Bits and pieces players

[Bolo]

This forum is a pretty big fan of specialists. Looking at the RSA team balance leads me to pose a question (not on RSA specifically, just related). Assuming a top 5 bats who are at least very good but not capable as part timers, and 4 very good bowlers.

Try to ignore quality of the wk as a batsman, and assume there isn't a Murali type bowler who can bowl 40% of the innings, as well as assuming there isn't a genuine batting or bowling allrounder available.

At what point do you select a bits and pieces players for the sake of balance of the side? And who makes the cut under most circumstances? As an example, Flintoff wouldn't make the cut in such a team as a bowler or bat, and in general I think he is somewhat overrated, but he would be a dream given these constraints. He's possibly a bit too good a bowler to be put into a bits and pieces category though. Who makes the grade for the sake of balance despite being weaker overall?

Or does anyone go for another very good specialist ahead of Flintoff/Flintoff lite given these constraints?

 

[mr_mister]

Chris Harris always stood out to me as the definition of this term

 

[Bolo]

ODI bias? There was another NZ allrounder who popped into my head immediately after Flintoff, but I looked at his record, and it was less impressive than i thought, much as you'd probably find CH on a stats search.

Edit: meant for Mr_mr on Chris Harris

 

[Red]

I like the Ken Mackay and Trevor Bailey type cricketers of days gone by. No way they would make it on either discipline but as a whole they added a lot to their teams.

 

[Flem274*]

im a bit more lenient on the definition of a bits and pieces player i.e. not international standard in any discipline.

allrounders might not be one of the best at batting or bowling in their team (though with most test sides resources throughout history they're often not far off making it on batting and bowling anyway) but the all round package they provide is often invaluable.

flintoff is one of the great odi allrounders and in tests i can't think of a batsman or a bowler who was left out of the english side at his expense who can say they were better than him. likewise chris cairns was a quality test bowler in his own right and for a good 5-8 years averaged 40 with the bat at test level.

i'd level the 'bits and pieces' label more at the likes of nathan mccullum, who was selected as a safe bowler who wouldn't be awful and provided decent lower order hitting and was a gun in the field.

so in answer to your question, it really depends on the resources available. if you have a test class bat/bowler ready to go then sure pick them but if it's a pile of players who aren't quite good enough then i'd go for the allrounder who isn't quite good enough, especially in odis where you need 5 bowlers.

 

[Zinzan]

Moeen Ali's the obvious choice at Test level today isn't he? Wouldn't get near a test side, in batting or bowling alone.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Flintoff is one of the great allrounders!!

Bits and pieces players? Moeen yes. Liam Dawson. Ryan Pringle in county cricket.

 

[Bolo]

I like the Ken Mackay and Trevor Bailey type cricketers of days gone by. No way they would make it on either discipline but as a whole they added a lot to their teams.

Trevor Bailey is exactly the type of player I was thinking of. As for Ken Mackay, I know nothing, and it's going to serve as inspiration for another thread

 

[the big bambino]

Trevor bailey is much better than that. A specialist fast medium bowler who was classed an allrounder as he was a pretty good bat as well. Brilliant in the field and a fighter. His bowling record would be better except he was cast to play support to Trueman, Statham and Tyson or Laker and Lock on turning pitches. His bowling record as a tourist is good which shows he was able to adapt to conditions as well as roles. Just short of great, but not much, imo.

 

[vcs]

Moeen is pretty much the definition of a bits and pieces cricketer if you judge him by his averages, but he's managed to win England series against India and SA with the ball and played lots of crucial knocks as well. Bit of a rocks and diamonds player I guess.

 

[Bolo]

Trevor bailey is much better than that. A specialist fast medium bowler who was classed an allrounder as he was a pretty good bat as well. Brilliant in the field and a fighter. His bowling record would be better except he was cast to play support to Trueman, Statham and Tyson or Laker and Lock on turning pitches. His bowling record as a tourist is good which shows he was able to adapt to conditions as well as roles. Just short of great, but not much, imo.

5th (or better) best bowler in the country? I've never heard him rated so highly as a bowler alone

 

[fredfertang]

'Bits and Pieces' player seems to me to have two different meanings these days - in the short formats it seems to mean a useful sort of player who can score runs with the bat and then put the brakes on and/or take important wickets with the ball, whereas in Tests it seems to be a derisory description, reserved for the likes of Ronnie Irani and Ian Greig

 

[JRC67]

Trevor Bailey was without a doubt a fully fledged bowler and had a better batting average than bowling average (29.7 batting 29.2 bowling). Very often players are bits and pieces players in a team are an indication that a country is lacking either good enough bowlers or batsmen. New Zealand have often had 3 or 4 in a team and have at times over performed the sum of their parts. The value of someone like Bailey at 8 was he could stick around for a very long time with the last recognised batsman. Ali has quickly and decisively turned quite a few games for England from 7/8, but remains inconsistent with bat and ball. Flintoff was more a bowler who could bat. I do think at times people get the cause and effect of players labelled as bits and pieces players the wrong way around. Teams do tend to do worse than average when they are in the team, but it very often the case they are in teams during a period when batting, bowling and even more often both are historically quite weak. In the case of Ali he's fortunate that England have struggled to find a top 5 in the batting order and the weakness of the spinning resources. Someone like Leach has had advocates, but when you look at his performances for The Lions in Australia he took a couple of pretty horrendous tonkings against some pretty weak sides on paper. All sides end up having to play them at times, mainly because a player not quite good enough with bat and ball is a better choice than someone not quite good enough with the bat or the alternative player who is not quite good enough with the ball.

It will be interesting to see what England do when Stokes returns to the team. Over the last two seasons he has turned in to a top 5 batsman, but I'm not sure he's really better than a very good 4th seamer. I think they would like to have a spinner who turns it away from the right hander, so the options realistically are Ali/Rashid, Ali/Dawson, or a batsman at 7 and Crane or Leach. I felt Dawson came in to the team with the press and some of the public wanting him to fail but he averaged 33 in his two summer tests, which was a long way from catastrophic. In the county championship Leach marginally had the better figures but Dawson had much better stats away from Taunton and got the better figures when the two went head to head at Somerset. I've only seen Leach bowl in the UAe last spring when he'd remodelled his action, but he wasn't that dangerous on a pitch which is normally quite helpful for slow bowlers. My guess is Leach will be given a go if Ali has a bad tour of New Zealand, but if he does well then Dawson might be given another trundle at some point.

 

[thierry henry]

Harris was close to the best FC batsman in NZ throughout his career but just couldn't translate that to international level although he found a niche in ODI cricket.

As a batsman he was sort of like a poor man's Michael Bevan in that regard.

I always felt his bowling was a bonus that somehow become effective at international level and stayed effective way longer than it should have.

 

[Daemon]

Firmly draw the line at Stuart Binny

 

[TheJediBrah]

Flintoff was England's best bowler for the few years that he was actually good. Definitely would have made most sides as a specialist bowler even if he couldn't bat.

Conversely even if he couldn't bowl he'd be in most ODI sides as a specialist bat around 2004-ish. He was batting top-4 for England and hitting hundreds. He had a relatively short peak in his career but when he did Freddie was about as close to a genuine all rounder as you can get.

Australia hasn't had that many. I was thinking Ian Harvey but he was pretty much a specialist bowler in ODIs. Shane Lee & Tom Moody maybe. James Hopes, Henriques, Dan Christian later on. None of them played Tests though.

Anyway to answer the question, I don't think you should ever pick a player in Test cricket as a "bits and pieces" who isn't good enough at either discipline. ODIs and T20s might be a different story.

 

[Starfighter]

Zafar Ansari anyone?

 

[S.Kennedy]

I've always taken the term to describe a less than good allrounder.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Narsingh Deonarine is one guy who I feel fits the description. Fulfilled a number of different roles during his time playing international cricket for the WI (top-order batsman, middle order, front-time bowler, part-time bowler) without contributing to any consistent level. Don't know whether that was his 'fault' or whether the selectors were asking him to perform in roles he was unaccustomed too.

Bits and pieces aren't bad cricketers, but probably not right for test cricket

 

[AndrewB]

Trevor Bailey was without a doubt a fully fledged bowler and had a better batting average than bowling average (29.7 batting 29.2 bowling). Very often players are bits and pieces players in a team are an indication that a country is lacking either good enough bowlers or batsmen. New Zealand have often had 3 or 4 in a team and have at times over performed the sum of their parts. The value of someone like Bailey at 8 was he could stick around for a very long time with the last recognised batsman.

Not that he batted at 8 very often - with Evans in the team and England usually picking 5 bowlers, he mainly batted at 6 or 7, or sometimes as a makeshift opener.
Incidentally, if you only consider the innings where he batted late-middle-order (5-8) his average goes up to 35 - the "makeshift opener" innings dragged his average right down.