Why didn’t Aus in 90s/2000s and WI in 70s/80s have any specialist allrounders?

[maniac]

I keep hearing this debate about playing Pandya just for the “balance”....isn’t it obvious that picking the X1 best specialists can get the job done?

 

Now I am not comparing  Indian team to those sides obviously but isn’t it cricket 101 to pick the X1 best specialist players?

 

Now people will say Gilchrist but do you think Aus would have kept him around if he kept fumbling off of Warne/McGrath?

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by maniac

[maniac]

People were quoting lance kluesner for South Africa but he became a LOI specialist towards the end of his career because he was mediocre at the test level. South Africa’s best allrounders were Kallis their best batsman and Pollock their best bowler.

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

In Test Cricket, you are better off picking your 6 best batsmen and 4 best bowlers along with the best keeper-batsman. If the all-rounder happens to be one of your 6 best batsmen or one of your 4 best bowlers nothing like it but otherwise I am not really a fan of picking an all-rounder ahead of a specialist. In the sub-con we can cope with Ashwin/Saha/Jadeja or Pandya/Ashwin/Saha at 6/7/8 but outside the sub-con, it's likely to backfire.

[SK_IH]

because their 4 bowlers were great/good,didnt need any 5th option

 

though aussies were a step ahead,they had the audacity of playing 3 bowlers and played bevan-waugh as 4th-5th bowler in SA and still won 

[maniac]

1 minute ago, SK_IH said:

because their 4 bowlers were great/good,didnt need any 5th option

 

though aussies were a step ahead,they had the audacity of playing 3 bowlers and played bevan-waugh as 4th-5th bowler in SA and still won 

If you have 4 poor bowlers who can’t get the job done you either play a 5th bowler to strengthen your bowling if you have enough confidence in your batting or else you play 6 batsmen to strengthen your batting....you don’t play someone whom you are not sure if is a batsman or a bowler.

[rkt.india]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

If you have 4 poor bowlers who can’t get the job done you either play a 5th bowler to strengthen your bowling if you have enough confidence in your batting or else you play 6 batsmen to strengthen your batting....you don’t play someone whom you are not sure if is a batsman or a bowler.

if your first 4 bowlers are not good then what a 5th bowler is going to do. He must be inferior to those 4 bowlers to be playing as 5th bowler. So, it is better to play an alrounder who will not be worse than that already inferior 5th bowler.  If 5th bowler was so good, he would already be playing as your top 4 bowlers. Sometimes, what you top 4 bowlers need is someone who can ball 10-12 overs a day to give main bowlers a break to gather their thoughts and plans and are not tired when coming to their third spell of the day. 

[rkt.india]

11 minutes ago, maniac said:

People were quoting lance kluesner for South Africa but he became a LOI specialist towards the end of his career because he was mediocre at the test level. South Africa’s best allrounders were Kallis their best batsman and Pollock their best bowler.

 

Klusener lost pace due to injuries and his bowling gone down. i would take an alrounder like Klusener any day.

[maniac]

Just now, rkt.india said:

if your first 4 bowlers are not good then what a 5th bowler is going to do. He must be inferior to those 4 bowlers to be playing as 5th bowler. So, it is better to play an alrounder who will not be worse than that already inferior 5th bowler.  If 5th bowler was so good, he would already be playing as your top 4 bowlers. Sometimes, what you top 4 bowlers need is someone who can ball 10-12 overs a day to give main bowlers a break to gather their thoughts and plans and are not tired when coming to their third spell of the day. 

Then That should be the role of your 6th batsman who an bowl....there is nothing called a specialist allrounder.... the other word for it is bits and pieces which doesn’t belong in tests.... it’s either a batsman who can bowl or a bowler who can bat

[maniac]

1 minute ago, rkt.india said:

Klusener lost pace due to injuries and his bowling gone down. i would take an alrounder like Klusener any day.

Kluesner debuted as a bowler who can bat.... then he became a batsman who can bowl and ended up as bits and pieces LOI specialist.... remember the game where he took 8 wickets and also received a drubbing for the ages from Azhar.

[SK_IH]

6 minutes ago, maniac said:

If you have 4 poor bowlers who can’t get the job done you either play a 5th bowler to strengthen your bowling if you have enough confidence in your batting or else you play 6 batsmen to strengthen your batting....you don’t play someone whom you are not sure if is a batsman or a bowler.

i agree with you but specifically in case of pandya ,they are thinking long term and have invested so much in him thinking of overseas tours and next world cup,for a country bereft of seam bowling all rounder for so long ,they are thinking of making the most of his abilities 

[rkt.india]

6 minutes ago, maniac said:

Kluesner debuted as a bowler who can bat.... then he became a batsman who can bowl and ended up as bits and pieces LOI specialist.... remember the game where he took 8 wickets and also received a drubbing for the ages from Azhar.

as i said his bowling gone down due to injuries.

[rkt.india]

11 minutes ago, maniac said:

Then That should be the role of your 6th batsman who an bowl....there is nothing called a specialist allrounder.... the other word for it is bits and pieces which doesn’t belong in tests.... it’s either a batsman who can bowl or a bowler who can bat

Pandya is a batsman who can bowl. same is Shankar

Edited November 30, 2017 by rkt.india

[Silva]

They had 3 pace bowlers who could bowl 20 overs a day without dropping down in intensity.  India doesnt have one. Shami has fitness issues and is injury prone, ishant and umesh can bowl 20 but often give up too many freebies to sustain pressure and bk doesnt have the pace and bounce. 

[maniac]

15 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Pandya is a batsman who can bowl. same is Shankar

Here is how I see it...and it’s totally fair if you have a differing view but this is how I see it.

 

Every successful allrounder till date has been picked because he was a top batsman or a bowler and he did well in the other department.

 

You are saying Pandya is a batting allrounder because he is a better batsman than a bowler but that is not the way it should work....You go through The list of the  top batsmen and then pick the one with the best bowling ability  for a batting allrounder.

 

You are telling me Pandya is one of the best bats in the country who can roll his arm

over?

 

Yes Pandya has potential but still is not totally groomed for a high profile series.

 

I haven’t seen much of Shankar except for

IPl.so will reserve judgment.

[fineleg]

^ This is correct.

rkt - your argument is flawed. Hardik Pandya must hold his spot in  the team as a BATSMAN or as a BOWLER.  Other feature is a bonus and makes him an allrounder. HP is NEITHER good as batsman only, nor as a Bowler. So, he should not be in the 11.

[rkt.india]

11 minutes ago, fineleg said:

^ This is correct.

rkt - your argument is flawed. Hardik Pandya must hold his spot in  the team as a BATSMAN or as a BOWLER.  Other feature is a bonus and makes him an allrounder. HP is NEITHER good as batsman only, nor as a Bowler. So, he should not be in the 11.

He scored a 100 in his debut test series when team was under pressure, so, he certainly holds his spot as a batsman. You people have really short memories. Even in ODIs, he was MOS against Aus and was probably the third high run getter for us and then include his bowling, he was MVP. Got us back in the first game from 87/5. IN a very short career, he has shown that  he can hold his own as a batsman whenever he got chances.

[rkt.india]

31 minutes ago, maniac said:

Here is how I see it...and it’s totally fair if you have a differing view but this is how I see it.

 

Every successful allrounder till date has been picked because he was a top batsman or a bowler and he did well in the other department.

 

You are saying Pandya is a batting allrounder because he is a better batsman than a bowler but that is not the way it should work....You go through The list of the  top batsmen and then pick the one with the best bowling ability  for a batting allrounder.

 

You are telling me Pandya is one of the best bats in the country who can roll his arm

over?

 

Yes Pandya has potential but still is not totally groomed for a high profile series.

 

I haven’t seen much of Shankar except for

IPl.so will reserve judgment.

Pandya is not a roll is arm over bowler. he can perfectly play a 5th bowler's role you are asking for and can perfectly play 6th batsman's spot. It is not like we some great 6th batsmen on the bench. We played Ganguly as 6th batsman who was just an decent batsman most of his career.  After him, we have tried Yuvraj, Raina, Rohit and none of them did anything overseas. 

[Gollum]

Because their specialists were so damn good, heh. If 7-8 in your XI are ATGs, evenly spread between batsmen and bowlers you don't need all rounders. We are nowhere close to that, we have may be 2-4 potential future ATGs.

Edited November 30, 2017 by Gollum

[Samcric]

I think it depends on the quality of the first 4 bowlers. You need to take 20 wickets in a test match to win it. If you add up the wickets per match of all the bowlers you are playing, it should add up to 16-17 wickets (accounting for a few washed out tests and a few runouts per test). As you can see, England and India have 5 bowlers who can hardly match up to 4 bowlers each from Aus and SA. (this is for overseas tours from India's point of view)

 

 

One could argue that it makes the case to play a 5th bowler instead of an allrounder for Eng/Ind but it would mean you would be playing a batsman short when you go up against Aus/SA. This would be the biggest challenge when you play sides whose top 4 bowlers are above-par.

 

The other question we need to ask is what is the expectation from Pandya while batting at No.6? Look at the averages of the No.6 batsmen currently:

Stokes: 36

Shaun Marsh: 36

Temba: 33

 

I think Hardik has the potential to average 35 which does not seem out of line of the other No.6 batsmen around the world currently. If he is able to do that and get the team around 2 wickets per match at an average of less than 32-33, I don't see why he should not be a part of our test team.

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Samcric

[fineleg]

6 minutes ago, Samcric said:

 

 

I think Hardik has the potential to average 35

 

In away tours in places like SA or England (Tests), I don't think he will average close to that. That is the problem.

Edited November 30, 2017 by fineleg