Team of all rounders v specialists

[Fuller Pilch]

Simpson
Grace
Hammond
Kallis
Sobers
ABDV wk
Miller
Procter (more pace and inswing variety instead of S Pollock)
Imran
Hadlee
Ashwin

 

[Fuller Pilch]

There is no way the last 5 are making 20 runs each against an ATG bowling line up

Gilchrist might get a century by himself

 

[ma1978]

Bradman is the difference

 

[Thala_0710]

Gilchrist might get a century by himself

Gilchrist wasn't in the 5 he was talking about. If he is there then yes

 

[Bolo.]

4 bowling ARs + stacking the batting as much as possible leaves the teams very evenly matched on batting and bowling (assuming Grace is disqualified). I'm not sure if this is the best way though. AR team has so many ways of constucting a team.

 

[Thala_0710]

Also, does Hammond qualify as an AR?

 

[kyear2]

The gap in 4-6 is also quite big imo. Only Sobers vs Richards is close while Sachin is a tier above Kallis and Lara is several tiers above Worrell. While 7-11 do provide better batting to all Rounders, it won't be of that much use against ATG bowlers. Ashwin for ex, has played almost all of his best innings at home and in WI against poor attacks. His and many other bowling all rounders stats go way down against quality opposition.
As for the bowling attacks, I don't think the variety can make up for the quality in attack.

I have found a kindred spirit.

Only Imran showed any consistency of the level being propagated by some here. Ash bullied bad attacks and all of Pollock's hundreds came in one calendar year. A lot of their production came in high scoring draws and not often in critical situations.

Wouldn't be the factor many believe in these scenarios.

 

[kyear2]

There is no way the last 5 are making 20 runs each against an ATG bowling line up

Not a chance in hell.

 

[Thala_0710]

I have found a kindred spirit.

Only Imran showed any consistency of the level being propagated by some here. Ash bullied bad attacks and all of Pollock's hundreds came in one calendar year. A lot of their production came in high scoring draws and not often in critical situations.

Wouldn't be the factor many believe in these scenarios.

Exactly this

 

[kyear2]

You don't think Imran, Procter, Hadlee, Rhodes and Ashwin can score 100 runs between them?? Then I think you seriously are underestimating their batting.

Well I didn't use Proctor in mine, and Imran is good for a few most days, and the best of the bunch, but mostly they're not specialist bats. No, I don't think you can count on a consistent 20 from a Pollock, Ashwin or Hadlee.

Pollock had more no's than Sachin, Imran scored all but one of his hundreds in draws (no not saying some weren't critical, from memory 2 were very much so), and the one in a victory was I believe one of 3 hundreds in a match they won by an innings. And yes, the not outs.

And wasn't Rhodes one of those guys that was either good with one or the other?

Consistency wasn't their forte.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Well I didn't use Proctor in mine, and Imran is good for a few most days, and the best of the bunch, but mostly they're not specialist bats. No, I don't think you can count on a consistent 20 from a Pollock, Ashwin or Hadlee.

Pollock had more no's than Sachin, Imran scored all but one of his hundreds in draws (no not saying some weren't critical, from memory 2 were very much so), and the one in a victory was I believe one of 3 hundreds in a match they won by an innings. And yes, the not outs.

And wasn't Rhodes one of those guys that was either good with one or the other?

Consistency wasn't their forte.

Consistency, No. But can I expect a solid round contribution of 70-80 from them? Most definitely imo.

 

[kyear2]

Kallis is ridiculously underrated by some

Like having Tendulkar + nearly 300 test wickets + great catching

I'm often compelled to agree, and the cumulative arguments used for the bowling all rounders goes out the windows when discussing Kallis.

I do think as a batsman and especially as a cricketer he's a little under rated, but if he's placed as an equal to Sachin (as a batsman obviously) then it shifts to the over rated category.

But for the bat deep brigade, if there's any consistency in their argument, there's no case for Sachin being selected over a Kallis or Hammond.

 

[kyear2]

The all rounders have an atg bowling lineup and they’re up against genuine tailenders

Wouldn't call Marshall nor Warne genuine tail enders.

And would classify Ashwin / Jadeja / Dev arg bowlers and Pollock doesn't make the cut for me either, though there's more of an argument.

 

[kyear2]

Not saying that the specialists bowling line up would contribute much, but their bowling wouldn't need to

Think you mean batting here, and agreed.

 

[kyear2]

Kallis is obviously an ATG test player, top 3 all rounders of all time easily. But with due respect its not like having a batsman like Tendulkar and a bowler of the quality of 300 test wickets. Tendulkar is a tier above him in terms of batting and as for the bowling, Kallis is not near the quality other bowlers who have reached 300 wkts are. Kallis was a good 5th and at times 4th bowling option with minimal workload coz SA needed him more for his batting. Of all the bowlers with 250+ test wkts, everybody has a WPM of 3+wkts per match bar Kallis (and Ishant who has 2.97). Kallis meanwhile has a WPM of 1.75 so not nearly the impact/workload of anyone else. Factor in that he bowled at home in the most pace friendly conditions of SA, he clearly falls short of the bowlers. As I said he is still a good 4-5th bowling option but not what ppl think when they see 292 wkts on the resume

Fully agree with everything here, but a guy who was a top 15 batsman, a legit top 10 slip fielder of all time and a guy who can come on and give cover to the attack and not get taken apart and on the occasion bag a wicket or two is really useful.

But yeah, he wasn't the batsman Sachin was.

 

[Thala_0710]

Fully agree with everything here, but a guy who was a top 15 batsman, a legit top 10 slip fielder of all time and a guy who can come on and give cover to the attack and not get taken apart and on the occasion bag a wicket or two is really useful.

But yeah, he wasn't the batsman Sachin was.

Yeah, Kallis is really really good obviously. Top 5 cricketers of all time probably.
It's just that once a very famous graphic was shown for Kallis where his batting stats were similar to Sachin and bowling stats similar to Zaheer. That's the issue for me. Ppl tend to look at just base avg, wkts, avg etc and tend to slightly overrate him and think he is Sachin+Zak in 1 cricketer. He's still an ATG cricketer and AR but he's just not that

 

[kyear2]

I do think so yeah. Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar and Lara are all tier 1 batsmen for me and from the AR's only Sobers and probably Hammond can sit alongside them on the same tier. If one combines the rest 4 there is a massive gap in batting quality which I don't think can be made up by the 5 you mentioned. They could contribute a handy 60-75 something but I don't think it covers the gap

Yeah agree.

Hammond, as has been spoken of with increasing frequency of late, was a tad over rated and really only Sobers is on the same level as those from the specialists team.

And yes, while those tail guys can on occasion put up a rear guard action, they're also just as likely to all get bundled out for 30 against this attack on a helpful pitch.

So no, don't think that stacking a tail makes up for quality of your top order.

And while there's no doubt that Kallis and Sobers are useful with the ball, I've often said that the WI were at their best, and better served with Hall, Griffith and Gibbs handling the attack and Sobers spending more time at 2nd. Same with Kallis for Steyn and co, and Hammond if they had useful quicks, lol (only partly kidding).

Give me a good no. 8 who can support the effort of hang on with the tail and a decent 5th bowler and you're golden. Anything else is overkill, specialists are that for a reason. Imagine not using McGrath because he was useless with the bat.

 

[Thala_0710]

Yeah agree.

Hammond, as has been spoken of with increasing frequency of late, was a tad over rated and really only Sobers is on the same level as those from the specialists team.

And yes, while those tail guys can on occasion put up a rear guard action, they're also just as likely to all get bundled out for 30 against this attack on a helpful pitch.

So no, don't think that stacking a tail makes up for quality of your top order.

And while there's no doubt that Kallis and Sobers are useful with the ball, I've often said that the WI were at their best, and better served with Hall, Griffith and Gibbs handling the attack and Sobers spending more time at 2nd. Same with Kallis for Steyn and co, and Hammond if they had useful quicks, lol (only partly kidding).

Give me a good no. 8 who can support the effort of hang on with the tail and a decent 5th bowler and you're golden. Anything else is overkill, specialists are that for a reason. Imagine not using McGrath because he was useless with the bat.

Completely agree

 

[kyear2]

Kallis averaged more with the bat than Tendy who also averaged “only” 46 in SA

Both great players but Kallis every time

The difference is Bradman and not Sachin v Kallis

The gap for the openers is also massive, the gap in the ability to play genuine pace between Richards and Hammond is kinda noticable, the specialists have, imo the two greatest and 4 of the top 5 greatest pacers of all time, and a much superior spinner.

It's not just Bradman.

 

[kyear2]

I don't think the difference between them and Grace Kallis, ABD and Simpson is so large, at all. Like ofcourse Lara is better than Kallis as a batsman, but not by any big margin in practicality IMHO, and Grace is arguably better than anyone but Bradman. Bradman is a cheat code though.

Bloody hell.
Name for me the bowlers of the quality of Steyn, Marshall, Ambrose or McGrath that Grace faced. Please and thanks.

Was a different game in an archaic time. And while he deserves full credit as one of the early giants of the game and as such to be mentioned along with Bradman and Sobers from that perspective... He doesn't belong in these conversations.