How many all-rounders would you have in your test and LOI XIs?

[kyear2]

Which was the most dominant Test side ever?

The Invincibles, Lloyd's West Indians, Waugh's Australians and others are in the mix. Who's on top?

www.espncricinfo.com

This doesn't nearly prove anyone's point, but was a fun read.

 

[kyear2]

Speaking of which, which team would we say was 4th all time, dominant home and away?

 

[subshakerz]

Speaking of which, which team would we say was 4th all time, dominant home and away?

50s England likely.

 

[Bolo.]

Clearly not. 2 of the best Test sides in history did not have an all rounder. Why do people keep forgetting this.

Nobody forgets this. The two best test sides in history both had room for improvement. Both ran into fatigue and injury problems. You are aware about how AUS in particular was more vulnerable when these issues hit their best bowlers.

 

[Xix2565]

I don't think you can point to great sides who won a lot without having an average all-rounder consistently playing as proof that all-rounders aren't needed or even wanted. People seem to ignore that great sides tend to dominate because their overall quality (especially in terms of bowling which has a bigger impact on winning Tests) was just greater overall. There was a general imbalance in talent overall that allowed them to dominate.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nobody forgets this. The two best test sides in history both had room for improvement. Both ran into fatigue and injury problems. You are aware about how AUS in particular was more vulnerable when these issues hit their best bowlers.

Dude . . .

I'm specifically responding to the statement that you need to pick an all-rounder for a Test team

Again, I'm not arguing against all-rounders. Literally just refuting the statement that they are essential, which is evidently wrong.

I'll say it again, obviously if you have an all-rounder that makes your team stronger, you should pick them. Obviously both 00s Aus and 80s WI could have been strengthened, in various ways and having a world-class all-rounder could be one of them.

But you do not need an all-rounder for a Test team to be successful, clearly. Aus won 16 Tests in a row twice without one, and picking a substandard all-rounder would have made the team weaker.

 

[trundler]

Dude . . .



I'll say it again, obviously if you have an all-rounder that makes your team stronger, you should pick them. Obviously both 00s Aus and 80s WI could have been strengthened, in various ways and having a world-class all-rounder could be one of them.

But you do not need an all-rounder for a Test team to be successful, clearly. Aus won 16 Tests in a row twice without one, and picking a substandard all-rounder would have made the team weaker.

They also did not need a great third seamer though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

They also did not need a great third seamer though.

Why do you keep responding to me with this

Good observation I guess? I agree?

 

[Burgey]

All of them

 

[trundler]

Why do you keep responding to me with this

Good observation I guess? I agree?

Because it refutes the idea that looking at what 1 or 2 great teams had is a good way of judging what makes a great team. In the real world any great team can afford multiple weaknesses because other sides have more. There is no role that is truly necessary if we apply your logic universally. 50s England and 60s SA had a 20 averaging pinch blocker as opener which isn't ideal but those guys doubled up as stock bowlers so it worked in the context of those teams. 80s West Indies didn't need a great spinner or a great #6.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Because it refutes the idea that looking at what 1 or 2 great teams had is a good way of judging what makes a great team. In the real world any great team can afford multiple weaknesses because other sides have more. There is no role that is truly necessary if we apply your logic universally. 50s England and 60s SA had a 20 averaging pinch blocker as opener which isn't ideal but those guys doubled up as stock bowlers so it worked in the context of those teams. 80s West Indies didn't need a great spinner or a great #6.

That's extremely obvious but again I literally just pointed out exactly what I said. Word for word. Whatever else you're inferring, which tbf I can understand why you would given the topic of the thread, is unintentional on my part.

I was not commenting on how you should build an ATG team out of every available player. Of course you're not going to leave out an ATG all-rounder that would make your team stronger just because a great team in the past didn't need one. That would be moronic.

I was literally just responding to these comments:

"A need for any test team is that of a 5th bowler"

"For tests you definitely need some level of batting all rounder, who can at least fill in the rotation and bowl some tidy overs as required"

 

[honestbharani]

For an ATG side, the noughties Australia were more than just a tad desperate to find their own Flintoff straight after the 2005 Ashes.

 

[anil1405]

10 ARs and a Jimmy Adams.

 

[TheJediBrah]

For an ATG side, the noughties Australia were more than just a tad desperate to find their own Flintoff straight after the 2005 Ashes.

Yeah we went over this at length recently. It was kind of ironic because they didn't need one and when they did give Shane Watson a game here and there it actually made the team weaker but it was definitely a case of "we lost this series, Flintoff was really good, we need our own Flintoff". It was completely reactionary and unfortunately doesn't work when you don't have a Flintoff to choose from.

It even led to some rule changes in the local 50 over competition IIRC to encourage all rounders but I can't remember exactly what they were.

Also ironically they would have been better served trying harder to find a great 3rd seamer as Trundler mentioned, it would have been more useful than a barely-decent all-rounder. Stuart Clark came along in 2006 but Jason Gillespie ****ed off the same year and we were still stuck with Brett Lee for the best part of another decade.

 

[honestbharani]

I guess the consensus is that while you don't always need an allrounder to be a great side (that really depends on how good your specialists are), it is always a great addition to have a good allrounder to any cricket side in any format.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I guess the consensus is that while you don't always need an allrounder to be a great side (that really depends on how good your specialists are), it is always a great addition to have a good allrounder to any cricket side in any format.

This should be common sense

In the context of an ATG XI it's all kind of moot anyway because you should have Sobers in your team regardless.

 

[CricAddict]

Dude . . .



I'll say it again, obviously if you have an all-rounder that makes your team stronger, you should pick them. Obviously both 00s Aus and 80s WI could have been strengthened, in various ways and having a world-class all-rounder could be one of them.

But you do not need an all-rounder for a Test team to be successful, clearly. Aus won 16 Tests in a row twice without one, and picking a substandard all-rounder would have made the team weaker.

Adam Gilchrist is the all-rounder that the great Aussie team had.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Adam Gilchrist is the all-rounder that the great Aussie team had.

Too bad Zimbabwe didn't have a great all-rounder of the same variety

 

[Bolo.]

You don't need any particular strength to make a strong team. It just helps. This is semantics.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You don't need any particular strength to make a strong team. It just helps. This is semantics.

You finally got there