All Batsmen v All Bowlers

[Le Mac]

ODI Conditons
No all-rounders allowed.

Who wins?

 

[SteveNZ]

Might need to have a proviso - ie bowlers must have a batting average of 15> and batsmen not having bowled at all at international level, or 10 overs max.

I'd need to see the team sheets before deciding.

 

[Le Mac]

Let's come up with some teams as well then. Bowlers can be as good at batting as you like provided they aren't considered genuine all-rounders and vice versa.

Clarke for the batsmen and Johnson for the bowlers would be definites.

 

[harsh.ag]

Batsmen would win. Little doubt. Many batsmen can bowl enough non-rubbish.

 

[longranger]

I think all bowlers would win. Most batsmen usually serve up juicy dollies that would be put away for sure.

On a side note, isn't it interesting how ferocious batsmen are usually meek spinners or ridiculously slow 'medium pacers'. Think Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Gayle, ABDV, Kohli all fall within these two categories.

 

[Antihippy]

All bowlers would be the most interesting to watch though.

ODI cricket is enough of a slugfest already.

 

[Howe_zat]

Probably the batsmen. They usually have few issues now putting up 300 even when they don't have good players coming in right through the order. There would be little risk involved in batting hard at all, and if they're all international batsmen then they're all well versed in doing so against good opening and death bowlers anyway.

You can only really have 6 front line bowlers in a side before adding more gives you no advantage at all. So while the team of 11 batsmen has some theoretical merit, the team of 11 bowlers doesn't, it's all drawback and no upside.

 

[harsh.ag]

You can only really have 6 front line bowlers in a side before adding more gives you no advantage at all. So while the team of 11 batsmen has some theoretical merit, the team of 11 bowlers doesn't, it's all drawback and no upside.

Yup

 

[Red]

Are the players in the bowling team as capable with the bat as say, Warne or Lee or Gillespie? Or are they more McGrath and that NZ guy who couldn't bat and Courtney Walsh?

I reckon if all the bowling team's batsmen were the calibre of Lee, Gillespie, Warne and Johnson (sort of test level number 8s) it'd be a close contest. From the last decade-ish....

Mitch Johnson
James Anderson
Graham Swann
Shane Warne
Chaminda Vaas
Brett Lee
Ryan Harris
Jason Gillespie
Dale Steyn
Mitch Starc
Morne Morkel

Vs

Graham Smith
Matt Hayden
Sachin Tendulkar
Hashim Amla
Ricky Ponting
AB DeVilliers
Virat Kohli
Brendan McCullum
Ian Bell
Inzamam
Younis Khan

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Chris Martin has a club level hundred ffs. I think international level bowlers would be able to handle some gentle part timers just fine.

 

[Le Mac]

As already mentioned, provided the player is not considered a genuine all-rounder (ie. Not classified as all rounder) then they are fine for selection. Can't see a problem with any of the players you've listed.

 

[SteveNZ]

Chris Martin has a club level hundred ffs. I think international level bowlers would be able to handle some gentle part timers just fine.

Haha, where did you hear this? I can pretty well guarantee Tommy hasn't scored a ton anywhere, be it beach, bach, Basin Reserve.

I'd say the batsmen are favourites, they generally become passably ok bowlers given they operate in the nets to international-class batsmen.

 

[Red]

Chris Martin has a club level hundred ffs. I think international level bowlers would be able to handle some gentle part timers just fine.

So do I. Still reckon Ponting would be capable of finding the edge of my bat.

 

[Hurricane]

Haha, where did you hear this? I can pretty well guarantee Tommy hasn't scored a ton anywhere, be it beach, bach, Basin Reserve.

I'd say the batsmen are favourites, they generally become passably ok bowlers given they operate in the nets to international-class batsmen.

Someone tell that to Ross Taylor. Terrible bowler when he bowls pace.

 

[weldone]

Probably the batsmen. They usually have few issues now putting up 300 even when they don't have good players coming in right through the order. There would be little risk involved in batting hard at all, and if they're all international batsmen then they're all well versed in doing so against good opening and death bowlers anyway.

You can only really have 6 front line bowlers in a side before adding more gives you no advantage at all. So while the team of 11 batsmen has some theoretical merit, the team of 11 bowlers doesn't, it's all drawback and no upside.

Yes this

 

[watson]

Here is a team (edited) of bona fide tail-enders (majority of ODI innings at 8-11). Not so sure that the Batters would romp it in - unless the pitch is completely dead;

01. Dave Richardson
02. Heath Streak
03. Lance Cairns
04. Mitchell Johnson
05. Brad Hogg
06. Brett Lee
07. Malcolm Marshall
08. Shane Warne
09. Andy Roberts
10. Wasim Akram
11. Joel Garner

 

[harsh.ag]

Only Heath Streak qualifies from that top six though.

Also, who would be the keeper in the bowlers team? For the batsmen, you could have ABdV or Sanga or Gilly or Dhoni. For bowlers, maybe Tim Zoehrer...?

 

[cnerd123]

I reckon the bowlers team should not include any player who has scored an International fifty, and the batters team shouldn't have anyone who has taken an International wicket.

Put the minimum requirement as 25 internationals games (any format), and see what that brings up.

The keeper will have to meet these requirements too.

 

[Howe_zat]

I reckon the bowlers team should not include any player who has scored an International fifty, and the batters team shouldn't have anyone who has taken an International wicket.

Put the minimum requirement as 25 internationals games (any format), and see what that brings up.

The keeper will have to meet these requirements too.

I pick Adam Lyth for the bowling team

 

[smash84]

Probably the batsmen. They usually have few issues now putting up 300 even when they don't have good players coming in right through the order. There would be little risk involved in batting hard at all, and if they're all international batsmen then they're all well versed in doing so against good opening and death bowlers anyway.

You can only really have 6 front line bowlers in a side before adding more gives you no advantage at all. So while the team of 11 batsmen has some theoretical merit, the team of 11 bowlers doesn't, it's all drawback and no upside.

yep, i think a bowlers XI would probably win the test matches. The ODI game should go to the batters XI