Which Team Has The Most Allrounder's????

[dinu23]

which team has the most all rounders

to me it is pakistan with 4

what about NZ. Cairns, Styris,Oram,Adams

 

[SJS]

I don't think it's too much to expect a wicky to chip in down the order with a few runs, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's a specialist position. It has to be pretty demanding physically and mentally too; although never having played there in a competitive match that's just my assumption.
....

Absolutely correct. It is hugely taxing. Those who dont realise that should try taking it up. I promise you, you will not be able to go to work after a full day of keeping if you havent done it before.

Those who play cricket will know how batting in the nets is more taxing than same time spent in the middle. In fact, there is no comparison. The back packs up if you try to stay too long in the nets batting. It is the continuous flexing at the waist as you take your stance at the crease.

Now try doing 540 sit ups in a day concentrating on 5 and a 1/4 inch moving object hurled at varying speeds. Its a great physical feat. No other player in a cricket team put in that much of physical effort day in and day out.

On top of this physical strain is the physical agility, the need to concentrate every ball (the batsmen rest their nerves when they get to the other end) and the reflexes which are a gift but also taxing to the nervous system since they come into play only when allied to complete concentration. Anyone who thinks he can teach himself to become a good wicket keeper has obviously no clue about what it entails.

 

[Buddhmaster]

Have you seen Bravo bowl? In Tests? He's at least as effective as Oram.

well i thought i had, but from what you've all been saying, he must have changed alot, because he didn't do much when i saw him.

 

[Prince EWS]

For me an all-rounder is simple: someone who is as good with bat as ball (wicketkeeping and fielding don't come into it for me - no such thing as specialists at either). Like batsmen and bowlers, you get good ones and not so good ones.
Some people complicate it by saying you have to be worth your place in a team on either discipline - in which case all-rounders are rare things indeed! Personally I just think they're the exceptionally good all-rounders.

I agree with that 100%.

As for bits-and-pieces players, they are simply just poor allrounders. But they are still allrounders. Put them in grade cricket and they'll prove it.

 

[bryce]

what about NZ. Cairns, Styris,Oram,Adams

adams fits more into the bits and pieces category

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

well i thought i had, but from what you've all been saying, he must have changed alot, because he didn't do much when i saw him.

When did you see him?

 

[nzidol]

This thread didn't say genuine/classical allrounders, it just said allrounders. An allrounder in the contempary sense, which is why they are bits and pieces types sometimes, to me means someone who is capable of making contributions on a consistent basis with their least strong suit. I think Daniel Vettori is a bowling allrounder for instance, however Shane Warne is not, he is too inconsistent. Mills, Franklin, Adams are all bowling allrounders. Oram is turning into a batting allroudner having originally come into NZ team as a bowling one. Styris is a batting allrounder, genuine in ODI's. Cairns genuine in ODI's. McMillan and Astle don't contribute enough these days with the ball to be called allrounders. McCullum one of the best allrounders in the world.

Also, Boje is definitely an allrounder, after all Benaud averaged 24 with the bat and everyone considers him an allrounder.

 

[Richard]

IMO if Benaud played today he'd average 30 at least. And his bowling average would probably not change much.

 

[Richard]

Absolutely correct. It is hugely taxing. Those who dont realise that should try taking it up. I promise you, you will not be able to go to work after a full day of keeping if you havent done it before.

Those who play cricket will know how batting in the nets is more taxing than same time spent in the middle. In fact, there is no comparison. The back packs up if you try to stay too long in the nets batting. It is the continuous flexing at the waist as you take your stance at the crease.

Now try doing 540 sit ups in a day concentrating on 5 and a 1/4 inch moving object hurled at varying speeds. Its a great physical feat. No other player in a cricket team put in that much of physical effort day in and day out.

On top of this physical strain is the physical agility, the need to concentrate every ball (the batsmen rest their nerves when they get to the other end) and the reflexes which are a gift but also taxing to the nervous system since they come into play only when allied to complete concentration. Anyone who thinks he can teach himself to become a good wicket keeper has obviously no clue about what it entails.

He who wants to be a good wicketkeeper can do so.
I'm not saying it doesn't involve hard work, but so many wicketkeepers I know have become one because it runs in the family - they've been encouraged to take it up, and because they've wanted to, they have.
I tried keeping wicket once in my life and had a broken nose to show for it. I don't have any doubts as to how difficult it is!

 

[Richard]

They both annoyed me immensely last summer. All credit to them!

Well from someone like you who doesn't usually care about who does well against them as long as England win I'm surprised.
I can only assume you mean in the ODIs.

 

[Richard]

Of course, Jones's impressive knock against Zimbabwe in the 2nd ODI notwithstanding, the argument for him in one-dayers is perhaps less persuasive....

IMO Read is a better one-day batsman than Jones, simple as that.
Of course, the customary English mindset that largely refuses to accept that the two games are different sort of impedes progress in that area.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, Oram really looks like he's a Test-class bowler, doesn't he?
Bravo is a much better bowler IMO.

oram probably wouldnt make the test side for his bowling alone, but as i said, he comes closer than everyone else bar flintoff to making that claim.
bravo has played 4 tests, all of which were in england in conditions that are more suited to his bowling than in most other places in the world just like hoggard. im reluctant to put him on that list until i see how he manages everywhere else.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but he has undoubtedly shown superb potential. He wasn't helped by Harmison hacking him around at The Oval.

 

[nzidol]

IMO if Benaud played today he'd average 30 at least. And his bowling average would probably not change much.

On what do you base that?

 

[Richard]

The fact that batting in his day was quite a bit more difficult than it is now (due to uncovered wickets), plus the fact that I've watched him bat quite a bit on film and he looked very much to me like a fine batsman indeed. I've also read stuff about him and there were descriptions of him as someone who'd come not far from making a domestic side for batting alone.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, but he has undoubtedly shown superb potential. He wasn't helped by Harmison hacking him around at The Oval.

yes he was extremely impressive with the ball. personally i wasnt that impressed with his batting, but he can obviously improve and is very very young.

 

[Richard]

His batting was a little overblown IMO - but there's undoubtedly potential there, too.
Certainly the best thing to come out of West Indies for a little while.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

His batting was a little overblown IMO - but there's undoubtedly potential there, too.
Certainly the best thing to come out of West Indies for a little while.

He certainly didn't do too badly with the bat though. He's a very talented batsman too, but is still quite young and will undoubtedly learn with time. Look at Sarwan, he averaged around 32 (from memory) when he entered Test cricket. Now he averages over 40 in Tests, ODIs and FC cricket.

 

[Richard]

Oh, of course he's a talented batsman - but I think from some of the comments coming out from the series you might think his average was a bit higher than it was.

 

[tooextracool]

IMO Read is a better one-day batsman than Jones, simple as that.
Of course, the customary English mindset that largely refuses to accept that the two games are different sort of impedes progress in that area.

its been said too many times now, it was one of the stupidest selections ive seen, after the selection of the terrible foursome of course.
what makes it even worse is that they bat him at 7, as though he is a capable slogger, when the fact is that they already had someone perfectly capable of doing that before.