ALLROUNDERS
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:40 pmwe dont need em...
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:40 pmPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:48 pmMore the merrier, more runs off their bowling, more wickets when they bat... it makes the game more exciting you are just looking at it the wrong way!
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:54 pmAust cricket has dominated all these years without a specialist all rounder, we lose one series against a side who had an all rounder who had a strong series, suddenly it becomes a focus item for the Australian selectors
Multi skilling is dead, go for people with specific skill sets, not jack of all trades who are masters of none
Multi skilling is dead, go for people with specific skill sets, not jack of all trades who are masters of none
Re: ALLROUNDERS
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:25 pmRedandblack00 wrote:What is it with selectors all over the nation giving blokes a free ride who are classed as ALLROUNDERS...
SHANE WATSON - Cant bat or bowl
RYAN HARRIS - Cant bat or bowl
JON MOSS - Cant bat or bowl
Is that why they are all rounders? cause they cant do anything?
It really shits me to tears
FFS!!!
To be fair to those guys if one of their skills was up to scratch the other skill would be handy. For instance if Watson was a much better batsman than he is his bowling would be quite useful. If he could play as a specialist in one of the 2 fields he would be OK but if he couldn't bowl he'd never get picked as a batsman alone and if he couldn't bat he wouldn't get picked as a bowler alone. Why bother picking a guy who isn't up to it with either of his skills?
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:28 amThis has always been my argument about so-called "allrounders". You get a guy who can bat a little and bowl a little, and he is labelled an allrounder. Neither skill would be good enough to make the team on their own, but for some strange reason Aussie cricket seems to think we need one.
Of the great allrounders, they have always excelled in one skill and been average in the other. Even the great Gary Sobers was a great batsman, but his bowling record, although good, is nothing outstanding. Most allrounders are bowlers (Botham, Imran, Kapil, etc) who have average records as Test batsmen.
To me, to be classified a genuine allrounder, a player must be able to bat in the top 6 and make centuries regularly, as well as being a front line bowler. It always amuses me when you see a bowler suddenly making a few scores over 30 with the bat, people start calling him an allrounder. You are joking.
I'm not sure how you can classify Ryan Harris as an allrounder when he bats at 9. It also amuses me when people rate Richard Hadlee as an allrounder. Sure, every now and then he could make some runs, but he spent most of his career batting 8 and 9.
The really strange thing is how people keep saying you need a genuine allrounder to be a good side. Just about every country has a so-called "allrounder" but Australia does not, and they have dominated the game for the past 10 years. In the West Indies reign as world champions, who was their allrounder? Nobody. They had 6 batsmen, a wicketkepper who could bat a bit, and 4 fast bowlers. Great teams don't need allrounders, average teams do.
Of the great allrounders, they have always excelled in one skill and been average in the other. Even the great Gary Sobers was a great batsman, but his bowling record, although good, is nothing outstanding. Most allrounders are bowlers (Botham, Imran, Kapil, etc) who have average records as Test batsmen.
To me, to be classified a genuine allrounder, a player must be able to bat in the top 6 and make centuries regularly, as well as being a front line bowler. It always amuses me when you see a bowler suddenly making a few scores over 30 with the bat, people start calling him an allrounder. You are joking.
I'm not sure how you can classify Ryan Harris as an allrounder when he bats at 9. It also amuses me when people rate Richard Hadlee as an allrounder. Sure, every now and then he could make some runs, but he spent most of his career batting 8 and 9.
The really strange thing is how people keep saying you need a genuine allrounder to be a good side. Just about every country has a so-called "allrounder" but Australia does not, and they have dominated the game for the past 10 years. In the West Indies reign as world champions, who was their allrounder? Nobody. They had 6 batsmen, a wicketkepper who could bat a bit, and 4 fast bowlers. Great teams don't need allrounders, average teams do.
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:39 amAdelaide Hawk
Best cricket post all season
Best cricket post all season
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:45 amAdelaide Hawk wrote:This has always been my argument about so-called "allrounders". You get a guy who can bat a little and bowl a little, and he is labelled an allrounder. Neither skill would be good enough to make the team on their own, but for some strange reason Aussie cricket seems to think we need one.
Of the great allrounders, they have always excelled in one skill and been average in the other. Even the great Gary Sobers was a great batsman, but his bowling record, although good, is nothing outstanding. Most allrounders are bowlers (Botham, Imran, Kapil, etc) who have average records as Test batsmen.
To me, to be classified a genuine allrounder, a player must be able to bat in the top 6 and make centuries regularly, as well as being a front line bowler. It always amuses me when you see a bowler suddenly making a few scores over 30 with the bat, people start calling him an allrounder. You are joking.
I'm not sure how you can classify Ryan Harris as an allrounder when he bats at 9. It also amuses me when people rate Richard Hadlee as an allrounder. Sure, every now and then he could make some runs, but he spent most of his career batting 8 and 9.
The really strange thing is how people keep saying you need a genuine allrounder to be a good side. Just about every country has a so-called "allrounder" but Australia does not, and they have dominated the game for the past 10 years. In the West Indies reign as world champions, who was their allrounder? Nobody. They had 6 batsmen, a wicketkepper who could bat a bit, and 4 fast bowlers. Great teams don't need allrounders, average teams do.
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:16 pmAH
You have mirrored by thoughts on the definitions of allrounders.
I have repeatedly said on this site that people expect far too
much from the allrounder.
I get tired of reading are they good enough to be in a side if thay only had one skill.
Hopefully those people have read your post.
#######################################################
Now the facts
ALLROUNDERS are non existant [according to some people on this site]
Has there EVER been an allrounder who averages 50 with bat + 25 with the ball
########################################################
MALS DEFINITION OF AN ALLROUNDER at test level
-----------------------------------------------------------
Excels in one of the skills and is adequate in the other skill.
I have never seen one that bats like Ponting and bowls like Mcgrath
WI
AH as for the great WI side not needing one SPOT ON
THE 6 BATSMAN WERE AWESOME
THE 4 BOWLERS WERE UNPLAYABLE
They were a freak side and its a trifle unfair to always use them as a measuring stick
I can bring in the BOTHAM factor and boy that EG team needed him to beat AU
Basically AH + MAL agree on Allrounders at test level
BUT
O/D cricket is different cricket and teams attempt to put in allrounders.
I call them bits + pieces players
Some excel some do a job.
EXAMPLES:
Symonds excelsas a batsman + bowls ok
Watson has done a reasonable jpb as a batsman, and very well bowling
White disapoints UNDER PRESSURE so far is a fair batsman and inadequate bowler
Clarke bats very well, bowls ordinary stuff
Lee bowls brilliantly and fair at best as a batsman
IN o/d games if you have blokes who take 2/45 off 10 overs + hit 25 off 30 balls
thats good for allrounders.
Scores average out at about 250 a team, those contribitions are good returns.
Good batsmen ave 35-40 batting
Good bowlers ave 25-30 bowling
If you have guys that ave 30 with bat and ball..........
You have mirrored by thoughts on the definitions of allrounders.
I have repeatedly said on this site that people expect far too
much from the allrounder.
I get tired of reading are they good enough to be in a side if thay only had one skill.
Hopefully those people have read your post.
#######################################################
Now the facts
ALLROUNDERS are non existant [according to some people on this site]
Has there EVER been an allrounder who averages 50 with bat + 25 with the ball
########################################################
MALS DEFINITION OF AN ALLROUNDER at test level
-----------------------------------------------------------
Excels in one of the skills and is adequate in the other skill.
I have never seen one that bats like Ponting and bowls like Mcgrath
WI
AH as for the great WI side not needing one SPOT ON
THE 6 BATSMAN WERE AWESOME
THE 4 BOWLERS WERE UNPLAYABLE
They were a freak side and its a trifle unfair to always use them as a measuring stick
I can bring in the BOTHAM factor and boy that EG team needed him to beat AU
Basically AH + MAL agree on Allrounders at test level
BUT
O/D cricket is different cricket and teams attempt to put in allrounders.
I call them bits + pieces players
Some excel some do a job.
EXAMPLES:
Symonds excelsas a batsman + bowls ok
Watson has done a reasonable jpb as a batsman, and very well bowling
White disapoints UNDER PRESSURE so far is a fair batsman and inadequate bowler
Clarke bats very well, bowls ordinary stuff
Lee bowls brilliantly and fair at best as a batsman
IN o/d games if you have blokes who take 2/45 off 10 overs + hit 25 off 30 balls
thats good for allrounders.
Scores average out at about 250 a team, those contribitions are good returns.
Good batsmen ave 35-40 batting
Good bowlers ave 25-30 bowling
If you have guys that ave 30 with bat and ball..........
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:46 pmMal
not many players average 50 with the bat or 25 with the ball, fall stop, so lets be realistic and compare apples with apples
what many of us are saying, there is more value playing specialist players rather then all rounders, this is a proven winning formula
not many players average 50 with the bat or 25 with the ball, fall stop, so lets be realistic and compare apples with apples
what many of us are saying, there is more value playing specialist players rather then all rounders, this is a proven winning formula
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:46 pmMal
not many players average 50 with the bat or 25 with the ball, fall stop, so lets be realistic and compare apples with apples
what many of us are saying, there is more value playing specialist players rather then all rounders, this is a proven winning formula
not many players average 50 with the bat or 25 with the ball, fall stop, so lets be realistic and compare apples with apples
what many of us are saying, there is more value playing specialist players rather then all rounders, this is a proven winning formula
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:46 pmMal
not many players average 50 with the bat or 25 with the ball, fall stop, so lets be realistic and compare apples with apples
what many of us are saying, there is more value playing specialist players rather then all rounders, this is a proven winning formula
not many players average 50 with the bat or 25 with the ball, fall stop, so lets be realistic and compare apples with apples
what many of us are saying, there is more value playing specialist players rather then all rounders, this is a proven winning formula
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:13 pmCan we have a cricket mod or site admin to the cricket forum, cricket mod or site admin to the cricket forum please......
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:14 amwhats Jacques Kallis record?
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:03 pmmighty_tiger_79 wrote:whats Jacques Kallis record?
KALLIS would be the best credentialled closest thing to a complete allrounder.
He averages about 55 with the bat
I guess he averages about 35 with the ball.
He allows a lot of flexibility to the SA team.
I know its different eras etc etc but they are SOBERSesque statistics.
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:57 pmKallis 55 with bat, 31 with ball.
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:59 pmSOTTERS wrote:Kallis 55 with bat, 31 with ball.
There we are we have found a real allrounder.
Best ever looking ar that those stats.
WELL SPOtted mt79
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:41 pmyep, outstanding stats by Kallis
Gilchrist and Sangakarra would have to be classed as genuine allrounders, they both average 50 or close to it as well as being their teams keepers
as for bowlers who could be classed as allrounders, you have Pollock and Vettori, both have scored a couple of test centuries with Pollock averaging over 30 and Vettori averaging about 25
Gilchrist and Sangakarra would have to be classed as genuine allrounders, they both average 50 or close to it as well as being their teams keepers
as for bowlers who could be classed as allrounders, you have Pollock and Vettori, both have scored a couple of test centuries with Pollock averaging over 30 and Vettori averaging about 25
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:42 pmEG beat AU 2-0 in the o/d series
The EG allrounders were better than the Australian allrounders.
Allrounders are a necessity in o/d games
At test level refer to what AH correctly posted.
The EG allrounders were better than the Australian allrounders.
Allrounders are a necessity in o/d games
At test level refer to what AH correctly posted.
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:00 pmKeith Miller
2958 runs in 55 Tests (7 hundreds) - average 36.97
170 Test wickets at 22.97
I'd suggest he's a true all rounder.
2958 runs in 55 Tests (7 hundreds) - average 36.97
170 Test wickets at 22.97
I'd suggest he's a true all rounder.
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:02 pmAdelaide Hawk wrote:In the West Indies reign as world champions, who was their allrounder? Nobody.
You don't rate Collis King?
