All Rounders Do Not Exist Part - II

[Vijy]

52 minutes ago, Frustrated said:

Despite being a specialist batter, SKY averages only 26 in ODIs after having played 32 matches.  Whereas Pandya, the AR, averages 34 with much better SR.   How is SKY a better batsman than Pandya ?

Because one is an "all-rounder" and the other is a "batter"...?

 

Sir Viv was an AR, yet had a greater batting avg and SR than any other player of his era.

[Zero_Unit]

This thread again ... lol. 

[express bowling]

Allrounders make sense only if they can make it to the team as 

 

....  a strike bowler   or

....  a high average top order / middle order batter   or

....  a high SR lower-middle order hitter.

 

And the other area is an additional skill-set.

 

Like Ashwin or Jadeja in test matches. They are strike bowlers in this format and their batting is in addition to this.

 

Shardul Thakur, Harshal Patel etc. are ideal examples of bits and pieces players who weaken the team.

Edited November 6, 2023 by express bowling

[SRT100]

6 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Allrounders make sense only if they can make it to the team as 

 

....  a strike bowler   or

....  a high average top order / middle order batter   or

....  a high SR lower-middle order hitter.

 

And the other area is an additional skill-set.

 

Like Ashwin or Jadeja in test matches. They are strike bowlers in this format and their batting is in addition to this.

 

Shardul Thakur, Harshal Patel etc. are ideal examples of bits and pieces players who weaken the team.

 

Good post, Im glad you counted Ash and Jaddu in Tests, because thats exactly how I felt as well.  Its been an absolute strength of India in India to have batting to number 10 and 11 in Tests. There was a stage where Ash was actually out batting our batters esp Kohli.

 

Its a shame we dont have this in ODI and or T20.

 

Thakur Patel, this is the quintessential definition of "bits and pieces" players.

 

For me the "true: definition of an all rounder, is a player that can represent the side as either as a batsman or bowler.

[SRT100]

4 hours ago, Vijy said:

Because one is an "all-rounder" and the other is a "batter"...?

 

Sir Viv was an AR, yet had a greater batting avg and SR than any other player of his era.

Viv was more of a part time bowler, but effective. Definitely was not a strike bowler, but he did have occasional bags of wickets.

[SRT100]

If you look at the last generation of Indian Cricketers like

Ganguly, SRT, Dravid, Sehwag, Dhoni, Yuvraj they were weapons and made India stronger because of their all round ability.

 

Not all rounders per se, but Ganguly, SRT, Sehwag, Yuvraj could comfortably cover together and be a 5th bowler for 10 overs.

[Serpico]

7 hours ago, Khota said:

Sub 100 outs?

Its a trade-off. If we had another all-rounder, we would have scored 250+ against England 

[Khota]

10 hours ago, IndiaWC8311 said:

Only one real all rounder SIR RAVINDRA JADEJA

rest are all fake all rounders

Sir Jadeja is indeed world class. The best. I love his confidence too. Others were a drag.

[Khota]

4 hours ago, Serpico said:

Its a trade-off. If we had another all-rounder, we would have scored 250+ against England 

I agree. That is why I want someone to do Analytics and check their worth. That is what I have been claiming for long time.

[Khota]

9 hours ago, Frustrated said:

Despite being a specialist batter, SKY averages only 26 in ODIs after having played 32 matches.  Whereas Pandya, the AR, averages 34 with much better SR.   How is SKY a better batsman than Pandya ?

Too small a sample size.

[rollingstoned]

6 hours ago, express bowling said:

Allrounders make sense only if they can make it to the team as 

 

....  a strike bowler   or

....  a high average top order / middle order batter   or

....  a high SR lower-middle order hitter.

 

And the other area is an additional skill-set.

 

Like Ashwin or Jadeja in test matches. They are strike bowlers in this format and their batting is in addition to this.

 

Shardul Thakur, Harshal Patel etc. are ideal examples of bits and pieces players who weaken the team.

Fast bowling all rounders are the sports MVPs. It's not for no reason that Hardik gets such a long rope. 

[cricspirit]

7 hours ago, SRT100 said:

If you look at the last generation of Indian Cricketers like

Ganguly, SRT, Dravid, Sehwag, Dhoni, Yuvraj they were weapons and made India stronger because of their all round ability.

 

Not all rounders per se, but Ganguly, SRT, Sehwag, Yuvraj could comfortably cover together and be a 5th bowler for 10 overs.

 

I think in between Ganguly, Sehwag, Sachin and Yuvi they could cover even 20 overs depending on conditions. Certainly Yuvi and Sehwag could bowl 10 good overs when there is help for spinners. Ganguly was handy in specific conditions. Sachin could spin on any pitch and could easily bowl 5 plus overs any time. 

 

We miss this bowling ability very badly. 

[Vijy]

8 hours ago, SRT100 said:

Viv was more of a part time bowler, but effective. Definitely was not a strike bowler, but he did have occasional bags of wickets.

no, he was a bona fide AR in ODIs. would bowl 10 overs often (in 60 over games) and keep it tight.

[cricspirit]

54 minutes ago, Vijy said:

no, he was a bona fide AR in ODIs. would bowl 10 overs often (in 60 over games) and keep it tight.

 

Carl Hooper too bowled often and definitely qualified as an allrounder. That time WI team was damn good.

[Mariyam]

4 hours ago, Khota said:

I agree. That is why I want someone to do Analytics and check their worth. That is what I have been claiming for long time.

Wait what?

So for all these years your claim is without any analytics to back it up?

 

 

I am going to try your method for my next dissertation. Make an outrageous claim and then hope that someone else does the analytics at some point in the future.

 

My profound thinking has lead me to the conclusion that if you go to the moon and type google in the google search bar, the universe will cease to exist.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Mariyam

[SRT100]

2 hours ago, Vijy said:

no, he was a bona fide AR in ODIs. would bowl 10 overs often (in 60 over games) and keep it tight.

Agree to disagree, the reason he was bowled was because WI wanted to field 7 batsmen and 4 bowlers. He had to bowl.

Many times SRT, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Sehwag have bowled 10 overs, doesnt make them all rounders.

[SRT100]

2 hours ago, cricspirit said:

 

I think in between Ganguly, Sehwag, Sachin and Yuvi they could cover even 20 overs depending on conditions. Certainly Yuvi and Sehwag could bowl 10 good overs when there is help for spinners. Ganguly was handy in specific conditions. Sachin could spin on any pitch and could easily bowl 5 plus overs any time. 

 

We miss this bowling ability very badly. 

 

This luxury enabled India to field a strong batting lineup. Its  unfortunate that we didnt have 2-3 elite wicket taking bowlers at the time compared to today.

[Khota]

7 hours ago, Mariyam said:

Wait what?

So for all these years your claim is without any analytics to back it up?

 

 

I am going to try your method for my next dissertation. Make an outrageous claim and then hope that someone else does the analytics at some point in the future.

 

My profound thinking has lead me to the conclusion that if you go to the moon and type google in the google search bar, the universe will cease to exist.

The results are there to see. 

Previously opposition would get Pandya or Shardul and get a break. Not anymore.

It is game over with Shami.

 

 

[Frustrated]

Jaddu (an AR) took 5 wickets against the best batting line up (SA). Also scored 35 from just 24 balls.  Without his contribution we would hv made around 290-300.  This goes to show the importance of ARs in the team.  

[Frustrated]

This thread has gone into 20 pages.  Might as well go to 50 pages.  Only to prove one thing. That No team can win a WC without ARs.