Silver Silva
International Regular
Think you need a Legspinner , I would have included Rashid Khan or Shahid Afridi
-
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.
How many all-rounders would you have in your test and LOI XIs?
- Thread starter subshakerz
- Start date
Ideally, you want 2 quality ARs but finding that resource is rare. I feel the ideal formation is 5 bats, 1 wkt bat, 2 ARs, 3 specialist bowlers. It depends on the quality available. If not of the class of Khan, Beefy etc - I'd rather go with 6 bats, 1 wkt and 4 bowlers in tests [ie specialists]. In LOI, you can be a bit flexible and play a lesser AR for the sake of flexibility, but not too bad. Someone like Abdul Razzaq was a fine servant in LOI cricket.
shortpitched713
International Captain
For a Test XI:
Ideally I want 2 of the bowling all-rounders and 1 batting all-rounder. However, if I can only have 2, then I'm going with the 2 bowling all-rounders because although the quality batting all-rounder is a rather rare commodity, you can do without him, with adequate part-timers taking up the role of the 5th bowling option. However, bowlers who can do a quality job with the ball, (sub 28 average) while also shoring up the 7-9 batting spots are worth their weight in gold, as most Test bowlers simply fall short of one or the other criteria.
And yes, I am you are watching me fail my battle with addiction to this forum. I present my opinions to you as a compelled, but broken man.
Ideally I want 2 of the bowling all-rounders and 1 batting all-rounder. However, if I can only have 2, then I'm going with the 2 bowling all-rounders because although the quality batting all-rounder is a rather rare commodity, you can do without him, with adequate part-timers taking up the role of the 5th bowling option. However, bowlers who can do a quality job with the ball, (sub 28 average) while also shoring up the 7-9 batting spots are worth their weight in gold, as most Test bowlers simply fall short of one or the other criteria.
And yes, I am you are watching me fail my battle with addiction to this forum. I present my opinions to you as a compelled, but broken man.
Last edited:
kyear2
International Coach
I don't think any are "needed" per say .
A need for any test team is that of a 5th bowler, but do they have to be an "all rounder" Guys with the bowling capabilities of a Chappell, Simpson or Hammond were good enough, I don't want to weaken the batting to being in a perceived stronger bowling option. I just need someone who can give me a decent amount of overs without releasing pressure or being taken part.
Similarly, I don't need bowling all rounders, a Warne or Marshall type is more than good enough for the no. 8 position. But again, I will not be sacrificing the strength of my bowling to strengthen the tail. I need their primary objective to be taking 20 wickets. It's all well and good to say bat deep, but then can't bowl out the opposition and in an even worse position.
A need for any test team is that of a 5th bowler, but do they have to be an "all rounder" Guys with the bowling capabilities of a Chappell, Simpson or Hammond were good enough, I don't want to weaken the batting to being in a perceived stronger bowling option. I just need someone who can give me a decent amount of overs without releasing pressure or being taken part.
Similarly, I don't need bowling all rounders, a Warne or Marshall type is more than good enough for the no. 8 position. But again, I will not be sacrificing the strength of my bowling to strengthen the tail. I need their primary objective to be taking 20 wickets. It's all well and good to say bat deep, but then can't bowl out the opposition and in an even worse position.
Nintendo
Cricketer Of The Year
Ehh. If you've got Bradman then your always going to have a batting advantage on your opposition, a 5th bowler like miller is a massive asset, particularly if one if your bowlers break down mid game. Theirs also a fair few bowlers (S Pollock, Hadlee, imran, etc) who where better #8s than warne and certainly have an argument to make the side (although those guys would probably be in the debate purely on bowling merit, the batting is just a bit extra).
kyear2
International Coach
Are we stalking ATG teams or average /normal teams?
Even for either though, for me personally I'm not weakening my batting for what will be a 5th bowler and used sporadically at best.
Even in an ATG XI, I'm not ever selecting Miller in a first XI with an batting average of 38. And even in the Bradman argument, even though it evens out over a series, there's that one game where he can fail and you're still a batsman short and that's the game you can loose.
The beauty of Sobers, Kallis, Imran and Hadlee is that they don't represent any significant drop off in primary skill while shoring up the secondary requirements.
But again I must stress that while everyone on CW is so preoccupied with all rounders, I believe that it cricket history it's been proven just as, if not more important to support your bowers with a good to great cordon and that should factor just as frequently in these discussions. A Smith, Ponting, Hammond (not to mention Sobers and Kallis) provides similar utility without throwing off the balance of a team the same way a Miller or even Botham or Kapil would.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
History shows this isn't exactly true
kyear2
International Coach
Again, not saying all rounders, just someone who can fill that 5th bowler spot.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
But that could be anyone that can roll the arm over. Aus 2000s did it with Ponting or Martyn. It's not a factor when selecting a team because if you pick your best 6 batsmen at least 1 or 2 of them will be of that caliber bowler
Was Symonds an all rounder?
Rashid probably the best option as Afridi was not good enough to spearhead a spin attack. We have Jayasuriya and Shakib for second and third spin option.
kyear2
International Coach
That's more or less what I said. Ideally yes, a decent 5rh bowler is always nice, even a Carl Hooper type bowling his "lollipops" can help cover a few overs as needed. Again, a Bobby Simpson, Hammond, Worrell would be preferred and as you've said can be found in most lines ups, but if not an option then go with your best bats.
I mean, even "one series wonder" IVA Richards filled that role for us a bit.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No it's not:
The point is that it doesn't "need" to affect selection. You can just pick your 6 best batsmen and your 4 best bowlers
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
If this is true, that the skill level of a fifth bowler is not that critical, then surely a bowling allrounder is more important?
What is more likely, a fifth bowler helps to bowl out the opposition, or a stronger tail with a bowling all-rounder at 7/8 scores vital runs and gets to a better total?
The latter seems much more likely.
Last edited:
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Moreso in ODIS than Cronje and Waugh.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Nintendo
Cricketer Of The Year
You don't need one. The slips will simply form a larger cordon that covers from gully to gully.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Steve Waugh was a genuine all-rounder in his early years
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
His bowling actually kept him in the ODI side for years and was vital in Oz winning the 87 WC.
I'd prefer Symonds (or Mark Waugh for that matter) instead of Steve in this hypothetical side to provide off spin and world class fielding as well as better batting.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Steve Waugh was a good old-school ODI player but Symonds is an ATG. No competition