Cricket 24/7

Cricket 24/7 (http://www.cricket247.org/community/index.php)
-   International Cricket (http://www.cricket247.org/community/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   All-rounders (http://www.cricket247.org/community/showthread.php?t=11226)

sweatysock 15th January 2011 01:46

All-rounders
 
wasnt sure what section this should be on, but there was a golden era in the 1980's where the likes of Kapil/ Imran/ Hadlee/Botham prevailed

These days there are plenty of people who could be defined as all-rounders in the one day game but not many in the test arena - my definition is someone who could score a 100 and take 5 wickets in an innings - and theyd have to do both at least 5 times in both and average around 30 in both disciplines

Kallis is clearly one - although in reality hes probably a batsman who happens to be able to bowl

Anyway any thoughts/ nominations

Baron Shakattak Greenback 15th January 2011 04:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweatysock (Post 461347)
wasnt sure what section this should be on, but there was a golden era in the 1980's where the likes of Kapil/ Imran/ Hadlee/Botham prevailed

These days there are plenty of people who could be defined as all-rounders in the one day game but not many in the test arena - my definition is someone who could score a 100 and take 5 wickets in an innings - and theyd have to do both at least 5 times in both and average around 30 in both disciplines

Kallis is clearly one - although in reality hes probably a batsman who happens to be able to bowl

Anyway any thoughts/ nominations

A dying breed, I think, particularly when you talk about the four above who were all quicks. With the amount of cricket played now, it's just not possible to be a fast-bowling all rounder without breaking down.

The all-rounder of the future will be a poor man's Kallis, either bowling medium-pace or spin, or perhaps a Broad who is a genuine bowler who can bat a bit. One suit will always be stronger, genuine all-rounders are a thing of the past, which is a tragedy because there's a certain magic, an aura about genuine fast-bowling all-rounders which gets bums on seats.

Specialist fielders and wicketkeeper-batsmen are the new all-rounders, in truth.

As for nominations, I think Vettori might be the closest thing to a genuine all-rounder in Test cricket today, or Shakib maybe.

Long Off 15th January 2011 06:47

Xavier Doherty. Couldn't bowl or bat.

Watson has a good record. If he can get a couple more years in, he would be Australias best allrounder (excluding Gilchrist) since...well....errr....um....wow it has been a while. I discount the twins, Doug Walters, Greg Chappell and Rod Marsh...since Alan Davidson/Richie Benaud

His form in ODIs and T20s would rank him not too poorly overall in Aussie cricket.

Pavan 15th January 2011 07:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Long Off (Post 461351)
Xavier Doherty. Couldn't bowl or bat.

Watson has a good record. If he can get a couple more years in, he would be Australias best allrounder (excluding Gilchrist) since...well....errr....um....wow it has been a while. I discount the twins, Doug Walters, Greg Chappell and Rod Marsh...since Alan Davidson/Richie Benaud

His form in ODIs and T20s would rank him not too poorly overall in Aussie cricket.

Watto's probably been Australia's most consistent bowler during the Ashes, kept things tight, and bowled a good line most of the time.

I'm affronted that Woakes hasn't been named yet as a Future Test Allrounder (FTA? or FETA?), after that thrilling 19 runs in 1 T20I.

Sir Virgs and Zamora 15th January 2011 07:52

Kallis is a bit more than a batsman who bowls given he has over 500 international wickets. For most of his career he has been third or fourth seamer but batter in the top four which none of those others you mentioned who were primarily bowlers who batter did.

Hadlee was only just an all rounder and I am sure broad averages as much if not more with the bat.

Vettori closest to those bowlers who bat today.

Greatbatch 15th January 2011 08:21

I think Tim Southee has the potential to be a genuine test all rounder. Obviously he needs to improve his batting and become more consistent but he is already a very handy lower order batsman that can play shots all around the ground.

Pavan 15th January 2011 08:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greatbatch (Post 461357)
I think Tim Southee has the potential to be a genuine test all rounder. Obviously he needs to improve his batting and become more consistent but he is already a very handy lower order batsman that can play shots all around the ground.

I agree. He played really well under pressure too, building the innings with Williamson (I'm a fan of both, I really like Kane so far, too bad the NZ team is ****).

Chin Music 15th January 2011 10:13

Of today's players Watson is the closest to being an all-rounder but his test match bowling doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny. He managed to take a couple of 5 fers v Pakistan but his record is very ordinary outside that. Closer to being a high class all-rounder is Shakib, averages low 30's with bat and ball in tests and also has a good ODI/T20 record. Kolkata Knight Riders have done a fine job in getting him to cross into West Bengal for the tournament.

Kallis was a good bowler early in his career. One of the ironic things about his bowling was that he had a fine record in England with the ball, not so good with the bat, but was very much the reverse in SA whereas he is monstrous with the bat against England but poor with the ball.

sweatysock 15th January 2011 10:26

what about Matthews - he seems to have some idea and Bravo?

Chin Music 15th January 2011 10:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweatysock (Post 461362)
what about Matthews - he seems to have some idea and Bravo?

Mathews has some way to go as a bowler (certainly in tests) and Dwayne Bravo is more and ODI all rounder than test match one.

Going back to Watson another problem he has is that he barely bowls enough overs in test matches. That will be down to all those injuries over the years. I can't see that getting much better, strictly a 10 over per day man. If you see the cricinfo records you'll notice his bowling average is 37 at home and in the mid 40's away. It's only when you get to see the 'neutral' tests he played v Pakistan where he gets his average down into the highly respectable low 30's. A respectable 4th seamer for me, nothing more though.

Kim 15th January 2011 10:50

Woakes is our next proper allrounder.

Minor Maggie 15th January 2011 10:54

Hasn't Singh scored a test ton?

Huda 15th January 2011 11:03

He has, 2 in fact, i wouldn't class him as an allrounder though.

ddb 15th January 2011 11:50

Jadeja and Yusuf Pathan.

sanskritsimon 15th January 2011 11:56

Franklin must be in the mix ... used to be a specialist bowler but now bats in the top 6.

geoff_boycotts_grandmother 15th January 2011 13:20

Grant Elliott:roll:

All-rounders are more likely to be found in the weaker cricketing countries as it's a lower threshold for their primary skill.

The relentless schedule also works against quicks, meaning that spinners are more likely to be all-rounders (Vettori, Shakib) which fits in well with Sir Duncan's theories of the role of orthodox finger spin.

Josh 15th January 2011 13:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kim (Post 461373)
Woakes is our next proper allrounder.

He's also the model for the closest we're going to get to all-rounders now they play so much cricket. Frontline bowlers who can make runs at 8, at a pinch 7. Also Broad, Southee as mentioned, Johnson etc.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Minor Maggie (Post 461375)
Hasn't Singh scored a test ton?

Yes but so did Ajit Agarkar.

sanskritsimon 15th January 2011 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother (Post 461400)
The relentless schedule also works against quicks, meaning that spinners are more likely to be all-rounders (Vettori, Shakib) which fits in well with Sir Duncan's theories of the role of orthodox finger spin.

I'm not sure that the schedule mitigates against first-choice quick bowlers also being very good at batting. But if such bowlers are liable to be absent from time to time because of injury or exhaustion, then I suppose the point is that it's perilous to build one's team structure around them. So the pressure on spinners to bat well would follow from the fact that they are less likely to break down, not from any notion of how worthwhile or effective their type of bowling is while they are fit.

Michelle Fivefer 15th January 2011 13:51

I've never understood why wicketkeeper batsmen weren't considered all-rounders. I suppose these days they wouldn't get in the side if they couldn't bat so they don't count. I recall once trying to vote for Alec Stewart as my all-rounder of the year in a WCM poll and being disallowed.

sweatysock 15th January 2011 13:55

I still think Luke Wright could become one - he is at county level - all he needs to do is improve his batting and his bowling!


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:56.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org