All-rounder XI vs Specialist XI

[ankitj]

So Frank Worrell makes it too?

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah why not. He was considered an all rounder right? They both had as much bowling success as Shane Watson in tests and nobody argues over his status

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Hammond in all rounders XI is already stretching the definition of all rounders

The OP says at least 50 wickets. He took 83 (2 5-fers) and at fc level he took 732 wickets at 30.5 (22 5-fers).

 

[Fuller Pilch]

So Frank Worrell makes it too?

I put him in my allrounder B XI.

Doug Walters and Eddie Barlow failed to take 50 wickets, so missed out.

 

[mr_mister]

There's part timers who got up to 50 through sheer weight of tests. Possibly Sachin without checking.

The 1:1 wicket test ratio is better imo, or at least .75:1

 

[subshakerz]

There's part timers who got up to 50 through sheer weight of tests. Possibly Sachin without checking.

The 1:1 wicket test ratio is better imo, or at least .75:1

Not Tendulkar, I checked. Originally I was going to judge bowling skill by average but that is messier. Even with wicket ratio need a minimum number of wickets.

 

[mr_mister]

Not Tendulkar, I checked. Originally I was going to judge bowling skill by average but that is messier. Even with wicket ratio need a minimum number of wickets.

Average is definitely messier yeah, because some people had an all round role in the sense that they bowled every game but were just crap at bowling so averaged a lot

It should really be done by the role they had in the side rather than the success, you can be a bad all rounder. But that's hard to figure out using stats

Mark Waugh makes the 50 wicket cut off but to me he's definitely still a part timer

 

[AndrewB]

A proper specialist XI:

Herbert Sutcliffe
Bill Ponsford
Eddie Paynter
Peter May*
Clem Hill
Misbah-ul-Haq
Herbert Strudwick+
Glenn McGrath
Jasprit Bumrah
Neil Adcock
Bert Ironmonger

None of the top 7 bowled a ball in Test cricket.
The bottom 5 all have batting averages of under 8 (but excluding Strudwick their bowling averages are all under 22).

 

[_00_deathscar]

If you want to exclude the best specialist exclude the best AR

Judging by the XIs, I thought people had already done that?

Bradman and Jadeja were omitted from the exercise.

 

[bagapath]

trying to use 44 different players

All-rounders XI for 50 overs

Jayasurya
Watson
Shakib
Yuvraj
Stokes
Dhoni +
Imran *
Kapil
Flintoff
S Pollock
Hadlee

Specialists XI for 50 overs

Anwar
Hayden
Ponting *
Lara
Hussey
Healy +
Garner
Murali
Waqar
Donald
McGrath

All-rounders XI for Tests

Mankad
Rhodes
Kallis
Hammond
Faulkner
Sobers *
Miller
Greig
Gilchrist +
Botham
Ashwin

Specialists XI for tests

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Viv Richards
Tendulkar
Tallon +
Marshall
Lillee
Ambrose
O' Reilley
Barnes

 

[ankitj]

A proper specialist XI:

Herbert Sutcliffe
Bill Ponsford
Eddie Paynter
Peter May*
Clem Hill
Misbah-ul-Haq
Herbert Strudwick+
Glenn McGrath
Jasprit Bumrah
Neil Adcock
Bert Ironmonger

None of the top 7 bowled a ball in Test cricket.
The bottom 5 all have batting averages of under 8 (but excluding Strudwick their bowling averages are all under 22).

LOL Murali doesn't qualify for specialist xi because his batting was too good.

Walsh just makes it though.

 

[honestbharani]

trying to use 44 different players

All-rounders XI for 50 overs

Jayasurya
Watson
Shakib
Yuvraj
Stokes
Dhoni +
Imran *
Kapil
Flintoff
S Pollock
Hadlee

Specialists XI for 50 overs

Anwar
Hayden
Ponting *
Lara
Hussey
Healy +
Garner
Murali
Waqar
Donald
McGrath

All-rounders XI for Tests

Mankad
Rhodes
Kallis
Hammond
Faulkner
Sobers *
Miller
Greig
Gilchrist +
Botham
Ashwin

Specialists XI for tests

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Viv Richards
Tendulkar
Tallon +
Marshall
Lillee
Ambrose
O' Reilley
Barnes

Really dont think its a great idea to keep Tendulkar away from his best format.

 

[Prince EWS]

Really dont think its a great idea to keep Tendulkar away from his best format.

Yeah I reckon it'd make more sense to swap Lara and Tendulkar between teams and replace Hayden with de Villiers.

 

[a massive zebra]

Bradman is of course way bigger outlier to other batsman than Sobers is to other AR.

He really isn’t though.

I mean Sobers walks into the specialist side as batsman.

Sobers is definitely the best allrounder, but compared with the likes of Imran and Kallis, he really isn't the Bradmanesque outlier you suggest.

Imran was arguably close to the bowling allrounding equivalent of Sobers the batting allrounder. Sobers probably would make the specialist XI as a batsman, but his position is not beyond dispute. The only spots available to Sobers would be 4-6, and it wouldn't be completely inconceivable to pick any three of Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, Smith, Hammond, Headley, Ponting, Sangakkara or Pollock ahead of him as a specialist bat (although I wouldn't). Imran would not be too far from making the specialist XI as a bowler, particularly if we focus on career peaks.

Kallis' averages are also similar to Sobers, although obviously he wasn't the match winning batsmen Sobers was, and he also bowled significantly less.

So whilst Sobers is ahead of these guys, he isn't streets ahead, which can be said of Bradman vs any batsman.

I dunno. New rock, first change, wrist and finger spin plus the best batsman and fielder in the world in your era is pretty stratospheric tbh

I think you are overstating Sobers calibre a little here. Just because he did all the things you mention, doesn't necessarily mean he was good at all of them. I read an article a few years ago which attempted to calculate Sobers bowling average using his various methods. I believe they concluded he averaged about 28/29 as a fast bowler and almost 50 as a spinner. In other words, although he did bowl wrist and finger spin, by Test standards he wasn't very good at it. Also, he wasn't really a better fielder than Bobby Simpson or Colin Bland.

If you want to exclude the best specialist exclude the best AR (who’s Sobers let’s be honest). Otherwise pick Bradman and let this be the hammering it obviously would be if he plays

Isn't this pretty much an admission that Bradman was a much greater outlier than Sobers and would have a bigger impact on the specialists XI than Sobers would on the allrounder XI, thereby contradicting your earlier claims?

 

[Starfighter]

Funnily enough Sobers took his best innings figures bowling ordinary left arm orthodox.

 

[a massive zebra]

Funnily enough Sobers took his best innings figures bowling ordinary left arm orthodox.

And Devon Malcolm's best innings figures are significantly better than Malcolm Marshall. Does that make him a better bowler?

 

[Coronis]

I think you are overstating Sobers calibre a little here. Just because he did all the things you mention, doesn't necessarily mean he was good at all of them. I read an article a few years ago which attempted to calculate Sobers bowling average using his various methods. I believe they concluded he averaged about 28/29 as a fast bowler and almost 50 as a spinner. In other words, although he did bowl wrist and finger spin, by Test standards he wasn't very good at it. Also, he wasn't really a better fielder than Bobby Simpson or Colin Bland.

I’d love to see that article. Especially with someone who bowls multiple styles though, and likely multiple styles during the same innings/match splitting his averages between pace and spin bowling without ball by ball data seems pretty inaccurate. Also Bob Simpson was one of the greatest fieldsman of all time as was Sobers so not sure what point you’re making there.

 

[sjwj22]

Just a fun exercise. Selecting one XI with all all-rounders, giving them incredible batting depth and bowling options. The other XI with pure specialists and therefore better in pure skill. No Bradman though.

All-rounders need to have a batting average of minimum 20 and at least 50 wickets.

As keepers, Gilchrist goes with all-rounder XI and Knott in the specialist XI.

Alan Knott best glove man ever

 

[CricAddict]

Just a fun exercise. Selecting one XI with all all-rounders, giving them incredible batting depth and bowling options. The other XI with pure specialists and therefore better in pure skill. No Bradman though.

All-rounders need to have a batting average of minimum 20 and at least 50 wickets.

As keepers, Gilchrist goes with all-rounder XI and Knott in the specialist XI.

Knott was a very good batsman too.

 

[Bolo.]

Goddard
Simpson
Hammond
Kallis
Sobers
Faulkner
Gilchrist (wk)
Imran
Hadlee
Ashwin
Wasim


Hutton
Hobbs
Headley
Tendulkar
Smith
Lara
Knott (wk)
Marshall
Warne/Muralitharan
Barnes
McGrath

Allrounders would win imo.

Ya, ARs take this. They are significantly weaker in the openers and 6, but 7-11 more than covers it.

No ATG spinner, but lots of spin options and lots of styles. I'd rather one Murali/Warne than all of them, but there are gonna be a lot of conditions where the extra variety/numbers win out.

Specialists are going to battle with only 4 bowlers against a lineup that strong on a batting deck. To thumb-suck a figure, lets say they will strike at 66 on average against a lineup this strong. 105 overs per innings to bowl a team out (with some allowance for runouts). They are frequently blasting out the opposition, which means you are frequently asking them to bowl 35-40+ overs per innings each. It's too much. Performances will nosedive.

This exercise would probably have a different result if it wasn't engineered to favour the ARs. But as is, they win.