Which would you pick for a Test bowling all-rounder spot on a team?

[shortpitched713]

No. To clarify, Jadeja is a true allrounder, while Ashwin is a better cricketer. In fact, I am finding it hard to call Ashwin an AR actually since his batting isn't good enough.

He's at decent WK-batsman level for mine, which is enough to be considered an allrounder imo. India have just happened to have better batting WK than him (obviously with Pant, more marginally with Saha).

 

[shortpitched713]

I said the opposite of what you think I said, my man.

Okay, so not only do you rate Philander's batting, you rate his bowling as well. Glad we're clear on that!

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Chris Woakes.

 

[Bolo.]

They're all better than the best bat in this group, i.e better than Botham as I stated none of them are taking a specialist batting spot. No standouts though.

Ah. I think the fact that said guys below confused me, cos the best guy below was the WK.

Easily Marshall then, unless you are playing 5 bowlers and need a spinner.

 

[_00_deathscar]

One of those times when The Answer is really the answer

That’s every time though, because this is yet another thread where…

 

[subshakerz]

He's at decent WK-batsman level for mine, which is enough to be considered an allrounder imo. India have just happened to have better batting WK than him (obviously with Pant, more marginally with Saha).

I think a modern keeper needs to average at least 30 and Ashwin's 27 average is heavily padded by soft runs. Certainly not good enough to bat consistently in the top 7.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I don't know why people are picking Jadeja over Ashwin, when most are picking the best seam bowler instead of an allrounder like Botham. Unless they're memeing of course, or genuinely think that Jadeja is a better bowler than Ashwin?

I've got Jadeja squarely in the middle of this pack, with the more specialist bowlers bringing up the rear.

Because despite Ashwin’s big braining, he has roughly the same/comparable record to the supposedly better guy away, and can still win you home games just like Ashwin.
On top of which he’s just without a doubt a better bat — I mean if the rest of this team are spuds he could/should really bat higher up ala Shakib and let another bowler in.
Oh and he’s a gun fielder.

 

[shortpitched713]

Because despite Ashwin’s big braining, he has roughly the same/comparable record to the supposedly better guy away, and can still win you home games just like Ashwin.

This is all not true. Jadeja's record suffers more away than Ashwin's. In addition, Ashwin has superior averages and strike rates both home and away. Especially his strike rates are much better than Jadeja, and especially at home he's a genuine strike bowler and home spin conditions killer the like of which puts him up there with Murali in such conditions. No, if Jadeja always replaces Ashwin at home, India do let some of those Tests wins slip away, because he simply isn't as penetrative of a bowler as Ashwin.

 

[kyear2]

Both of them are a long way from being ARs IMO and would throw the balance off a fair bit. Very little difference in their batting. If you reckon Marshall was obviously better overall, either pick him or someone good enough with the bat to make a notable difference to the balance.

I would like to know the arbitrary cut of point for what an all rounder is. I've heard that Hammond isn't, I've heard that Warne, Davidson, Marshall aren't, Chappell not even close.
But an all rounder used to be in my mind, someone who allows the team or primarily provides a 5th bowling option while being able to bat in the top 6. For that purpose I will always select a primary batsman who can bowl a bit because the primary need is to not weaken that batting. By that metric to me The Simpson's, Chappell's and Hammond's of the world have always been sufficient.
We then decided at some point to designate the need of a primary bowler who could bat a bit to give a bit more beef to the tail. This person could, based on batting strength bat at 8. Not sure where the arbitrary average for this starts, but both Marshall and Warne capably filled that rile for their respective teams. I'm not rehashing the argument on they would or wouldn't have referred Imran or Hadlee, all I'm saying is that they capably filled said role.
Sure both teams had lesser bowling options who could bat a bit, but why? That's defensive thinking and quite possibly a construct of our own imagination.

 

[ma1978]

Why would anyone choose Jadeja over Botham?

Botham is the obvious choice. He is the best bat of the group here, and would be a dangerous 7.

Botham / Hoggard / Hoggard / Lyon

 

[shortpitched713]

Why would anyone choose Jadeja over Botham?

Botham is the obvious choice. He is the best bat of the group here, and would be a dangerous 7.

Botham / Hoggard / Hoggard / Lyon

Memes.

Thought Botham would be the "obvious" choice here given the scenario, but most went with the best possible bowler, Marshall, so fair enough I guess.

 

[subshakerz]

I would like to know the arbitrary cut of point for what an all rounder is. I've heard that Hammond isn't, I've heard that Warne, Davidson, Marshall aren't, Chappell not even close.
But an all rounder used to be in my mind, someone who allows the team or primarily provides a 5th bowling option while being able to bat in the top 6. For that purpose I will always select a primary batsman who can bowl a bit because the primary need is to not weaken that batting. By that metric to me The Simpson's, Chappell's and Hammond's of the world have always been sufficient.
We then decided at some point to designate the need of a primary bowler who could bat a bit to give a bit more beef to the tail. This person could, based on batting strength bat at 8. Not sure where the arbitrary average for this starts, but both Marshall and Warne capably filled that rile for their respective teams. I'm not rehashing the argument on they would or wouldn't have referred Imran or Hadlee, all I'm saying is that they capably filled said role.
Sure both teams had lesser bowling options who could bat a bit, but why? That's defensive thinking and quite possibly a construct of our own imagination.

I think that is a good definition but I would put it to top 7, since until 7 batting contributions will be definitely expected from the person in that slot.

I agree that we can make an argument for Warne/Marshall to go to no. 8 over an allrounder based on their value of specialist skills, but the question in this exercise is who fills the allrounder slot, and Warne/Marshall don't quality by default. Neither do Wasim or Ashwin IMO.

 

[Bolo.]

My interpretation of the thread question is that it is not really looking for an AR, and the wording in the thread title is just sorthand for someone to be the best bat amongst the bowlers. Way too many guys don't qualify by my definition, and my definition or anyone else's are pretty arbitrary, and outside the scope of what is being asked, which is essentially 'how do you balance batting and bowling ability in your upper tail'.

 

[kyear2]

Upon reflection, I agree Wasim himself wouldn't be an all-rounder in my view. Neither would Marshall.

To me, all-rounder means someone capable of batting in the top seven and being one of five main bowlers.

Only Kapil Dev, Jadeja and Botham qualify. Out of those, I choose Kapil since he was a slightly better bowler.

My question to you is this, if you're building a team, be it county, test (horrible to great) or your street vs the neighbors, you're picking Dev over Marshall in any scenario?
I humbly beg to differ.

 

[kyear2]

My interpretation of the thread question is that it is not really looking for an AR, and the wording in the thread title is just sorthand for someone to be the best bat amongst the bowlers. Way too many guys don't qualify by my definition, and my definition or anyone else's are pretty arbitrary, and outside the scope of what is being asked, which is essentially 'how do you balance batting and bowling ability in your upper tail'.

Agree

 

[honestbharani]

'how do you balance batting and bowling ability in your upper tail'.

Except I think we are waaay past the days #7 would be considered upper tail.

 

[subshakerz]

My question to you is this, if you're building a team, be it county, test (horrible to great) or your street vs the neighbors, you're picking Dev over Marshall in any scenario?
I humbly beg to differ.

No. I am answering the question of this thread. To fill an all-rounder slot you need an all-rounder, and Marshall is not an all-rounder. He is a useful tailender and the greatest pacer of all-time.

Same if someone asked me to fill a fast bowler slot, I am not going to pick Sachin.

Sure, if someone asked to pick between Kapil and Marshall in my team regardless of position, I pick Marshall, but that doesn't mean Kapil is more suitable IMO than Marshall at no.7/8 as a bowling all-rounder. Understood?

The difference between you and I is that I seem to consider all-rounder almost a specialist category in itself. Which it should be if the term is to have any meaning.

Edit: I now realise the OP gives a different meaning suggested by the thread title. You are not really asking for the best all-rounder but whether you would weaken the tail potentially by having a greater bowler. In that case, I lean towards Marshall but it depends on the rest of the lineup and attack.

 

[Bolo.]

Except I think we are waaay past the days #7 would be considered upper tail.

Not in this hypothetical setup 3+ poor tailenders, a keeper averaging 24, and someone potentially as bad as Marshall with the bat.

 

[honestbharani]

Not in this hypothetical setup 3+ poor tailenders, a keeper averaging 24, and someone potentially as bad as Marshall with the bat.

Fair enough but I honestly would still pick the best batsman at 7 out of the available options and go from there.

In short, The Answer.

 

[Bolo.]

Fair enough but I honestly would still pick the best batsman at 7 out of the available options and go from there.

In short, The Answer.

Are you assuming 5 bowlers, or jadeja batting ahead of the keeper?