has the potential to add the most value to a team across all conditions?


Hypothetically lets say you were building a new team that would be touring all cricketing locations and conditions, and you could pick one of the following player types to build the team around

1. An elite opening batsman
2. An elite middle order batsman
3. An elite batting all rounder (if so, Spin or Pace bowling ?)
4. An elite bowling all round (if so, Spin or Pace bowling ?)
5. An elite Wicket Keeper Batsman
6. An elite Spin Bowler (if so, Off Spin or Leg Spin ?)
7. An elite pace bowler

Which of these would be your first picked in the starting XI ?

Also would you pick the same player type for Test Cricket vs Limited Overs ?

Initially I was thinking clearly an elite all rounder would add the most value. But then thinking back to the dominant Australian team of the early 2000s, and that team never really had a dominant all rounder. A lot of the times whilst amazing players (Kallis, Botham, Hadlee) they often aren't enough on their own to build a successful team around. Compare that to the impact that a Shane Warne type can have on a team, and its a bit more significant.

Hardest position in cricket is one of two things:

• no.3 batter at test level.
• specialist spinner.

A no.3 bat has to be able to do two things equally well and transition between them; they need to be able to leave and defend like an opener at 1 for none, blunt the bowling and the new ball; they need to be able to score fluently like a no.5 when they walk out to bat at 1-150, picking scoring zones and rotating the strike. And they need to be able to switch methods mid innings to whatever suits the moment best.

A specialist spinner is a much, much harder task than a top class quick. See, a top class quick has the right physique (height, build, fitness) and the right biomechanics will find putting the ball on that hankerchief fairly easy; to paraphrase Ian Pont (bloke who coached Darren Gough and Dale Steyn) if everything's going in the right direction biomechanically, you're more likely to be both accurate and fast instead of one or the other. You might have a slower ball or a bouncer, but both are a function of practice and minute variation.

A specialist spinner though, they need to be able to bowl 2-5 different balls. The bulk of your practice is on your stock ball, and you need to have natural shape and the right trajectory from the get go; this is something you're born with, and isn't something you get merely by dint of being tall or short or bowling a specific way. We can encourage bowlers to put more revs on the ball, we can get bowlers bowling faster or slower or loopier or flatter, but shape is different from all of it. You aim to bowl your best ball every time you bowl your stock ball.

Then, you've got to have a variation that does something different. Tell me, what does Nathan Lyon's Jeff ball do other than bounce a little more? Not much. Herath used to bowl a ball with a single finger on the seam which would curve back in at the batter's front pad and skid on; he bowled with a round arm action usually, but he bowled with an even rounder arm with his arm ball. And this ball's a risk; superficially, it's a ball at nigh half volley/low full toss length you've put a batter in a position to play badly instead of plaster for 4 or 6 through midwicket or long on. And unlike a quick, you don't have a bouncer to put pressure on the batter with dots if things are going badly.

Spinners have to play smarter and more skillfully, as well as have an innate talent for bowling and reading a batter's temperament.

 

[whatwhatsaywhat]

head of bcci

 

[dumb]

i think i'd need to take a step back from the premise itself, is a cricket team something you build around a single player? not really.

but to answer, i think of dale steyn who bowled as well as any pacemen has in india.

 

[PhatBoy]

i think i'd need to take a step back from the premise itself, is a cricket team something you build around a single player? not really.

but to answer, i think of dale steyn who bowled as well as any pacemen has in india.

Same, I think a paceman who can do that sort of thing, if you can find one, is the ‘MVP’ if there is such a thing. The McGrath, Ambrose, Steyn, Marshall level quick is the holy grail of cricketers who if you have one can probably carry a side to being competitive even if they have deficiencies in a number of other areas.

 

[Gethelred]

Same, I think a paceman who can do that sort of thing, if you can find one, is the ‘MVP’ if there is such a thing. The McGrath, Ambrose, Steyn, Marshall level quick is the holy grail of cricketers who if you have one can probably carry a side to being competitive even if they have deficiencies in a number of other areas.

I think a quick who can do what the above players did everywhere they played are rarer than hen's eggs, but realistically when you're picking an XI you're not selecting for once in a lifetime ability to bowl anywhere on this given rock with equal effectiveness.

If you could, you'd be the greatest selector in history. Just - as your selection of quicks points out - there's not an incredible chance of picking to do it.

 

[PhatBoy]

I think a quick who can do what the above players did everywhere they played are rarer than hen's eggs, but realistically when you're picking an XI you're not selecting for once in a lifetime ability to bowl anywhere on this given rock with equal effectiveness.

If you could, you'd be the greatest selector in history. Just - as your selection of quicks points out - there's not an incredible chance of picking to do it.

No that’s fair and I liked what you said in your appraisal of the original question.

 

[sydney_gws]

Hardest position in cricket is one of two things:

• no.3 batter at test level.
• specialist spinner.

A no.3 bat has to be able to do two things equally well and transition between them; they need to be able to leave and defend like an opener at 1 for none, blunt the bowling and the new ball; they need to be able to score fluently like a no.5 when they walk out to bat at 1-150, picking scoring zones and rotating the strike. And they need to be able to switch methods mid innings to whatever suits the moment best.

A specialist spinner is a much, much harder task than a top class quick. See, a top class quick has the right physique (height, build, fitness) and the right biomechanics will find putting the ball on that hankerchief fairly easy; to paraphrase Ian Pont (bloke who coached Darren Gough and Dale Steyn) if everything's going in the right direction biomechanically, you're more likely to be both accurate and fast instead of one or the other. You might have a slower ball or a bouncer, but both are a function of practice and minute variation.

A specialist spinner though, they need to be able to bowl 2-5 different balls. The bulk of your practice is on your stock ball, and you need to have natural shape and the right trajectory from the get go; this is something you're born with, and isn't something you get merely by dint of being tall or short or bowling a specific way. We can encourage bowlers to put more revs on the ball, we can get bowlers bowling faster or slower or loopier or flatter, but shape is different from all of it. You aim to bowl your best ball every time you bowl your stock ball.

Then, you've got to have a variation that does something different. Tell me, what does Nathan Lyon's Jeff ball do other than bounce a little more? Not much. Herath used to bowl a ball with a single finger on the seam which would curve back in at the batter's front pad and skid on; he bowled with a round arm action usually, but he bowled with an even rounder arm with his arm ball. And this ball's a risk; superficially, it's a ball at nigh half volley/low full toss length you've put a batter in a position to play badly instead of plaster for 4 or 6 through midwicket or long on. And unlike a quick, you don't have a bouncer to put pressure on the batter with dots if things are going badly.

Spinners have to play smarter and more skillfully, as well as have an innate talent for bowling and reading a batter's temperament.

A really good spinner can bowl about 30% of the overs, most influential test player since Bradman is probably Murali ( although peak Sobers, Botham, Imran, Hadlee are close).
So a spinning all rounder, like Peter Sleep, Hohns.

 

[Gethelred]

A really good spinner can bowl about 30% of the overs, most influential test player since Bradman is probably Murali ( although peak Sobers, Botham, Imran, Hadlee are close).
So a spinning all rounder, like Peter Sleep, Hohns.

Jadeja probably counts as well. Averages 50+ in India with the bat, below 20 with the ball to go with his career average and his fielding. Warne's runs were also tremendously valuable at different times; we essentially got a similar amount of runs out of him as we did Brad Haddin.

Could also probably throw in as a most valuable player a test caliber keeper who averages above 40. Sangakarra, Gilchrist are about the only two I can think of.

 

[happy_eagle]

Jadeja probably counts as well. Averages 50+ in India with the bat, below 20 with the ball to go with his career average and his fielding. Warne's runs were also tremendously valuable at different times; we essentially got a similar amount of runs out of him as we did Brad Haddin.

Could also probably throw in as a most valuable player a test caliber keeper who averages above 40. Sangakarra, Gilchrist are about the only two I can think of.

Perhaps no surprise then that we were as dominant as we were with a world class number 3 (Ponting), Wicket Keeper (Gilchrist) and Spinner (Warne).

Of those 3 would you still say that Warne added the most value to the team ?

 

[Gethelred]

Perhaps no surprise then that we were as dominant as we were with a world class number 3 (Ponting), Wicket Keeper (Gilchrist) and Spinner (Warne).

Of those 3 would you still say that Warne added the most value to the team ?

Probably. It's him or Gilly.

A bat who averages 60 for most of his career is an excellent thing to have at 3, much less a bat who had a strike rate like Pontings. But there's something to be said for a bloke who comes in at 7 averaging 50+ most of his career who isn't a specialist bat; when they were in trouble 5 down, you then have to stare down a bloke with a 50 average and an 80 strike rate; he'd take Australia from 5-180 to 300 in a session, and in trouble to competitive.

The value of Gilly is that he was both a pile on option when the team was 5-480 and needed quick runs as well as a bailout option if the side was struggling. It's why when Pant turned up people were looking at that Indian behemoth and wondering how in utter **** anyone was supposed to be able to beat it.

It should really go without saying how having the arguable best spinner in history also averaging a ****load more than his 17 average would suggest across his final 5 years is also pretty handy.

 

[PhatBoy]

Jadeja probably counts as well. Averages 50+ in India with the bat, below 20 with the ball to go with his career average and his fielding. Warne's runs were also tremendously valuable at different times; we essentially got a similar amount of runs out of him as we did Brad Haddin.

Could also probably throw in as a most valuable player a test caliber keeper who averages above 40. Sangakarra, Gilchrist are about the only two I can think of.

Gets forgotten that as a keeper, de Villiers averaged 57 with the bat

 

[The King!]

I think it just depends who your best players.

Great to have an awesome leggie, but they are rare.

Maybe if its just getting position based you need a good gloveman, or the bowlers are pushing shit uphill, the totals you chase are worse, fielders throws missed etc

 

[Trojan90]

Tough question, my instinct says #3 or spinner.

I think of the great teams in my time. Current Aussies, 2000’s Aussies, 2010 England, 2012ish Saffas, 2018ish India. They all had greats in multiple positions so hard to call from that.

 

[Trojan90]

As an activity I tried picking an even sub average AUS XI below with an option to replace 1 player for a legend:
Burns
Harris
S.Marsh
Voges
North
M.Marsh
Paine
Clark
Hilfenhaus
Bollinger
S.O’Keefe

Hayden, Ponting, Miller, Gilly, Warne, Cummins.

Who would add the most value to this side? I’d say Ponting. Mind you the fast bowlers above are fairly reliable.

Tough one!

 

[Gethelred]

As an activity I tried picking an even sub average AUS XI below with an option to replace 1 player for a legend:
Burns
Harris
S.Marsh
Voges
North
M.Marsh
Paine
Clark
Hilfenhaus
Bollinger
S.O’Keefe

Hayden, Ponting, Miller, Gilly, Warne, Cummins.

Who would add the most value to this side? I’d say Ponting. Mind you the fast bowlers above are fairly reliable.

Tough one!

Clark and O'Keefe take plenty of wickets between them, with Hilfenhaus and Doug the Rug being interesting points of difference. Marsh is also a handy addition. There's also a lot of runs in that middle order on a batting deck, and Harris - for all that his average is poor - has played some fighting knocks on some tricky decks.

Think this XI would surprise you. It's pretty well balanced. It's not going to beat Graham Smith's South Africa, Ponting's Australia, Kohli's India, but it'll win an awful lot of games of cricket.