Comparison of great specialist cricketers with great all-rounders

[Norman]

Does the OP work at the survey of India ? 

 

Always doing these polls. 

[sandeep]

3 hours ago, Khota said:

Sorry but they don't. It is just not physically possible to be an allrounder.

I always give the exapmple of Baseball. Long time ago they had players who could pitch and bat but as the sport has evolved they have found out that one guy cannot perform two roles. It is just not possible to do it.

There would always be a statistical anamoly here and there but trend is not in their favor.

 

Regardless of what one thinks of allrounders in cricket, comparing it to baseball is a massive own goal.  As if, American sports is somehow the benchmark to judge other sports by.  For instance, If the Americans were so smart, it wouldn't have taken 50 years for them to "evolve" basketball tactics to heavily use the 3 pointer.   Besides, all-around athletes choose to pursue specific skills and roles in US Sports based on the financial prospects, and they have a plethora of choices to pick from.  

Edited October 16, 2019 by sandeep

[sandeep]

The entire thread is based on a flawed hypothetical to  begin with - if you had a "great" allrounder - assuming he was good enough in one skill to be comparable to a "great" specialist, then obviously you'd pick him for the bonus of his secondary skill, which would make the team stronger by potentially freeing up a slot, or at a minimum, reducing the workload/responsibility on the specialist unit. 

 

Its when you have a flawed allrounder, and a decent specialist, that's when the choice gets messy.

[Khota]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

Regardless of what one thinks of allrounders in cricket, comparing it to baseball is a massive own goal.  As if, American sports is somehow the benchmark to judge other sports by.  For instance, If the Americans were so smart, it wouldn't have taken 50 years for them to "evolve" basketball tactics to heavily use the 3 pointer.   Besides, all-around athletes choose to pursue specific skills and roles in US Sports based on the financial prospects, and they have a plethora of choices to pick from.  

Never said it is the benchmark but similarities are there that cannot be ignored.

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, maniac said:

Maybe I don't subscribe to @Khota 's  extreme sentiment that allrounders don't exist but I have said multiple times in my arguments with @sandeep and @Ankit_sharma03 that there is nothing called a specialist allrounder. The d commonly used term for a specialist allrounder is "bits and pieces"

 

However there have great batsmen who were very good with the ball Kallis,Sobers etc or to a lesser extent Jayasuriya,Yuvraj and co in the LOI format and great bowlers who were more than handy with the bat like Kapil,Imran,Botham etc..

 

Now this thread topic is not as cut and dry as it seems. If I have an option between  Sachin or Kallis to fill a batting slot I am always going to pick Sachin. A player who is blessed with the other facet of the game is a bonus not the requirement. 

Your argument is valid except in the case of Sobers. With Sobers what you had, is a genuine world beater #1 batsman of his era, in the same league as Viv- Sunny, Sachin-Lara or Kohli-Smith. Kallis was a tier below in his own time, because unlike the ones named above, he was more of a Miandad-Border category batsman: ordinary but not great vs excellent bowling attack, undefeatable against average bowling attacks. Furthermore, Sobers was a more instrumental bowler than Kallis, simply because Sobers often satisfied the role of a third/fourth bowler and not just a fifth bowler. Several people have mentioned in the past, from watching Sobers, that his fast medium left arm bowling was significantly better than his slow left arm orthodox, which he mainly resorted to from being over bowled. And lastly, he was a Warne-MEW level slip fielder and a legendary leg slip, behind our leg slip freak Ekki. 

 

So so you basically have a batsman of Lara caliber, bowler of Siddle/Cairns + Moeen caliber and a catcher of Dravid caliber. Will this person outrank a Marshall, Murali, Warne, McGrath, Sachin, Lara, etc. as first name down ? Easily.

 

But then again, there is a reason why this man retired nearly 50 years ago and nobody has come close to being considered his equal in all round ability. 

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, Khota said:

Never said it is the benchmark but similarities are there that cannot be ignored.

It can be, because baseball is far more skills and less tactically oriented than cricket. In baseballs, pitchers don’t strike home runs. In cricket, tailenders have scored tons far more frequently. 

[maniac]

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Your argument is valid except in the case of Sobers. With Sobers what you had, is a genuine world beater #1 batsman of his era, in the same league as Viv- Sunny, Sachin-Lara or Kohli-Smith. Kallis was a tier below in his own time, because unlike the ones named above, he was more of a Miandad-Border category batsman: ordinary but not great vs excellent bowling attack, undefeatable against average bowling attacks. Furthermore, Sobers was a more instrumental bowler than Kallis, simply because Sobers often satisfied the role of a third/fourth bowler and not just a fifth bowler. Several people have mentioned in the past, from watching Sobers, that his fast medium left arm bowling was significantly better than his slow left arm orthodox, which he mainly resorted to from being over bowled. And lastly, he was a Warne-MEW level slip fielder and a legendary leg slip, behind our leg slip freak Ekki. 

 

So so you basically have a batsman of Lara caliber, bowler of Siddle/Cairns + Moeen caliber and a catcher of Dravid caliber. Will this person outrank a Marshall, Murali, Warne, McGrath, Sachin, Lara, etc. as first name down ? Easily.

 

But then again, there is a reason why this man retired nearly 50 years ago and nobody has come close to being considered his equal in all round ability. 

True but here is the thing , I might  consider Sobers the batsman over Sachin or Lara or Viv for his batting ability as you said he is in the same league as them and has the additional skill with the ball. However if my batting slots are filled and I am looking for a left arm seamer I won’t pick him over Wasim Akram or for the matter of fact even Mitchell Starc in ODIs who is Already a odi ATG 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, maniac said:

True but here is the thing , I might  consider Sobers the batsman over Sachin or Lara or Viv for his batting ability as you said he is in the same league as them and has the additional skill with the ball. However if my batting slots are filled and I am looking for a left arm seamer I won’t pick him over Wasim Akram or for the matter of fact even Mitchell Starc in ODIs who is Already a odi ATG 

Well yes. Nobody said that to be a great all rounder, you need to be a top 5 all time with both bat and ball. Sobers best suit was his batting. And given his other two capabilities, he automatically makes a team ahead of any batsman not named Bradman. This is because while Tendulkar, Lara or Viv maybe been better bat than him, the difference is literally hairs width but in other two categories, no batsman was as good as him and still demands spot in the all time XI, except for Viv with his catching. That Sobers also filled in as a wicketkeeper for whole test matches, like Dravid, makes him literally indispensable.

[Khota]

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

It can be, because baseball is far more skills and less tactically oriented than cricket. In baseballs, pitchers don’t strike home runs. In cricket, tailenders have scored tons far more frequently. 

Pitchers dont strike homeruns because the quality of pitching is so high. It gets back to excelling in two sports. Not possible.

[Muloghonto]

43 minutes ago, Khota said:

Pitchers dont strike homeruns because the quality of pitching is so high. It gets back to excelling in two sports. Not possible.

It is, as it is possible to be good at two things in many sports. Baseball it is not because as I said, baseball is far more skill based and far less brain based than cricket. You do have players who are amazing at being allrounders in cricket, in NHL there are players like Toews, Bergeron, Kopitar, Kessler, Horvat who are allrounders, adept at scoring and at defending at world class levels. 

 

Your example of baseball is irrelevant, since nobody said if it isn’t possible in baseball, it isn’t possible in any other sport.

[Khota]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

It is, as it is possible to be good at two things in many sports. Baseball it is not because as I said, baseball is far more skill based and far less brain based than cricket. You do have players who are amazing at being allrounders in cricket, in NHL there are players like Toews, Bergeron, Kopitar, Kessler, Horvat who are allrounders, adept at scoring and at defending at world class levels. 

 

Your example of baseball is irrelevant, since nobody said if it isn’t possible in baseball, it isn’t possible in any other sport.

Far less brain based. Seriously? I dont follow NHL but playing offense and defence are not two drastic a cjhange. In soccer/football defender is never the striker. It is all specialised.

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, Khota said:

Far less brain based. Seriously? I dont follow NHL but playing offense and defence are not two drastic a cjhange. In soccer/football defender is never the striker. It is all specialised.

Yes. Far less brain based because there is no such thing as rotating strike, piercing the field, etc. You have to connect to a ball going 90mph with a curved bat. No real control over where the ball goes, hence it’s all skill and far less strategy, just like athletics. In NHL, a selke winner is basically a defender and an attacker rolled into one, which is decisively being an allrounder. And almost every cup winner has a selke winner or contender in their team.  You don’t do it in soccer because the field is too big to cover both Defense and offence by foot, when on skates positioning enables a player to be first on attack and then immediately switch to defend. Not easy to do, just like it’s not easy being a good allrounder. 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Muloghonto

[Khota]

11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes. Far less brain based because there is no such thing as rotating strike, piercing the field, etc. You have to connect to a ball going 90mph with a curved bat. No real control over where the ball goes, hence it’s all skill and far less strategy, just like athletics. In NHL, a selke winner is basically a defender and an attacker rolled into one, which is decisively being an allrounder. And almost every cup winner has a selke winner or contender in their team.  You don’t do it in soccer because the field is too big to cover both Defense and offence by foot, when on skates positioning enables a player to be first on attack and then immediately switch to defend. Not easy to do, just like it’s not easy being a good allrounder. 

There is lot more strategy in baseball than you can imagine. That is later but getting back to NHL the basic mecanics are the same so that leads to overlap. Batting and bowling are two different ball games , pun intended.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Khota said:

There is lot more strategy in baseball than you can imagine.

After having watched MLB for over 20 years I can safely say that baseball does not even have 10% the strategic options as cricket. 

1 hour ago, Khota said:

That is later but getting back to NHL the basic mecanics are the same so that leads to overlap. Batting and bowling are two different ball games , pun intended.

The basic mechanics of attacking and defending in soccer is also the same.  Does not matter, since your hypothesis is completely unsupported. 

[Khota]

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

After having watched MLB for over 20 years I can safely say that baseball does not even have 10% the strategic options as cricket. 

The basic mechanics of attacking and defending in soccer is also the same.  Does not matter, since your hypothesis is completely unsupported. 

Do you even have any clue how advanced the analytics in baseball is? Every placement on the outfield is a result of analytics. There is lot of science and statistics that goes into baseball.

 

The mechanics in soccer and hockey are the same. batting and bowling are two different demands on the body which one person cannot carry out. I can give you lot of examples but it seems like your mind is made up.

[putrevus]

How the heck is Kallis a lower tier test batsman than Sachin or Lara. He just was not that flashy or did not have the hype of Sachin.Kallis would be greater fit to any test team than Sachin/Lara.

[maniac]

46 minutes ago, putrevus said:

How the heck is Kallis a lower tier test batsman than Sachin or Lara. He just was not that flashy or did not have the hype of Sachin.Kallis would be greater fit to any test team than Sachin/Lara.

Never seen Kallis play a match winning innings in ODIs or tests. Maybe he did block a few games to boring draws. Sachin and Lara have played some innings for the ages against all odds.

[putrevus]

1 hour ago, maniac said:

Never seen Kallis play a match winning innings in ODIs or tests. Maybe he did block a few games to boring draws. Sachin and Lara have played some innings for the ages against all odds.

Are you kidding me,Kalli has the most number MOM awards and he played 30 tests lower than Tendulkar.He has most MOS awards after Murali.

 

I was just talking about as a test player.What great  match winning knocks did Sachin play against all odds.Lara did but Lara ceased to be a matchwinner after 2000. 

 

India would have won two test series in SA both in 2010 and 2013, if not for Kallis  scoring twin hundreds on a bum shoulder in 2010 and again match winning 100 in his last test in 2013.

 

This guy was glue for all those away SA wins and all those great SA touring teams.Kallis is only guilty on just being great and not flashy.There was a video on how it was Kallis who rescued his teams more from 20/2 if they lost two quick wickets than Sachin ever did, while also capable of driving home the advantage if score was 200/2.I did post that video long time back.

 

He was that great that people took him for granted, he filled in fifth bowler role seamlessly while providing a top order bat.he was best batsman in his team along with great slip fielder.This along with being great fifth bowler.

 

There is no way in hell Sachin or Lara are better test players than Kallis.

[Rightarmfast]

Questioning Sachin's ability as a match winner has suddenly become the latest fad these days. Only people who have watched Kallis would know that he was no more than a tuk tuk player. He did not have it in him to play decisive innings. No team ever would pick Kallis over Sachin! Including South Africa.

[Rightarmfast]

16 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

It is, as it is possible to be good at two things in many sports. Baseball it is not because as I said, baseball is far more skill based and far less brain based than cricket. You do have players who are amazing at being allrounders in cricket, in NHL there are players like Toews, Bergeron, Kopitar, Kessler, Horvat who are allrounders, adept at scoring and at defending at world class levels. 

 

Your example of baseball is irrelevant, since nobody said if it isn’t possible in baseball, it isn’t possible in any other sport.

I think it maybe possible to be good at two things in a single sport. But the thing is, the sample space is too small. We haven't seen a single allrounder who would set the stage on fire in the last 25 yrs I would say. Kallis wasnt really a game changer,Razzaq and Azhar Mahmood not really solid enough to take a pure batsman's or bowlers position. 

Kapil himself for sure wasn't a better bowler than Javagal Srinath or Bumrah. He sure had to give up on his pace just to sustain his longetivity. Imran Khan for most part of his career was a pathetic bat. When he started batting, he couldnt bowl. 

So, the point is that a pure batsman or bowler would always be a better bet. 

 

my 2 pence is that, a great allrounder can be accomodated when you have 2 great bowlers and 2 great batsmen in the side to complement him.