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

[age_master]

NZ have the most easy

 

[BoyBrumby]

(wicketkeeping and fielding don't come into it for me - no such thing as specialists at either)

I disagree. If there weren't specialist wicket keepers the gloves would always go to the most adept/least worst batter.

Looking at England, I don't think too many people would dispute that Chris Read is a better keeper than Geraint Jones. In three tests on the capricious Windies pitches Read conceded only one bye, in eight tests (all but one on the more reliable English tracks) Jones has conceded 102! But with his test ave of about 35 as opposed to Read's 15-ish Geraint makes a pretty conclusive case for his inclusion.

I would suggest that the reason he's our (largely) undisputed no 1 is because he's an all-rounder.

 

[tooextracool]

Just becuase someone isnt very good, it doesnt mean they are not an allrounder! Just like batsmen and bowlers, you have good and bad allrounders.

Anthony McGrath is a prime example. Obviously he is not picked for his batting or bowling alone, and in ODIs, you couldnt say one was better than the other (but in tests Im pretty confident his batting would be considered better than his bowling).

they're called bits and pieces players, which means that they are usually ordinary in both skills. a vast majority of the players today are either bowling who can bat a bit or batsmen who can bowl a bit.
in tests, only a few people even make the claim as all rounders ATM - flintoff and oram with hall and bravo coming close.
in ODIs there are a few more in addition to the above- pollock, malik, klusener, cairns etc.

 

[Buddhmaster]

The only real allrounders are Cairnes, Hall, Flintoff and Jayasuriya. (I may have missed some obvious ones)

 

[Adamc]

For me an all-rounder is simple: someone who is as good with bat as ball

By that criteria Sobers certainly isn't an allrounder.

 

[bryce]

When he gets more than 25* for New Zealand we'll take notice.

Tests: 64 runs @ 10.66, HS: 23
ODIs: 116 runs @ 8.92, HS: 25*

precisely why i said give him a few years

 

[Richard]

By that criteria Sobers certainly isn't an allrounder.

As would say the people who judged purely on basic statistics.
Sobers mightn't have been the most effective Test bowler ever, but he could bowl everything.
Some good judges say he never had time to take his bowling seriously enough, his batting was the first priority.
Had he been purely a bowler I'm pretty confident he could have averaged 25-6 at most.

 

[Richard]

they're called bits and pieces players, which means that they are usually ordinary in both skills. a vast majority of the players today are either bowling who can bat a bit or batsmen who can bowl a bit.
in tests, only a few people even make the claim as all rounders ATM - flintoff and oram with hall and bravo coming close.
in ODIs there are a few more in addition to the above- pollock, malik, klusener, cairns etc.

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

 

[Buddhmaster]

IMO, Oram is a much better bowler then Bravo.

 

[Richard]

A bit more accurate, yes, but Oram can do nothing but move the ball off the seam.
Bravo, of course, can do that, but he can also bowl conventional and reverse-swing. Add to that his ability with variations in pace and length (plus - vitally - the knowledge of when to use them) are amongst the best I've ever seen, and the fact that he's 21 and has only been bowling seriously for 2 years so has plenty of room to improve, and you'll see why I think he's not only better now but also has much higher potential.

 

[Richard]

I disagree. If there weren't specialist wicket keepers the gloves would always go to the most adept/least worst batter.

Looking at England, I don't think too many people would dispute that Chris Read is a better keeper than Geraint Jones. In three tests on the capricious Windies pitches Read conceded only one bye, in eight tests (all but one on the more reliable English tracks) Jones has conceded 102! But with his test ave of about 35 as opposed to Read's 15-ish Geraint makes a pretty conclusive case for his inclusion.

I would suggest that the reason he's our (largely) undisputed no 1 is because he's an all-rounder.

You see, I don't look at it that way.
I look at it that a wicketkeeper is expected to be able to bat. Wicketkeeping alone is not sufficient to take-up all practise time. While, of course, there is natural ability involved, IMO it's overrated - by and large you can teach yourself to be a good wicketkeeper. Ridley Jacobs, for instance, has few of the assets a good wicketkeeper would seem to need, but he is far, far better than most will ever be.
IMO once your wicketkeeping is up to a certain standard, it's simply the best batsman from then on.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You see, I don't look at it that way.
I look at it that a wicketkeeper is expected to be able to bat. Wicketkeeping alone is not sufficient to take-up all practise time. While, of course, there is natural ability involved, IMO it's overrated - by and large you can teach yourself to be a good wicketkeeper. Ridley Jacobs, for instance, has few of the assets a good wicketkeeper would seem to need, but he is far, far better than most will ever be.
IMO once your wicketkeeping is up to a certain standard, it's simply the best batsman from then on.

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.

I think ultimately the choice of the wicket keeper comes down to who's contributing more to the team. Read would (probably) concede fewer byes & Jones (probably) score more runs, but what also must be taken into account is would Jones shell any hard chances Read would snaffle? From memory I can only really think of one chance Jones dropped that Read might've taken. If (God forbid) Geraint puts Smith or Kallis down & they go on to a big ton I think the debate may begin again.

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

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

IMO, Oram is a much better bowler then Bravo.

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

 

[bryce]

oram's bowling is just like the rest of the kiwi pacers, great bowler at home, not so away,

Oram Test Bowling at Home,
7 Tests
23 wickets@22.43

Oram Test Bowling Away from Home,
10 Tests
12 wickets@62.08

having said that, oram is much more competent batsman than bravo ATM

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

having said that, oram is much more competent batsman than bravo ATM

Too early to make that judgement, especially since you've probably seen a lot of scorecards and very few innings by Bravo. Bravo has as many FC hundreds, about 400 less runs, 5 less years and 9 less innings. Take away the not outs and there's only about a run between them. If those stats say Oram is a far better batsman, then Bravo is a league ahead bowling-wise, as he averages 22.05 to Oram's 29.36.

In Tests you can't compare as Bravo has played less than a quarter of the number of Tests Oram has. After 4 Tests Oram averaged 28.50 with the bat. That's a run more than Bravo does.

 

[bryce]

yeah i agree, i think bravo has great potential with both bat and ball, i saw a couple of his test innings in the england series(mostly highlights though).
i never said bravo was crap with the bat, i just said at the moment oram is a better batsman than bravo and it would be difficult to think otherwise, regardless of what the players are capable of in the future.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ya, but it's not really fair on Bravo for that judgement to be made.

 

[bryce]

yeah it isn't, but it's difficult to make an accurate comparision when bravo has not had as much opportunities as oram at the top level.

 

[Neil Pickup]

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

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Now I may be biased (somehow) but I don't see how Bravo can annoy anyone. He doesn't play cricket in a style that would get under the skin. He's a good player, but he's sort of like Damien Martyn (to me anyway). I don't mind seeing him do well against the team I support.