Ravindra Jadeja vs Ian Botham

[Bolo.]

I mean idk in my head it just makes sense for “the best allrounder” to be someone who performed with both bat and ball at the same time, ideally in the same matches.

But that wouldn’t necessarily make them the better player than someone who didn’t do both at the exact same time.

If that makes sense.

I get the desire to rate a player performing in the same game higher. I'm not sure it should make a difference though. With the possible exception of meaning they aren't someone who just abuses pitches suited to batting and bowling.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Is there a reason this should matter?

Has more of an impact on winning games arguably. Obviously he's less consistent but it's just a personal preference I suppose. There's something really awesome about those performances where a player destroys a team with bat and ball. Botham is one of the only players in history whos done that .

 

[Coronis]

I get the desire to rate a player performing in the same game higher. I'm not sure it should make a difference though. With the possible exception of meaning they aren't someone who just abuses pitches suited to batting and bowling.

Well its in the sense that an allrounder by definition contributes with both bat and ball. So doing so simultaneously makes me think of them as a better allrounder.

However this may not make them a better player than someone who does not.

If that all makes sense.

Like in my head I could say Botham is a better AR but Imran is a better player.

 

[Bolo.]

Has more of an impact on winning games arguably. Obviously he's less consistent but it's just a personal preference I suppose. There's something really awesome about those performances where a player destroys a team with bat and ball. Botham is one of the only players in history whos done that .

I don't think you can so easily generalize about impact to differentiate between being excellent in one game and poor in another or good in two. It is going to be situational. Personal preference and the awesome factor I think.

Well its in the sense that an allrounder by definition contributes with both bat and ball. So doing so simultaneously makes me think of them as a better allrounder.

However this may not make them a better player than someone who does not.

If that all makes sense.

Like in my head I could say Botham is a better AR but Imran is a better player.

Would you mark a bat down for going 100, 0 instead of 50, 50? Extend this to games. It feels pretty similar to an AR going well in both disciplines in one game and failing at both in the next as opposed to going well in one discipline in each.

 

[Coronis]

I don't think you can so easily generalize about impact to differentiate between being excellent in one game and poor in another or good in two. It is going to be situational. Personal preference and the awesome factor I think.

Would you mark a bat down for going 100, 0 instead of 50, 50? Extend this to games. It feels pretty similar to an AR going well in both disciplines in one game and failing at both in the next as opposed to going well in one discipline in each.

Idk. Its not logical most likely but just a feeling. (unlike me I know)

 

[shortpitched713]

I mean idk in my head it just makes sense for “the best allrounder” to be someone who performed with both bat and ball at the same time, ideally in the same matches.

But that wouldn’t necessarily make them the better player than someone who didn’t do both at the exact same time.

If that makes sense.

A lot of times this just ends up being a stamina and team resources question for the star all-rounder in consideration. If a bowler gets a fivefer and is knackered he's often likely to bat down from his usual position. Similar if he hit a marathon century in the previous innings, lowering his bowling workload. Don't get me wrong, it's a neat feat for a player to get both in a match but practically I don't think it's so much him actually doing it, as the capability to do either when needed and the flexibility it brings.