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

[goose]

the bowlers got their rest by bowling the opposition out

[jalebi_bhai]

That's because specialist all-rounders don't exist. Bits and pieces cricketers like Stuart Binny, Johann Van Der Wath, Andrew Hall etc do exist. They are neither good enough to play exclusively as a batsman nor as a bowler but provide some amount of tactical flexibility I guess.

 

All-rounders are usually those who can play in a specialist position while at the same time play a supporting role to the specialists in their weaker discipline, with the occasional match winning performance. Players like Kallis, Watson, Flintoff, Pollock, Chris Cairns, Kapil Dev, Botham were all-rounders. Angelo Mathews, Yuvraj Singh and Afridi were all-rounders during a certain phase of their careers.

 

The ATG WI and Aus teams had very good specialists. They didn't need bits and pieces cricketers as long as someone like a Symonds, Clarke or Sir Viv could contribute with part-time bowling to give their specialist bowlers a rest.

[Vilander]

On 11/30/2017 at 12:23 AM, 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.

 

Kallis ( agreed universally as exceptional yes) /flintoff and more recently stokes have given wind to the test pace alrounder role that tapered with the botham-kapil-IK period. It would be very good to have someone who can score a 100 and bowl 135 with swing for sure lol two players in one.  Wonder if people thought during the botham period that future cricket teams will always have guys who can bowl new ball and bat to win a session or two.

[Vilander]

either that or we had a middle period of 15 years where the trend was bucked ( meaning sub continent never found an allrounder incidentally - IP came close for us i guess, then razzak  came closefor pak,  but SA/.ENG and NZ, Aus had their alrounders throughout) 

[Vilander]

18 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

That's because specialist all-rounders don't exist. Bits and pieces cricketers like Stuart Binny, Johann Van Der Wath, Andrew Hall etc do exist. They are neither good enough to play exclusively as a batsman nor as a bowler but provide some amount of tactical flexibility I guess.

 

All-rounders are usually those who can play in a specialist position while at the same time play a supporting role to the specialists in their weaker discipline, with the occasional match winning performance. Players like Kallis, Watson, Flintoff, Pollock, Chris Cairns, Kapil Dev, Botham were all-rounders. Angelo Mathews, Yuvraj Singh and Afridi were all-rounders during a certain phase of their careers.

 

The ATG WI and Aus teams had very good specialists. They didn't need bits and pieces cricketers as long as someone like a Symonds, Clarke or Sir Viv could contribute with part-time bowling to give their specialist bowlers a rest.

good post. I think a very good specialist team can just trump a lesser team buoyed with a good allrounder as one of their specialist gun bowler just needs to get two ok bats ( lesser batsman from lesser team and the good allrounder propping the team) out instead of one good bat ( one specialist batsman from a good specialist team) say in a particular passage of play or spell. 

[Vilander]

But what about a very good specialist team with a very good alrounder that will be ideal team, we did not see one yet. SA may be came close, that but they did not have a very good specialist spinner ever. WI and Aus did not have a perfect all-rounder when they had ATG players in most positions, imagine if Symonds was a phenomenal spinner they would have been even more dominant. 

[Ankit_sharma03]

6 hours ago, Khota said:

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.

what history???

[maniac]

7 hours ago, Sooda said:

 

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 

 

 

 

I am not being confrontational or anything but genuine question-any top level player who comes to mind who has had stats like that but is considered a great test player?

 

Closest I think is Kapil Dev who had a bowling average that touched 30 due to his last few years but even then he was a strike bowler and had a very good average for the most part.

 

Most times the great test allrounders have always excelled in 1 area.

 

Likes of Moeen Ali and Stokes have been groomed to be a specialist spinner who can bat  and a specalist no 5 who can bowl.

 

while I am saying Pandya definitely has the upside and  can be groomed eventually to be a 40 averaging batsman who can bowl I think there is an organic way to get there....playing him just because he can do a little bit of this and that won’t work.Currently, that is where he stands.

[Sooda]

^ As you say Hardik could and hopefully will average close to or around 40- i think my saying mid 30's average was pessimistic and do sent do his talent justice. Like Moeen and Stokes we should be grooming Hardick to be a specialist no 6 who can bowl. He is better than "a little bit of this" especially on the batting front.

 

No, those kind of stats do not make a great test player, but a solid and useful one. We are not blessed with a great allrounder, nor a potentially great one so something less will have to do, and yes it is still better than playing a no 6 bat who can roll his arm over for a few overs.

[Khota]

4 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

what history???

In history of Indian cricket I have only seen one and that was kapil. Kapil build was medium and he was above 6 ft tall. He did not have to exert himself to bowl fast . Pandya OTOH is literally pushing it. I hope he is successful but history is against him.

[rkt.india]

3 hours ago, Khota said:

In history of Indian cricket I have only seen one and that was kapil. Kapil build was medium and he was above 6 ft tall. He did not have to exert himself to bowl fast . Pandya OTOH is literally pushing it. I hope he is successful but history is against him.

Pandya is taller than Kapil

[Khota]

43 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Pandya is taller than Kapil

I doubt it.

[rkt.india]

16 minutes ago, Khota said:

I doubt it.

your doubt wont change the fact

Edited December 9, 2017 by rkt.india

[Forever Indian]

There has always been a need for the fifth part time bowler even with the Aussie side and a lot of batsmen like Waugh brothers, Michael Clarke, etc used to do a lot of bowling. Symonds, Lehmann, Moody, etc were arguably played over other batsmen because they could bowl.

 

In today’s hectic schedule where you have three formats, multiple T20 franchises, etc. and the increased importance for fitness and fielding drills batsmen are less able to work on their bowling in the nets. That’s why you don’t have many batsmen who are able to bowl good part time nowadays. Even ones like Steve Smith, Root, Williamson, etc have reduced bowling a lot because of lack of practice.

 

That is why the importance of an all rounder has become pronounced now because teams are seeking that one or two players who are able to contribute as the 5th bowler or as an extra bat. The teams are no longer able to demand that their star batsmen also practise bowling a lot in the nets given the tight schedule and increased fitness and fielding drills required.

 

There is nothing right or wrong here but as the game evolves and schedule becomes tighter one could argue that an allrounder could also become a specialist position in the near future. So the team compositions could look something like 5 batsmen + 1 allrounder + 1 keeper + 4 bowlers.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Forever Indian

[Ankit_sharma03]

7 hours ago, Khota said:

In history of Indian cricket I have only seen one and that was kapil. Kapil build was medium and he was above 6 ft tall. He did not have to exert himself to bowl fast . Pandya OTOH is literally pushing it. I hope he is successful but history is against him.

Acc to history dhoni shudnt have been a successful captain, as wkt keepers were never successful or even considered for captaincy 

 

History is always meant to be changed 

 

If we go buy history we shudnt even had a good pool of fast bowlers, but now India has one of the best fast bowling talent

If we go buy history we shud have always played like sweet boys (muh niche krke gaali khali khaane wale)

Historically we were rich when it comes to spinner , 2 saal pehle akaal padd gaya tha spinners ka

Edited December 9, 2017 by Ankit_sharma03

[Khota]

5 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Acc to history dhoni shudnt have been a successful captain, as wkt keepers were never successful or even considered for captaincy 

 

History is always meant to be changed 

 

If we go buy history we shudnt even had a good pool of fast bowlers, but now India has one of the best fast bowling talent

If we go buy history we shud have always played like sweet boys (muh niche krke gaali khali khaane wale)

Historically we were rich when it comes to spinner , 2 saal pehle akaal padd gaya tha spinners ka

You missed my point. Agreed history is meant to be changed but it is very difficult to produce someone at that level who can excel in both bowling and batting. There are only so many hours in a day and you can only practise so much. To excel at both you are pushing the limits. Once in a lifetime someone like Kapil comes along so we need to enjoy that but to expect a pool of two or three of those at your disposal is not possible.

 

India - Kapil Dev

England - Botham

Pakistan - Imran

 

Kapil like I said was a freak of nature. Easily he was the tallest and the most well built on the field.For someone to be a pace bowler ideally he has to have strong upper body strangth, strong legs and atleast 6 ft tall. 

I saw so many claimed to be allrounders and those guys could neither bat nor bowl.

 

It is a law of diminishing returns. Too much time is spend looking for one. It is best to go with a specialist. 

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Khota

[Khota]

7 hours ago, Forever Indian said:

There has always been a need for the fifth part time bowler even with the Aussie side and a lot of batsmen like Waugh brothers, Michael Clarke, etc used to do a lot of bowling. Symonds, Lehmann, Moody, etc were arguably played over other batsmen because they could bowl.

 

In today’s hectic schedule where you have three formats, multiple T20 franchises, etc. and the increased importance for fitness and fielding drills batsmen are less able to work on their bowling in the nets. That’s why you don’t have many batsmen who are able to bowl good part time nowadays. Even ones like Steve Smith, Root, Williamson, etc have reduced bowling a lot because of lack of practice.

 

That is why the importance of an all rounder has become pronounced now because teams are seeking that one or two players who are able to contribute as the 5th bowler or as an extra bat. The teams are no longer able to demand that their star batsmen also practise bowling a lot in the nets given the tight schedule and increased fitness and fielding drills required.

 

There is nothing right or wrong here but as the game evolves and schedule becomes tighter one could argue that an allrounder could also become a specialist position in the near future. So the team compositions could look something like 5 batsmen + 1 allrounder + 1 keeper + 4 bowlers.

5 batsman

5 bowlers

keeper/batsman.

[Ankit_sharma03]

12 minutes ago, Khota said:

You missed my point. Agreed history is meant to be changed but it is very difficult to produce someone at that level who can excel in both bowling and batting. There are only so many hours in a day and you can only practise so much. To excel at both you are pushing the limits. Once in a lifetime someone like Kapil comes along so we need to enjoy that but to expect a pool of two or three of those at your disposal is not possible.

 

India - Kapil Dev

England - Botham

Pakistan - Imran

 

Kapil like I said was a freak of nature. Easily he was the tallest and the most well built on the field.For someone to be a pace bowler ideally he has to have strong upper body strangth, strong legs and atleast 6 ft tall. 

I saw so many claimed to be allrounders and those guys could neither bat nor bowl.

 

It is a law of diminishing returns. Too much time is spend looking for one. It is best to go with a specialist. 

 

U missed my point past doesnt matter, present is what matters

Kapil dev ki wait men jo hai usse bhi na kaam chalaye to ye stupidity hai . 

Pandya is needed for balance, lets stop looking for excellance. We have been playing specialist for so many yrs overseas.......kya ukhad lia

We have won test matches with less talented all rounder then pandya with bangar n binny . 

Shud australia stop selecting spinners coz someone like warne wont come again .

 

I have been reading bizzare ideas like Lets not play pandya coz he is not kapil dev or didnt WI n aus had all rounder......simple every team has its strength n weakness and it shud play a combination acc to its need. 

 

For the 1st time we have pacers who can bowl 140+ n hit the deck hard, if someone like pandya conserves their energy so they can bowl at full gas all time why wudnt i have pandya. Our one bowler is shami who is injury prone n if i can have cushion for him why not.

 

A specialist like rohit sharma has done nothing overseas to make me thing m i dropping an asset , neither specialist like jadeja is half a decent bat against pace . Then our WK is saha .........bating n bowling both needs cushion and thats what pandya gives us .........kapil dev wud have been gr8 but nahin hai to kya kare........team balanced bnani chodh de

[mishra]

Sachin used to bowl

Robin Singh used to bowl

Prabhakar was very good bat till he crapped

[Pollack]

9 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Pandya is taller than Kapil

 

9 hours ago, Khota said:

I doubt it.

 

8 hours ago, rkt.india said:

your doubt wont change the fact

 

 

No not again. Debates on height.