All Rounders Do Not Exist Part - II

[Gollum]

17 hours ago, Khota said:

In a poor team devoid of good bowlers I may get few wkts too.

Not just about wickets, look at his ER...in a tournament where many specialist spinners were going at 6-7 rpo. Did you watch BD's WC campaign? Or at least their match against us....we were looking at a 400+ score before he came and strangulated us, 10 overs for 40, halted Rohit's momentum. Did this the whole tourney, bowled the difficult overs, always completed his quota and was the go-to bowler for captain for 80% of the innings. 

 

Last year he outclassed Smith/Kohli/Root/Kane with the bat, did better than most specialist spinners with the ball. How does he not disprove your thread title? A player like him batting at #4, solid bowling option, slot him in Indian team and even the brilliant Poms will struggle against us. Not just because of what he brings to the table, but such a player can allow the team to be so much more flexible.

[Ankit_sharma03]

2 hours ago, OpeningBatsman said:

You forgot Lance Klusener. 

 

Sub 30 bowling avg and 40+ bat avg in ODiS

Im sure i have forgotten many. Even chris cairns, razzaq were very good for their teams. Russell in t20 shud be one of the starters 

[Ankit_sharma03]

3 hours ago, OpeningBatsman said:

You forgot Lance Klusener. 

 

Sub 30 bowling avg and 40+ bat avg in ODi

Also  butler, gilly, dhoni all are all rounders

Edited November 22, 2020 by Ankit_sharma03

[Khota]

9 hours ago, Serpico said:

So? None of those dozen bowlers can bat at 6. I'm not sure what personal rivalry you have with Pandya but adding depth to the batting order is a real concept that all top teams follow. Sometimes you sacrifice some bowling talent to add more batting in the team. 

 

Tell me your opinion about the two teams that reached wc final last year. Should NZ have dropped Neesham/Grandhomme? Southee is better bowler than both of them.

Should England have dropped Ben stokes/Chris woakes? Chris Jordan is better bowler than both of them.

NZ won because India does not have a coach. NZ is a very ordinary team that should have been easily defeated by India. Some geniuses decided to play 3 wkt kprs, not one, not two but three freaking keepers. That was the game right there.

 

India should have easily won that cup.

 

In a perfect world there should be no compromise on your five strike bowlers. Absolutely none. Batsman have to deliver runs.

[Khota]

9 hours ago, Serpico said:

What about wicket keeping then, that's an entirely different talent. Please open another thread on how wicket keeping batsman does not exist because pant flopped this year. Afterall we only have one great wkb in our cricket history, maybe we should stop looking for wkbs too. Let's have wicket keeper who bats at 10 again.

 

Come to think of it, fielding is a talent too. We need to have a specialist slip catchers and gully fielders. Proof is all the catches kohli has dropped. Good batsmen who are great fielders do not exist. 

Wkt keeping is differnt. Their primary function is to do their job and then score. That task is easily changeable because array of motion required is about the same.

 

Now you are being silly. Everone has to be an exceptional fielder. No compromise.

 

 

[Khota]

4 hours ago, Gollum said:

Not just about wickets, look at his ER...in a tournament where many specialist spinners were going at 6-7 rpo. Did you watch BD's WC campaign? Or at least their match against us....we were looking at a 400+ score before he came and strangulated us, 10 overs for 40, halted Rohit's momentum. Did this the whole tourney, bowled the difficult overs, always completed his quota and was the go-to bowler for captain for 80% of the innings. 

 

Last year he outclassed Smith/Kohli/Root/Kane with the bat, did better than most specialist spinners with the ball. How does he not disprove your thread title? A player like him batting at #4, solid bowling option, slot him in Indian team and even the brilliant Poms will struggle against us. Not just because of what he brings to the table, but such a player can allow the team to be so much more flexible.

Once again a player here or there is an exception not a norm.

 

We tried Pandya. Fail

Tried Binny. Fail.

Tried Shankar. Fail.

 

When will this insanity end?

 

Only one I respect out of this lot is Jadeja and no one else.

[Straight Drive]

23 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

 

and 

• sobers
• botham
• Imran
• Kapil
• holder
• shakib
• flintoff
• watson
• hadlee

+ Chris Cairns

[Tattieboy]

Here is my take on All Rounders for what's it's worth .

There are two types of all rounders ...Genuine All Rounders and All Rounders .

In my life time there is IMHO been only one genuine all rounder for 5 or 6 years and one nearly one ! The rest are all rounders .

The genuine for 5 years was Ian Botham and the nearly was Kapil Dev. A genuine is someone who can be picked either as a batsman or Bowler and deliver on a consistent basis match winning performances in either or both disciplines .

Botham from the get go delivered on both and I am sure at one time he was #1 in batting and bowling at same time , for me Kapil batted too low to be classed a Genuine .

Imran Khan , Richard Hadlee were bowlers who over years developed being able to score some runs ( inconstantly) 

 

Now controversially I don't rate Gary Sobers as a Genuine All Rounder because he does not have near enough match winning bowling figures ( 5 five fors ) 

 

The guy with the best career all rounder figures is Jacque Kallis but again for me very poor bowling match winning figures does not make him a genuine all rounder either but a very very good all rounder . 

So for me apart from Botham for a period have delivered  enough  with bat and ball consistently to be true genuine all rounders ...  I suppose it all comes down to what we classify an all rounder as 

[GeeGaw]

On 11/21/2020 at 8:08 AM, Khota said:

I think BenStokes is good but IPL shows he is over estimated.

Your posts show you are under educated in cricket knowledge.

[maniac]

2 hours ago, Tattieboy said:

Here is my take on All Rounders for what's it's worth .

There are two types of all rounders ...Genuine All Rounders and All Rounders .

In my life time there is IMHO been only one genuine all rounder for 5 or 6 years and one nearly one ! The rest are all rounders .

The genuine for 5 years was Ian Botham and the nearly was Kapil Dev. A genuine is someone who can be picked either as a batsman or Bowler and deliver on a consistent basis match winning performances in either or both disciplines .

Botham from the get go delivered on both and I am sure at one time he was #1 in batting and bowling at same time , for me Kapil batted too low to be classed a Genuine .

Imran Khan , Richard Hadlee were bowlers who over years developed being able to score some runs ( inconstantly) 

 

Now controversially I don't rate Gary Sobers as a Genuine All Rounder because he does not have near enough match winning bowling figures ( 5 five fors ) 

 

The guy with the best career all rounder figures is Jacque Kallis but again for me very poor bowling match winning figures does not make him a genuine all rounder either but a very very good all rounder . 

So for me apart from Botham for a period have delivered  enough  with bat and ball consistently to be true genuine all rounders ...  I suppose it all comes down to what we classify an all rounder as 

chris cairns may not have the same pedigree as some of the names but he was a genuine allrounder who could make it to the side as a batsman or a strike bowler. 
 

Shakib is another guy

[Khota]

3 hours ago, Tattieboy said:

Here is my take on All Rounders for what's it's worth .

There are two types of all rounders ...Genuine All Rounders and All Rounders .

In my life time there is IMHO been only one genuine all rounder for 5 or 6 years and one nearly one ! The rest are all rounders .

The genuine for 5 years was Ian Botham and the nearly was Kapil Dev. A genuine is someone who can be picked either as a batsman or Bowler and deliver on a consistent basis match winning performances in either or both disciplines .

Botham from the get go delivered on both and I am sure at one time he was #1 in batting and bowling at same time , for me Kapil batted too low to be classed a Genuine .

Imran Khan , Richard Hadlee were bowlers who over years developed being able to score some runs ( inconstantly) 

 

Now controversially I don't rate Gary Sobers as a Genuine All Rounder because he does not have near enough match winning bowling figures ( 5 five fors ) 

 

The guy with the best career all rounder figures is Jacque Kallis but again for me very poor bowling match winning figures does not make him a genuine all rounder either but a very very good all rounder . 

So for me apart from Botham for a period have delivered  enough  with bat and ball consistently to be true genuine all rounders ...  I suppose it all comes down to what we classify an all rounder as 

Great post. One of the few fortunate ones to see Ian Timothy Botham. He was the meanest bowler and meanest bat. Kapil was a good bowler in a bad team and Sobers I never saw.

 

So in 100 years of cricket played by handful of nations we all agree on one. Only one.

[Khota]

3 hours ago, GeeGaw said:

Your posts show you are under educated in cricket knowledge.

Thanks for your detailed, insightful and thorough analysis.

[Tattieboy]

25 minutes ago, Khota said:

Great post. One of the few fortunate ones to see Ian Timothy Botham. He was the meanest bowler and meanest bat. Kapil was a good bowler in a bad team and Sobers I never saw.

 

So in 100 years of cricket played by handful of nations we all agree on one. Only one.

I had the great fortune to play at the age of 16 against Sobers or should I say  field and watch him get for 30 runs then  he disappeared off the park to  go to play golf at nearby British Open golf course Carnoustie ,  he did come back at night and although I can't vouch for his all rounder abilities he can drink a lot , he was very funny and he had more women sat on his knee in one night than I had in my life ...most characteristic cricketer I had the pleasure of being on the same park as 

[Khota]

11 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

I had the great fortune to play at the age of 16 against Sobers or should I say  field and watch him get for 30 runs then  he disappeared off the park to  go to play golf at nearby British Open golf course Carnoustie ,  he did come back at night and although I can't vouch for his all rounder abilities he can drink a lot , he was very funny and he had more women sat on his knee in one night than I had in my life ...most characteristic cricketer I had the pleasure of being on the same park as 

You along with couple of other guys are the real deal on this site.

 

Rest of us are pretenders.Could never become good in cricket but did develop a good tennis game. Now I am down to 5K's only.

[Tattieboy]

2 minutes ago, Khota said:

You along with couple of other guys are the real deal on this site.

 

Rest of us are pretenders.Could never become good in cricket but did develop a good tennis game. Now I am down to 5K's only.

I now just cherish the memories of playing against some  great players ...Actually football was my first love but at 14 for some reason I decided to concentrate on my cricket instead . But here is the thing despite playing against some greats ihave just as much fun when the  hotel boys in Ahmedadbad take me on a Sunday morning  down to local maidan and we just hit balls for fun

[Sooda]

It is too early to brand Pandya a failure. - 11 tests and 54 ODIs man! And in those 11 tests he has done enough to show he should be persisted with- crucial 5fer in trent bridge win, 90 odd in a crisis in south africa, test ton vs SL

 

I do not agree that an AR has to be able to make it to the team on one suite- Vihari for instance will always be a better test bat, but because HP can bowl, because he can take an (even occaisional) match winning 5 fer, or bowl a good spell and give the front line bowlers a breather to help them when they bowl (intangible contribution), that adds weight to whether he should be picked in an XI... probably depending on opposition and conditions.

 

Genuine, great all rounders are an exception yes, but even potentially good ones need to be given a chance or even a long run. Pandya is never going to be Kapil , he dosent have to be. 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Khota said:

Once again a player here or there is an exception not a norm.

 

We tried Pandya. Fail

Tried Binny. Fail.

Tried Shankar. Fail.

 

When will this insanity end?

 

Only one I respect out of this lot is Jadeja and no one else.

 

[Sooda]

7 hours ago, Tattieboy said:

Here is my take on All Rounders for what's it's worth .

There are two types of all rounders ...Genuine All Rounders and All Rounders .

In my life time there is IMHO been only one genuine all rounder for 5 or 6 years and one nearly one ! The rest are all rounders .

The genuine for 5 years was Ian Botham and the nearly was Kapil Dev. A genuine is someone who can be picked either as a batsman or Bowler and deliver on a consistent basis match winning performances in either or both disciplines .

Botham from the get go delivered on both and I am sure at one time he was #1 in batting and bowling at same time , for me Kapil batted too low to be classed a Genuine .

Imran Khan , Richard Hadlee were bowlers who over years developed being able to score some runs ( inconstantly) 

 

Now controversially I don't rate Gary Sobers as a Genuine All Rounder because he does not have near enough match winning bowling figures ( 5 five fors ) 

 

The guy with the best career all rounder figures is Jacque Kallis but again for me very poor bowling match winning figures does not make him a genuine all rounder either but a very very good all rounder . 

So for me apart from Botham for a period have delivered  enough  with bat and ball consistently to be true genuine all rounders ...  I suppose it all comes down to what we classify an all rounder as 

 

Was Botham that good with the bat , that he was delivering consistent match winning performances with it? I 

 

average of 33 , 14 tons in 103 tests ... 383 wickets...Definitely a bowling all rounder...all the 80's greats were...

 

I would suggest Hadlee was not good enough a bat to be called an all rounder, the rest were

 

In my opinion: NO PLAYER IN THE HISTORY OF TEST CRICKET WAS EVER GOOD ENOUGH TO GET INTO THE TEAM ON EITHER DISCIPLINE. Not Botham, Kapil , Imran as batsmen, Sobers and Kallis as bowlers... and those are the top 5 ARs in history

 

Maybe they had "purple patches" when they were very good at either/both disciplines, or magic innings'... but Botham for eg. would not have cemented a place in the 11, purely as a batter,  if he could not bowl. 

 

[Khota]

1 hour ago, Sooda said:

It is too early to brand Pandya a failure. - 11 tests and 54 ODIs man! And in those 11 tests he has done enough to show he should be persisted with- crucial 5fer in trent bridge win, 90 odd in a crisis in south africa, test ton vs SL

 

I do not agree that an AR has to be able to make it to the team on one suite- Vihari for instance will always be a better test bat, but because HP can bowl, because he can take an (even occaisional) match winning 5 fer, or bowl a good spell and give the front line bowlers a breather to help them when they bowl (intangible contribution), that adds weight to whether he should be picked in an XI... probably depending on opposition and conditions.

 

Genuine, great all rounders are an exception yes, but even potentially good ones need to be given a chance or even a long run. Pandya is never going to be Kapil , he dosent have to be. 

 

 

 

 

It is almost half a decade and we are discussing his merit in the team. I think that is classiifed as a failure.

[Khota]

1 hour ago, Sooda said:

 

Was Botham that good with the bat , that he was delivering consistent match winning performances with it? I 

 

average of 33 , 14 tons in 103 tests ... 383 wickets...Definitely a bowling all rounder...all the 80's greats were...

 

I would suggest Hadlee was not good enough a bat to be called an all rounder, the rest were

 

In my opinion: NO PLAYER IN THE HISTORY OF TEST CRICKET WAS EVER GOOD ENOUGH TO GET INTO THE TEAM ON EITHER DISCIPLINE. Not Botham, Kapil , Imran as batsmen, Sobers and Kallis as bowlers... and those are the top 5 ARs in history

 

Maybe they had "purple patches" when they were very good at either/both disciplines, or magic innings'... but Botham for eg. would not have cemented a place in the 11, purely as a batter,  if he could not bowl. 

 

Let us give Pandya benefit od doubt and go by your logic. The five players you have mentioned were also the top bowlers on their team. Pandya is consistenly the worst bowler. Even by your logic he does not deserve a spot. Half a decade of experiment in Indian team is enough.

[Tattieboy]

1 hour ago, Sooda said:

 

Was Botham that good with the bat , that he was delivering consistent match winning performances with it? I 

 

average of 33 , 14 tons in 103 tests ... 383 wickets...Definitely a bowling all rounder...all the 80's greats were...

 

I would suggest Hadlee was not good enough a bat to be called an all rounder, the rest were

 

In my opinion: NO PLAYER IN THE HISTORY OF TEST CRICKET WAS EVER GOOD ENOUGH TO GET INTO THE TEAM ON EITHER DISCIPLINE. Not Botham, Kapil , Imran as batsmen, Sobers and Kallis as bowlers... and those are the top 5 ARs in history

 

Maybe they had "purple patches" when they were very good at either/both disciplines, or magic innings'... but Botham for eg. would not have cemented a place in the 11, purely as a batter,  if he could not bowl. 

 

You failed to read my comments or didn't understand them ..I said for first 5/6 years he was the only genuine all rounder in my life time and yes he would have been picked as a batsman  or a bowler . He played more years than he should , his lifestyle, lack of professionalism, bans and a back disc fussion operation all contributed to his figures not being what they should have but for those six years there has been nothing to match him as a genuine all rounder .