-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Top 10 'Reverse All-Rounders'
- Thread starter Dazinho
- Start date
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Was about to cry foul on Capel's behalf but thankfully thought to check out his Test record first, which I have to concede is truly horrible. That said all I can recall of him are his doughty contributions to the famous victory in Jamaica in the first Test in 1990, and what should have been an equally famous victory in the third Test, so for me he is forgiven
Dissector
International Debutant
A "reverse all-rounder" is basically a bits and pieces player. Actually I think such a player can be justified in an average team if there is no alternative.
Hypothetically if you have player A who averages 20 with the bat and 37 with the ball and player B who averages 10 with the bat and 33 with the ball I would take player A particularly if he offers something extra in the field as well. Or in the case of Sammy if he offers something as captain.
I am particularly against the idea of picking players who are very average in one area and who offer nothing else. In the Indian context I would rather have Irfan Pathan ahead of RP Singh or Unadkat.
Looking at it from another perspective, think of an average test team which has to pick a 6th batsman or a fifth bowler. Chances are the sixth best batsman or the fifth best bowler in this country are going to be barely international class. Also chances are, being an average team, they are going to struggle with just 5 batsmen and also with just 4 bowlers. In this situation a bits and pieces player is likely to be better than a specialist.
Hypothetically if you have player A who averages 20 with the bat and 37 with the ball and player B who averages 10 with the bat and 33 with the ball I would take player A particularly if he offers something extra in the field as well. Or in the case of Sammy if he offers something as captain.
I am particularly against the idea of picking players who are very average in one area and who offer nothing else. In the Indian context I would rather have Irfan Pathan ahead of RP Singh or Unadkat.
Looking at it from another perspective, think of an average test team which has to pick a 6th batsman or a fifth bowler. Chances are the sixth best batsman or the fifth best bowler in this country are going to be barely international class. Also chances are, being an average team, they are going to struggle with just 5 batsmen and also with just 4 bowlers. In this situation a bits and pieces player is likely to be better than a specialist.
Dissector
International Debutant
Incidentally an interesting example of a bits and pieces player who added some value was Eknath Solkar though his second discipline was close-in-catching. He averaged 25 and was obviously not a test-class batsman. But at the time India probably did not have 6 or even 5 test-class batsmen anyway and Solkar was instrumental in helping the famed spin attack apply pressure. Solkar also bowled a bit. Though he only took 18 wickets @ 59, three of them were in India's greatest test victory of that time.
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Dwayne Bravo is someone to consider, promised much but delivered little.
Cue WW to tell us it was due to the cold and he couldn't release the ball etc...
Cue WW to tell us it was due to the cold and he couldn't release the ball etc...
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Dwayne Bravo is actually an excellent call.
I've always been struck by how he's invariably described as an "excellent cricketer". No-one tends to describe him as an excellent bowler, an excellent batsman or an excellent all-rounder, because by international standards he's none of those things. The word "cricketer" is used because of the general air of competence that he possesses, but it doesn't mean he's particularly good at any of the jobs he does.
I've always been struck by how he's invariably described as an "excellent cricketer". No-one tends to describe him as an excellent bowler, an excellent batsman or an excellent all-rounder, because by international standards he's none of those things. The word "cricketer" is used because of the general air of competence that he possesses, but it doesn't mean he's particularly good at any of the jobs he does.
Fair point well made - this perhaps goes some way towards explaining why England were top-heavy with this kind of player from the late 1980s onwards. They never had six batsmen and four bowlers who were consistently of good international class and then there was the whole 'new Botham' obsession which seemed to throw ill-equipped players into situations they were never cut out for.
The very good teams (90s Australia, 80s West Indies) never had this problem, whereas England when they were garbage, New Zealand, Zimbabwe always had more than their fair share of such 'talent' filling their roster.
Your argument stacks up particularly well when a side goes into a match or series as the clear underdog and they're maybe looking for batsmen 8-9 to contribute a few runs, countering the vulnerability of the top and middle order.
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
Last edited:
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Quit laughing or i'll mention Azhar Mahmood. Same sort of player.
Dwayne was just too cool to contribute towards any discipline.
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Azhar does have one of the greatest innings of all time (Durban 98) on his résumé, though...Quit laughing or i'll mention Azhar Mahmood. Same sort of player.
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
I wouldn't mind Azhar playing for Pak again. Better than Malik.
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Had one of the best months any player has ever had then did naff all after that.
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
thierry henry
International Coach
tbf to Harry in 4-day and 5-day cricket he was essentially a specialist batsman. In fact, he was probably the best specialist long form batsman in NZ domestic cricket during the 1990s, sort of like a slightly earlier version of Mathew Sinclair.
He had such a bizarre career really- his primary skill was as a fluid, long hitting, prolific 4-day batsman, yet he achieved fame as a scratchy, scrappy "finisher" and bowler of mystifying rubbish in OD cricket.
Another comparison is he was basically the NZ Michael Bevan with the bat, gun in long form cricket at domestic level but only his OD skills transferred at a higher level.