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

[kyear2]

They also did not need a great third seamer though.

If you're referring to the Waugh / Ponting team, would that matter though, because even though they didn't have 3 great seamers, they did have 3 great bowlers, which is more important?

 

[kyear2]

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

I have said you need multifaceted players, whether they meet the definition of all rounder really isn't necessary.
I will disagree with TJB that it does help to have a viable 5th bowler, doesn't have to an all rounder of note, just someone who can alleviate some pressure from the primary
bowlers.
With regards to bowling all rounders, yes it definitely helps to have a couple of bowlers of who can handle a bat and not have an extended tail be a liability. Doesn't have to be an all rounder, it's also fair to say that both Australia and the West had more than capable no 8a with Marshall and Warne.

And again I'll beat the drum that having a cordon is as important as any of them and as with the same argument that Imran / Hadlee makes most teams better, can't say that Ponting / Smith wouldn't either. And why players like Sobers, Kallis, Hammond, Chappell, Simpson who can provide bowling options as well as being sublime in the slips are also worth their weight in gold.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I will disagree with TJB that it does help to have a viable 5th bowler, doesn't have to an all rounder of note, just someone who can alleviate some pressure from the primary
bowlers.

No you won't because I never said that, explicitly or otherwise. Of course it helps to have a viable 5th bowler as long as it's someone good enough to make the team on merit

 

[subshakerz]

With regards to bowling all rounders, yes it definitely helps to have a couple of bowlers of who can handle a bat and not have an extended tail be a liability. Doesn't have to be an all rounder, it's also fair to say that both Australia and the West had more than capable no 8a with Marshall and Warne.

I think the general impression you give is that you are fine with a weak tail if you have the best specialists. That opinion is fine but just seems a bit detached from cricket realities where those late tail knocks can make all the difference.

And again I'll beat the drum that having a cordon is as important as any of them and as with the same argument that Imran / Hadlee makes most teams better, can't say that Ponting / Smith wouldn't either. And why players like Sobers, Kallis, Hammond, Chappell, Simpson who can provide bowling options as well as being sublime in the slips are also worth their weight in gold.

So are you dropping Tendulkar/Lara for Ponting/Smith to get the best cordon? Or is this just bluff?

Its not an either/or but unless you are an outright bad slipper, runs and wickets matter more.

 

[honestbharani]

Tendulkar doubled as a decent 5th and a very good 6th bowler for most of his career tbh.

 

[subshakerz]

Tendulkar doubled as a decent 5th and a very good 6th bowler for most of his career tbh.

Yup. The real question is what is the role of your fifth bowler in your anticipated lineup.

If you are going for five wicket-taking bowling options, then you need at least Sobers or Miller.

If you need someone just to bowl the rest overs, Kallis is fine but there isn't a big dropoff then with someone like Tendulkar.

To be fair to Kallis, he was used as a fourth bowler for much of his early career but then he had big later stretches where he was 5th/6th bowler.

 

[kyear2]

No you won't because I never said that, explicitly or otherwise. Of course it helps to have a viable 5th bowler as long as it's someone good enough to make the team on merit

Well then we agree.

 

[kyear2]

Yup. The real question is what is the role of your fifth bowler in your anticipated lineup.

If you are going for five wicket-taking bowling options, then you need at least Sobers or Miller.

If you need someone just to bowl the rest overs, Kallis is fine but there isn't a big dropoff then with someone like Tendulkar.

To be fair to Kallis, he was used as a fourth bowler for much of his early career but then he had big later stretches where he was 5th/6th bowler.

I think that this is why / where we disagree. I don't expect my fifth bowler to be a five wicket option, or no. 8 to consistently bail out the batsmen. Especially if there's the slightest chance of weakening the effectivity of the primary skill.
You're more likely to need help from your batting all rounder to take wickets IG your number 8 was partially selected to strengthen the tail, and conversely need help from the number 8's batting if you weakened the batting to have an effective 4th or 5th bowler.
I'm counting on my 4 bowlers to take wickets and my top 7 to score the runs, everything else is complimentary at best.
I've consistently said Sobers was way over bowled to the detriment of his batting and to the team because he should have been batting at 3 or 4 and standing at 2nd while in the field. That's where he would have best served the team, rather than playing superhero and inadvertently defining what an all rounder should be.

 

[subshakerz]

I think that this is why / where we disagree. I don't expect my fifth bowler to be a five wicket option, or no. 8 to consistently bail out the batsmen. Especially if there's the slightest chance of weakening the effectivity of the primary skill.
You're more likely to need help from your batting all rounder to take wickets IG your number 8 was partially selected to strengthen the tail, and conversely need help from the number 8's batting if you weakened the batting to have an effective 4th or 5th bowler.
I'm counting on my 4 bowlers to take wickets and my top 7 to score the runs, everything else is complimentary at best.
I've consistently said Sobers was way over bowled to the detriment of his batting and to the team because he should have been batting at 3 or 4 and standing at 2nd while in the field. That's where he would have best served the team, rather than playing superhero and inadvertently defining what an all rounder should be.

Well would you agree the tail helping out the batting order happens more than a fifth bowler bowling teams out? If nothing else, having a tail that can hang around rather than be walking wickets is very important to stretch the innings.

 

[kyear2]

Well would you agree the tail helping out the batting order happens more than a fifth bowler bowling teams out? If nothing else, having a tail that can hang around rather than be walking wickets is very important to stretch the innings.

I have a few responses.

You said a couple posts back that you've seen lack of a tail cost teams victory, that can be said of basically every team that failed to reach a target, but in reality it's the batsmen whom would have failed. It's the guys paid to bat from 1 to 6 that holds that responsibility. Yes it's very useful for a couple to hang around and stay with the top order guys and to help build a total, but you don't need an all rounder for that.
When Ambrose was routing England for 46 or any of the great bowling spells for that matter, I highly doubt that your no 8 was going to be the stop gap to halt the flood.
The role of the fifth bowler is less abstract. The effectiveness is in the action alone, any results are just the icing. I think Kallis played and handled his role perfectly. Gave the guys a rest, broke the odd partnership and was sterling to Steyn and co in the slips. From that perspective he was way more important than a few extra runs at the end of an innings.
With Gilchrist I can say, yeah that dude won games, and that was due to the circumstances under which he scored his runs and especially the speed (PEWS), but for the most part, have seen that with a lot of the bowling all rounders tbh.
But it's cool that we see things differently. Despite my efforts no one is adding cordon work to these comparisons despite the fact that I feel that it's at least as important and depending on the bowlers and situations, much more so.
With Bradman, Sobers and Gilly do I need more batting? No, but with Marshall, McGrath and Steyn do I want to ensure we take all possible chances, hell yes.
In a weaker team would I prefer the bowling all rounder, likely, but again it's not going to win us any games and just staunches the bleeding and gets us a few draws, or extends a few games.

But my thankless crusade goes on.

 

[kyear2]

This popped up on my feed this afternoon, and yeah it shows how great McGrath was but also caught some interesting comments.

As cricket fans are prone to, someone made a comment on how Wasim was a magician and McGrath a surgeon, which led to comparisons.
One did say, as have been seem in this forum, that McGrath was a better bowler but would always take Wasim as the better cricketer due to what he could do with the bat.
But equally striking was some of the other comments, 4 if which made reference to the cordon McGrath had in comparison to Wasim's. One said that McGrath would have 200 less wickets if he and Wasim switched cordons. Another said Wasim would have had better stats and more wickets if he didn't have butter finger fielders to work with and had too many drops. Another basically said the same that their numbers would flop with switched home pitches and fielding support, the last one simply hinted that a Ponting would have made a difference for Pakistan and helped Wasim.

 

[Ayla658]

Test: Batting all-rounder and no-rounder. The batting all-rounder can provide stability to the middle order and contribute with wickets, while the no-rounder can provide flexibility to the team composition and fill in any gaps.

LOI: Batting all-rounder and bowling all-rounder. The batting all-rounder can provide a power boost to the lower order and take wickets in the middle overs, while the bowling all-rounder can provide early wickets and contribute with runs.

This is just my opinion, and there are many other valid combinations of all-rounders that could be used. I would be interested to hear what other people think.

 

[Xix2565]

No-rounders shouldn't ever be picked up if batting or bowling all-rounders exist. They're just worse overall.

 

[ataraxia]

Xix vs ChatGPT: a fight that could leave the forum entertained for hours.

 

[Xix2565]

Xix vs ChatGPT: a fight that could leave the forum entertained for hours.

Are you? Maybe we need a PlayersComparison thread to decide.

 

[Coronis]

I have a few responses.

You said a couple posts back that you've seen lack of a tail cost teams victory, that can be said of basically every team that failed to reach a target, but in reality it's the batsmen whom would have failed. It's the guys paid to bat from 1 to 6 that holds that responsibility. Yes it's very useful for a couple to hang around and stay with the top order guys and to help build a total, but you don't need an all rounder for that.
When Ambrose was routing England for 46 or any of the great bowling spells for that matter, I highly doubt that your no 8 was going to be the stop gap to halt the flood.
The role of the fifth bowler is less abstract. The effectiveness is in the action alone, any results are just the icing. I think Kallis played and handled his role perfectly. Gave the guys a rest, broke the odd partnership and was sterling to Steyn and co in the slips. From that perspective he was way more important than a few extra runs at the end of an innings.
With Gilchrist I can say, yeah that dude won games, and that was due to the circumstances under which he scored his runs and especially the speed (PEWS), but for the most part, have seen that with a lot of the bowling all rounders tbh.
But it's cool that we see things differently. Despite my efforts no one is adding cordon work to these comparisons despite the fact that I feel that it's at least as important and depending on the bowlers and situations, much more so.
With Bradman, Sobers and Gilly do I need more batting? No, but with Marshall, McGrath and Steyn do I want to ensure we take all possible chances, hell yes.
In a weaker team would I prefer the bowling all rounder, likely, but again it's not going to win us any games and just staunches the bleeding and gets us a few draws, or extends a few games.

But my thankless crusade goes on.

Imo this is partly due to a fairly high amount of top batsmen being great slips fielders whilst making the team via their batting alone - which makes it an afterthought for most of us.

Simpson was arguably the best slip fielder of all time and he was a great opener - but we’re not going to pick him over any of Hobbs/Sutcliffe/Hutton/Gavaskar on that basis are we?

 

[subshakerz]

No-rounders shouldn't ever be picked up if batting or bowling all-rounders exist. They're just worse overall.

For ODIs it makes sense, especially if they are hitters.

 

[subshakerz]

I have a few responses.

You said a couple posts back that you've seen lack of a tail cost teams victory, that can be said of basically every team that failed to reach a target, but in reality it's the batsmen whom would have failed. It's the guys paid to bat from 1 to 6 that holds that responsibility. Yes it's very useful for a couple to hang around and stay with the top order guys and to help build a total, but you don't need an all rounder for that.
When Ambrose was routing England for 46 or any of the great bowling spells for that matter, I highly doubt that your no 8 was going to be the stop gap to halt the flood.
The role of the fifth bowler is less abstract. The effectiveness is in the action alone, any results are just the icing. I think Kallis played and handled his role perfectly. Gave the guys a rest, broke the odd partnership and was sterling to Steyn and co in the slips. From that perspective he was way more important than a few extra runs at the end of an innings.
With Gilchrist I can say, yeah that dude won games, and that was due to the circumstances under which he scored his runs and especially the speed (PEWS), but for the most part, have seen that with a lot of the bowling all rounders tbh.
But it's cool that we see things differently. Despite my efforts no one is adding cordon work to these comparisons despite the fact that I feel that it's at least as important and depending on the bowlers and situations, much more so.
With Bradman, Sobers and Gilly do I need more batting? No, but with Marshall, McGrath and Steyn do I want to ensure we take all possible chances, hell yes.
In a weaker team would I prefer the bowling all rounder, likely, but again it's not going to win us any games and just staunches the bleeding and gets us a few draws, or extends a few games.

But my thankless crusade goes on.

Are you picking Ponting/Smith ahead of Lara/Tendulkar for their slipping?

 

[honestbharani]

Are you picking Ponting/Smith ahead of Lara/Tendulkar for their slipping?

Ponting was better but I really dont see how Smith is better than Lara at the very least as a slipper.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Smith is a massively overrated slip catcher. People who rate him highly are blinded by the highlight reel and ignore the clangers.