-
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
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
I don't believe I said that. Behind Trueman, Statham, Tyson, Laker, Lock and possibly Wardle. However he got into the ream bcos his bowling was test class, he could bat, had a fighting character and could field better than all of them save Lock. He had a longer career than Tyson and Wardle and I think he was better than Lock when comparing bowlers on reflection. I can see why he was a regular even in a side that had so many wonderful players.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Probably Bruce Yardley started out as such a player, whose off spin developed to an extent he could be remembered as a specialist for that skill alone.
I'm not a fan of klusener as a test player, and his record runs pretty close to norounder status. Still, I'd be pretty tempted to include him ahead of bavuma in the current setup for his admittedly (career wise) subpar bowling, despite the fact I reckon bavuma us the better bat.
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think Australia doesn't historically play bits and pieces cricketers in tests for a few reasons. We have pitches that lens themselves to specialists. That is, being quick is almost a prerequisite for being successful as a fast bowler. Taking up a top six batting spot is usually reserved for genuine batsmen.
Which is why Mitch Marsh cops so much crap in the media. Australians don't really like seeing guys in our top 6 with a batting average that starts with a "3".
Which is why Mitch Marsh cops so much crap in the media. Australians don't really like seeing guys in our top 6 with a batting average that starts with a "3".
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Mate that's the 44th greatest ODI player of all time you're talking about. Show some respect.
Mitchell Marsh cops so much crap because he has a batting average that starts with a 2 and a bowling average that starts with a 4. He hasn't been good enough to date, especially when talking about Australia- the bowlers can always bat a bit. Australia are playing him on potential, not past performances
Kade >>
Himannv
Hall of Fame Member
Keith Miller batted in the top 6 and probably makes your ATG side despite having a batting average in the 30's.
Victor Trumper also.
Australia have been lucky for almost half a century with had top order batsmen who could bowl more than usefully, so in the absence of an obvious allrounder, they've generally been able to pick a 6-1-4 team pattern. Doug Walters, Greg Chappell, Greg Matthews briefly, then Steve Waugh, Mark Waugh, Michael Bevan, with occasional moments from tje likes of Border, Lehmann, Katich, and Clarke. Even then Steve Waugh was pretty much a bits and pieces cricketer for a year or two and they still tried Peter Taylor and Simon O'Donnell. Shane Watson recently "did a job" - his batting average being not quite good enough was more than made up for by his bowling allowing Johnson in particular to bowl short spells...
I know at the time of the '81 Ashes some felt that Botham was able to flog tiring bowlers around so successfully in part because there was no 5th bowling option in that squad to give Lillee, Lawson and Alderman a breather.
Australia have been lucky for almost half a century with had top order batsmen who could bowl more than usefully, so in the absence of an obvious allrounder, they've generally been able to pick a 6-1-4 team pattern. Doug Walters, Greg Chappell, Greg Matthews briefly, then Steve Waugh, Mark Waugh, Michael Bevan, with occasional moments from tje likes of Border, Lehmann, Katich, and Clarke. Even then Steve Waugh was pretty much a bits and pieces cricketer for a year or two and they still tried Peter Taylor and Simon O'Donnell. Shane Watson recently "did a job" - his batting average being not quite good enough was more than made up for by his bowling allowing Johnson in particular to bowl short spells...
I know at the time of the '81 Ashes some felt that Botham was able to flog tiring bowlers around so successfully in part because there was no 5th bowling option in that squad to give Lillee, Lawson and Alderman a breather.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Don't necessarily have to be quick as a prerequisite in Aus imo. Abbott, Philander, Pollock, McGrath, Clark, Broad (tour before this one) to name some. Though I do think at least one of your bowlers should have real speed, but that would be desirable anywhere really.
I've tried to forget 1981 but I kind of remember we failed to utlilise our spinner, Bright. He couldn't have done any worse.
I've tried to forget 1981 but I kind of remember we failed to utlilise our spinner, Bright. He couldn't have done any worse.
Last edited:
watson
Banned
Graeme Beard was Australia’s worst b n’ p player of all time I reckon.
Moeen Ali is interesting as he seems a very talented and attactive batsman because of his timing. England may get more value from Moeen if they let him concentrate on his batting and perhaps compete for the No.6 spot as a specialist batsman.
Moeen Ali is interesting as he seems a very talented and attactive batsman because of his timing. England may get more value from Moeen if they let him concentrate on his batting and perhaps compete for the No.6 spot as a specialist batsman.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I thought we English had a monopoly on these, but that's a decent shout
That england teams period between 2004-about 2007 I think Flintoff probably was in the top 3 bowlers behind Jones and Hoggard and better than harmison. Bowling at around 90+ swinging the ball in English conditions I'd say he would have got into the team on bowling alone.
During this period i think his batting actually dipped and was coming in at number 8.
During this period i think his batting actually dipped and was coming in at number 8.
When you take the quality of his fielding into account I'd say collingwood was a bits and pieces player. Great guy very good bat but if he couldn't bowl a few handy economical overseas now and then and wasn't an atg fielder then his place in the team wouldn't be certain. Surprised no one had mentioned him before
I guess if a true all rounder is one who is in the side as a batsman and bowler there have been few who managed it for their whole career. Quite a few who would have been for 4 or 5 years. Last few years of Botham would probably qualify as a bits and pieces cricketer.
You're probably right about Australia, historically they've always had a couple of batsmen who could turn their arm over. Having Warne for so long, who bowled a lot of overs and was economical even when not taking wickets, also freed them up to not really need a fifth bowler. The West Indes only really had Sobers in the modern era, but there best team could rely on Gomes or Richards for a few tight overs.
Collingwood could hold his place as a batsman, his bowling was a useful bonus. His fielding may have played a part in his initial selection and was worth 15 to 20 runs a test.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nah - Colly was a proper batsman