CMS Test XI of last 50 Years- Number 6.

[braveneutral]

Might just need it shuffle it around and see if any gain traction.

[braveneutral]

I already voted...

[Arthur Crabtree]

Gotcha...

[braveneutral]

I know right!

[Arthur Crabtree]

Unexpected, but heartwarming.

[sussexpob]

In a normal side, someone who averages mid thirties batting at six is absolutely fine, because at any one time, the sixth best batter available won't be better than that

How many great sides, and I mean sides who could legitimately call themselves the best, had that batting quality gap at 6?

The Australian teams that dominated most recently always had very strong players down there, in fact Australia had no real all rounders at their best. The Windies team that dominated, most of the time Clive Lloyd was down at 6, and I certainly dont know of any allrounders they had. England hit number one in the world after Freddie retired and Collingwood took over at 6. India lost their top spot in the late 2000's after Ganguly retired playing the 6. South Africa never had an allrounder that batted in the six slot. Kallis was more a batsman who could bowl, in fact I would probably guess by 2002 or 2003, when it was clear they had a pretty unique batting talent emerging and not merely a good player, his bowling career started to become less relevant, and by the end of his career when as a team South Africa were at their best, it was almost non-existent in the last 5 odd years. And the last time South Africa were a great team, ABDV was batting in that 6 slot and not keeping.

I think great teams often seperate from good ones on the skill of their number 6. None of the greatest allrounders really played in great teams, or not consistent ones. Kallis is the only one that could really be considered to play in the best team in the world at any given time, but by the stage the team got there, he was basically a part time bowler batting at 4.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Didn't Colly average 40? When he went, Morgan came in, and then the revolving door was installed. West Indies with Gus Logie, Collis King and Keith Arthurton had that kind of drop off. For India with the fab four, their weakness was Sehwag's partner, except for a brief run of good form by Gambhir. With Pakistan at the moment, it's Hafiz's partner. Not saying there haven't been good sixth batters, but it's pretty rare, even for the best.

[Gingerfinch]

Neither the West Indies or Australia had a good all-rounder to call on. If they had, they would have been in like a shot. The West Indies didn't have a decent spinner yet dominated like no other. Not having a decent all-rounder but being the best sounds like a coincidence to me.

[Arthur Crabtree]

SA can only very briefly have had six quality batters. Theirs is a roll call of thirties averaging batters. Dippenaar, van Jaarsveldt, Hudson, Bacher, McKenzie...

[Gingerfinch]

This batting line up with Gilchrist at seven doesn't really need a grinder at six, well not for me. That's not doing S Waugh any disservice. I loved his fighting qualities. That said, I'd even have Border ahead of him, by a smidgen.

[sussexpob]

Not having a decent all-rounder but being the best sounds like a coincidence to me.

But a co-incidence that seems to play out a lot? I think its entirely plausible to me. If you have 4 bowlers or 6 batsman that justify their selection as specialists, you dont need an allrounder. All rounders are far more attractive to worse teams. Why do you think England produced and tried out so many of them in the 90's?

Why would Australia have dropped Damien Martyn, who averaged in the high fourties down the middle order, and take someone with 15-20 runs less per innings simply because he can bowl a bit more? In fact, in the late 90's just before they became awesome, they dropped a player with an average of about 30 and bowling average of 24 (Bevan) who was playing at 6. They become a better team straight after.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Border was my number five. Maybe he should be my six seeing as he didn't get in.

I had a post about number sixes on 606, and at that point, returns were pretty meagre through history. There have been a couple of decent ones since then, with Bell and Asad Shafiq. But a player makes way, and they move up and a lesser player comes in. If there is a surplus of great batters around at any one time, maybe that just happens to era dominant sides.

[Gingerfinch]

Bevan was dropped because his batting was not up to it. He was never an all-rounder anyway.

Pakistan were arguably the 2nd best team of the 80's, who relied on the all-round contribution of Imran. With a good number six, they'd have been poor. I still stand by that any team would want a top class all-rounder coming in at six. Imagine the west indies with Imran at six, and not having say Eldine Baptiste or Logie in their side? No brainer comes to mind.

[sussexpob]

Bevan was dropped because his batting was not up to it. He was never an all-rounder anyway

Has more wickets per innings than Kallis, and half the strike rate of Sobers. If the allrounder is so wanted, then why would a team drop a guy at six who is averaging 30 with the bat, and who is taking wickets at an average of 24? You cant ask much more of an allrounder than to maintain those types of figures, only a handful of players in history can compare. Kapil Dev is generally noted as one of the best allrounders ever, had a similar bat average, much higher bowling average! He is also probably the closest Australia got to an allrounder in a decade or more.

Ok, his bowling may have ceased to be useful over time but you can only judge on what occured and that was he took wickets at a SR of 44 and very cheaply, he had capability with the bat.... he was also the best ODI batsman of his time, and was breaking Sheffield Shield records, so his batting could have also taken off immensely.

[Gingerfinch]

C'mon Sussex, you and I know Bevan was an average test player, despite that stat. I'm standing with Imran over Border, Waugh, Laxman. Over Sobers? Not sure, as Sobers was a great bat, and offered variety with his bowling.