INDIA'S FORGOTTEN ALLROUNDER

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

agreed ... though Ashwin avg:s  slightly better, Mankad played in those days with much lesser  protective  guards, but  was  less scrutinised as a batsman because of lack of adequate technology  when compared to Ashwin.Yet, all in all Mankad was a better batsman. By the same yard stick  Ashwin as a bowler  is more  at advantage today  because of  being able to exploit the weaknesses of opponent batsmen  with the help of technological analyses.Yet his bowl  avg: is far better when compared to Mankad. So he wins over all as an all rounder for me.

Well, i see Mankad as a better allrounder, because he can make the team as a batsman or a bowler. He has test centuries against the likes of Lindwall, Miller and Johnston, that too, while opening. Nearly scored a double century against Truman and Bedser. Also has 2 double centuries to his name.

Ashwin on the other hand, is yet to prove himself as a batsman against top-line bowling attack. 

So i think Mankad is a better all-rounder. If we just go by 'difference in bowling average is greater than difference in batting average or vice versa', then Richard Hadlee is a better allrounder than Kapil....Yet Hadlee was not capable of making the team as a batsman only, which Kapil was.

 

[Zero_Unit]

On 4/13/2017 at 6:15 PM, sandeep said:

Jaddu when he retires might displace him.  Mankad was way better with the bat though.

As a bowler maybe, as an allrounder ... LOL! hell nah bruhh. 

[Binga]

Poor mans Shane Lee

[rtmohanlal]

16 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Well, i see Mankad as a better allrounder, because he can make the team as a batsman or a bowler. He has test centuries against the likes of Lindwall, Miller and Johnston, that too, while opening. Nearly scored a double century against Truman and Bedser. Also has 2 double centuries to his name.

Ashwin on the other hand, is yet to prove himself as a batsman against top-line bowling attack. 

So i think Mankad is a better all-rounder. If we just go by 'difference in bowling average is greater than difference in batting average or vice versa', then Richard Hadlee is a better allrounder than Kapil....Yet Hadlee was not capable of making the team as a batsman only, which Kapil was.

 

 

your post prompted me to look into the details of Mankad's career.Yes  Mankad was a lot more than what his avg: suggest in batting. Quality 100S vs quality bowling attacks  by opening the batting &  that too abroad  indicates as to what a brilliant batsman he was. Badly wish he played lot more tests as an opener.And to add to that he had the capacity to play long  inns too. So he was comfortably better by 2 or 3 levels to Ashwin as a batsman.

In bowling too i doubt Mankad got the same level of  bowling support  as  Ashwin  gets  now a days.

But yet i doubt this case  can be compared to Hadlee-Kapil case because in batting Kapil is a lot better to Hadlee than what Mankad is to Ashwin.In plain avg:es itself Kapil has 32.07 after 134 inns(same inns as Hadlees's) against Hadlees' 27.16. A diff: of almost 5. Now we add Kapil's huge str: rate(measure of dominating bowlers) of almost 84 after 134 inns.Again w.r.t batting performance in WI(best team of their era), both Kapil & Hadlee were chalk & cheese apart in all aspects.Kapil played several back to the wall dominating inns against top qlty attacks.We add all these things to that already avg: difference of 5.Then for me Kapil was worth 10+  in terms of avg:s.But i doubt, despite all batting heroics of Mankad that there is such difeerence between him and Ashwin.
 In bowling too Kapil  was slightly better than his avg: of 29.64 suggests. Because longevity & heavy work load affected  his stats a bit( no advantage w.r.t support bowling strength though because Hadlee too was mainly an one man army).
I would place Kapil at 28.25-28.5 in a comparison with Hadlee in bowling.

And we add Kapil the much superior world cup winning  one day all rounder, much superior all round fielder & convincingly superior captain into the mix , then there is no comparison with Hadlee.Kapil clearly comes out on top.

 But i doubt, despite all the heroics of Mankad in batting & despite all his disadvantages  as a bowler when compared to Ashwin,the gap between him & Ashwin in batting is adequate enough to oversome the gap in bowling between the 2. More over there are no other factors too aid Mankad just as in Kapil-Hadlle case.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

 

your post prompted me to look into the details of Mankad's career.Yes  Mankad was a lot more than what his avg: suggest in batting. Quality 100S vs quality bowling attacks  by opening the batting &  that too abroad  indicates as to what a brilliant batsman he was. Badly wish he played lot more tests as an opener.And to add to that he had the capacity to play long  inns too. So he was comfortably better by 2 or 3 levels to Ashwin as a batsman.

In bowling too i doubt Mankad got the same level of  bowling support  as  Ashwin  gets  now a days.

But yet i doubt this case  can be compared to Hadlee-Kapil case because in batting Kapil is a lot better to Hadlee than what Mankad is to Ashwin.In plain avg:es itself Kapil has 32.07 after 134 inns(same inns as Hadlees's) against Hadlees' 27.16. A diff: of almost 5. Now we add Kapil's huge str: rate(measure of dominating bowlers) of almost 84 after 134 inns.Again w.r.t batting performance in WI(best team of their era), both Kapil & Hadlee were chalk & cheese apart in all aspects.Kapil played several back to the wall dominating inns against top qlty attacks.We add all these things to that already avg: difference of 5.Then for me Kapil was worth 10+  in terms of avg:s.But i doubt, despite all batting heroics of Mankad that there is such difeerence between him and Ashwin.
 In bowling too Kapil  was slightly better than his avg: of 29.64 suggests. Because longevity & heavy work load affected  his stats a bit( no advantage w.r.t support bowling strength though because Hadlee too was mainly an one man army).
I would place Kapil at 28.25-28.5 in a comparison with Hadlee in bowling.

And we add Kapil the much superior world cup winning  one day all rounder, much superior all round fielder & convincingly superior captain into the mix , then there is no comparison with Hadlee.Kapil clearly comes out on top.

 But i doubt, despite all the heroics of Mankad in batting & despite all his disadvantages  as a bowler when compared to Ashwin,the gap between him & Ashwin in batting is adequate enough to oversome the gap in bowling between the 2. More over there are no other factors too aid Mankad just as in Kapil-Hadlle case.

 

 

1. Mankad lost his best years to WWII. He debuted at the age of 29 and played till 42.

2. My point is simple- that differential of batting/bowling average does not make one a better allrounder. One has to merit his inclusion in the team as both a batsman and a bowler alone. Mankad's average (batting) was comparable to Indian top order averages of his time. Ashwin's is not. I look at allrounders in terms of 'can he represent the team as a batsman or a bowler?'. In that respect, i think Mankad is a better allrounder than Ashwin.

 

[rtmohanlal]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Mankad lost his best years to WWII. He debuted at the age of 29 and played till 42.

2. My point is simple- that differential of batting/bowling average does not make one a better allrounder. One has to merit his inclusion in the team as both a batsman and a bowler alone. Mankad's average (batting) was comparable to Indian top order averages of his time. Ashwin's is not. I look at allrounders in terms of 'can he represent the team as a batsman or a bowler?'. In that respect, i think Mankad is a better allrounder than Ashwin.

 

"Mankad's average (batting) was comparable to Indian top order averages of his time. Ashwin's is not." -  just because this statement is true , i can't take this as a criteria  for 'being a  better all rounder'. Because it might be that in  Mankad's days  IND simply didn't have a top 6 to pick up from  first class cricket  of which all could avg: above 40.Suppose that IND indeed had the luxury of picking such a top 6. Then too Mankad would be in the team because of his allround abilities. But the current situation is  that INDIAN cricket's first class structure has got strengthend so much so due to various factors that  they can easily pick a top 6 where all could avg: aleast 40+, if not 45.That being the case  &  Ashwin being an allrounder  he gets picked up easily in the team   but  his batting  gets less reflected   to the  public because he is in the company of  a top6 all with 40+ avg:s.  On the other hand Mankad's batting gets more reflected because the other batsmen are  not up to the required  standard and hence Mankad becomes one among top7.

 

 Now based on what i said above, do you feel that  Mankad would have got into the current IND team  purely as a top order batsman? i seriously doubt. on the other hand he would easily have got into the current  team as an allrounder just as Ashwin does..

 

 i too don't believe  in the theory that if the difference in bowling  between 2 all rounders  surpasses  the difference in batting between them in the oppposite direction then  the allrounder with the bigger difference in bowling would be the better allrounder.  But in Ashwin-Mankad case  that is not the case. Mankad leads in batting..agreed... but in bowling Ashwin is far better. In Kapil-Hadlee case Kapil leads Hadlee quite

convincingly  in batting because of the several factors i pointed out earlier.Infact  it is only perhaps slightly smaller in magnitude  when compared to what  Hadlee leads Kapil in bowling. And add Kapil's superiority in other disciplines, Kapil-Hadlee is not even a contest.   

[Texy]

Dinesh Mongia 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, rtmohanlal said:

 

 i too don't believe  in the theory that if the difference in bowling  between 2 all rounders  surpasses  the difference in batting between them in the oppposite direction then  the allrounder with the bigger difference in bowling would be the better allrounder.  But in Ashwin-Mankad case  that is not the case. Mankad leads in batting..agreed... but in bowling Ashwin is far better. In Kapil-Hadlee case Kapil leads Hadlee quite

convincingly  in batting because of the several factors i pointed out earlier.Infact  it is only perhaps slightly smaller in magnitude  when compared to what  Hadlee leads Kapil in bowling. And add Kapil's superiority in other disciplines, Kapil-Hadlee is not even a contest.   

Well thats the thing, Kapil- Hadlee was the same generation. Lots of things go into making an average. 
For example, Mankad averages 40+ as an opener and scored more than half his runs there. That, in my books, makes him a better bat than Ashwin. He also scored 2 double centuries and a near-double century as an opener. If you can score a 100 against the likes of Lindwall & Miller or Truman and Bedser, i am pretty sure that would be a better batsman than Ashwin. 

 

IMO, Mankad's age in the pre-professional coaching era, is a big X factor.Best case scenario for  players till the 80s would be to debut in their early 20s, peak in their mid-late 20s, sustain it till their mid 30s and fade gradually into their late 30s. 

Well, Mankad didn't have that option, but he shows that after a brief adjustment period in test cricket, he sustained a 36+ batting and 29 bowling average, till he was in his late 30s and faded in his last 3-4 years. 

So IMO, its like taking Viv Richard's career from the age of 29 onwards.

 

you also can't just straight-up compare averages across the format. Because the same argument you are using for Ashwin, i can use in Ashwin vs Kapil : Ashwin's batting is comparable average but way better in bowling. 

[Vijy]

mankad was one of the top spin-bowling allrounders ever (excluding Sobers) along with Rhodes, Faulkner, Benaud

[SUMO]

7 minutes ago, Vijy said:

mankad was one of the top spin-bowling allrounders ever (excluding Sobers) along with Rhodes, Faulkner, Benaud

IMO Ashwin has already taken over all of them. Definitely mankad and benaud, exclude rhodes and faulkner I won't compare pre historic era with modern era
Won't he go down as greatest spin all rounder ever ??

[Vijy]

10 minutes ago, SUMO said:

IMO Ashwin has already taken over all of them. Definitely mankad and benaud, exclude rhodes and faulkner I won't compare pre historic era with modern era
Won't he go down as greatest spin all rounder ever ??

No, because Mankad could open and score doubles - I don't think Ashwin is capable of this. Mankad was also a safe fielder for his era, unlike Ashwin. Moreover, Ashwin really needs to improve his outside FC record (I agree that even Mankad was not good on this front). I still think that Benaud as bowler was probably slightly better than Ashwin (at current stage).

 

On the whole, if Ashwin scores steadily with the bat (excluding the incredibly weak WI) and does decently abroad, he will leapfrog the other spin bowling allrounders.

 

And if one takes pre-war era, Faulkner's achievements are truly remarkable. I don't think Ashwin can become Ind's best bowler and best batsman simultaneously which is what Faulkner achieved (and was also amongst best in the world in both disciplines).

[SUMO]

3 minutes ago, Vijy said:

No, because Mankad could open and score doubles - I don't think Ashwin is capable of this. Mankad was also a safe fielder for his era, unlike Ashwin. Moreover, Ashwin really needs to improve his outside FC record (I agree that even Mankad was not good on this front). I still think that Benaud as bowler was probably slightly better than Ashwin (at current stage).

 

On the whole, if Ashwin scores steadily with the bat (excluding the incredibly weak WI) and does decently abroad, he will leapfrog the other spin bowling allrounders.

 

And if one takes pre-war era, Faulkner's achievements are truly remarkable. I don't think Ashwin can become Ind's best bowler and best batsman simultaneously which is what Faulkner achieved (and was also amongst best in the world in both disciplines).

May be ashwin is slightly inferior to mankad in batting department but he is so much better in bowling.
Don't think mankad was best spinner in the world in his era even for one year.
Ashwin has dominated for couple of years now along with ICC awards.
With decent outings in overseas he will leave all of them to dust IMO

[Vijy]

1 minute ago, SUMO said:

May be ashwin is slightly inferior to mankad in batting department but he is so much better in bowling.
Don't think mankad was best spinner in the world in his era even for one year.
Ashwin has dominated for couple of years now along with ICC awards.
With decent outings in overseas he will leave all of them to dust IMO

the gap is wider. if I recall correctly, all of Ashwin's major batting exploits are against WI (who are weaker than Bangladeshs at home). He is better at bowling, but not by too much - Mankad was part of an extremely weak bowling lineup and was used more as a stock bowler to hold up an end. On current pitches and current level of playing spin bowling, I believe his average and record would be better, although slightly less than Ashwin.

[SUMO]

5 minutes ago, Vijy said:

the gap is wider. if I recall correctly, all of Ashwin's major batting exploits are against WI (who are weaker than Bangladeshs at home). He is better at bowling, but not by too much - Mankad was part of an extremely weak bowling lineup and was used more as a stock bowler to hold up an end. On current pitches and current level of playing spin bowling, I believe his average and record would be better, although slightly less than Ashwin.

By stats mankad looks boom or bust player  5 100s and 6 50s in 72 innings which is not good for top order batsman.
Ashwin inspite of playing at 6,7,8 has 14 50+ scores in 69 innings
And Don't forget ashwin bats at 6,7,8 so can't expect century. some of the good knocks against aus eng end at 70 or 80 in recent times.
 

[Vijy]

10 minutes ago, SUMO said:

By stats mankad looks boom or bust player  5 100s and 6 50s in 72 innings which is not good for top order batsman.
Ashwin inspite of playing at 6,7,8 has 14 50+ scores in 69 innings
And Don't forget ashwin bats at 6,7,8 so can't expect century. some of the good knocks against aus eng end at 70 or 80 in recent times.
 

yes, he was inconsistent but also because he was shunted up and down a lot and one has more cheaper dismissals as opener. His record as opener is better if I remember correctly. The basic point is that Mankad (despite the low avg) was a genuine top order bat while Ashwin is a lower order player; I mean he averages around 17 against Oz and 23 against SA.

 

P.S: Mankad averaged 41 as opener. I don't see Ashwin being capable of that. An avg of 40+ as opener is something very few Indians achieved - Merchant, Sunny, Sidhu, Sehwag, Gambhir and KLR (not even Vijay).

Edited June 25, 2017 by Vijy