Bits and Pieces XI

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, it isn't.
I've said it 100 times - Symonds is a batsman who also happens to bowl - not especially well.
The Symonds bowling record is even more poor in recent times. He just had a good start to his ODI bowling career.
Moody was a genuine all-rounder. Not, obviously, anywhere near as good as Symonds but IMO better than his average suggests.

You just said Moody was Australia's best ODI all-rounder ever. The fact is, Moody and Symonds bowl almost the exact same amount, and take almost the exact same amount of wickets. Throw in the fact that Symonds is a better fielder and an infinitely better batsman, and Symonds is either a superior all-rounder or a superior bits-and-pieces player.

Moody was definitively a bits-and-pieces player. He didn't have the game as a batsman or a bowler to make the side, he just filled in overs and contibuted a little with the bat. He wasn't bad or anything, but he wasn't the best anything Australia has ever produced.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not much to choose between.
Symonds and Moody, both qualify as bits-and-pieces players, not as all-rounders IMHO.

Symonds is one of the leading ODI batsmen in the world right now. Certainly makes him more than a bits-and-pieces player. He's either a batsman or an all-rounder, depending on your definition.

 

[Richard]

You just said Moody was Australia's best ODI all-rounder ever. The fact is, Moody and Symonds bowl almost the exact same amount, and take almost the exact same amount of wickets. Throw in the fact that Symonds is a better fielder and an infinitely better batsman, and Symonds is either a superior all-rounder or a superior bits-and-pieces player.

Moody was definitively a bits-and-pieces player. He didn't have the game as a batsman or a bowler to make the side, he just filled in overs and contibuted a little with the bat. He wasn't bad or anything, but he wasn't the best anything Australia has ever produced.

He was the best ODI all-rounder Australia ever produced.
Symonds isn't fit to lace his boots as a bowler. Fielding is not about being an all-rounder (though Moody damn certainly could catch), fielding is an expected part of being a good ODI player.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Chris Harris was my hero for a long time in New Zealand cricket. A superb one day player.

Larsen was no mug with the bat, but only had 70 innings in the 121 games he played. Most New Zealanders will remember the innings he played at number nine, especially around the time of the '92-'93 tour by Australia & the '93-94 B&H World Series.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He was the best ODI all-rounder Australia ever produced.
Symonds isn't fit to lace his boots as a bowler. Fielding is not about being an all-rounder (though Moody damn certainly could catch), fielding is an expected part of being a good ODI player.

And yet Symonds bowls just as much and takes just as many wickets. How does that work exactly? Going to tell me Symonds has a Satanic pact that grants him a bounty of poor strokes from opposing batsmen in return for the bi-annual sacrifice of a she-goat or something?

Fact is, Moody might have been a better bowler, but he certainly didn't perform significantly better, nor did he have a greater general role in the team with the ball than Symonds, so there's no reason to call him an all-rounder and Symonds not.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

Symonds is one of the leading ODI batsmen in the world right now. Certainly makes him more than a bits-and-pieces player. He's either a batsman or an all-rounder, depending on your definition.

IMO, he definitely does not qualify as an all-rounder, just because of the simple fact, he can never play as a pure bowler. I definitely believe Australia has a better batsman than Symonds if you talk him as a pure batsman in the form of Brad Hodge.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Well, Neil Johnson was a pretty damn good ODI batsman - certainly Zimbabwe's best ever.

Flower much?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

IMO, he definitely does not qualify as an all-rounder, just because of the simple fact, he can never play as a pure bowler. I definitely believe Australia has a better batsman than Symonds if you talk him as a pure batsman in the form of Brad Hodge.

Australia has Ponting, who is a better pure ODI batsman than Symonds, and perhaps Gilchrist (although that's arguable). Clarke and Hussey are comparable. But Hodge? He's played about 3 ODIs and never done anything of note. You'd have to be crazy to think Hodge was a better ODI batsman than Symonds.

Anyway, if you don't consider him an all-rounder, he's certainly not a bits-and-pieces player, because he's such a good batsman. He'd make a world XI for his batting alone in ODIs, in fact.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

Australia has Ponting, who is a better pure ODI batsman than Symonds, and perhaps Gilchrist (although that's arguable). Clarke and Hussey are comparable. But Hodge? He's played about 3 ODIs and never done anything of note. You'd have to be crazy to think Hodge was a better ODI batsman than Symonds.

Anyway, if you don't consider him an all-rounder, he's certainly not a bits-and-pieces player, because he's such a good batsman. He'd make a world XI for his batting alone in ODIs, in fact.

The point i was trying to make is Symonds is preferred ahead of Hodge because of his bowling capablities also. But as you say, Hodge is yet to prove and does not make a good comparison. Apologies.

 

[Richard]

And yet Symonds bowls just as much and takes just as many wickets. How does that work exactly? Going to tell me Symonds has a Satanic pact that grants him a bounty of poor strokes from opposing batsmen in return for the bi-annual sacrifice of a she-goat or something?

Fact is, Moody might have been a better bowler, but he certainly didn't perform significantly better, nor did he have a greater general role in the team with the ball than Symonds, so there's no reason to call him an all-rounder and Symonds not.

As I say - many have credited Moody as the single biggest influence on Australia's WC99 victory.
As I've said several times with Symonds' bowling - this is clearly not the record of an especially fantastic bowler.
Moody wins hands-down in bowling.
And in any case - Symonds' batting is sufficiently good that there's almost no way he could be called an all-rounder. Moody's batting, being lesser, makes him much more likely to be one.
All-rounders are those who are roughly equal in both disciplines. Symonds is clearly nowhere near being equal - he's a good batsman, and not much of a bowler. Indeed, I'd class his bowling only slightly above the Martyn\Ponting\Clarke\Katich\Bevan\Waughs standard. I'd say that, beyond all question, Darren Lehmann is a far better bowler.

 

[Richard]

Flower much?

Not in ODIs.
Flower was good in ODIs and a modern great in Tests, but Johnson really was one hell of a good ODI batsman (could bowl too, though not always very well).
It could be said that without Johnson Zimbabwe would never really have become a true force in ODIs, capable (as they were, briefly) of beating any team.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Johnson

class	 mat	 inns	 no	 runs	 hs	 ave	 bf	 sr	 100	 50	 4s	 6s	 ct	 st
ODIs	  48	  48	  2	  1679	  132*	  36.50	  2389	  70.28	  4	  11	  173	  12	  19	  0

Flower

class	 mat	 inns	 no	 runs	 hs	 ave	 bf	 sr	 100	 50	 4s	 6s	 ct	 st
ODIs	  213	  208	  16	  6786	  145	  35.34	  9096	  74.60	  4	  55	  	  	  141	  32

They have almost equal averages and strike-rates, as well as almost equal highscores. I'll say Flowers decent ability with the gloves cancels out Johnsons medium pace pies, so the only difference I see is the fact that Flower held together his record [and the team, for that matter] for around 170 more matches than Johnson. I'm not saying Johnson wasn't a quality batsman, but no Zimbabwean has ever wielded a willow better than Andy, whether it be limited to 20 or 50 overs, or unlimited.

 

[Chubb]

Trevor Gripper
Gavin Rennie
Vusi Sibanda
Elton Chigumbura
Doug Marillier
Charles Coventry
Guy Whittall
Gavin Ewing
Dirk Viljoen
Tinashe Panyangara
Blessing Mahwire

Zimbabwe have produced so many bits-and-pieces players, and these XI are just a selection. Practically every bowler who has ever played an international match for Zimbabwe has considered themselves an allrounder at some level, the exceptions being Hondo, Olonga, Everton Matambanadzo, Brighton Watambwa and Waddy Mwayenga.

In fact, I reckon I might be able to name another XI of Zimbok bits-and-pieces players:

Barney Rogers
Brendan Taylor
Stuart Matsikenyeri
Justice Chibhabha
Keegan Meth
Keith Dabengwa
Andy Blignaut (pushing it, probably is a genuine allrounder, certainly compared to the rest)
Mluleki Nkala
Prosper Utseya
Ryan Higgins
Anthony Ireland

It's almost certain that Zimbabwe have produced more bits-and-pieces allrounders than any other test nation, even New Zealand. At least we have Martin, Wiseman and a few other bunnies!

 

[Richard]

Johnson

class	 mat	 inns	 no	 runs	 hs	 ave	 bf	 sr	 100	 50	 4s	 6s	 ct	 st
ODIs	  48	  48	  2	  1679	  132*	  36.50	  2389	  70.28	  4	  11	  173	  12	  19	  0

Flower

class	 mat	 inns	 no	 runs	 hs	 ave	 bf	 sr	 100	 50	 4s	 6s	 ct	 st
ODIs	  213	  208	  16	  6786	  145	  35.34	  9096	  74.60	  4	  55	  	  	  141	  32

They have almost equal averages and strike-rates, as well as almost equal highscores. I'll say Flowers decent ability with the gloves cancels out Johnsons medium pace pies, so the only difference I see is the fact that Flower held together his record [and the team, for that matter] for around 170 more matches than Johnson. I'm not saying Johnson wasn't a quality batsman, but no Zimbabwean has ever wielded a willow better than Andy, whether it be limited to 20 or 50 overs, or unlimited.

Regardless of the other ability of the two, Johnson was IMO the superior batsman. I'm not talking cricketing ability, I'm talking purely and simply about batting.
For most of his career, Andy Flower only averaged 32-33. It was only at the end, starting with that 145 against India, that his average went up.
IMO Johnson was the better player.

 

[Richard]

Trevor Gripper
Gavin Rennie
Vusi Sibanda
Elton Chigumbura
Doug Marillier
Charles Coventry
Guy Whittall
Gavin Ewing
Dirk Viljoen
Tinashe Panyangara
Blessing Mahwire

Zimbabwe have produced so many bits-and-pieces players, and these XI are just a selection. Practically every bowler who has ever played an international match for Zimbabwe has considered themselves an allrounder at some level, the exceptions being Hondo, Olonga, Everton Matambanadzo, Brighton Watambwa and Waddy Mwayenga.

In fact, I reckon I might be able to name another XI of Zimbok bits-and-pieces players:

Barney Rogers
Brendan Taylor
Stuart Matsikenyeri
Justice Chibhabha
Keegan Meth
Keith Dabengwa
Andy Blignaut (pushing it, probably is a genuine allrounder, certainly compared to the rest)
Mluleki Nkala
Prosper Utseya
Ryan Higgins
Anthony Ireland

It's almost certain that Zimbabwe have produced more bits-and-pieces allrounders than any other test nation, even New Zealand. At least we have Martin, Wiseman and a few other bunnies!

TBF I thought Guy Whittall was a pretty decent batsman who also happened to bowl - not that well.
And I thought and still do that Prosper Utseya is a class above most ODI bowlers these days - even though his career may have ended before it's begun.

 

[marc71178]

I've said it 100 times - Symonds is a batsman who also happens to bowl - not especially well.

And you could say it another 100 times but it wouldn't change a thing.

Symonds IS an ODI all rounder, and one of the best there is.

 

[marc71178]

As I say - many have credited Moody as the single biggest influence on Australia's WC99 victory.

Many, like who exactly?

Quote how is 117 runs and 7 wickets in 7 games the single biggest influence?

I guess Warne's 20 wickets whilst conceding 3.82 an over were irrelevant?
And McGrath's 18 whilst conceding 3.83 an over equally so?

No, it's clearly Moody, especially when you consider that he managed 56* and 3-25 vs Bangladesh (!)

 

[Richard]

And you could say it another 100 times but it wouldn't change a thing.

Symonds IS an ODI all rounder, and one of the best there is.

Utter nonsense - all-rounders are people who can actually bowl, well.
Symonds is not.

 

[marc71178]

Yet Tom Moody is?

 

[Richard]

Many, like who exactly?

Quote how is 117 runs and 7 wickets in 7 games the single biggest influence?

Matthew Engel in Wisden's review, for a start.
As you have been told (but refuse to acknowledge), wickets in games isn't really very important. Moody often hit late effectively (in 3 of his 4 innings) and in the West Indies, India and final vs Pakistan provided quality bowling.
The simple fact of the matter is, before his introduction Australia looked like a second-rate team. After he was brought in, they looked much better.

I guess Warne's 20 wickets whilst conceding 3.82 an over were irrelevant?
And McGrath's 18 whilst conceding 3.83 an over equally so?

No, it's clearly Moody, especially when you consider that he managed 56* and 3-25 vs Bangladesh (!)

Look carefully - Warne only really came into his own in the last 3 games. Overall figures are often misleading - especially when they contain substandard sides...
NZ: 10-44-1
Pak: 10-50-1
WI: 10-11-3
Ind: 6.2-49-0
Zim: 9-55-1
So, really, in the first 5 meaningful games, Warne only did well once - and even that was coming on after the seamers had caused wreckage. Then he took 10-33-2, 10-29-4 and 9-33-4.
McGrath's coming into top form coincided with Moody's call into the side.