Isn't it more effective to field an eleven with as much as multi dimensional players??

[Global.Baba]

Just now, philcric said:

 

I'm with you on this.

 

You could be a genuine all rounder (could get into team either on batting or bowling alone, very rare, Shakib is probably the only one at the moment), or a batsman who can bowl, or a bowler who can bat, or a player who is valuable only with batting+bowling skills combined. What matters is the overall balance of the team, and the batting and bowling strength of all playing XI combined.

 

India right now has a problem with 4th-5th bowler and a stable middle order. Pandya brothers especially Krunal is not good enough to be a full time 4th or 5th bowler so that leaves our bowling vulnerable.

 

On the other hand our middle order is already as fragile as a pack of cards so playing a guy who is not a well rounded bat is also a problem.

 

So forcing an allrounder is doing more damage than helping the stability.

 

 

[Global.Baba]

The great WI and Aus teams never had these “multi dimensional” players unless you put  Gilchrist in the  allrounder category.

[Global.Baba]

Also apart from WI and Aus, one of India’s greatest period in its cricket history from 2009-2011 didn’t have a single allrounder either.

 

 

[rtmohanlal]

46 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

Stokes has a shot at being one. 6 100s one of them a 250, 16 50s, 4 4 wicket hauls and 4 5 wicket hauls in tests

 

May be or not ...But it would take a herculean task for him to do that. The 80s Fab 4 ,Kallis, Sobers, Miller etc were several levels higher.

BTW Stokes is virtually a 'batsman only' in one dayers. 41+ avg:  in bowling is  tail ender like avg: from a batting point of view.

Edited November 25, 2018 by rtmohanlal

[rtmohanlal]

35 minutes ago, philcric said:

 

I'm with you on this.

 

You could be a genuine all rounder (could get into team either on batting or bowling alone, very rare, Shakib is probably the only one at the moment), or a batsman who can bowl, or a bowler who can bat, or a player who is valuable only with batting+bowling skills combined. What matters is the overall balance of the team, and the batting and bowling strength of all playing XI combined.

 

the great advantage with ENG is that they  have these 'horses for courses players'  in abundance be it seam or spin. Stokes,Curren,Woakes  w.r.t seam and Ali,Rashid  in spin dept:.

 

For India , as of now baring Pandya we lacks 'seam bowlers + useful bats'. May be Bhuvi can become one .Vijay Shankar too can be groomed.

[rtmohanlal]

39 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

 

 

 

 

42 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

The great WI and Aus teams never had these “multi dimensional” players unless you put  Gilchrist in the  allrounder category.

 

39 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

Also apart from WI and Aus, one of India’s greatest period in its cricket history from 2009-2011 didn’t have a single allrounder either.

 

 

 

Leave aside those 2 ATG AUS & WI teams.... these 2 teams had several  'ATG   to very good' players in their teams. Even then Viv,Logie, Marshall,Hooper,Harper,Warne,Waugh brothers,Ponting(fielding) all were useful  other than in their strong disciplines.

For India  Sachin,Sehwag,Ganguly,Harbhajan,Kumble,Agarkar,Yuvraj were more than handy  in their weaker disciplines on various occasions.

[philcric]

44 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

India right now has a problem with 4th-5th bowler and a stable middle order. Pandya brothers especially Krunal is not good enough to be a full time 4th or 5th bowler so that leaves our bowling vulnerable.

 

On the other hand our middle order is already as fragile as a pack of cards so playing a guy who is not a well rounded bat is also a problem.

 

So forcing an allrounder is doing more damage than helping the stability.

 

 

I'm assuming you are talking about T20s.

 

Krunal has not replaced a batsman but a bowler (Chahal). So, he has not weakened the fragile middle order. A batsman cannot take his place because that would leave the team with only 4 bowlers.

 

Krunal in place of Chahal theoretically and arguably weakens the bowling by a bit (or more) and strengthens the batting by a bit (or more). So, it depends on the team's preference how they want to go about. They clearly want to strengthen the batting. Is it the only way and the best option? Not necessarily. Neither is the other option where you strengthen the bowling and weaken the batting.

 

The team composition most times is a bit of a compromise wrt overall batting and bowling esp. the last spot or two.

 

[philcric]

54 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

The great WI and Aus teams never had these “multi dimensional” players unless you put  Gilchrist in the  allrounder category.

 

Resources at their disposal determines the team composition.

 

Do you want the current England team to stop picking multi dimensional players and pick only batters who can't bowl and bowlers who can't bat?

 

[Global.Baba]

Just now, philcric said:

 

Resources at their disposal determines the team composition.

 

Do you want the current England team to stop picking multi dimensional players and pick only batters who can't bowl and bowlers who can't bat?

 

No, if one of your best cricketer happens to be a multi dimensional cricketer this great. For example someone like Shakib or even Jason Holder.

 

Sachin,Sehwag, Ganguly,Dravid(keeper-bat) just happened to have that additional ability in a different skill. They were not picked over other deserving players because of it. They were the best in the country and were not forced into the side for their allround abilities.

 

In fact in their case it would have more sense if they were marginally inferior to other available batsman because of their additional skill. However fortunately that wasn’t the case. I am more against forcing a bits and pieces player just for the sake of it for his “allround” abilities.

 

In case of T20 I am fine with the Pandya bros because who cares for T20I Anyways.

 

@rtmohanlal this response goes  for your earlier post as well.

[philcric]

2 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

No, if one of your best cricketer happens to be a multi dimensional cricketer this great. For example someone like Shakib or even Jason Holder.

 

Sachin,Sehwag, Ganguly,Dravid(keeper-bat) just happened to have that additional ability in a different skill. They were not picked over other deserving players because of it. They were the best in the country and were not forced into the side for their allround abilities.

 

In fact in their case it would have more sense if they were marginally inferior to other available batsman because of their additional skill. However fortunately that wasn’t the case. I am more against forcing a bits and pieces player just for the sake of it for his “allround” abilities.

 

In case of T20 I am fine with the Pandya bros because who cares for T20I Anyways.

 

@rtmohanlal this response goes  for your earlier post as well.

 

Again, you are looking at one individual player in isolation and thinking if he's a good 4th bowler or 5th bowler or 6th batsman or 7th batsman, and coming to conclusions like an all rounder is being forced into the team or a more deserving player is missing out.

 

In very simple terms, the team wants 5 bowlers (3 pacers + 2 spinners). Bumrah, Bhuvi, Khaleel and Kuldeep are the obvious first 4 picks for that combination. The last spot is a toss up between Chahal and Krunal. Chahal strengthens the bowling while Krunal strengthens the batting. I personally am okay with either selection being aware of both pros and cons of both choices.

 

[mishra]

17 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

sadly in place of Sachin,Sehwag,Sourav who all could bowl  if needed , we have Kohli,Rahane,Pujara who don't  even try a bit of bowling

despite being far inferior in batting too.This is why , what I posted in the OP  deserves far more importance...

Yes. And thats the real issue. We cant get 1+ wicket by part timer. And worse bit is, they were better bats too

[Ankit_sharma03]

1 hour ago, Global.Baba said:

The great WI and Aus teams never had these “multi dimensional” players unless you put  Gilchrist in the  allrounder category.

1. they had the bowling lineup that didnt make the opp batting last long on most days

2. Matches were less compare to now so workload mngmt wasnt that much of problem

3. WI- viv, lyod (bowled a bit)

    aus- waugh bros, clarke later bowled 

1 hour ago, Global.Baba said:

Also apart from WI and Aus, one of India’s greatest period in its cricket history from 2009-2011 didn’t have a single allrounder either.

We had sachin , sehwag and yuvraj also during that time toghter who made up for 5th bowler and ganguly earlier 

 

The current indian team lacks any bowling option in batsman and neither we have bowling attack of WI n AUS and worload for someone like bumrah is a lot more due to 3 format

 

So all this sounds good but u hve to take current scenarios into picture

[Khota]

7 hours ago, philcric said:

 

7 out of the last 8 tests they played.

On their way to winning 8 out of 9.

 

Are they #1?

[Khota]

6 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

a series in SL....where recently Sa was thrashed badly 

before that beat India in their own backyard......beating a strong team at home is no less of feat

Series with India could have gone either way.

[Clarke]

Those dimensions have to add up to something on the scorecard in terms of runs & wickets, no point playing them for the heck of it. 

[Ankit_sharma03]

7 minutes ago, Khota said:

Series with India could have gone either way.

4-1 , either way 

not really .....even if i take ur example at the end what matters is who won

N had we won we had pandya and he was the one who won us that one game also

 

So ur logic wud be gone for toss from both end , coz team had multidimensional cricketers

[Khota]

5 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

4-1 , either way 

not really .....even if i take ur example at the end what matters is who won

N had we won we had pandya and he was the one who won us that one game also

 

So ur logic wud be gone for toss from both end , coz team had multidimensional cricketers

In the end they did won but India was not outclassed. India lost due to batting, Pandya just happened to be at the right place at right time.

[Ankit_sharma03]

2 minutes ago, Khota said:

In the end they did won but India was not outclassed. India lost due to batting, Pandya just happened to be at the right place at right time.

their were other bowler also their at same time who tied them 

if taking 5 wkts in 6 overs was that easy as u make it sound like 

[Khota]

4 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

their were other bowler also their at same time who tied them 

if taking 5 wkts in 6 overs was that easy as u make it sound like 

Never said it was easy. But for you to say he is India's strike bowler than that is incorrect.

[Ankit_sharma03]

2 minutes ago, Khota said:

Never said it was easy. But for you to say he is India's strike bowler than that is incorrect.

when did i say that ?