Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 17th August 2018, 10:40   #81
Summer of '77
Legendary
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 9,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
Pushing it with Currant and Roland-Jones to fit his hypothesis.
The 'all rounder' term has always been contentious. Re the definition 'good enough to merit a place in either discipline', it's difficult to think of many players who have simultaneously been one of their country's best six batsmen and best five bowlers.
Summer of '77 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2018, 11:26   #82
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer of '77 View Post
The 'all rounder' term has always been contentious. Re the definition 'good enough to merit a place in either discipline', it's difficult to think of many players who have simultaneously been one of their country's best six batsmen and best five bowlers.
Probably only the likes of Keith Miller and Sobers would have truly hit that criteria and even the latter is questionable, although West Indies didn't have that much bowling depth in his era.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2018, 11:44   #83
Summer of '77
Legendary
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 9,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Probably only the likes of Keith Miller and Sobers would have truly hit that criteria and even the latter is questionable, although West Indies didn't have that much bowling depth in his era.
They're the two I'd pick, with possibly Beefy in his brief pre-captaincy pomp.

There was a period in the mid-Sixties when Sobers was ripping up trees with both bat and ball. His versatility with the ball might have gained him a place purely as a bowler, along with his prodigious ability (often overlooked) to play workhorse, giving those big men Hall & Griffith plenty of rest time.

Aubrey Faulkner too. One of the leading batsmen in world cricket just prior to the Great War and a leg-spinner of genuine quality. Scored 545 runs and bagged 29 wickets in SA's home series against England in 1909/10.
Summer of '77 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2018, 11:54   #84
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Probably only the likes of Keith Miller and Sobers would have truly hit that criteria and even the latter is questionable, although West Indies didn't have that much bowling depth in his era.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer of '77 View Post
They're the two I'd pick, with possibly Beefy in his brief pre-captaincy pomp.

There was a period in the mid-Sixties when Sobers was ripping up trees with both bat and ball. His versatility with the ball might have gained him a place purely as a bowler, along with his prodigious ability (often overlooked) to play workhorse, giving those big men Hall & Griffith plenty of rest time.

Aubrey Faulkner too. One of the leading batsmen in world cricket just prior to the Great War and a leg-spinner of genuine quality. Scored 545 runs and bagged 29 wickets in SA's home series against England in 1909/10.
One also has to reflect on the quality of the alternatives around at the time as well. Although not in the same class as Miller and Sobers, Stokes and Woakes are both among England's best options with bat and ball! Flintoff probably managed it in for about 18 months, until he knackered himself at Lord's against Sri Lanka in 2006.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2018, 12:00   #85
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Probably only the likes of Keith Miller and Sobers would have truly hit that criteria and even the latter is questionable, although West Indies didn't have that much bowling depth in his era.
How does Stokes not qualify today?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2018, 12:04   #86
Summer of '77
Legendary
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 9,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
One also has to reflect on the quality of the alternatives around at the time as well. Although not in the same class as Miller and Sobers, Stokes and Woakes are both among England's best options with bat and ball! Flintoff probably managed it in for about 18 months, until he knackered himself at Lord's against Sri Lanka in 2006.
For sure, which is another reason why the definition can be so contentious. It could be reasonable to conclude that a chap batting at 6 and averaging 37 with a fifty every other Test and a hundred every other series is 'meriting' his place. After all, plenty of specialist batters have nailed down lengthy Test careers with such performances. However, if batsmen 1 to 5 are all averaging 45+ with more regular fifties and hundreds, is the number 6 still meriting his slot - especially if there are one or two chaps outside the team who chalked up superior marks before losing form?

I mean, it doesn't really matter what our definition is. I just get irked at the 'both disciplines' term when pundits apply it lazily (as was happening during the last Test)
Summer of '77 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2018, 12:12   #87
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
How does Stokes not qualify today?
Not sure he is an automatic choice as a bowler if he was say only a no.9 batsman and not sure he would be an automatic choice as a batsman if he didn't have bowl also.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2018, 12:27   #88
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Not sure he is an automatic choice as a bowler if he was say only a no.9 batsman and not sure he would be an automatic choice as a batsman if he didn't have bowl also.
Wow. I think heís an automatic selection as bowler. Heís the only one who can make things happen when things are a bit flat. The only issue as a bowler is durability but if fit how can you leave him out as a bowler? Was the 1st test v India that long ago?

His place as a batsman is more by default.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2018, 12:32   #89
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
Wow. I think heís an automatic selection as bowler. Heís the only one who can make things happen when things are a bit flat. The only issue as a bowler is durability but if fit how can you leave him out as a bowler? Was the 1st test v India that long ago?

His place as a batsman is more by default.
No, its not long ago but I still think he would be a borderline call as a bowler on his own. I take your point he is a superior option away form home but overall he's hardly been that consistent. There are times when he appears to bowl low 80s and hardly seems that threatening. He doesn't turn it on quite enough for me.
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2018, 13:37   #90
Summer of '77
Legendary
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 9,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
No, its not long ago but I still think he would be a borderline call as a bowler on his own. I take your point he is a superior option away form home but overall he's hardly been that consistent. There are times when he appears to bowl low 80s and hardly seems that threatening. He doesn't turn it on quite enough for me.
I tend to veer towards this opinion too. Although, it might be argued that with the relatively modern trend of playing four seamers, Stokes fulfils the fourth slot pretty well. When considering all-rounders, I often look to change the structure of the sides they play in. If England were to play a series with just three seamers, could Stokes hold down that role? It might mean him putting in perhaps the largest workload of the seamers, keeping it tight whilst remaining a wicket-taking threat. Equally, if Woakes could bat but not bowl, would he be able to cut the mustard as, say, a specialist no.4 bat? If a player is said to merit a place in either discipline, that must surely mean anywhere in the order that such a discipline performs, not merely on the fringes of that discipline in a less demanding slot. A world apart, I know, but there were times in my club career when our team would be full of bowlers but light on batting; I'd sometimes be pushed up the order to bat 3 or 4 and I enjoyed nothing like the 'success' I had at 7 or 8 as it's a profoundly different mindset with which I struggled to cope.
Summer of '77 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2018, 13:38   #91
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
No, its not long ago but I still think he would be a borderline call as a bowler on his own. I take your point he is a superior option away form home but overall he's hardly been that consistent. There are times when he appears to bowl low 80s and hardly seems that threatening. He doesn't turn it on quite enough for me.
England play 4 seamers, and he is one of the best 4 test seamers in England. Of those tried in recent years, Woakes and TRJ might be better in England but not overall.

Batting is more be default as pointed out by gbg.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2018, 13:47   #92
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Probably only the likes of Keith Miller and Sobers would have truly hit that criteria and even the latter is questionable, although West Indies didn't have that much bowling depth in his era.
batting and bowling to the same levels probably makes for a "complete" all-rounder, doesn't mean someone who is less proficient in one over the other isn't an all-rounder

And there is the chance that use of a player in one over the other affects the other, for example excessively bowling Flintoff although his career 5wis were somewhat disappointing. But if you're batting down the order a bit, or bowling less often because of a quality bowling attack then it will affect you

That doesn't mean though that if Woakes say batted #5 or #6 he'd make lots of hundreds, that 137no may simply have been a case of everything just clicking into place which may not happen again for some time.

You have to wonder if Hick in the past, and Root currently, mightn't have become all-rounders if bowled when the pitch was taking spin rather than odd overs here and there, or plenty when nothing was happening.

Hick averaged 37.34 with bat and 34.20 with ball in ODIs, that in spite of facing four times as many balls as he bowled and on average bowling only 10 balls per ODI played

Could Hick have played as a spinner only? Possibly but unlikely given someone would always have wanted to use his batting potential, and therein is the point. The make-up of the side might often influence how much of someone's all-round potential is tapped into. Root has already bowled more ODI overs than Hick, although not entirely sure why (so many overs) given a nothing special record
Rebelstar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2018, 14:02   #93
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 21,905
In recent times moeen was certainly considered a proper all rounder. He opened the batting and the mythical bowler people pretended existed actually didn't.

In the modern era kallis would have got in on bowling alone. The big caveat to this is that he was by far the best batsman in his side so they didn't risk over bowling him and used others if they could avoid risking their prized asset. The last few years of his career he was less of a bowler but he was getting close to 40 so that is hardly a shock. In his pomp he was a devasting 90 mph bowler but his usual was effective swing bowling at 84-85.

Some people ignore how good his bowling goal was because of his average but then they overlook when he bowled (for the reasons above). He was a bit reluctant due to his batting so all the others bowled with the newer ball but then he bowled when the others needed a rest.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2018, 14:13   #94
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,812
Kallis would, and did, get into the side on his bowling very early in his career but that wouldn't have been the case from the turn of the millennium onwards.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2018, 10:33   #95
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,503
There was some hope that he was (ie opening with him, which was an unequivocal failure) the very definition of the bits and pieces all rounder from 2016 onwards though - not consistent enough with either discipline but kept in because he was useful with one or the other fairly often (although I think this has potentially held England back)
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2018, 11:59   #96
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 9,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer of '77 View Post
They're the two I'd pick, with possibly Beefy in his brief pre-captaincy pomp.

There was a period in the mid-Sixties when Sobers was ripping up trees with both bat and ball. His versatility with the ball might have gained him a place purely as a bowler, along with his prodigious ability (often overlooked) to play workhorse, giving those big men Hall & Griffith plenty of rest time.

Aubrey Faulkner too. One of the leading batsmen in world cricket just prior to the Great War and a leg-spinner of genuine quality. Scored 545 runs and bagged 29 wickets in SA's home series against England in 1909/10.
I'd say Kallis, for a good few years, could have been picked for either his batting or bowling.

Not sure about Botham. He had much of his success in the Packer era when many of the world's best cricketers were not playing test cricket.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2018, 12:01   #97
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 9,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
In recent times moeen was certainly considered a proper all rounder. ...
Not by those who consider the term to mean a player who would be selected for either his batting or bowling.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th August 2018, 18:40   #98
Summer of '77
Legendary
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 9,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
I'd say Kallis, for a good few years, could have been picked for either his batting or bowling.

Not sure about Botham. He had much of his success in the Packer era when many of the world's best cricketers were not playing test cricket.
We've been here before. Only 9 of his first 25 Tests were affected by WSC absences in the opposition.
Summer of '77 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th August 2018, 00:49   #99
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer of '77 View Post
We've been here before. Only 9 of his first 25 Tests were affected by WSC absences in the opposition.
Thereís really no need to trouble anyone with the facts when we can instead just rely on DLís infallible prejudices (cf. lucky Stuart Broad, who happens to be the England bowler with most catches dropped).

Botham was outrageously good early career and certainly was in Englandís top 6 batsmen, as well as top 1 bowlers. His overall career was rather a big disappointment, by those lights.

Kallis wasnít a huge early batting success, I donít think and was genuinely quick. Again, youíre talking a proportion of career though, not the whole thing. Shakib might be the only guy to meet the criteria on career record.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th August 2018, 14:14   #100
D/L
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 9,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer of '77 View Post
We've been here before. Only 9 of his first 25 Tests were affected by WSC absences in the opposition.
Indeed we have. Almost two full series worth of playing against very much weakened opposition is certainly not insignificant.

Add to this, of course, the unsettling effect of players returning to those teams most affected by WSC.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:24.



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