Allrounders Vs Batsmen and Bowlers

[xanderbiscuits]

Who do you think would win a 3 match series (One Test, One 50 Overs a side, One Twenty20) between a team of allrounders and a WK and a team of Batsmen and Bowlers with a WK?

You can imagine any teams you want from any coutries and any time periods.

 

[Perm]

The specialists would clean up in the Test and probably the ODI, but hit and miss when it comes to the Twenty20 though.

 

[Prince EWS]

Batsmen/bowlers side would certainly win the ODI - a lot of the allrounders' skills would end up totally wasted.. one of them would have to bat #11 and one would be 10th bowling option, for example.

The test I think would go to the allrounders, if not end in a draw. The full depth of the batting lineup could be utilised, as could the different bowlers as the conditions changed throughout the match. I couldn't see ten quality allrounders and a wicket-keeper being dismissed twice and have their runs chased down, even though the bowling attack would obviously be quite strong.

I'm not going to bother with the Twenty20 game.

 

[Richard]

Wot 'e said.

 

[NUFAN]

I think it really depends. Give me a list of players considered allrounders..

Is Graeme Smith considered an allrounder in ODI's for example? He gets a little ball besides his name on the team sheet.

I'll say the allrounders will win the ODI matches - Who gets first choice for the keeper?

 

[deeps]

Shahid Afridi
Sanath Jayasuriya
Kumar Sangakkara
Shoaib Malik
Jacques Kallis
Paul Collingwood
Andrew Flintoff
Shane Watson
Jacob Oram
Shaun Pollock
Brad Hogg

Hard team to beat that one

 

[Perm]

Shahid Afridi
Sanath Jayasuriya
Kumar Sangakkara
Shoaib Malik
Jacques Kallis
Paul Collingwood
Andrew Flintoff
Shane Watson
Jacob Oram
Shaun Pollock
Brad Hogg

Hard team to beat that one

Pretty confident that a team consiting of this would beat them.

Tendulkar
Gilchrist (wk)
Ponting
Pietersen
Sarwan
Hussey
Lee
Vaas
Bond
Muralitharan
McGrath

 

[deeps]

The main problem is that most of the team i came up with are BATTING all rounders. Pollock Flintoff and Hogg are the only real bowling all rounders on that side. If there was one more bowling all rounder, i think it'd be far more even.

 

[Perm]

The main problem is that most of the team i came up with are BATTING all rounders. Pollock Flintoff and Hogg are the only real bowling all rounders on that side. If there was one more bowling all rounder, i think it'd be far more even.

I would hardly consider Brad Hogg as an allrounder really, just a bowler who is handy with the bat.

 

[deeps]

He is as handy with the bat as Collingwood is handy with the ball really.

At internatinoal level he hasn't managed to show it as much due to coming out in the slog overs and he isn't a slogger.

He does average 35 in first class cricket...funnily enough only really 1.5 runs behind Cameron White, who everyone considers a batsman who can bowl a bit.

 

[Perm]

He is as handy with the bat as Collingwood is handy with the ball really.

At internatinoal level he hasn't managed to show it as much due to coming out in the slog overs and he isn't a slogger.

He does average 35 in first class cricket

Yes, he also averages over 40 as a bowler in First Class cricket, hardly impressive figures.

 

[NUFAN]

Shahid Afridi
Sanath Jayasuriya
Kumar Sangakkara
Shoaib Malik
Jacques Kallis
Paul Collingwood
Andrew Flintoff
Shane Watson
Jacob Oram
Shaun Pollock
Brad Hogg

Hard team to beat that one

Can't believe some of your selections

1 Jayasuriya
2 Gayle
3 Kallis
4 Sangakarra (since gilly is already taken)
5 Collingwood
6 Styris
7 Symonds
8 Flintoff
9 Oram
10 Razzaq
11 Pollock

 

[Prince EWS]

As I said, a lot of the players abilities would become completely wasted in an ODI team featuring 10 allrounders and a wicket keeper. The specialists would have balance issues, but at the same time, there's little point in someone batting #11 who isn't considered as specialist bowler. An ODI allrounders team would probably look something like this:

Watson
Gayle/Jayasuriya
Kallis
Sangakkara
Symonds
Collingwood
Flintoff
Oram/Bravo
Pollock
Hall
Hogg

Now there's pretty much no chance of Watson, Symonds or Collingwood bowling, and their opposition would have specialist batsmen of a higher standard. And at the same time, it'd be pretty useless having Pollock at 9, Hall at 10 and Hogg at 11 - their skills would be wasted while the opposition would have better bowlers. Their batting would become irrelevant. While an allrounders team would look very good on paper in ODIs, it really wouldn't work too well in practice.

Tests are a totally different story as I mentioned before, as you can utilise different bowlers in different conditions as the pitch changes character throughout and the match, and you can also make full use of your deep batting lineup by virtue of the fact that you can bat forever.

 

[deeps]

Can't believe some of your selections

1 Jayasuriya
2 Gayle
3 Kallis
4 Sangakarra (since gilly is already taken)
5 Collingwood
6 Styris
7 Symonds
8 Flintoff
9 Oram
10 Razzaq
11 Pollock

Ok so you've dropped Afridi, who is a very good ODI bowler. The team is already short on bowling. Yes i should have had Styris and Symonds but not Razzaq imo. The rest of the selections are the same.

Pollock, Flintoff are guaranteed 10 over bowlers, Oram probably not, Symonds is ok.

Pollock 10
Flintoff 10
Kallis 8
Symonds 6
Oram 4

This is why Afridi is required.. He's another 8.. your side is thin on quality bowling. Hogg is 10

 

[deeps]

Now there's pretty much no chance of Watson, Symonds or Collingwood bowling, and their opposition would have specialist batsmen of a higher standard. And at the same time, it'd be pretty useless having Pollock at 9, Hall at 10 and Hogg at 11 - their skills would be wasted while the opposition would have better bowlers. Their batting would become irrelevant. While an allrounders team would look very good on paper in ODIs, it really wouldn't work too well in practice.

Tests are a totally different story as I mentioned before, as you can utilise different bowlers in different conditions as the pitch changes character throughout and the match, and you can also make full use of your deep batting lineup by virtue of the fact that you can bat forever.

Collingwood would make the England team without his bowling ability, Symonds would make the Aus team wihtout his bowling ability. So yes, whilst there might be better batsman on the specialist side, they may not be significantly better. The longer batting line up makes up for the difference anyway. Pollock, Flintoff and Hogg are brilliant ODI bowlers, as well as Afridi being pretty decent as well. There's enough quality bowling there imo.

I think the batting equals out (ie. longer tail matches the slightly better specialist) but the bowling, the specialist team would be at advantage.

But ODI's are very unpredictable and if any of these all rounders have a gd day, it's bye bye specialist team. And vice versa of course... i think it'd be far closer than you think though. IN a 5 ODI series, i'd say 3-2 either way.,

 

[Athlai]

Seems like such a waste to have such quality batsmen so low in the order.

Flintoff and Pollock are some of the best bowlers in the world at the moment and some of the batsmen are in excellent nick. Specialist team wouldn't stand a chance. Tail would get exposed because the batsmen are under such pressure to put up a massive total to defend against such a formidable batting line up.

Team of Top All Rounders wins everytime.
(well 60% of the time they win everytime. )

 

[deeps]

the other advantage being that if one of the bowlers is getting hit a bit, you can easily replace him with an equal.

For example... look at the specialist line up:

Tendulkar
Gilchrist (wk)
Ponting
Pietersen
Sarwan
Hussey
Lee
Vaas
Bond
Muralitharan
McGrath

Mcgrath, murali, bond and vaas are the bowlers. You'd think Tendulkar and perhaps Pieterson will bowl the final 10 overs.

BUt imagine that Vaas or Mcgrath has a bad day? The specialist team does not have much options left over do they?

Wheras in the all rounder team, if say Kallis has a bad day, they'll just say 'ok time for collingwood/or anyone else' to have a bowl

 

[Athlai]

the other advantage being that if one of the bowlers is getting hit a bit, you can easily replace him with an equal.

For example... look at the specialist line up:

Tendulkar
Gilchrist (wk)
Ponting
Pietersen
Sarwan
Hussey
Lee
Vaas
Bond
Muralitharan
McGrath

Mcgrath, murali, bond and vaas are the bowlers. You'd think Tendulkar and perhaps Pieterson will bowl the final 10 overs.

BUt imagine that Vaas or Mcgrath has a bad day? The specialist team does not have much options left over do they?

Wheras in the all rounder team, if say Kallis has a bad day, they'll just say 'ok time for collingwood/or anyone else' to have a bowl

You could always play Mr Lee

 

[NUFAN]

Ok so you've dropped Afridi, who is a very good ODI bowler. The team is already short on bowling. Yes i should have had Styris and Symonds but not Razzaq imo. The rest of the selections are the same.

Pollock, Flintoff are guaranteed 10 over bowlers, Oram probably not, Symonds is ok.

Pollock 10
Flintoff 10
Kallis 8
Symonds 6
Oram 4

This is why Afridi is required.. He's another 8.. your side is thin on quality bowling. Hogg is 10

The team is full of allrouders every one can bowl!

Pollock 8 to 10
Flintoff 8 to 10
Oram 6 to 10
Razzaq 5 to 8
Jayasuriya 6 to 10
Kallis 4 to 8
Symonds 4 to 6
Gayle 4 to 6
Styris 4 to 6
Collingwood 4 to 6

Take your pick - options are endless..

 

[deeps]

The team is full of allrouders every one can bowl!

Pollock 8 to 10
Flintoff 8 to 10
Oram 6 to 10
Razzaq 5 to 8
Jayasuriya 6 to 10
Kallis 4 to 8
Symonds 4 to 6
Gayle 4 to 6
Styris 4 to 6
Collingwood 4 to 6

Take your pick - options are endless..

Yup but soe of the options aren't the best. Oram, Razzaq, Jayasuriya, Gayle, Styris and Collingwood are all decent bowlers, no doubt about it. But they are primarily batsman who can bowl. they do a decent job but a bowler who can bat a bit is generally a better bowling option.