Bowling All Rounders or Batting All Rounders +

[kyear2]

Yep, in a thread asking which is better, a batting allrounder or bowling allrounder, you said you're happy with Marshall, Wasim or Warne

Jesus Christ, that's as an answer to a post with regards to what's an all rounder.

No I don't consider Marshall or Warne all rounders, Wasim is borderline though. Hadlee definitely.

The two opening posts though were clear as to what the goal of the thread was. What it never was, was a discussion on what or who constituted an all rounder.

 

[kyear2]

Rubbish. You took Imran and Sobers out of the discussion as they are so much better than any other allrounder apparently and should not be discussed (Botham and Miller say hello). Then you went on to ask if batting allrounders Hammond and Simpson were better than bowiling allrounders. Point is your baseline batting allrounders are not considered allrounders

Sobers and Imran were taken out because it becomes personality driven, and causes endless friction and the goal of the thread is lost, plus it's been done a million times over and never ends well.

But its apparent that you're just being difficult and being edged on and encouraged by a troll.

But I'll repost so you can read them slowly, and tell me if the terms of any part of the discussion was about who should be termed all rounders.

 

[Qlder]

But I'll repost so you can read them slowly, and tell me if the terms of any part of the discussion was about who should be termed all rounders.

It's in the thread title and poll ffs, who is better a batting allrounder or bowling allrounder? If you now say they were never considered allrounders then why are they in the first few posts?

 

[kyear2]

Which of the two has more utility and value for a team.

Would it be better if one of your bowlers can bat a bit or if your batsman can contribute with the ball and be an ace in the cordon.

First of all, leaving Sobers and Imran out of this, they're the ones that speaks the issues.

But reading the all rounders vs specialists thread, and listening to some of the arguments made me wonder how the community sees it. It was mentioned how the specialists lacked bowling depth and any niggle or injury puts them on the back foot.

The bowler who can contribute with the bat, or the batsmen who can be your 4th or 5th bowler who's also your best slip fielder who operates at an ATG level.

So basically guys like

Hadlee | Pollock | Jadeja | Dev | Ashwin

Vs

Kallis | Hammond | Simpson | Barlow | Greig

I know the community is slanted towards bowlers, but let's see where this goes.

I clearly started off with bowlers who could bat a bit vs batsmen who could contribute with the ball and act as an ace in the cordon.

Then said the reason I was leaving out Sobers and Imran were because, as I said, they are the ones who sparks the issues and derail the thread.

Then again the premise was listed in the 2nd post.

As I said, you're just trying to be difficult and Smali is just being airing petty grievances.

No part of the thread is about who constitutes an all rounder.

So sincerely either address the topic of conversation or just sod off.

 

[kyear2]

It's in the thread title and poll ffs

Short hand for convenience sake.

Just give it a rest. Being a dick at this point.

 

[Qlder]

So sincerely either address the topic of conversation or just sod off.

Shirt hand for convenience sake.

Just give it a rest. Being a dick at this point.

Ok, if you're calling me a dick and telling me to sod off because I disagree with you then don't ever reply to my posts again and I'll do the same.

 

[smash84]

As I said, you're just trying to be difficult and Smali is just being airing petty grievances.

Where am I airing petty grievances?

Qlder had a point. Having Simpson and Hammond as all rounders is ridiculous.

 

[kyear2]

Ok, if you're calling me a dick and telling me to sod off because I disagree with you then don't ever reply to my posts again and I'll do the same.

It wasn't about disagreeing, you were being intentionally difficult.

And thank you.

 

[subshakerz]

It's in the thread title and poll ffs, who is better a batting allrounder or bowling allrounder? If you now say they were never considered allrounders then why are they in the first few posts?

He is being shady as usual. Just giving his absurd take and then walking back his statements.

No part of the thread is about who constitutes an all rounder.

That's just disingenuous. You have ruined a productive exchange I was having with @Qlder and @LangleyburyCCPlayer and you to derail your own thread in which you mention this in the title and poll

 

[kyear2]

He is being shady as usual. Just giving his absurd take and then walking back his statements.


That's just disingenuous. You have ruined a productive exchange I was having with @Qlder and @LangleyburyCCPlayer and you to derail your own thread in which you mention this in the title and poll

This is what is so ****ing ridiculous about you. How is it being shady when the entire premise of the thread was clearly laid out in the first two posts.

There was no statements to walk back, as usual you try for the gotcha moments. I never said Marshall or Warne were all rounders, as I've said in other recent discussions with you, it's not about having the all rounders per say, just a Root or Warne would do in those roles, so was saying that level is good enough for me personally in a team. Wasn't labeling anything.

Your exchange with the other two gentlemen had nothing to do with the thread, it was never about setting standards for what all rounders were, or who were good enough to be called them. They've been lots of those, including minimum standards for what constitutes one.

It was simple, even when I restarted the thread yesterday it was based on an exchange I had with Luffy about Lindwall and Lillee and his reasons for saying Lindwall was the better option for an AT Aussie XI.

Just about finding the closest comp (especially in primary skill) so that the argument can be framed.

I came up with

Hammond vs Lindwall

And

Kallis vs Wasim.


Both in line with the opening post, which btw only Luffy even tried to answer. The top order batsman who could also bowl a bit and perform at a high level in the slips,.or the front line bowler who could bat a bit.

You wanting to turn the thread into something else and me trying to get it back on topic, isn't derailing it. If I wanted another conversation on what made up an all rounder, I would have called it that.

So if you're interested in answering

Hammond or Lindwall
&
Kallis or Wasim

 

[subshakerz]

This is what is so ****ing ridiculous about you. How is it being shady when the entire premise of the thread was clearly laid out in the first two posts.

There was no statements to walk back, as usual you try for the gotcha moments. I never said Marshall or Warne were all rounders, as I've said in other recent discussions with you, it's not about having the all rounders per say, just a Root or Warne would do in those roles, so was saying that level is good enough for me personally in a team. Wasn't labeling anything.

Your exchange with the other two gentlemen had nothing to do with the thread, it was never about setting standards for what all rounders were, or who were good enough to be called them. They've been lots of those, including minimum standards for what constitutes one.

It was simple, even when I restarted the thread yesterday it was based on an exchange I had with Luffy about Lindwall and Lillee and his reasons for saying Lindwall was the better option for an AT Aussie XI.

Just about finding the closest comp (especially in primary skill) so that the argument can be framed.

I came up with

Hammond vs Lindwall

And

Kallis vs Wasim.


Both in line with the opening post, which btw only Luffy even tried to answer. The top order batsman who could also bowl a bit and perform at a high level in the slips,.or the front line bowler who could bat a bit.

You wanting to turn the thread into something else and me trying to get it back on topic, isn't derailing it. If I wanted another conversation on what made up an all rounder, I would have called it that.

So if you're interested in answering

Hammond or Lindwall
&
Kallis or Wasim

Honestly, if I were you, I would just admit I wasn't clear in how I made the thread rather than attacking others for pointing out the obvious discrepancy.

Hammond.

Wasim.

 

[Coronis]

Short hand for convenience sake.

Just give it a rest. Being a dick at this point.

iirc you had a massive go at me a small time ago for this exact reason.

 

[kyear2]

iirc you had a massive go at me a small time ago for this exact reason.

I did, but different reasons.

Was no reason to exclude him. But noted.

 

[kyear2]

Honestly, if I were you, I would just admit I wasn't clear in how I made the thread rather than attacking others for pointing out the obvious discrepancy.

Hammond.

Wasim.

The OP couldn't have been clearer.

And yeah, Hammond is probably a bit better in primary over Lindwall, making the rest redundant.

Kallis and Wasim though, I think are pretty comparable.
Wasim a little ahead in primary, Kallis a bit ahead in both primary skills.

 

[Qlder]

I think Barry Richards should be added to list of batsmen that bowl a bit. Has a test bowling average of 26.00. Could have been greater than megastar allrounder Hammond if he played more than 4 Tests

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think Barry Richards should be added to list of batsmen that bowl a bit. Has a test bowling average of 26.00. Could have been greater than megastar allrounder Hammond if he played more than 4 Tests

Barry Richards was a great batter, though not in the class of Andy Ganteaume and Kurtis Patterson

 

[subshakerz]

The OP couldn't have been clearer.

And yeah, Hammond is probably a bit better in primary over Lindwall, making the rest redundant.

Kallis and Wasim though, I think are pretty comparable.
Wasim a little ahead in primary, Kallis a bit ahead in both primary skills.

To me Kallis barely makes top 20 bats, whereas Wasim is in the top 10 bowlers ever. So a notable improvement in primary makes much more difference than Kallis having better secondary skills, especially as Wasim could bat. Kallis would be a better cricketer maybe if Wasim couldn't bat at all.

Do you rate Kallis as better than Steyn given his batting, bowling and slip combo?

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

Anyway, to answer the question, I think batting all-rounders are more valuable to the team, if we take England right now, I think most people would agree that Woakes classifies as an all-rounder (yeah he bats a lot at 8, but he has a Test century and averages nearly 27), but when he goes, we have quite a few guys who can come in and do a job with the bat, whereas we don’t really have anyone who can replace Stokes in the top 6 who can take a wicket per innings

 

[capt_Luffy]

Anyway, to answer the question, I think batting all-rounders are more valuable to the team, if we take England right now, I think most people would agree that Woakes classifies as an all-rounder (yeah he bats a lot at 8, but he has a Test century and averages nearly 27), but when he goes, we have quite a few guys who can come in and do a job with the bat, whereas we don’t really have anyone who can replace Stokes in the top 6 who can take a wicket per innings

 

[LangleyburyCCPlayer]

Also, as I said earlier, there seem to be a dearth of top 6 batters who are more than part-timers with the ball but not at the Kallis 1.75 wpm mark (Green and Marsh immediately spring to mind, Hammond and Jayasuriya don’t quite qualify) but a lot of bowlers who are borderline all-rounders