capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Okay, just tell me this, if Hammond is an all-rounder then surely Wasim is one too.... Right???
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
All Rounders Poll - Discussion
- Thread starter Line and Length
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I voted from Hammond and yeah we'll be getting into an area where I vote for Wasim eventually.
I started a thread about Marshall that explains how I'm viewing things, I'll dig up my post about it.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Malcolm Marshall vs Kapil Dev (with a tweak)
Marshall vs Kapil with one tweak - whoever is picked has to bat #7 with a fairly mid standard top 6 ahead of them, and four fairly mid standard bowlers who bat worse than Marshall at 8-11.
www.cricketweb.net
I'll probably vote for Marshall before I vote for Wasim, but that's a close one.
For batting allrounders I'm imagining how much they'd approve a mid-tier side where they had to also be a regular fifth bowler and bowl 10-15 overs a day, with all the other bowling options in the batting slots worse than them.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Oh I remember this one, but what about batting all-rounders though?? Also like, by this logic you will have McGrath at some point ahead of Trevor Goddard and Tendulkar of Tony Greig.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
See edit above re: batting allrounders. They'd have to be a top six bat and the fifth bowler. I think batting 7 behind the keeper, and bowling between one sixth and one ninth of the overs as fifth bowler are comparable as secondary skills.
Crucially we also have to imagine them taking these roles is justified within the side. You can't say "oh yeah I'll bat McGrath at 7 but then I'll just have Gilchrist at 8 and Warne at 9" - if he's batting 7 the rest of the tail is worse than him. If you'd still rather have McGrath batting 7 with an 8-11 batting even worse than picking Goddard then I respectfully disagree.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Probs not Goddard (though not sure really, I don't think Goddard will score enough runs to off set the bowling difference), but someone like Trevor Bailey, definitely. Also will take Marshall over Goddard, and Wasim over Kapil. And ofcourse, I will still take Tendulkar over Greig or Mushtaq. I can see the logic really though, just don't vibe with it. So will stop.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah I don't really see allrounder as a designation, I see it as a role.
Tendulkar is a good point in a way. I'd probably rather play him as an allrounder and give him lots of overs as the fifth bowler than leave him out for Tony Greig. I'll probably vote accordingly now.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
I think the issue here is we have what I call "borderline all rounders" - players whose secondary skill (be it batting or bowling) is considerably less highly regarded than their primary skill. I see Hammond in this category (WPM < 1) but his usefulness as a part-time bowler qualifies him as an all rounder (albeit borderline).
To have Wasim and Marshall classified as all rounders stretches it a bit as neither has a batting average that suggests they were expected to score heavily for their team. Wasim's Test centuries might qualify him but averaging well below 25 shouldn't. Marshall didn't average 20. To have either of them (and other possible borderline examples) ahead of genuine all rounders whose batting average is in the 30s, and whose bowling provided an integral part of an attack, would be farcical.
To have Wasim and Marshall classified as all rounders stretches it a bit as neither has a batting average that suggests they were expected to score heavily for their team. Wasim's Test centuries might qualify him but averaging well below 25 shouldn't. Marshall didn't average 20. To have either of them (and other possible borderline examples) ahead of genuine all rounders whose batting average is in the 30s, and whose bowling provided an integral part of an attack, would be farcical.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
I will just say that if averaging sub 25 disqualifies Wasim then surely Hammond having a sub 1 WPM affect the same way? I mean, on secondary I see them as equivalent.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
I agree. Hence you won't see me voting for Hammond as a genuine all rounder.
Perhaps a batting average over 25 (Wasim's was 22.64) and a WPM over 1 and a bowling average under 40 (Hammond's figures are 0.98 and 37.82) could be arbitrary guidelines.
Lines need to be drawn somewhere but, as we have already commenced voting it is too late for the introduction of restrictions.
I think the problem lies with comparing all rounders with specialist batsmen and bowlers. Of course, a Bradman, McGrath, Lara, Marshall, Tendulkar or Warne would be selected ahead of a Greig, Faulkner, Dev et al but that's not the intention of this poll. Hopefully common sense prevails and we regard all rounders as such rather than trying to justify the selection/nomination of specialist superstars who might bowl a bit or are occasionally useful with the bat.
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I'd rather have Marshall playing as an allrounder in my team than Kapil.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
LL and I are both being consistent here, we have different ways of viewing it that we stick to consistently.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
I thought L&L said that Hammond is a more viable option as an all-rounder than Wasim, to which I disagreed. If I understood it wrong, I apologise.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
My impression was that he thinks he and Wasim are both borderline and won't be voting for them, while Marshall and Tendulkar are silly.
I'm gonna get some Marshall and Tendulkar up in this list soon though.
Hey @kyear2 can I convince you to vote for Marshall in a couple of rounds??
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
No need for an apology. Re-reading my post I see I gave that impression.
sayon basak
International Captain
You could change that to WPI and add another extra column for RPI.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Kyear2 isn't a fan of Procter though. He ranks him a tier below Barry as a cricketer.I apologize. I thought for sure @kyear2 would derail this thread with pages of posts about Proctor being so worthy with so few tests like Barry, but it's down to others claiming Hammond, Marshall, Akram, Tendulker, Border, Cummins and Grace are ATG Test allrounders
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
I don't think <40 works. There can be batting all-rounders going for more honestly. Like, there are number of frontline spinners (even a few pacers, but they are worse) with decently long careers who averages over 40. It means Greg Mathews isn't an all-rounder but a batsman who occasionally bowls, which I think is kinda stretching it too far.
Greg Matthews did end up a batsman that could bowl a bit. That's why he batted #7 and was one of the best batsman in the side at one point.