• 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.

Specialist v Multitaskers - who is more valuable?

FRAZ

International Captain
Sanz said:
Robin Singh. :)
Brave hearted and a good batsman . A bad bowler but ok than Ganguly !!! Love the guy's attitude and his will to play with passion . I like such an attitude . I liked the way he won a match for India against Pakistan in Karachi a little while ago . He made impossible look possible .Anyways !!!!!!!!!
 

archie mac

International Coach
Goughy said:
So you would not have picked Gilchrist and had Berry or Seccombe behind the stumps?

As for Stewart, is that a rhetorical question Archie? as Im sure you probably know the answer :) . If its not, the answer is he averaged a lot higher when he was not keeper. 47 compared to 35. I think a lot of that may be down to the fact he batted lower when he was keeper and never had as much opportunity to convert 50s into 100s and build a higher average. I have no doubt that having Stewart average 35 with the bat and opening up an extra batting position in the lineup strengthened Englands batting.

Obviously the benefits of Stewarts role is arguable, however as I said I think it really helped the batting line-up. Consider when he was NOT keeper England won 11 of 51 games (21.5%) and when he WAS keeper England won 28 of 82 (34%). I think it did make a difference.
I would have been very tempted to play Gilly as a specialist batsman for the Test team, and let Berry keep wickets. I watched him keep in a state game once and I thought him the best keeper I have ever seen. Maybe he just had a great day but I left thinking he should be the Aust keeper in Test cricket.

Yes I know the Stewart answer, I felt he was a player who could have finished his career with an average close to if not over 50. I suppose we will never know.
 

archie mac

International Coach
greg said:
We can have lengthy and complicated about this using statistics, but needless to say it isn't nearly that simple, not least because more often than not the catch will be taken anyway and a good keeper batsmen will also improve the averages of all the other middle order batsmen (just as someone like Giles, even though his figures aren't that impressive, will probably improve the averages of the other four bowlers).

And what do you do with the keeper who makes more "errors" but is capable of taking brilliant catches that the better keeper might not (I have heard one argument, have no idea if it is justified, that Read effectively improves his "catching percentage" by not going for really wide catches that Jones, for example, might)
Good reply, I just think it lifts the bowlers a great deal if they have close to 100% confidence in their keeper, and also keeps the batsman under more pressure.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Goughy said:
You have a point but I could certainly argue that they were at their lowest ebb because the best side was not selected for example with Stewart as keeper. We could go round in circles. It just comes down to differences in opinion.
Yes.

You think that taking Stewart away from opening, bringing in an inferior batsman and giving Stewart the gloves whilst batting at 6 strengthens the side in spite of lowering the average runs scored and weakening the keeper.
 

bagapath

International Captain
Jono said:
I can't think of too many all-time-great bits and pieces players.
Some great all-rounders were consistent bit and pieces players who would not warrant a place in the team with their skill in one department alone. Vinu Mankad, and Jack Gregory were neither great batsmen or bowlers. But they could contribute effectively with both at various times. Since they also had great presence we tend to forget that they were essentially bit players who maximised their talents to turn matches around. Of course this is not true for all all-rounders. Sobers was one of the greatest batsmen ever. Hadlee and Imran would fight for a fast bowler's spot in an all-time XI. Botham , with 14 centuries and 27 fivefers, could have doen either. Coming back to the point of the thread, I feel specialists are more important that bits and pieces players in a test team. Even in a one-day team you need a couple of great bastsmen and bowlers to be consistently successful. But Gilchrist with 4 dismissals per test is as good a test keeper as you can get. with his great batting he will have to be considered above better keepers such as healy and marsh for an australian xi. (EDITED AFTER READING BOY BRUMBY'S VALID POINT)
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
bagapath said:
Many great all-rrounders were consistent bit and pieces players who would not warrant a place in the team with their skill in one department alone. Tony Greig, Mankad, and Jack Gregory were neither great batsmen or bowlers. But they could contribute effectively with both at various times. Since they also had great presence we tend to forget that they were essentially bit players who maximised their talents to turn matches around. Of course this is not true for all all-rounders. Sobers was one of the greatest batsmen ever. Hadlee and Imran would fight for a fast bowler's spot in an all-time XI. Botham could have been eiother - with 14 centuries and 27 fivefers he could have doen either. Coming back to the point of the thread, I feel specialists are more important that bits and pieces players in atest team. Even in a one-day team you need a couple of great bastsmen and bowlers to be consistently successful.
TBF to Greig, we've played plenty of specialist bats who averaged less than him & plenty of specialist bowlers who averaged more over the years.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Some great all-rounders were consistent bit and pieces players who would not warrant a place in the team with their skill in one department alone. Vinu Mankad, and Jack Gregory were neither great batsmen or bowlers.
I never saw Vinoo Mankad but from what I've seen and read of Jack Gregory, he was far from being a bits and pieces player. He held the record for the fastest Test century at one point and consistently opened the bowling for Australia, bowling like the wind. He was probably Australia's first great all-rounder. Have a look at his numbers;

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/5435.html

Hardly a bits and pieces player.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
bagapath said:
Some great all-rounders were consistent bit and pieces players who would not warrant a place in the team with their skill in one department alone. Vinu Mankad, and Jack Gregory were neither great batsmen or bowlers. But they could contribute effectively with both at various times.
This is your definition of great?
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Top_Cat said:
I never saw Vinoo Mankad but from what I've seen and read of Jack Gregory, he was far from being a bits and pieces player. He held the record for the fastest Test century at one point and consistently opened the bowling for Australia, bowling like the wind. He was probably Australia's first great all-rounder. Have a look at his numbers;

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/5435.html

Hardly a bits and pieces player.
Based on numbers alone, I'd call him quite outstanding, but perhaps I hold the term great in different regard.
 

archie mac

International Coach
bagapath said:
Some great all-rounders were consistent bit and pieces players who would not warrant a place in the team with their skill in one department alone. Vinu Mankad, and Jack Gregory were neither great batsmen or bowlers. But they could contribute effectively with both at various times. Since they also had great presence we tend to forget that they were essentially bit players who maximised their talents to turn matches around. Of course this is not true for all all-rounders. Sobers was one of the greatest batsmen ever. Hadlee and Imran would fight for a fast bowler's spot in an all-time XI. Botham , with 14 centuries and 27 fivefers, could have doen either. Coming back to the point of the thread, I feel specialists are more important that bits and pieces players in a test team. Even in a one-day team you need a couple of great bastsmen and bowlers to be consistently successful. But Gilchrist with 4 dismissals per test is as good a test keeper as you can get. with his great batting he will have to be considered above better keepers such as healy and marsh for an australian xi. (EDITED AFTER READING BOY BRUMBY'S VALID POINT)
Can't agree with that both Mankad and Jack Gregory were genuine ARs and everything I have read about them confirms that opinion. I would think Charles Kellaway who played for the Aussies in the 20s (I think) was a bits and pieces playey as was Stork Hendry
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Goughy said:
I don't know too much about the depth of Aussie cricket. Would Gilchrist have been the best pure gloveman in Australia throughout his career?
Darren Berry.
Wade Seccombe.
 

bagapath

International Captain
archie mac said:
Can't agree with that both Mankad and Jack Gregory were genuine ARs and everything I have read about them confirms that opinion. I would think Charles Kellaway who played for the Aussies in the 20s (I think) was a bits and pieces playey as was Stork Hendry
Could they have made it to their teams either a batsmen or bowlers? I dont know. I tend to look at the term all-rounder as something that can be applied to a cricketer who can either bat very well and and bowl well enough (or vice versa) or be very good in both departments to warrant a place in the team. Players like Mankad could do both competently but not outstandingly. So I tried to call him a multi-tasker rather than an all-rounder. Well, this a vague zone. I dont claim I am right. Just trying to explain my understanding of the terms allrounder, bits and pieces player, multi tasker etc.
 
Last edited:

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
Can`t believe the under-rating of Gilchrist`s wicket-keeping. Almost flawless recently, especially when you see the other `keepers going around. Seccombe IMO was slightly better than Gilchrist, but not by enough to dislodge Gilchrist`s place in the side for his batting.

Really though, mainly in recent years, Gilchrist has been an amazing wicket-keeper. Except when he had those blue gloves. :ph34r:
 

greg

International Debutant
Nnanden said:
Can`t believe the under-rating of Gilchrist`s wicket-keeping. Almost flawless recently, especially when you see the other `keepers going around. Seccombe IMO was slightly better than Gilchrist, but not by enough to dislodge Gilchrist`s place in the side for his batting.

Really though, mainly in recent years, Gilchrist has been an amazing wicket-keeper. Except when he had those blue gloves. :ph34r:
I think the debate was about Gilchrist when he started. Wasn't there even some disquiet when Healy first got into the Australian team? His keeping wasn't seen as flawless.
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
Can`t say I followed cricket that closely in `97. But you`re gonna have to get an avatar before I value your opinion. :D
 

archie mac

International Coach
bagapath said:
Could they have made it to their teams either a batsmen or bowlers? I dont know. I tend to look at the term all-rounder as something that can be applied to a cricketer who can either bat very well and and bowl well enough (or vice versa) or be very good in both departments to warrant a place in the team. Players like Mankad could do both competently but not outstandingly. So I tried to call him a multi-tasker rather than an all-rounder. Well, this a vague zone. I dont claim I am right. Just trying to explain my understanding of the terms allrounder, bits and pieces player, multi tasker etc.
Jack Gregory was considered one of the best fast bowlers of his generation, so he would have made it as a bowler no doubt. As a batsman he may have had to change his game, from all out attack.

The term I think you are thinking of his genuine All Rounder :)
 

Top