All Rounders Poll - Discussion

[Line and Length]

@Line and Length don't do it. You're good.

I won't - especially as we had one last year.
Back to discussion on the all-rounders poll.

Mike Procter's inclusion stands out like a sore thumb. With only 7 Tests and without a Test 50 to his name, it would appear he is in because of his FC performances.
Perhaps I should have put a 1000 runs and 100 wickets qualifier at the outset. This would have also precluded Hammond who crops up regularly in voting.
I believe there are more than enough 'genuine' contenders to continue to 30 and beyond. 40 might be a bit tough, but we will see.

 

[Prince EWS]

I won't - especially as we had one last year.
Back to discussion on the all-rounders poll.

Mike Procter's inclusion stands out like a sore thumb. With only 7 Tests and without a Test 50 to his name, it would appear he is in because of his FC performances.
Perhaps I should have put a 1000 runs and 100 wickets qualifier at the outset. This would have also precluded Hammond who crops up regularly in voting.
I believe there are more than enough 'genuine' contenders to continue to 30 and beyond. 40 might be a bit tough, but we will see.

1000 runs and 100 wickets aren't really equivalent cut off points. Waqar Younis, James Anderson, Curtly Ambrose, Kemar Roach and Murali all have 1000 runs, while the second worst bowler to ever take 100 wickets was probably Nicky Boje and he played his entire Test career as a frontline spin bowler.

Someone also just pointed out in another thread that Hammond spent a long part of his career at #1 on the ICC allrounders ranking list.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Perhaps I should have put a 1000 runs and 100 wickets qualifier at the outset.

100 is too high. John R Reid, for example, only took 85 whilst Brian McMillan took 75. Both are easily in the top 25.

 

[Line and Length]

Someone also just pointed out in another thread that Hammond spent a long part of his career at #1 on the ICC allrounders ranking list.

Good point. When Hammond was selected for Test sides, while essentially as a batsman, his bowling prowess meant he was an integral part of an attack as a 5th bowler. I admit I, and others, were dissuaded by his WPM but, imo, other lesser players are in.

 

[Prince EWS]

Good point. When Hammond was selected for Test sides, while essentially as a batsman, his bowling prowess meant he was an integral part of an attack as a 5th bowler. I admit I, and others, were dissuaded by his WPM but, imo, other lesser players are in.

He stopped bowling entirely after the war - he was 43 afterall - but before that he often came on second change with the newish ball and was an important member of the attack, taking over a wicket per Test. Before that he was basically a slightly less penetrative version of Kallis in terms of his role. Like Kallis he did bowl more when he was younger too - in his 20s he was taking 1.48 WPM.

 

[sayon basak]

I won't - especially as we had one last year.
Back to discussion on the all-rounders poll.

Mike Procter's inclusion stands out like a sore thumb. With only 7 Tests and without a Test 50 to his name, it would appear he is in because of his FC performances.
Perhaps I should have put a 1000 runs and 100 wickets qualifier at the outset. This would have also precluded Hammond who crops up regularly in voting.
I believe there are more than enough 'genuine' contenders to continue to 30 and beyond. 40 might be a bit tough, but we will see.

Aubrey Faulkner has only 83 wickets tho.

 

[Qlder]

This is why I love polls like this, it makes you research. So Hammond pretty much rarely bowled after his 1936/37 tour of Australia. At that point he had 62 tests with 76 wkts @ 36.92 at 1.23 wpm. That's not far off Mustaq (1.39 wpm) and Barlow (1.33) already voted in.

Given his ATG batting I could vote for that but hadn't as thought he was at best a part-timer with < 1 wpm. Turns out he only took 7 wkts in his last 24 tests after not bowling at all in his last 11 tests.

 

[Line and Length]

Aubrey Faulkner has only 83 wickets tho.

My 1000/100 suggestion was off the top of my head. Definitely flawed as earlier players had limited Test opportunities.

 

[sayon basak]

My 1000/100 suggestion was off the top of my head. Definitely flawed as earlier players had limited Test opportunities.

Yeah I get it. But don't think RUN/WICKET cutoff will work, as their will always be specialist bowlers who will qualify no matter what the cutoff is, while leaving out some genuine all rounders. RPI/WPI is a better cutoff, but I don't think there should be any arbitrary cutoff anyway.

And I had a suggestion in my mind. Next time you do an All-rounder poll, do two-
1) Test+FC
2) LOI's (ODI+T20)
That'll give Great FC cricketers like Grace, Procter, Rice, Barlow the credit they definitely deserve, while providing us with the general consensus about the Shorter formats as well.

 

[sayon basak]

Worrell
Hammond
Davidson

Hammond
Davidson
Worrell

Hammond
Worrell
Davidson

Nice.

 

[Prince EWS]

Love how they're all slightly different orders too lol.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah I get it. But don't think RUN/WICKET cutoff will work, as their will always be specialist bowlers who will qualify no matter what the cutoff is, while leaving out some genuine all rounders. RPI/WPI is a better cutoff, but I don't think there should be any arbitrary cutoff anyway.

And I had a suggestion in my mind. Next time you do an All-rounder poll, do two-
1) Test+FC
2) LOI's (ODI+T20)
That'll give Great FC cricketers like Grace, Procter, Rice, Barlow the credit they definitely deserve, while providing us with the general consensus about the Shorter formats as well.

Maybe we should start doing ODI polls of the various disciplines?

 

[sayon basak]

Maybe we should start doing ODI polls of the various disciplines?

Maybe.

(I don't have enough intelligence to get if you are actually saying or just joking, So I'll refrain from answering yes)

 

[Coronis]

I won't - especially as we had one last year.
Back to discussion on the all-rounders poll.

Mike Procter's inclusion stands out like a sore thumb. With only 7 Tests and without a Test 50 to his name, it would appear he is in because of his FC performances.
Perhaps I should have put a 1000 runs and 100 wickets qualifier at the outset. This would have also precluded Hammond who crops up regularly in voting.
I believe there are more than enough 'genuine' contenders to continue to 30 and beyond. 40 might be a bit tough, but we will see.

It would’ve also been odd considering (iirc) there was no cutoff in the batsman or bowler polls that were run last year.

 

[Line and Length]

It would’ve also been odd considering (iirc) there was no cutoff in the batsman or bowler polls that were run last year.

True. I tend not to have qualifications in these polls as each member will have their own, often unique, methodology when allocating votes. I guess I express my thoughts when selections run contrary to mine. However, I will always accept all votes (even trolling) as I am seeking consensus in these polls.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

I won't - especially as we had one last year.
Back to discussion on the all-rounders poll.

Mike Procter's inclusion stands out like a sore thumb. With only 7 Tests and without a Test 50 to his name, it would appear he is in because of his FC performances.
Perhaps I should have put a 1000 runs and 100 wickets qualifier at the outset. This would have also precluded Hammond who crops up regularly in voting.
I believe there are more than enough 'genuine' contenders to continue to 30 and beyond. 40 might be a bit tough, but we will see.

What about for Captains or Fielders ?

 

[sayon basak]

What about for Captains or Fielders ?

Those could be done, although I think those will be way more controversial than Wk-bats or ARs.

Maybe he should do the batters or bowlers poll if he wants to do any poll after this one.

 

[CricAddict]

Yes, we have already done a lot of test ranking polls. Will be nice to do odi for a change.

 

[ataraxia]

A slip fielders poll would be fun.

 

[sayon basak]

Yes, we have already done a lot of test ranking polls. Will be nice to do odi for a change.

Yeah, we should definitely do a limited over rankings for batters and bowlers (and All rounders too).