Tbf, I think he was selected as a bits and pieces player, he just unexpectedly developed into arguably the most reliable bat in the team for a while.
-
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
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Hooper was the definition of a bits and pieces cricketer. He could make a few runs with the bat and tie an end down for an over but would be nowhere near the WI full strength side on either discipline alone.
Watson was good enough to be picked as a batsman for a good chunk of time in his career and probably as a bowler as well. Statistically his batting was poor but that's largely because he had the Root problem.
Watson was good enough to be picked as a batsman for a good chunk of time in his career and probably as a bowler as well. Statistically his batting was poor but that's largely because he had the Root problem.
Trevor Goddard might earn my nomination as the top bits and pieces player of all time. Cant justify him as a batsman alone (average of 34 in a batting friendly era).
Difficult to justify him as a pure bowler, despite averaging 26, as a strike rate of 95 is crazy low, even accounting for era, and he only took 3 wickets a match.
Almost impossible to construct a team that would not benefit significantly from having him in the side.
Difficult to justify him as a pure bowler, despite averaging 26, as a strike rate of 95 is crazy low, even accounting for era, and he only took 3 wickets a match.
Almost impossible to construct a team that would not benefit significantly from having him in the side.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Watson was pretty much always one of the best 3 or 4 batsmen in the country (even if his stats didn't always reflect it). His bowling got him a debut earlier than he would have if he was a specialist batsman though.
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Watson from 2009-2011 was easily worth his place at least as a batsman, and when he didn't contribute with the bat he did with the ball. Watson after that point though is kinda the definition of bits and pieces. Still given how much of a chance Mitch Marsh got he kinda looks good in hindsight....
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Mitch Marsh wasn't even good enough to be labeled bits and pieces
He's a pretty handy bits and pieces player vs New Zealand, 63 with the bat 29 average as a bowler ��
Bijed
International Regular
Good point - at which point does a bits and pieces player become a genuine no-rounder?
40+ bowling average/ sub 30 batting average?
Over 40 bowling is genuine dross, but sub 40 can still be useful as a part-timer.
Anything above 15 as a batting average from a genuine bowler begins to get handy, but 30 is normally the cutoff for genuine allrounder.
Then again, I may have chosen these numbers specifically to earn Marsh the illustrious title of no-rounder
Most teams have a 5th bowling option and very few 4 genuine number 11s. Very rare a team hasn't got a reasonable batsman at 8 and someone capable of 10 to 15 overs on a responsive pitch. The bits and pieces label is probably someone who fills the 5th bowler role and bats 7 or lower. The top 5 and 3 best bowlers tend to pick themselves, as does the keeper. If none of the top 5 can bowl the 11th player probably does get influenced by being able to bowl. If your best 3 bowlers are number 11s there's generally a bit of a compromise with the 4th bowler where a bit of batting probably does play a part in selection.
England have a bit of a tradition of top 5 batsmen who had a bit of bowling ability just losing it after they hit double figures in terms of caps. One or two nations sometimes seem to have a whole top order who can turn their arm over.
England have a bit of a tradition of top 5 batsmen who had a bit of bowling ability just losing it after they hit double figures in terms of caps. One or two nations sometimes seem to have a whole top order who can turn their arm over.
From about 1993 onwards Hooper's batting average was 40+, which was good enough to get into the WI side then (certainly once Adams's form dropped off), even if it was way short of what he looked capable of scoring.
People who have been labelled bits and pieces who have played more than 10 tests have all looked good enough at some point in one discipline for a part of their career. In some cases they have just been inconsistent in their main discipline. Hooper could look a world class batsman in full flow. I guess the other question at the time was did The West Indes actually have a better batsman at the time, he played in a period when there weren't a lot of convincing alternatives.
Last edited:
The Hutt Rec
International Vice-Captain
By these definitions Ken Rutherford definitely qualified ...
... except he didn’t bowl.
... except he didn’t bowl.
Flem274*
123/5
this thread has taught me that a bits and pieces player is whichever player someone wants to edge lord it up with.
Sobers was a bits and pieces cricketer. Did a little bit of pace bowling, a bit of spin, averaged 34 with that bowling and he batted deep in the order and his average declined from 60+. Trash.
Miller too. Couldn't even average 40. Awful.
Sobers was a bits and pieces cricketer. Did a little bit of pace bowling, a bit of spin, averaged 34 with that bowling and he batted deep in the order and his average declined from 60+. Trash.
Miller too. Couldn't even average 40. Awful.