bagapath
International Captain
This is for test cricket.I'd pick Procter above all in this list if he was there.
He will not feature in these discussions.
This is for test cricket.I'd pick Procter above all in this list if he was there.
Yes. I fully accept your criteria and reasoning - just as I hope that you understand that as a Procter tragic, I have to bring him into this, regardless.This is for test cricket.
He will not feature in these discussions.
I'm more of a Ronnie Irani guy.Yes. I fully accept your criteria and reasoning - just as I hope that you understand that as a Procter tragic, I have to bring him into this, regardless.
Davidson was added to the poll early on (by me).Tempted to just recreate this thread and include Davidson and Procter.
I just don’t understand why you’d exclude people based on arbitrary criteria. If the purpose of the exercise is to rank the top allrounders then do that, or rename the thread ‘rank bagapath’s chosen list of players as allrounders’
Make sure he's on there if Bags does an 11-15 please.Davidson was added to the poll early on (by me).
I asked him for permission and he said yes. I actually thought he'd just missed him, but he had a cut off Davo didn't meet and allowed me to add him in anyway.Make sure he's on there if Bags does an 11-15 please.
Fair enough. I might decide to just vote for four then.I asked him for permission and he said yes. I actually thought he'd just missed him, but he had a cut off Davo didn't meet and allowed me to add him in anyway.
If he doesn't want to add him to the next one I won't push it. His poll his rules.
Well you could vote for Davo as 5thFair enough. I might decide to just vote for four then.
If Philander is missing in the next one, I riot.Davidson was added to the poll early on (by me).
Any criteria set by anybody in an internet discussion forum is going to be arbitrary. Your thread will be pretty much ‘rank Jarquis’s chosen list of players as allrounders' at best. it won't be marked in the history of mankind as the definitive discussion on this topic.Tempted to just recreate this thread and include Davidson and Procter.
I just don’t understand why you’d exclude people based on arbitrary criteria. If the purpose of the exercise is to rank the top allrounders then do that, or rename the thread ‘rank bagapath’s chosen list of players as allrounders’
thank you!Procter looks like the dream all rounder because maintaining both disciplines to a high standard is much easier in FC and all rounders are forced to specialise when they step up to tests. This is reflected in his own record which is that of a frontline bowler who's a good #8. Davidson, Philander, Hammond (though not ARs at test level), Benaud, Miller, Hadlee (I could keep going) all suffer from this. No, it doesn't mean that those guys were better in their secondary discipline than the stats suggest because of their FC numbers. You're probably going to over rate someone massively if you only judge them on their FC numbers.
Also, yeah, Davidson isn't even an AR in tests.
Philander will be in the next poll for sure... if you are making the thread.If Philander is missing in the next one, I riot.
Really? Is it not indecent to edit someone's polls/posts without their approval?Make sure he's on there if Bags does an 11-15 please.
I can if you'd like, but if you're making it, would you mind adding him, pretty please?Philander will be in the next poll for sure... if you are making the thread.
I don't consider him a test allrounder; so I won't add him in mine.
Fully agree.I actually think that really good bowlers who can also bat and really good batsmen who can also bowl are more important than actual bonafide allrounders for a team's success.
Especially with the way the game is evolving today.
Mate 10 innings batted.Procter looks like the dream all rounder because maintaining both disciplines to a high standard is much easier in FC and all rounders are forced to specialise when they step up to tests. This is reflected in his own record which is that of a frontline bowler who's a good #8. Davidson, Philander, Hammond (though not ARs at test level), Benaud, Miller, Hadlee (I could keep going) all suffer from this. No, it doesn't mean that those guys were better in their secondary discipline than the stats suggest because of their FC numbers. You're probably going to over rate someone massively if you only judge them on their FC numbers.
Also, yeah, Davidson isn't even an AR in tests.
Fair enough.Really? Is it not indecent to edit someone's polls/posts without their approval?
Prince EWS asked me if he could add Davidson, and I let him do it. If I hadn't agreed he wouldn't have.