loterry1994
International Debutant
Aus still done more than England the last 30 years.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Why are England so much better at producing all rounders than Australia?
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
Yeah his 400 runs and 24 wickets didn't really do much to help us win in 2005.
Did you lose a lot of money in 2019 and 2022?
Nah, only murray mints and umpires were the real achievers.
Didn't pommies got whitewashed in 2022?
Flem274*
123/5
PEWS nailed it page 1. Being good at one thing in test cricket is really hard. Being good at batting and bowling is harder. Allrounders are a long term investment with the goal of getting essentially 12 players on the field in 3-5 years time.
Kallis is the premier modern example, but you also have Shakib, Jadeja and Stokes currently and going back a bit peak Cairns and Flintoff in effect snuck 12 players onto the field and raised mid-table sides to poking their noses into the top 3 rankings (England might have touched #1 in 2005?).
Even the tier below, who perhaps don't quite ever make it as one thing alone like everyone above would, can still round out a side. Losing Colin de Grandhomme was huge for NZ. He was a ridiculous talent with the bat if not the brightest, great for quick runs and the occassional sensible knock, and with the ball was excellent in partnership with Wagner in controlling the game and could step up to new ball duties with devastating effect as Pakistan in particular discovered.
Mitchell is a far better batsman and makes the side on batting alone but we still look unbalanced because Mitchell just isn't bringing the same skill with the ball.
Even kiwis forget he has test hundreds against two of the best attacks of his time (Australia and SA) in their own backyards and they were devastating. He put Warne out of the park. He didn't like Murali much and he fell off a cliff once they eyes went but he was a genuine test #6 who bowled excellent quiet overs. He was a really, really good player and I think he's unfairly remembered as the 30 something year old medium paced odi bowling allrounder he became post 2008 through to 2011. He was still contributing to his ODI side so I won't down him for it but it seems to have stuck in the public mind unlike his 2002-2007 career.
Woakes has the away from home issue where he's just terrible, though you'd probably pick him first (especially at his peak) if you're in England because he becomes Richard Hadlee there. Vettori was awkward even for his own side, as due to injury he became a batting allrounder but still stayed down the order which unbalanced the already weak bowling and only had a few opportunities at #6 (including 99 at the Gabba) before injury pretty much ended his test career.
Kallis is the premier modern example, but you also have Shakib, Jadeja and Stokes currently and going back a bit peak Cairns and Flintoff in effect snuck 12 players onto the field and raised mid-table sides to poking their noses into the top 3 rankings (England might have touched #1 in 2005?).
Even the tier below, who perhaps don't quite ever make it as one thing alone like everyone above would, can still round out a side. Losing Colin de Grandhomme was huge for NZ. He was a ridiculous talent with the bat if not the brightest, great for quick runs and the occassional sensible knock, and with the ball was excellent in partnership with Wagner in controlling the game and could step up to new ball duties with devastating effect as Pakistan in particular discovered.
Mitchell is a far better batsman and makes the side on batting alone but we still look unbalanced because Mitchell just isn't bringing the same skill with the ball.
Told myself I'd ignore the dickwaving from the other two (I'm team FP ofc) but you're not known for that so I'll engage. Can't agree here. If anything, Oram gets picked first.
Even kiwis forget he has test hundreds against two of the best attacks of his time (Australia and SA) in their own backyards and they were devastating. He put Warne out of the park. He didn't like Murali much and he fell off a cliff once they eyes went but he was a genuine test #6 who bowled excellent quiet overs. He was a really, really good player and I think he's unfairly remembered as the 30 something year old medium paced odi bowling allrounder he became post 2008 through to 2011. He was still contributing to his ODI side so I won't down him for it but it seems to have stuck in the public mind unlike his 2002-2007 career.
Woakes has the away from home issue where he's just terrible, though you'd probably pick him first (especially at his peak) if you're in England because he becomes Richard Hadlee there. Vettori was awkward even for his own side, as due to injury he became a batting allrounder but still stayed down the order which unbalanced the already weak bowling and only had a few opportunities at #6 (including 99 at the Gabba) before injury pretty much ended his test career.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It’s funny because at the time I really liked Oram and found Vettori overrated and frustrating. Attitudes to spin bowling were very prescriptive during Vettori’s career - people loved bowlers who tossed it up and varied their pace, even if they weren’t actually spinning it and therefore weren’t taking wickets. He wouldn’t get such an easy ride today. And as you allude to, he constantly shirked his responsibility as captain. He batted at 8 when he was the second or third best batsman in the side, and almost exclusively bowled himself in the middle ODI overs when he was one of the best death bowlers around.
Still, he was a useful and important cricketer for a very long time. Oram was only quality in tests for a few years, and at the risk of getting prescriptive myself, his batting technique was seriously ugly for a top order batsman and his bowling hadn’t much about it. It never felt like it could last, and it didn’t. But he left the test side before it hurt his record too much. If he’d played as many tests as Vettori did I don’t think his record would look too hot.
Woakes is hard to judge, being the GOAT at home and WOAT away. With more competent selectors his record would look much better.
Flem274*
123/5
Vettori and other straight break deceivers would adore DRS, but yeah he should have moved up earlier.
Oram had about 6 years as a very good test cricketer and scored 5 tons in half the tests it took Cairns and Flintoff to score the same amount, and he did it against good teams. I think if you achieve something in 6 years that took someone else 10+, good work. One thing I've also noticed in my punishing boring nerd spreadsheet is that 5 good years (good being the operative word, not youthful or old man junk) is about what you should expect to get out of anyone who bowls seam up. It's only recently we've had guys breaking that timeframe with high regularity. The greats of the past skew our perception of expected career length of test bowlers imo.
Cairns and Flintoff were better allrounders overall because they were genuine walk up starts with the ball, but in the comparison with Vettori and Woakes, being a proper batsman for 6 years (even if relying on superb hand-eye) who can bowl medium pace to a standard where he took the new ball for NZ on the odd occasion (easier then than now but a credit to his reliability with the ball) counts for a lot.
Oram slots into an NZ or any side easier than Vettori imo because Vettori was such a product of his situation and injuries, so while I think Vettori was more important for NZ over his career he would struggle in direct comparison with an Oram or obviously Chris Cairns.
I like Woakes because I think bowling allrounders are h4x provided they have the skill to be considered starters as bowlers, but he's easily brushed off imo. Woakes' effectiveness is just so weirdly limited to one place. He's the pace bowling equivalent of the second spinner. You put him in when you're in England but you'd be mad to play him at the SCG.
We're also comparing a batting allrounder to two bowling allrounders tbf. If you had all 3 to start your squad off you'd probably play all 3 unless you found a better spinner or bumped Woakes off the starting pacers.
Vettori up to you, Woakes it's a no from me is the short version.
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
Coronis
International Coach
I mean in the last 50 years they’ve produced 1 ATG batsman and 1 ATG bowler. However they’ve produced multiple quality AR’s.
Also was a 100% serious post - no sarcasm at all.
Just wondering who the all time great batsman was as no English batsmen have retired with an average over 50 in last 50 years
Likely same with bowlers, any retire with average under 25 in last 50 years?
Edit: did a fact check instead of from memory. Ken Barrington was last England player to retire with a 50+ average in 1968 (so 55 years) and the great Bob Willis was closest to under 25 with 25.20, retired 49 years ago in 1984
Last edited:
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
So you're just totally changing the goal posts. To start with you said "top class" now you want to talk about "ATG".???
Oh you Aussies are just so good with your Bradmans and your McGrath's.......don't know why we'd ever step onto a park with you superior cricketing gods.
Ashes series history update.....Aussies won 34, Eng won 32, 6 draws.
Your post was a total wankfest mate.
Coronis
International Coach
Someone’s a little sensitive.
Its ok that England’s not that good mate, no need to throw a tantrum.
I think Root probably qualifies as an ATG by now. Anderson is the bowler, for the record.Just wondering who the all time great batsman was as no English batsmen have retired with an average over 50 in last 50 years
Likely same with bowlers, any retire with average under 25 in last 50 years?
Edit: did a fact check instead of from memory. Ken Barrington was last England player to retire with a 50+ average in 1968 (so 55 years) and the great Bob Willis was closest to under 25 with 25.20, retired 49 years ago in 1984
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
So the bloke with the 5th most Test runs in history doesn't qualify? I know his average is only 45.35, but he's the only opener in the Top 10.
Not to mention Broad....
Coronis
International Coach
No, neither of them are ATG’s.
Molehill
Cricketer Of The Year
Can't be many ATG's on your list then if you're not allowing Top 5 run scorers and wicket takers.
Spark
Global Moderator
This isn't a good reason to rate a player an ATG over another player when they might have been able to play two to three times as many scheduled Test matches in exactly the same duration of time.
For example Kane Williamson's career spans a longer period of time than Cook's. But the latter played seventy more Test matches during that time. Doesn't exactly feel fair to just go on quantity alone.
Last edited:
Coronis
International Coach
Its not just about aggregates. It never has been. Is Jayawardene a better batsman than Gavaskar?
Yeah bit of a tangent now stemming from a joke post.