-
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.
Bits and pieces players
- Thread starter Bolo
- Start date
cnerd123
likes this
I think we need to define what 'Bits and Pieces' is first, like some have tried to do in this thread.
A player who takes on a significant role in the team, but who only gets to have that role due to their secondary and tertiary skills, is not a bits and pieces player to me. A spinner who isn't the best spinner in the country, but who can bat at 8 and is a good fielder, all whilst not being a significant liability with the ball, isn't a bits-and-pieces player to me, because he has a clearly defined role. He's the frontline spinner, he is also expected to score runs, and to take catches.
Similarly a batsman picked to bat at 6, but who really gets in for their useful part-time bowling and sharp fielding, also has a clear role. You're in the Top 7, you support the frontline bowlers, and you take catches.
What really strikes me as a bits-and-pieces player is what guys like Pandya and Phehlukwayo both did on their Test debuts - they were picked to bat at 8, and they barely bowled. So neither are they a frontline bowler who bats, or a frontline batsman who bowls. They are the 8th batsman and 5th bowler. To me, that's a bits-and-pieces player.
To me, that kind of selection only makes sense if you already have a gun allrounder in your team - like what England does. Stokes is the 4th seamer and a top 7 batsman. With the keeper in at 7, this gives England the luxury of having their number 8 also be just their 5th bowler. Enter Moeen Ali.
This also makes a lot of sense in ODIs, where the 5th bowler role is crucial. In that case, you can be justified having a player who runs through 10 quiet overs in the middle, and who plays some useful cameos at the end of the innings.
A player who takes on a significant role in the team, but who only gets to have that role due to their secondary and tertiary skills, is not a bits and pieces player to me. A spinner who isn't the best spinner in the country, but who can bat at 8 and is a good fielder, all whilst not being a significant liability with the ball, isn't a bits-and-pieces player to me, because he has a clearly defined role. He's the frontline spinner, he is also expected to score runs, and to take catches.
Similarly a batsman picked to bat at 6, but who really gets in for their useful part-time bowling and sharp fielding, also has a clear role. You're in the Top 7, you support the frontline bowlers, and you take catches.
What really strikes me as a bits-and-pieces player is what guys like Pandya and Phehlukwayo both did on their Test debuts - they were picked to bat at 8, and they barely bowled. So neither are they a frontline bowler who bats, or a frontline batsman who bowls. They are the 8th batsman and 5th bowler. To me, that's a bits-and-pieces player.
To me, that kind of selection only makes sense if you already have a gun allrounder in your team - like what England does. Stokes is the 4th seamer and a top 7 batsman. With the keeper in at 7, this gives England the luxury of having their number 8 also be just their 5th bowler. Enter Moeen Ali.
This also makes a lot of sense in ODIs, where the 5th bowler role is crucial. In that case, you can be justified having a player who runs through 10 quiet overs in the middle, and who plays some useful cameos at the end of the innings.
I agree that a bits and pieces cricketer is someone with no obvious role.
While James Vince is getting a gig, it's hard to say Moeen Ali isn't worth a spot in the side as a batsman, and equally, England have yet to demonstrate that there is a better spinner out there anywhere currently. So he's worth his place in the side on both his attributes (admittedly, this must be under review after his Ashes series).
To me a bits and pieces cricketer is someone like Stuart Binny. England used to pick them whenever they got Alec Stewart to keep - "well we've freed up the number 7 spot by picking a keeper who can bat well, what should we use it for? Someone who might do something with either bat or ball?" Bring in Hollioake x 2, Ronnie Irani. Flintoff probably was such a player for his first couple of years in the side - think he averaged about 20 with bat and 50 with ball after 10 tests, but after that he was a genuine allrounder.
While James Vince is getting a gig, it's hard to say Moeen Ali isn't worth a spot in the side as a batsman, and equally, England have yet to demonstrate that there is a better spinner out there anywhere currently. So he's worth his place in the side on both his attributes (admittedly, this must be under review after his Ashes series).
To me a bits and pieces cricketer is someone like Stuart Binny. England used to pick them whenever they got Alec Stewart to keep - "well we've freed up the number 7 spot by picking a keeper who can bat well, what should we use it for? Someone who might do something with either bat or ball?" Bring in Hollioake x 2, Ronnie Irani. Flintoff probably was such a player for his first couple of years in the side - think he averaged about 20 with bat and 50 with ball after 10 tests, but after that he was a genuine allrounder.
I think I've noted here before that this isn't entirely true - as often as not, England picked a bits and pieces player to bat at 6 with Russell (or Rhodes) batting at 7; e.g. Craig White, Mark Ealham and Ronnie Irani all came into the team for this reason. When Stewart was switched to being the keeper, they would sometimes bring in a bits and pieces player (you could argue that that's what Botham was in 1991, for instance), but on other occasions they'd be picking a 7th batsman (e.g. Ramprakash) or a 5th bowler (admittedly usually one who could bat a bit such as Cork or DeFreitas).
Mitchell Santner is a bits and pieces player at Test level. To me, the term is flipped on its head for what a good average is in each respect. So Mitchell's 25 with the bat and 37 with the ball, batting at 6, should be the other way around to have a permanent spot in the side (OK, bowling average of 25 is asking for a bit much). It's the reverse so he qualifies as a bits and pieces. It's not the defining criteria but it works in a lot of examples.
Flintoff managed to move away from that fate, and if you take out his poor start was nowhere near the definition of bits and pieces. So he started bits and pieces but moved into a genuine Test bowler, who probably to be fair was just a bit more with the bat too. But Santner is firmly a 25/37 round the wrong way guy. As have so many NZ cricketers through the 90s and 2000s.
Flintoff managed to move away from that fate, and if you take out his poor start was nowhere near the definition of bits and pieces. So he started bits and pieces but moved into a genuine Test bowler, who probably to be fair was just a bit more with the bat too. But Santner is firmly a 25/37 round the wrong way guy. As have so many NZ cricketers through the 90s and 2000s.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Moeen is the frontline spinner though so by your own definition he's not bits and pieces.
cnerd123
likes this
I mean at times the way he's bowled and in certain conditions it's questionable if he is the best spinner, or if England even need to play one. In those cases the bits-and-pieces term applies
GuyFromLancs
State Vice-Captain
Me. Proper bits and pieces player
When in the first team for my club I'd bat at 8 and bowl 5th or 6th. Very average close fielder but a decent to good throwing arm.
I am that/this guy!!
When in the first team for my club I'd bat at 8 and bowl 5th or 6th. Very average close fielder but a decent to good throwing arm.
I am that/this guy!!
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
You could say the same about Ashwin in certain conditions. Is he bits and pieces?
cnerd123
likes this
Well Ashwin still bowls a ton of overs, even if he's ****, because he is never played as the fifth bowler. There have been occasions where Moeen is just the 5th bowler and also batting at 8. Ashwin gets dropped in those scenarios. So I don't think Ashwin has ever actually been picked as a bits and pieces player.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ashwin was the 5th bowler in the first test in SA.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The mote I think about it I'd say that Ashwin fits the definition of a "bits and pieces" player perfectly when playing outside of favourable conditions
cnerd123
likes this
Batted 6 tho didn't he?
In any case, if Ashwin was ever picked to be the 5th bowler and bat at 8 then yes, he's being picked in the bits and pieces role.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Better batsman overseas than most of our top 5 tbh.
GRAB
First Class Debutant
I think Tiger Lance is the poster child for this in South African test history... Still was in the XI in one of our greatest series - 69/70 vs Australia. (Only 12 tests, but because we refused to play India and WI, we had so few tests in that period...)
Klusener too as a test player, over-all... Started out picked as a front line bowler bowling high 140's, who destroyed India at Eden Gardens, but finished with a test bowling average of 38. Batting was arguably his weaker test suit, but his overall average of 33 isn't too bad - given the era where Rhodes and Cronje were test stalwarts with averages not much better, but not really good enough to call him a batting all-rounder (to be fair he was often batting 8 or 9)...
Klusener too as a test player, over-all... Started out picked as a front line bowler bowling high 140's, who destroyed India at Eden Gardens, but finished with a test bowling average of 38. Batting was arguably his weaker test suit, but his overall average of 33 isn't too bad - given the era where Rhodes and Cronje were test stalwarts with averages not much better, but not really good enough to call him a batting all-rounder (to be fair he was often batting 8 or 9)...
GRAB
First Class Debutant
The South African team during the pre-isolation 60's era and post-isolation 90's to early 2000's both clearly showed the benefits of all-rounders. It was so easy to pick a balanced side even with one all-rounder being kind of superfluous.
Was looking at the 1969-70 side. Up to 4 seam allrounders were picked in one XI! Lance is definitely the least illustrious, playing 3 matches, bowling 30 overs for 1 wicket and making 139 runs. But with Proctor being destructive with the ball and useful with the bat and Barlow the reverse, it didn't cost us much. (The fourth all-rounder was 39 year old Goddard who failed with the bat, but was miserly with the ball, as always).
Similarly, with McMillan then Kallis as top batsmen who could shore up bowling deficiencies and Pollock one of the best bowlers of his generation contributing crucial runs as well, we often could pick another all-rounder who contributed little, such as the spinner Boje or Symcox, and not have it hurt us as much as it should...
Was looking at the 1969-70 side. Up to 4 seam allrounders were picked in one XI! Lance is definitely the least illustrious, playing 3 matches, bowling 30 overs for 1 wicket and making 139 runs. But with Proctor being destructive with the ball and useful with the bat and Barlow the reverse, it didn't cost us much. (The fourth all-rounder was 39 year old Goddard who failed with the bat, but was miserly with the ball, as always).
Similarly, with McMillan then Kallis as top batsmen who could shore up bowling deficiencies and Pollock one of the best bowlers of his generation contributing crucial runs as well, we often could pick another all-rounder who contributed little, such as the spinner Boje or Symcox, and not have it hurt us as much as it should...