What's your opinion about Sanjay Bangar?

[vandemataram]

Originally posted by masterblaster
Well Razzaq has been playing recently against Bangladesh which got his averages increased, then he played against Australia which really disrupted his cricket, and yes broke his hand/wrist, but I felt he hasnt really done anything of note recently.

Thats why i mentioned his average in last 5 test matches which is around 25, which is pretty good for an allrounder, of those 5 tests, 2 were against Aus and none against Bang!!!
Also, there is hardly an allrounder these days that had done anything of note against a team like Australia at test matches!

 

[lord_of_darkness]

I think Agarkar shouldnt be picked for the N.Z tour... he wouldnt do that well in my view , chose someone like Pathan who might be valuable

 

[marc71178]

The only reason as to why Azhar doesn't get a place in test and oneday side is coz Razzak and Akram are in the team.

One day maybe, but Wasim doesn't play Tests any more and IMO it would be embarassing to be out of the team wen he is in.

 

[marc71178]

Thats why i mentioned his average in last 5 test matches which is around 25, which is pretty good for an allrounder

Would an average of 25 get someone in as an automatic pick as a batsman?
No it wouldn't, but then again Razzaq is not an all-rounder.

 

[vandemataram]

Originally posted by marc71178

The only reason as to why Azhar doesn't get a place in test and oneday side is coz Razzak and Akram are in the team.

One day maybe, but Wasim doesn't play Tests any more and IMO it would be embarassing to be out of the team wen he is in.

In test matches one cannot go with more than 1 allrounder, unless one is just looking for a draw and is not serious in getting opponent wkts.Playing with Azhar and Razzak in a test team at the expense of Sami or Saqlain would be a joke, hence Azhar loses his place!

 

[vandemataram]

Originally posted by marc71178

Thats why i mentioned his average in last 5 test matches which is around 25, which is pretty good for an allrounder

Would an average of 25 get someone in as an automatic pick as a batsman?
No it wouldn't, but then again Razzaq is not an all-rounder.

Yes sir , Razzak isn't an allrounder, who can disagree with some a knowledgeable pundit like you:rolleyes:

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by marc71178

Thats why i mentioned his average in last 5 test matches which is around 25, which is pretty good for an allrounder

Would an average of 25 get someone in as an automatic pick as a batsman?
No it wouldn't, but then again Razzaq is not an all-rounder.

I'm sorry Marc, with you perfectionist view on things, but Razzak is actually classed as an all-rounder. And certainly a much better one than Bangar ever could be.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Razzaq is an all-rounder - he's picked to bat and bowl... just not a "true" one. We've had the definition argument already. Discuss the player.

And for whoever claimed that Agarkar was India's premier ODI bowler... Zaheer Khan?!

 

[marc71178]

In test matches one cannot go with more than 1 allrounder

Depends if you're talking about true all-rounders or "bits and pieces" players - if its the former then you definitely play more than 1, if its the latter than fair enough.

 

[vandemataram]

Originally posted by marc71178

In test matches one cannot go with more than 1 allrounder

Depends if you're talking about true all-rounders or "bits and pieces" players - if its the former then you definitely play more than 1, if its the latter than fair enough.

Very interesting point about the term "true Allrounder" which you reffered to, can you name a single country which has more than 1 true allrounder at the same time?? if not then your whole argument is pointless!

Razzak is an allrounder, just not as good as Kallis and the former greats. A bits and pieces player is someone like Shaid Afridi, that can bat a bit and bowl a bit

[Edited on 24/11/2002 by vandemataram]

 

[warrioryohannan]

Originally posted by Neil Pickup
Razzaq is an all-rounder - he's picked to bat and bowl... just not a "true" one. We've had the definition argument already. Discuss the player.

Yeah, i think Argonaut came up with a good defination.

"The term true all rounder should be replaced by great all rounder. All rounders should be guys that are particularly good at one discipline and handy at the other (averaging marginally less than a full time exponent). "

Now someone like Cairns,Razzak,Watson,Zulu and Pollock are fine allrounders, while players like Harris, Afridi & chandana are bits and pieces players!

 

[marc71178]

Very interesting point about the term "true Allrounder" which you reffered to, can you name a single country which has more than 1 true allrounder at the same time?? if not then your whole argument is pointless!

You what? Just because these true all-rounders rarely exist in Cricket doesn't make my argument pointless - surely if you had, for example, Imran Khan and Ian Botham available, would you only play one of them, because you only want one all-rounder?

 

[marc71178]

Razzak is an allrounder, just not as good as Kallis and the former greats. A bits and pieces player is someone like Shaid Afridi, that can bat a bit and bowl a bit

Interesting that. In Tests, Shahid averages more with the bat and less with the ball than Razzaq, yet you say Razzaq is the all-rounder and Afridi the bits and pieces player?

Would Razzaq get in the Pakistani team if his batting was something like Phil Tufnell's?

NO

Would Razzaq get in the Pakistani team if his bowling was something like Alec Stewart's?

NO

 

[vandemataram]

Originally posted by marc71178

Very interesting point about the term "true Allrounder" which you reffered to, can you name a single country which has more than 1 true allrounder at the same time?? if not then your whole argument is pointless!

You what? Just because these true all-rounders rarely exist in Cricket doesn't make my argument pointless - surely if you had, for example, Imran Khan and Ian Botham available, would you only play one of them, because you only want one all-rounder?

That argument is based on assumption, let modify that assumption, suppose we have in Addition to those 2 allrounder bowlers like Ambrose,Lillee,McGrath and Marshall,then i would certainly had gone with just one allrounder!!!

 

[vandemataram]

Originally posted by marc71178

Razzak is an allrounder, just not as good as Kallis and the former greats. A bits and pieces player is someone like Shaid Afridi, that can bat a bit and bowl a bit

Interesting that. In Tests, Shahid averages more with the bat and less with the ball than Razzaq, yet you say Razzaq is the all-rounder and Afridi the bits and pieces player?

Stats can sometimes be misleading and this is one good example of it.9 out of ten people will agree with me that Razzak is not just better but much better allrounder than Shahid afridi.

You just came out with the stats of test matches and didn't bother to enter the stats of onedayer, clever you.
Afridi ave 32 with bat and Razzak 30 with bat.Afridi ave 31.4 with ball and Razzak 31.8, indeed there is a big gap.The most important thing that we should remember is that Afridi has played just 14 tests, and that too mainly against weaker nation , he has played just one test against Australia, while Razzak had played 3 test matches against them.

And if Afridi is a better allrounder, then why he isn't a part of Pak test team ,while Razzak is a permanant member??

 

[marc71178]

That argument is based on assumption, let modify that assumption, suppose we have in Addition to those 2 allrounder bowlers like Ambrose,Lillee,McGrath and Marshall,then i would certainly had gone with just one allrounder!!!

That would be an awesome attack, but would've had a touch too long a tail - certainly I would consider leaving out one of Ambrose or McGrath out and play both Imran and Botham - that would be a scary side though!

 

[marc71178]

You just came out with the stats of test matches and didn't bother to enter the stats of onedayer, clever you.

That's because it's Test Matches we're discussing at the moment!

 

[vandemataram]

Originally posted by marc71178

That argument is based on assumption, let modify that assumption, suppose we have in Addition to those 2 allrounder bowlers like Ambrose,Lillee,McGrath and Marshall,then i would certainly had gone with just one allrounder!!!

That would be an awesome attack, but would've had a touch too long a tail - certainly I would consider leaving out one of Ambrose or McGrath out and play both Imran and Botham - that would be a scary side though!

If you have a good batting wk comming at no 7, then there is no need for going for 2 allrounders!

 

[vandemataram]

Originally posted by marc71178

You just came out with the stats of test matches and didn't bother to enter the stats of onedayer, clever you.

That's because it's Test Matches we're discussing at the moment!

Thats funny, we are basically discussing about allrounders, most of them(Afridi,Ajit and Azhar) rarely get to play tests matches!

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by vandemataram

Originally posted by marc71178

You just came out with the stats of test matches and didn't bother to enter the stats of onedayer, clever you.

That's because it's Test Matches we're discussing at the moment!

Thats funny, we are basically discussing about allrounders, most of them(Afridi,Ajit and Azhar) rarely get to play tests matches!

But the thing is, we were discussing why only one "all-rounder/bits-and-pieces player" plays in Tests.