All Rounders do not exist.

[Khota]

5 hours ago, Clarke said:

Then why this never ending thread ? Its one thing to claim player A or B isn't a good enough all rounder but strict posturing isn't a logical thing when you know there are multiple players who fit the set criteria at least in tests & odis. 

You fail to look deeper. The definition is correct and can be used as a criteria but Ashwin data is skewed by lot of runs scored against some horrible competition. I would not call him an AR.

[Khota]

@Clarke, @philcric, @Ankit_sharma03, @zen you guys are getting personal. Change is hard and you refuse to accept it.

 

I am simplifying this discussion as cricket is going the baseball way, a sport that has evolved a lot. They found out decades back that a pitcher cannot be hitter and vice-versa. So they simplified the role to only designated hitters etc.

 

Unless someone can mathematically prove that the runs these AR leak are compensated by the runs they put on board, this position will always have a dubious value.

[zen]

13 minutes ago, Khota said:

@Clarke, @philcric, @Ankit_sharma03, @zen you guys are getting personal. Change is hard and you refuse to accept it.

 

I am simplifying this discussion as cricket is going the baseball way, a sport that has evolved a lot. They found out decades back that a pitcher cannot be hitter and vice-versa. So they simplified the role to only designated hitters etc.

 

Unless someone can mathematically prove that the runs these AR leak are compensated by the runs they put on board, this position will always have a dubious value.

Teams usually only play 1-2 ARs in the 11 if available and depending upon format. There are 9-10 specialist playing .... Don’t know why you are spending so much energy on this when those playing in the 1-2 spots are among the best talents in the country and when the team already plays 9-10 specialists 

 

One should be happy if a multi talented cricketer is offering flexibility to Ind 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by zen

[philcric]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/18805/scorecard/1153846/new-zealand-vs-bangladesh-3rd-odi-bangladesh-in-nz-2018-19

 

J Neesham - 37 (24)

C DeGrandhomme - 37* (15)

 

[Clarke]

5 hours ago, Khota said:

You fail to look deeper. The definition is correct and can be used as a criteria but Ashwin data is skewed by lot of runs scored against some horrible competition. I would not call him an AR.

Ashwin is just one name. You seem to demand perfection from all rounders while accepting mediocrity in batsmen like Dhawan & Rohit who are ftbs. Why the bias ?

[Clarke]

5 hours ago, Khota said:

@Clarke, @philcric, @Ankit_sharma03, @zen you guys are getting personal. Change is hard and you refuse to accept it.

 

I am simplifying this discussion as cricket is going the baseball way, a sport that has evolved a lot. They found out decades back that a pitcher cannot be hitter and vice-versa. So they simplified the role to only designated hitters etc.

 

Unless someone can mathematically prove that the runs these AR leak are compensated by the runs they put on board, this position will always have a dubious value.

The whole point of the popular definition (batting avg > bowling avg) was precisely that contribution comes in both aspects.

 

Personal 

 

[Ankit_sharma03]

6 hours ago, Khota said:

@Clarke, @philcric, @Ankit_sharma03, @zen you guys are getting personal. Change is hard and you refuse to accept it.

Change , for whom........i think its u who are not getting. Check across team every team plays 1-3 all rounders 

Quote

 

I am simplifying this discussion as cricket is going the baseball way, a sport that has evolved a lot. They found out decades back that a pitcher cannot be hitter and vice-versa. So they simplified the role to only designated hitters etc.

ur bringing baseball into cricket, we are using cricket facts in cricket 

cricket men cricket ki baat kar baseball kyun ghussa raha hai, coz u dont watch cricket . All rounder have existed in past in cricket n wud in future

Quote

Unless someone can mathematically prove that the runs these AR leak are compensated by the runs they put on board, this position will always have a dubious value.

by that logic bowlers shud have no value as they dont make runs only most days. If u gonna bowl u will give runs. Ur just adamant in proving ur point that u have gone to an extent of pointing shankar who gave runs by 4.75 eco. 

 

N for the last time they dont have to excel in both dept, specialist across the team havent even excelled in their own skill. If they are even good in both that enough for any captain 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Ankit_sharma03

[ShoonyaSifar]

All rounder take time to develop and require patience.

 

Take the example of Jason Holder. Has been playing for 5 years now. Hi record After 30 tests, 1300 runs@30 and 55 wickets@38

After 70 ODIs, 1024 runs@24 and 91 wkts@33

 

Imagine if Windies had discarded him based on those numbers calling him not good enough.

[Ankit_sharma03]

3 minutes ago, ShoonyaSifar said:

All rounder take time to develop and require patience.

 

Take the example of Jason Holder. Has been playing for 5 years now. Hi record After 30 tests, 1300 runs@30 and 55 wickets@38

After 70 ODIs, 1024 runs@24 and 91 wkts@33

 

Imagine if Windies had discarded him based on those numbers calling him not good enough.

Exactly infact most of them dont have gr8 numbers till 20 test matches including the great kallis. I did post a stat during england series that how pandya was ahead than many great all rounders in terms of numbers in 1st 10 test . 

 

 

[philcric]

To the posters above,

 

You guys don't get it. You never will.

 

Using logic, available data and cricket knowledge to debate cricket. Pfft. Use baseball instead, even though it's a different sport with different rules and skill sets. That's evolved, next level stuff.

 

[Khota]

7 hours ago, Clarke said:

Ashwin is just one name. You seem to demand perfection from all rounders while accepting mediocrity in batsmen like Dhawan & Rohit who are ftbs. Why the bias ?

No bias at all. If they don't perform bench them, unlike some on this forum who want to give Pandya 30 games to prove himself.

[Khota]

6 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Change , for whom........i think its u who are not getting. Check across team every team plays 1-3 all rounders 

ur bringing baseball into cricket, we are using cricket facts in cricket 

cricket men cricket ki baat kar baseball kyun ghussa raha hai, coz u dont watch cricket . All rounder have existed in past in cricket n wud in future

by that logic bowlers shud have no value as they dont make runs only most days. If u gonna bowl u will give runs. Ur just adamant in proving ur point that u have gone to an extent of pointing shankar who gave runs by 4.75 eco. 

 

N for the last time they dont have to excel in both dept, specialist across the team havent even excelled in their own skill. If they are even good in both that enough for any captain 

Last I checked India played a grand total of zero and beat Australia in Australia. Not many teams have done that.

[Ankit_sharma03]

15 minutes ago, Khota said:

Last I checked India played a grand total of zero and beat Australia in Australia. Not many teams have done that.

not many team even faced this weak a aussie side 

Do check in past how better aussie sides have defeated our specialist line. Had pandya played we still wud have won

Edited February 20, 2019 by Ankit_sharma03

[zen]

44 minutes ago, Khota said:

Last I checked India played a grand total of zero and beat Australia in Australia. Not many teams have done that.

If Pandya had played, we would have won at Perth too

[Khota]

5 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

not many team even faced this weak a aussie side 

Do check in past how better aussie sides have defeated our specialist line. Had pandya played we still wud have won

India can only play with the team they select. How did SL do against the same side?

[Khota]

5 hours ago, zen said:

If Pandya had played, we would have won at Perth too

We could have lost it all too.

[zen]

Just now, Khota said:

We could have lost it all too.

Then you haven't followed the series. Thank you! 

[Khota]

1 minute ago, zen said:

Then you haven't followed the series. Thank you! 

Making assumptions once again.

[zen]

1 minute ago, Khota said:

Making assumptions once again.

You did. Pandya plays well in bouncy conditions. The series was won because of how Pujara batted so we would not have lost it 

 

Don't waste my time with such posts. Thanks! 

Edited February 20, 2019 by zen

[Ankit_sharma03]

3 minutes ago, Khota said:

India can only play with the team they select. How did SL do against the same side?

SL is one the most poorest team and we are one of the best side, Aus side perfomance will depend on opp 

Facing bumrah is diff to facing rajitha or fernando