Gillespie - All Rounder??

[Richard]

Not so.
Maybe by everyone else, who doesn't look with depth, but not by me.

 

[marc71178]

Oh right, so you want to have a go at people now for not reading threads that get taken over by the old 10 quote thing?

 

[Richard]

Skipping posts to the one you're looking for isn't incredibly complicated.

 

[Dizzy #4]

...................


I'm just a newbie, lame thing to say eh? I wwas expecting 10 pages on my fave player or some along the lines of that, maybe about all rounded yeses or nos, but not a waugh!

 

[bryce]

Back on something resembling the original topic....New Zealand has several players with interesting claims to the 'allrounder' tag. Scott Styris first played international cricket as a bowler who could bat a bit, and now plays as a batter who can bowl a bit. Does this make him an all-rounder? I don't mind Styris as a player, but I suspect he would fall into the Ian Harvey "bad all-rounder" category in a lot of people's minds.

Jacob Oram made the NZ team on the strength of his batting ability and was immediately and very perplexingly turned into a bowler who batted. He grew into the role admirably, but his bowling seems to have peaked and now he is getting back to his strength, which imo is his batting. His bowling seems to have suffered slightly as a result, but I still feel that he can keep developing into a genuine all-rounder.

Kyle Mills has always been selected for NZ as a bowler, yet incredibly has only taken 2 5-WICKET BAGS IN HIS ENTIRE FIRST CLASS CAREER. To be fair, his career has been stalled since about 2001, due to him being constantly selected in NZ touring parties and international squads, but only actually appearing sporadically. His initial foray into FC cricket saw him cast very much as a batting all-rounder, until his very puzzling Oram-esque transformation into a specialist bowler by the NZ selectors. I'm not sure about this, but believe that he only really started bowling regularly in his late teens? IMO Mills is a competent first class standard middle-order batsman who could achieve a test average near 30, if he was allowed to bat about 8 and his bowling merited selection.

couple of things here, first of all styris would not even be classed a test all rounder(or bad allrounder) but as a specialist batsman(alright he bowls a bit but only as a part-timer) and IMO he would be classed a genuine allrounder in the one-day game, again not a bad allrounder either.

kyle mills was initially selected for new zealand because of his one-day ability - he was not considered a test match player(that didn't happen until over three years after his ODI debut) and he did have a proven domestic one-day record(bowling wise anyway), he also was not considered a batting allrounder upon his entrance to first class cricket, infact in his first-class debut he batted at 7 and opened the bowling - hardly seems like a batting allrounder to me although he did have a great batting season in 2000/01 where he averaged over 100 in the season his bowling was always considered his strong point and he was never picked for auckland primarily for his batting.

 

[thierry henry]

couple of things here, first of all styris would not even be classed a test all rounder(or bad allrounder) but as a specialist batsman(alright he bowls a bit but only as a part-timer) and IMO he would be classed a genuine allrounder in the one-day game, again not a bad allrounder either.

Yeah, well the "bad allrounder" tag was something I got off Richard, and it compensates for people who have a similarly low opinion of Styris

kyle mills was initially selected for new zealand because of his one-day ability - he was not considered a test match player(that didn't happen until over three years after his ODI debut) and he did have a proven domestic one-day record(bowling wise anyway)

That was probably what the selectors said. IMO most players make their debuts in ODIs anyway, unless they are absolute test specialists like Mark Richardson.

he also was not considered a batting allrounder upon his entrance to first class cricket, infact in his first-class debut he batted at 7 and opened the bowling - hardly seems like a batting allrounder to me although he did have a great batting season in 2000/01 where he averaged over 100 in the season his bowling was always considered his strong point and he was never picked for auckland primarily for his batting.

I'm sure I read somewhere that as a schoolboy he was more of a batsman?? I was unsure about the period between age group teams and FC cricket.

 

[Richard]

Irfan Pathan was a batsman at schoolboy level.
That's only 5 years ago or so, incidentally.

 

[Anil]

no

 

[tooextracool]

OK, finally we seem to be getting somewhere.
No-one assesses a player by their performance at the domestic level if they've played a reasonable amount at the international.
All I've been trying to do here is make people realise that the terms being used have different levels.
I can't even remember what started the thing now.

it all started when you called ramprakash a quality player, when he isnt. and hes played enough tests to prove that clearly enough

 

[tooextracool]

And since quality has many different levels he was quality at some and not at others.

and as has been said before, the main level that is judges is the international level, since he was rubbish at level he cant be quality.

 

[tooextracool]

No, not at all - because some of the bowlers at domestic level are quality - by domestic standards.
Hence Ramprakash was quality - by domestic standards.
Only a fool would say quality has only one level.

in other words everyone else other than you and ramprakash are fools then?
and no most bowlers at the domestic level are rubbish by their own standards, those who are quality are rubbish compared to the international standard. hence performing against such attacks proves nothing about quality.

Because one is equally good - the other is better at one trait.

because it is complete b/s that someone cant be an all rounder simply because hes a better bowler than he is a batter, let alone the fact that hes a decent batsman.

 

[tooextracool]

I understand the lot - and the only quality judged by performances at the international level is international quality.

and given that international quality gives the best assessment of how good a batsman is, it is defining point for anyone who can be considered to be quality 'overall'

 

[bryce]

I'm sure I read somewhere that as a schoolboy he was more of a batsman?? I was unsure about the period between age group teams and FC cricket.

i'm not sure about that either, i certainly think mills can develop into an allrounder but sadly his bowling will most probaly never be effective at test level

 

[Richard]

it all started when you called ramprakash a quality player, when he isnt. and hes played enough tests to prove that clearly enough

He's played enough Tests to prove that he clearly wasn't a quality player in Tests.
Nothing more.

 

[Richard]

and as has been said before, the main level that is judges is the international level, since he was rubbish at level he cant be quality.

No, the main level is the international only for fools.
Almost no-one is anywhere near good enough for international level.
Only for the absolute elite is the international level the main level to be judged at, and even then, just because you may not be good enough for that doesn't alter a thing about the lower levels.

 

[Richard]

in other words everyone else other than you and ramprakash are fools then?
and no most bowlers at the domestic level are rubbish by their own standards, those who are quality are rubbish compared to the international standard. hence performing against such attacks proves nothing about quality.

Or rather it proves nothing about quality at the international level.

because it is complete b/s that someone cant be an all rounder simply because hes a better bowler than he is a batter, let alone the fact that hes a decent batsman.

It is complete bull in your opinion.

 

[Richard]

and given that international quality gives the best assessment of how good a batsman is, it is defining point for anyone who can be considered to be quality 'overall'

Except there is no "overall".
There are different levels, and you've got to prove yourself quality at each one.
The international is the ultimate, and the ultimate only.

 

[tooextracool]

He's played enough Tests to prove that he clearly wasn't a quality player in Tests.
Nothing more.

and a player can only be quality overall if he succeeds in tests, hence he wasnt.

 

[tooextracool]

No, the main level is the international only for fools.

well done in mixing up the words. regardless lets see how many people agree with a stupid statement like that. of course everyone in this world is a fool now.

Almost no-one is anywhere near good enough for international level.
Only for the absolute elite is the international level the main level to be judged at, and even then, just because you may not be good enough for that doesn't alter a thing about the lower levels.

yes and the word 'quality' is reserved for those players who were good enough. otherwise players like salisbury and ramprakash would simply disgrace the likes of bradman, richards, sobers, marshall etc if they were both quality.

 

[tooextracool]

Or rather it proves nothing about quality at the international level.

yes because all the quality is at the international level, not the domestic level, which is of rubbish quality.

It is complete bull in your opinion.

and basically anyone who has half a brain. carry out a poll asking people if players like salisbury were quality and lets see if you get them agreeing with you.