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

[Samcric]

5 minutes ago, fineleg said:

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

 

But why do you say that? He did well in Aus in A-tour to get selected. He does not seem to be in any particular discomfort against pace or short-pitched bowling. We have not seem him get tested by conditions aiding Swing but for a guy constantly working and improving on his game, I don't think it is right to lose hope right now. Can he leave deliveries to get out of a tough period of play when India are say 100-4? Only time will tell.

 

 

 

[MCcricket]

Lol ,why didn't we have any allrounders after Kapil n before Pandya, because there weren't any good enuff, allrounder is a rare cricketer n it's hard to unearth one, so what is the point of this?

[Ankit_sharma03]

• Their specialist bowlers so good......they had ATG....shane warne ke liye upar wale wkt nhin chodte the. We have good bowlers but our bowling is of not that quality. 
• So many opp use to give up by the name of WI quatret or mcgrath,warne .........which of our bowlers has the psychological edge. Thats why our bowling needs cushion
• Even their teams had someone in batting to roll their arm over- Viv richards, waugh bros, clarke, symonds............who the hell bowls among our batsman 

[rkt.india]

7 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

• Their specialist bowlers so good......they had ATG....shane warne ke liye upar wale wkt nhin chodte the. We have good bowlers but our bowling is of not that quality. 
• So many opp use to give up by the name of WI quatret or mcgrath,warne .........which of our bowlers has the psychological edge. Thats why our bowling needs cushion
• Even their teams had someone in batting to roll their arm over- Viv richards, waugh bros, clarke, symonds............who the hell bowls among our batsman 

who says batsmen in our team dont bowl. Pujara bowls great leg spin like warne, Rohit bowls off spin like Swann, Vijay bowls off spin like Lyon, Dhawan is our Murli and Kohli is is replicating Chris Harris. 

[Ankit_sharma03]

12 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

who says batsmen in our team dont bowl. Pujara bowls great leg spin like warne, Rohit bowls off spin like Swann, Vijay bowls off spin like Lyon, Dhawan is our Murli and Kohli is is replicating Chris Harris. 

ha fir to hardik pandya bhi flintoff hai 

[sandeep]

10 hours 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.

I can see the argument you are making in this thread.  But it doesn't account for the evolution in test cricket these days.   Back in the 90s, it was relatively much easier to "mop up the tail, then it is now.   If you do a statistical analysis of the top 3 test teams back then, I don't think they would have bowled 100+ overs every innings.   These days, even the non-allrounder bowlers are not easy wickets, and tactically, having a guy at #7 or #8 who can marshal the tail and get you extra 60-80 runs is relatively more valuable today, then it was during the 90s.  

 

Overall, I don't disagree with your general point that any quality "allrounder" should be good enough to be either #4 bowler or #6 bat.   If he's neither, then he's a bit of a luxury pick.   This is why its easy for all of us to support Pandya's inclusion in the test XI vs a Sri Lanka, but we are hesitant to pick him against SA.  

[mancalledsting]

Pandyas natural length is more suited to tests than LOIs and therefore he potentially may be a more effective bowler in overseas tests than what we’ve already seengrom him in indian LOIs. Secondly he is a potentially aggressive counter attacking batsmen WHO IS UNTRIED/UNPROVEN IN FOREIGN CONDITIONS. Anyone who would play in place of Hardik would either be untried (Shreyas Iyer) or unproven (Rohit) in those conditions also. We can’t play two spinners abroad as previous that ploy has failed to stem the run rate whilst the front line seamers are resting. If hardik can keep up the pressure by holding up one end whilst frontline seamers are resting, maybe even take a wicket or two he would definitely be a better pick than an extra spinner all rounder or another batsmen - especially when considering the package of quick runs he might provide. Played well in aus a tour. From what I’ve seen in LOIs he’s got a good defensive technique against pace bowling and not over whelmed by raw pace. He struggles to hit sixes off genuine pace bowling but that doesn’t matter in tests as there is no scoreboard pressure 

[cricketpitch]

Australia did not need an all-rounder because they had great bowlers who could bowl opposition out. The all-rounder theory only comes about when your 4 bowlers cannot do the job. 5th bowler is a luxury unless you have a Kallis who was a great batsman and  bowl 140 KMPH. The Australian bowling attack of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Lee, Fleming, Kasperowicz, McGill et all did the job for them. West Indies did the same, their 4 prolonged pace attack were menacing enough but again they did have Larry Gomes, who could roll his arm over if needed, even though he wasn't required to bowl a lot. Viv Richards also bowled some part time stuff but again, West Indies and Australia did not require all rounders. If you have 4 very good bowlers who can maintain pressure and pick wickets, the 5th bowler is a luxury. Unless your 5th bowler gives you runs regularly, he is a waste of space. Teams like India need the 5th bowler because the 4 bowlers mostly don't do the job. Even now Australia is only playing 4 bowlers in the Ashes and they did the job for them. Australia did not play Cartwright or Marsh in the first test.

[sandeep]

2 hours ago, cricketpitch said:

Even now Australia is only playing 4 bowlers in the Ashes and they did the job for them. Australia did not play Cartwright or Marsh in the first test.

That's not really by choice - its mainly because there simply isn't any Australian who can do that job.   That's the reason why the Aussie selectors gave the "Mitch Marsh Project" umpteen chances in spite of his terrible performances.  

[maniac]

Moeen Ali proves this theory ....look at Lyon a proper no x1 is way more useful to his team than Ali  to his team who is pointless right now....

 

I personally think apples to apples Moeen Ali is a better batsman than Pandya but obviously not a test class bat...right now a tota passenger.

 

theory that Pandya might get a few runs than a proper batsman is stupid...play a proper bat or play a proper bowler.

[motomaverick]

Gary Sobers was an allrounder, and a pretty good one.

[zen]

Ind overseas is like the person with a short blanket. Cover the feet, the head is exposed. Cover the head, the feet are exposed. A decent all rounder provides that extra bit of cloth 

 

PS btw Marshall = good lower order batsman. Dujon = a decent WK batsman .... Gilly = all rounder. Warne = decent lower order batsman

Edited December 8, 2017 by zen

[zen]

Pandya tends to do well when threads are opened against him 

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by zen

[maniac]

2 hours ago, zen said:

Ind overseas is like the person with a short blanket. Cover the feet, the head is exposed. Cover the head, the feet are exposed. A decent all rounder provides that extra bit of cloth 

 

PS btw Marshall = good lower order batsman. Dujon = a decent WK batsman .... Gilly = all rounder. Warne = decent lower order batsman

Malcom Marshall And Warne 2 of the greatest bowlers ever to play cricket...had they had a batting average of 0.00 they would have still played every game they were available...Was Warne ever picked ahead of other spinners or Marshall ahead of other bowlers because they could be handy with the bat?

 

Gilchrist would have been dropped in a heartbeat if he was a poor keeper especially to Warne...there was a reason there was a lot of apprehension on him earlier.

 

None of these players were picked solely for their “allround ability” it so happened that they were decent in the other department.

Edited December 8, 2017 by maniac

[maniac]

2 things You don’t go with a mediocre keeper in tests just because he can bat well...these things work in LOI format even more so in T20 not in tests....similarly you don’t go with a player who has not found his niche yet.

 

I am not totally saying keep Pandya away from tests...Aussies kept around Watson for a while till he found his true calling as a batsman who can bowl.

[zen]

7 hours ago, maniac said:

Malcom Marshall And Warne 2 of the greatest bowlers ever to play cricket...had they had a batting average of 0.00 they would have still played every game they were available...Was Warne ever picked ahead of other spinners or Marshall ahead of other bowlers because they could be handy with the bat?

 

Gilchrist would have been dropped in a heartbeat if he was a poor keeper especially to Warne...there was a reason there was a lot of apprehension on him earlier.

 

None of these players were picked solely for their “allround ability” it so happened that they were decent in the other department.

The point is that the respective teams had enough depth (wkt taking bowlers and playees who could bat in the lower order as well) which is why they are among the all time great teams. Being decent / good in other depertmants provided the teams with more options and balance

 

Find me Marshalls, Warnes and Gillys in India that are being ignored for the all rounder

Edited December 8, 2017 by zen

[Sooda]

On 11/30/2017 at 6:10 AM, 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.

 

In the absence of that it may well be good to pick a guy who is good but not necessarily world or even test class (depends on your definition here) in one facet. The balance that does provide is crucial. 

 

Hardik is not our 6th best bat  (as opposed to best 6th bat) he isn't one of the best bats who can roll his arm, and nor is he the best 5th bowler but were looking for a guy who can contribute on both fronts. He has proved himself to be a pretty good batsman, and if he can occasionally arrest middle order collapses , get vital lower order partnerships with quick runs as a bat...and as rkt says - he can get in 10 to 12 overs a day to give the front liners a breather, pick up a wicket or two and break a partnership that is what we want right now. 

 

It is hard to define what to expect but if he ends up with a mid 30's batting and high 30's bowling average, itll be good 

 

Its unfair to call guys who are good-but-not-specialist-level-good at one area "bits and pieces" if the total contribution as bowler and bat may well be greater than no 6 bat who can bowl a bit (Hardik is a better bowler than that) or a 5th bowler who can bat a bit 

 

 

 

[Trichromatic]

1. Aus of 2000s - Their best bowlers McGrath and Warne could bowl longer spells.

 

2. WI of 70s ad 80s - They used to take lot of rest between balls with 70-80 overs in a day instead of 90.

[Khota]

I have been ridiculed but stop wasting time on allrounders. They do not exist and moreover in a competitive games you need specialist only. I hope Pandya is successful but  history is against him.

[zen]

26 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

1. Aus of 2000s - Their best bowlers McGrath and Warne could bowl longer spells.

 

2. WI of 70s ad 80s - They used to take lot of rest between balls with 70-80 overs in a day instead of 90.

Also the frequency of matches played is relatively high