Bowling All Rounders or Batting All Rounders +

[kyear2]

I actually don't know. Bowling all rounders vs batting all rounders is close too and basically comes down to particular players. Great bowlers in general affect results of tests more than great batters imo. Does slip fielding make up for the difference? Maybe, but it's too tough to call. Might change my mind later and vote for batting AR's

My formative years were the WI and Australia juggernauts and yeah, for me neither team would have been quite as dominant without Lloyd / Richards / Richardson / Waugh / Taylor / Ponting in the slips. Even Ambrose had Hooper and Lara, Lillee the Chappell brothers, Hadlee Coney and Crowe, Steyn, Kallis and it goes on and on.

But agree that bowling is slightly more impactful to wins than batting as the primary skill. But the same then holds true for the secondary, bowling ahead... then when you throw in the catching of some of the guys referenced, it tips the scales imo.

 

[kyear2]

Jadeja is greatest spin bowling all rounder. average of 24 with ball and avearage of 37 with bat doesnt that make him atg

In which of those two categories is he an ATG? As a bowler?

I would push back to that one.

 

[kyear2]

Kapil Dev and Frank Worrell.
Or
Richie Benaud and Bob Simpson
Or
Heath Streak and Asif Iqbal
Or
Andrew Flintoff and Ben Stokes
Or
Jack Gregory and Frank Woolley

The only one applicable to this comparison would be Benaud and Simpson.

And which way are you going with that one?

 

[capt_Luffy]

The only one applicable to this comparison would be Benaud and Simpson.

And which way are you going with that one?

Benaud

 

[Coronis]

So I'll bite.

 

[kyear2]

Benaud

Interesting

Simpson was a 50 averaging opening batsman, a top 3 slip fielder and more than useful leg spinner.

Easily trumps Benaud's batting and bowling for me.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Interesting

Simpson was a 50 averaging opening batsman, a top 3 slip fielder and more than useful leg spinner.

Easily trumps Benaud's batting and bowling for me.

Nah. Benaud for me was a better bowler than Simpson a bat and a better bat than Simpson a bowler. Simpson was an ATG fielder in the slips, but Benaud was an ATG captain.

 

[kyear2]

Nah. Benaud for me was a better bowler than Simpson a bat and a better bat than Simpson a bowler. Simpson was an ATG fielder in the slips, but Benaud was an ATG captain.

Wasn't factoring in captaincy into this comp, but ok.

That aside, there aren't many openers averaging over 50, so I have him ahead of Benaud in primary discipline here.

Neither of the two was all world in secondary either, so adding in the catching Simpson takes this one kinda easily.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Wasn't factoring in captaincy into this comp, but ok.

That aside, there aren't many openers averaging over 50, so I have him ahead of Benaud in primary discipline here.

Neither of the two was all world in secondary either, so adding in the catching Simpson takes this one kinda easily.

You can't add Simpson's catching and ignore Benaud's captaincy IMHO. Simpson averaged 46 overall, not a fan of ignoring his middle order stint. They are around equal in primary/Benaud slightly ahead; and Benaud is clearly better in secondary. His average is kinda poor, but has quite a few important knocks.

 

[Bolo.]

You can't add Simpson's catching and ignore Benaud's captaincy IMHO. Simpson averaged 46 overall, not a fan of ignoring his middle order stint. They are around equal in primary/Benaud slightly ahead; and Benaud is clearly better in secondary. His average is kinda poor, but has quite a few important knocks.

Fair play on most of the comment.

How clearly ahead is Benuad in secondary? I'm a massive fan of bowlers who can add runs with the bat, and not one to underestimate the value of Benuad's batting, but how far ahead is he of the typical bowler? And how far ahead of the typical bat is Simpson with the the ball? Especially in relation to openers.

I don't find the way I'm putting it fair FTR. Might give a very different answer than the answer to my question. But still asking.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Fair play on most of the comment.

How clearly ahead is Benuad in secondary? I'm a massive fan of bowlers who can add runs with the bat, and not one to underestimate the value of Benuad's batting, but how far ahead is he of the typical bowler? And how far ahead of the typical bat is Simpson with the the ball? Especially in relation to openers.

I don't find the way I'm putting it fair FTR. Might give a very different answer than the answer to my question. But still asking.

I mean, I think I am missing something you are trying to say. But overall, I don't think Simpson's bowling brings in too much of a value. Sure, an option for a change bowler, but I would prefer him not having to bowl. Benaud, on the otherhand, I think was better than his Test average might suggest.
Also, I feel a bowler below a certain pedigree is useless/damaging to most teams; but having someone able to hold a bat in place of someone who can't at all is definitely a plus.

 

[Bolo.]

I mean, I think I am missing something you are trying to say. But overall, I don't think Simpson's bowling brings in too much of a value. Sure, an option for a change bowler, but I would prefer him not having to bowl. Benaud, on the otherhand, I think was better than his Test average might suggest.
Also, I feel a bowler below a certain pedigree is useless/damaging to most teams; but having someone able to hold a bat in place of someone who can't at all is definitely a plus.

Benuad certainly feels like he should have been better than his test average suggests (especially considering FC). IDK if he was.

He had more impactful innings than you would expect from a low 20s averaging bat . But that might just be a function of batting higher than you would expect for a bat of his average, and running out of partner less when set than most with his average do.

I'm a bit torn on the bowler below a certain pedicree thing. On the one hand, a captain should know they aren't much good. They get overs despite the fact that they are below your team's specialist standard, because below standard is good for the times they get bowled. With the real part timers, you are sometimes hoping for the best, and at the end of a part time spell, you can say it was a mistake. I know very little about Simpsons bowling, but feel he was more likely to fit into the firat category than the second.

 

[kyear2]

You can't add Simpson's catching and ignore Benaud's captaincy IMHO. Simpson averaged 46 overall, not a fan of ignoring his middle order stint. They are around equal in primary/Benaud slightly ahead; and Benaud is clearly better in secondary. His average is kinda poor, but has quite a few important knocks.

I'm specifically speaking in regards to the thread that is focusing on the 3 supplementary skills. To include captaincy shrinks this to a constituency of three. Not to mention that Benaud captained for less than half of his career and Dev for about a quarter of his.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm specifically speaking in regards to the thread that is focusing on the 3 supplementary skills. To include captaincy shrinks this to a constituency of three. Not to mention that Benaud captained for less than half of his career and Dev for about a quarter of his.

Not accounting for Dev, Benaud is arguably the Greatest Test captain Ever. Definitely that counts imo.

 

[kyear2]

I mean, I think I am missing something you are trying to say. But overall, I don't think Simpson's bowling brings in too much of a value. Sure, an option for a change bowler, but I would prefer him not having to bowl. Benaud, on the otherhand, I think was better than his Test average might suggest.
Also, I feel a bowler below a certain pedigree is useless/damaging to most teams; but having someone able to hold a bat in place of someone who can't at all is definitely a plus.

This is such a disingenuous way to look at batting all rounders.

In the other thread when we were having a SC vs ROW vs Ashes discussion, we discussed a point of differentiation that because the SC team lacked a Sobers / Kallis / Hammond type that the batting had to be shortened / weakened to being in an additional bowler.

You can't go into a series without a functional 5th bowler, hence the importance of guys like Simpson, who also makes it with the bat alone. Not to mention that teams are literally built having a slot for said all rounder.

And this isn't a scenario of let's take off Lillee to bring in a Simpson. It's to facilitate the rotation and resting of bowlers, or just if one has been taken to the cleaners.

Not to add he's a top 3 slip fielder of all time and that's how he made it into the test team to begin with, locking down that 1st slip position.

Guys the ultimate chess piece and just as valuable as any comparable bowling all rounders.

 

[kyear2]

Not accounting for Dev, Benaud is arguably the Greatest Test captain Ever. Definitely that counts imo.

In a straight up discussion, yes. For this particular one, re the thread, not so much.

 

[capt_Luffy]

In a straight up discussion, yes. For this particular one, re the thread, not so much.

Then I think you should include fielding for bowling all-rounders as well, or else it's hardly fair.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This is such a disingenuous way to look at batting all rounders.

In the other thread when we were having a SC vs ROW vs Ashes discussion, we discussed a point of differentiation that because the SC team lacked a Sobers / Kallis / Hammond type that the batting had to be shortened / weakened to being in an additional bowler.

You can't go into a series without a functional 5th bowler, hence the importance of guys like Simpson, who also makes it with the bat alone. Not to mention that teams are literally built having a slot for said all rounder.

And this isn't a scenario of let's take off Lillee to bring in a Simpson. It's to facilitate the rotation and resting of bowlers, or just if one has been taken to the cleaners.

Not to add he's a top 3 slip fielder of all time and that's how he made it into the test team to begin with, locking down that 1st slip position.

Guys the ultimate chess piece and just as valuable as any comparable bowling all rounders.

The SC team REALLY doesn't needs a Kallis imo, definitely not a Hammond. Imran, Jadeja, Akram from 7-9 in a 5 man Attack is what I would prefer.

That's the truth though. Below a certain level of competency, I mostly don't want my bowlers to bowl at all.

 

[kyear2]

Then I think you should include fielding for bowling all-rounders as well, or else it's hardly fair.

It was brought up because quite a few of the batting all rounders are also tremendous slips and it's not factored into their ratings.

It's also because they are quite a few forum members that believe that bowling all rounders are the cricket equivalent of quarterbacks and have unparalleled value.

I believe strongly that guys like Hammond, Kallis and Sobers and subsequently Barlow and Simpson are just as essential to team success. This is a test of that.

A guy like Kallis was their best batsman and heart of the middle order, best slip fielder and residing at the crucial 2nd slot and often your 4th bowler? How does one top that?

 

[kyear2]

The SC team REALLY doesn't needs a Kallis imo, definitely not a Hammond. Imran, Jadeja, Akram from 7-9 in a 5 man Attack is what I would prefer.

That's the truth though. Below a certain level of competency, I mostly don't want my bowlers to bowl at all.

Then they're a batsman short.

The ashes have ATG batsmen through to 6, with Gilly at 7. The SC has the use Sanga as a keeper, greatly reducing his batting prowess and bat Imran at 7, where his advantage plays way better at 8... All to cover for not having a Hammond or Kallis.

Don't you agree?