Bits and Pieces XI

[Richard]

Yet Tom Moody is?

Yes - a massively better bowler than Symonds ever has been.

 

[BoyBrumby]

God we've had dozens. If Chris Harris is King of the bits-and-pieces players, Ronnie Irani is the crown prince!

We've also had Anthony McGrath, Jeremy Snape, Mark Alleyne, Vince Wells, Dougie Brown, NMK Smith, Dermot Reeve, Mike Watkinson....

 

[Richard]

Irani was at least better than that lot.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Irani was at least better than that lot.

Meh. As a batter, possibly, but he def would not have made the test or ODI team on that alone, no matter how big a chum of Nas he happened to be!

 

[Richard]

No more...
If Irani had any use as a ODI player, it certainly weren't as a batter! An average of 14.40 (for someone who was supposed to be able to bat) tells it's own eloquently nonedescript story!

 

[marc71178]

Matthew Engel in Wisden's review, for a start.

Well that must make it 100% true then (!)

As you have been told (but refuse to acknowledge), wickets in games isn't really very important.

That's because that point is a load of rubbish.

Moody often hit late effectively (in 3 of his 4 innings) and in the West Indies, India and final vs Pakistan provided quality bowling.

And 2 of those games Aus were already clear before he came in.

As for his bowling being the thing against WI - I think McGrath (8.4-3-14-5) and Warne (10-4-11-3) might have been slightly better performers?

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.

10 wickets for 95 runs in 29 overs - yes, I can how Moody was better...

McGrath's coming into top form coincided with Moody's call into the side.

So of course that's all Moody's ability again then?

 

[marc71178]

Yes - a massively better bowler than Symonds ever has been.

52 wickets @ 38.73 - what brilliance (!)

 

[tooextracool]

Well I never...
Still - I say James Adams was good enough to make the team as a batsman, even if he wasn't the greatest ODI batsman we've ever seen.

jimmy adams not only had a poor average but also a poor SR. only slightly better than the likes of atherton and hashan tillekratne.

 

[tooextracool]

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

symonds averages nearly 40 with the bat. i'd say hes a batsman who can bowl a bit.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

why even bother? look at moody's List A record and you can see why Richard rates him. According to his rating system, the FC/list A record is the be all and end all even if said person averages nearly half of his list A average in international cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

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

and he did that by playing a major major role against.........Bangladesh.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

to be fair, Johnson averaged 83 and 47 against the 2 best teams of that era(Australia and SA respectively), while Flower averaged 33 and 16 against the 2 of them. Further flowers average is clearly boosted by scoring against bangladesh, kenya,netherlands etc. theres certainly enough of an argument there to favor johnson

 

[Goughy]

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.

Im not criticising Moody as I enjoyed watching him, however if his high bowling average still allows him to be classed as an allrounder then a relatively low batting av. should not be a factor for exclusion.

That brings Simon O'Donnell (25 with bat 28 with ball) into the best Aussie allrounder consideration.

Im not saying he was the best but he deserves a mention and he can easily be compared favourably to Moody.

IMO Moody's legacy will be in his domination of County cricket not international.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Symonds is not an all rounder. hes a batsman who can bowl a bit.

 

[Goughy]

Symonds is not an all rounder. hes a batsman who can bowl a bit.

Agreed. Depending on what you go by (in this case average and econ rate) Allan Border and Viv Richards have better bowling records that Symonds. Its fair to say that they were not allrounders but batsmen who bowled.

Symonds is not much of a bowler but hey at the end of the day he helps his team.

As a bowler (and therefore an allrounder) I do not rate him in the slightest but the most important point is, does he make his team better? For all my criticism I think the answer is probably yes.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

to be fair, Johnson averaged 83 and 47 against the 2 best teams of that era(Australia and SA respectively), while Flower averaged 33 and 16 against the 2 of them. Further flowers average is clearly boosted by scoring against bangladesh, kenya,netherlands etc. theres certainly enough of an argument there to favor johnson

I don't think Johnson went in to bat against Australia and South Africa knowing he was probably the sides only hope to win. But anyway, it's a stupid argument because they were both very classy players.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Agreed. Depending on what you go by (in this case average and econ rate) Allan Border and Viv Richards have better bowling records that Symonds. Its fair to say that they were not allrounders but batsmen who bowled.

Actually I think you could make a decent case for Viv Richards being an all-rounder in ODIs. He certainly bowled in practically every game he played, and quite a number of overs too... averaged out to over 5 per game. Compare that to Border's 1.6 per game.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone is in the team (in ODIs) to both bat and bowl, and they bowl every game for a decent number of overs and bat well, they're an all-rounder, and Richards and Symonds meet that criteria well, as does Tom Moody, it just happens that the other two are much better players. Border doesn't.

 

[tooextracool]

Agreed. Depending on what you go by (in this case average and econ rate) Allan Border and Viv Richards have better bowling records that Symonds. Its fair to say that they were not allrounders but batsmen who bowled..

cant say i particularly agree with some of that. Economy rates have increased alarmingly since that era, it'd be extremely difficult to find bowlers with ER's in excess of 5 during that time. part of the reason for that is obviously flatter wickets, and the other part would be that the game has developed since- players have become better at pacing their innings, players are now using more powerful bats, the 15 over regulations have kicked in etc. My point is not that i disagree with you about symonds, but for me with relation to ER's at least in comparison with others in their time, both Border and Richards had extremely poor ER's and therefore also extremely ordinary bowling records.

Symonds is not much of a bowler but hey at the end of the day he helps his team.

As a bowler (and therefore an allrounder) I do not rate him in the slightest but the most important point is does he make his team better? Probably yes.

indeed he helps his team much like jayasuriya helps his. filled in a few overs, and occasionally takes a few wickets. does that make jayasuriya an all rounder? i'd hope not.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't think Johnson went in to bat against Australia and South Africa knowing he was probably the sides only hope to win. But anyway, it's a stupid argument because they were both very classy players.

no but only after johnson, goodwin, houghton etc left was flower left with that predicament. again its a difficult choice, im just pointing out that theres an argument for both. theres an argument in flowers favor that he was successful(somewhat) over a longer period of time.

 

[33/3from3.3]

New Zealand

Harsh
Scathing

but true