Bits and Pieces XI

[marc71178]

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.

Yes, but then again did they bowl every game?

Australia go into every game knowing that Symonds will bowl at least 5 or 6 overs (barring freak shows like skittling the opposition), therefore he is partially being selected for his bowling.

 

[andyc]

The fact that Symonds has played more games works in Moody's favour. Moody had less opportunity.

....Symonds playing more games works in his favour, it shows he's more of a reliable player, and more likely to follow his stats. Moody, on the other hand, may have ended up with a batting average 5 worse, or maybe 5 better, if he'd played more games. All the same, he wouldn't be near Symonds.

 

[Richard]

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

No, but it damn sure does mean something.

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

No, it's not - you can bowl well in ODIs without taking wickets.

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

Really? You can never know such a thing.

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?

Err, where did I say they weren't? I said Moody bowled well in said game.

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

Again - where in the blue blazes did I say he was?

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

How do you know there no connection?

 

[Richard]

52 wickets @ 38.73 - what brilliance (!)

Economy-rate's infinately better than Symonds'.
Which, like it or not, makes a huge difference.

 

[Richard]

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

Atherton who was no more than below-average; Tillikeratne who was sometimes a useful ODI batsman.
Adams wasn't the greatest ODI batsman, no, but he was better than some - until the end of his career.

 

[Richard]

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.

Moody's ODI record with the ball certainly isn't bad.

 

[Richard]

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.

Certainly there's a far bigger legacy in English domestic cricket than ODI, but I think people would be foolish to deny Moody's influence on WC99.
Equally, Simon O'Donnell was a pretty decent ODI all-rounder - most people would say that I think. I actually forgot his record was so good - certainly there's scope for comparison between him and Moody.
My rating of Moody doesn't concern average but economy-rate. Economy-rate is by far the most important thing in ODI bowling.

 

[Richard]

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.

To say that, because someone bowls, they're an all-rounder, is IMO stupid.
You've got to not bowl, but bowl well.

 

[Richard]

....Symonds playing more games works in his favour, it shows he's more of a reliable player, and more likely to follow his stats. Moody, on the other hand, may have ended up with a batting average 5 worse, or maybe 5 better, if he'd played more games. All the same, he wouldn't be near Symonds.

I know he wouldn't - no-one would compare Moody to the post-WC2003 Symonds.
Nonetheless, Symonds unquestionably had so much faith shown in him - which ended-up paying-off. Did Moody have the same?

 

[Autobahn]

Well funnily enough cricinfo did an thing on effective ODI players recently:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/westindies/content/story/238962.html

And looking on the tables for the most-effective ODI all-rounders i can't see Tom Moody anywhere on the tables so was he that effective really as you seem to suggest?

 

[Goughy]

Well funnily enough cricinfo did an thing on effective ODI players recently:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/westindies/content/story/238962.html

And looking on the tables for the most-effective ODI all-rounders i can't see Tom Moody anywhere on the tables so was he that effective really as you seem to suggest?

Interesting thing about the players who make the above 'greatest' lists.
13 made their debut in the period 71-81 (10 yrs)
only
2 made their debut in the period end 81- beg 94 (12 yrs)
and
13 made their debut in the period beg 94 - Present (12 years)

Its an interesting piece of information but Im not sure what if any conclusions can be drawn if any.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

To say that, because someone bowls, they're an all-rounder, is IMO stupid.
You've got to not bowl, but bowl well.

If they don't bowl well, they just aren't a very good all-rounder. Your definition of an all-rounder is totally warped really. According to you, someone who is especially good at either batting or bowling can't be an all-rounder.

So Andrew Flintoff isn't an all-rounder because his batting is average and his bowling is exceptional. Kallis isn't an all-rounder because his batting is exceptional and his bowling is average. Pollock isn't an all-rounder for the same reason as Flintoff, and Watson isn't for the same reason as Kallis. Who the hell IS an all-rounder then, aside from Ian Botham from 1978-1983?

Oh, that's right, Tom Moody, who was a mediocre batsman and a mediocre bowler, but at least he was equally mediocre at both.

An all-rounder is someone who is picked in the team to both bat and bowl, simple as that. Mark Waugh wasn't an all-rounder because even though he bowled, he was picked as a batsman, and only bowled occasionally. Andrew Symonds (in ODIs) is an all-rounder because he is picked both to bat and to bowl a significant number of overs in every game. Andrew Flintoff is the same.

 

[tooextracool]

Atherton who was no more than below-average; Tillikeratne who was sometimes a useful ODI batsman.
Adams wasn't the greatest ODI batsman, no, but he was better than some - until the end of his career.

please if averaging in the high 20s makes some ODI class then we can conclude that the likes of vaughan, collingwood and co are also ODI class.
ive watched far more off adams and tillekratne than you have, that im sure off, and it was glaringly obvious that neither should have been playing ODI cricket as pure batsmen.

 

[tooextracool]

Moody's ODI record with the ball certainly isn't bad.

how much have you watched moody bowl? moody was merely a bit-part ODI bowler for most who watched him. you seem to simply look at his record, which in all is barely representative of the quality of his bowling.

 

[Langeveldt]

Rosalie Birch

 

[Richard]

Well funnily enough cricinfo did an thing on effective ODI players recently:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/westindies/content/story/238962.html

And looking on the tables for the most-effective ODI all-rounders i can't see Tom Moody anywhere on the tables so was he that effective really as you seem to suggest?

It suggests that there are better all-rounders. I never called him a ODI great - but you'll notice only Greg Chappell (except Symonds - who I've already dismissed) is ahead of him of Australians and IMO Chappell would be a much lesser bowler today. You really can't compare ODI cricket of the 1970s and 1980s with ODI cricket of the 1990s and 2000s.

 

[Richard]

If they don't bowl well, they just aren't a very good all-rounder. Your definition of an all-rounder is totally warped really. According to you, someone who is especially good at either batting or bowling can't be an all-rounder.

So Andrew Flintoff isn't an all-rounder because his batting is average and his bowling is exceptional. Kallis isn't an all-rounder because his batting is exceptional and his bowling is average. Pollock isn't an all-rounder for the same reason as Flintoff, and Watson isn't for the same reason as Kallis. Who the hell IS an all-rounder then, aside from Ian Botham from 1978-1983?

Oh, that's right, Tom Moody, who was a mediocre batsman and a mediocre bowler, but at least he was equally mediocre at both.

An all-rounder is someone who is picked in the team to both bat and bowl, simple as that. Mark Waugh wasn't an all-rounder because even though he bowled, he was picked as a batsman, and only bowled occasionally. Andrew Symonds (in ODIs) is an all-rounder because he is picked both to bat and to bowl a significant number of overs in every game. Andrew Flintoff is the same.

No, all-rounders are people whose all-round skill is roughly equal. Andrew Flintoff (in ODIs, at least) is such. So was Moody - who was OK at both disciplines. Nico Boje and Andrew Hall are two more examples - both pretty average with bat and ball. Pollock, Kallis, Symonds and Watson clearly aren't. I really don't give a damn why someone's picked - because clearly Watson, Symonds and Kallis WOULD NOT be come close to being picked for their bowling if their batting was only decent-tailend level; nor would Pollock be picked if he was only a Watson\Kallis-esque bowler.
That's what an all-rounder is - someone of all-round skill, not someone who does one job well and the other pretty poorly.

 

[Richard]

please if averaging in the high 20s makes some ODI class then we can conclude that the likes of vaughan, collingwood and co are also ODI class.
ive watched far more off adams and tillekratne than you have, that im sure off, and it was glaringly obvious that neither should have been playing ODI cricket as pure batsmen.

When did I say Adams should have? If he were in a better team clearly he wouldn't have.
Really, the same applies to Tillikeratne. However good Sri Lanka have often been at bowling, they've not produced too many particlarly good batsmen, and Tillikeratne was useful to have coming in after Jayasuriya, Kaluwitharana, Atapattu, Aravinda and Ranatunga in case something went wrong.

 

[Richard]

how much have you watched moody bowl? moody was merely a bit-part ODI bowler for most who watched him. you seem to simply look at his record, which in all is barely representative of the quality of his bowling.

I've watched Moody bowl, and while he certainly wasn't exceptional, he was better than he looked. Was rarely that easy to get away.

 

[Autobahn]

It suggests that there are better all-rounders. I never called him a ODI great - but you'll notice only Greg Chappell (except Symonds - who I've already dismissed) is ahead of him of Australians and IMO Chappell would be a much lesser bowler today. You really can't compare ODI cricket of the 1970s and 1980s with ODI cricket of the 1990s and 2000s.

Didn't you read that properly?

Not only is chappell ahead of him so is Mark Waugh, Simon O'Donnell, Border, Brett Lee, Steve Waugh, Ian Harvey and Shane Warne and even if you try and dismiss older ODI cricket you've still got 5 aussies who have bowled in ODI's in the last 10 years.