CW50 2nd Edition (aka WWIII) - No 11 - 12

[The Sean]

The invincibles had Miller who was all three mixed into one and Harvey was also in the slips. The SA teams had Richards, Mitchell ect. How does that disprove my point. Lindwall, Miller, Johnson, P. Pollock.

A team cannot win consistently with a poor bowling attack or a weak cordon. It's just a fact.

You said that none of the great teams had a great bowling all-rounder. I mentioned several great teams which had a great bowling all rounder. I don't really understand your follow up posts so I'll leave it there.

 

[kyear2]

You said that none of the great teams had a great bowling all-rounder. I mentioned several great teams which had a great bowling all rounder. I don't really understand your follow up posts so I'll leave it there.

I will re-phrase. While some of the great teams had bowling all rounders, history show that it's not as much a requirement as having great fast bowers and a strong cordon. If your top and middle order does its job, a bowling all rounder batting at 8, is not as important as having supprt for your bowlers.

That is all I was trying to say.

 

[Howe_zat]

Both the 80s Windies and the 00s Australians may not have needed great allrounders, but both were desparate to get them. Look at home many tests were played by roger harper or eldine baptiste, or had marshall batting at seven. Look how Australia tried to make katich or symonds into 5th bowler material instead of going for notably better batsmen. Allrounders are always prized.

 

[kyear2]

Both the 80s Windies and the 00s Australians may not have needed great allrounders, but both were desparate to get them. Look at home many tests were played by roger harper or eldine baptiste, or had marshall batting at seven. Look how Australia tried to make katich or symonds into 5th bowler material instead of going for notably better batsmen. Allrounders are always prized.

I never said not. I said batting all rounders are useful as its always important to have a fifth bolwer. I was just talking about bowling all rounders, I was specifically talking about Hadlee being over rated on this site because of his batting. Which when you bat at number 8, unless you have a weak batting team is less valuable to me.

 

[smash84]

I will re-phrase. While some of the great teams had bowling all rounders, history show that it's not as much a requirement as having great fast bowers and a strong cordon. If your top and middle order does its job, a bowling all rounder batting at 8, is not as important as having supprt for your bowlers.

I dare say that you have done a Cevno here

I will re-phrase. While some of the great teams had bowling all rounders, history show that it's not as much a requirement as having great fast bowers and a strong cordon.

Btw a great slip cordon would become a requirement if you have great bowlers so I don't quite understand how a great slip cordon fits into the grand scheme of things. If you have **** bowlers who won't send anything to the slip cordon what would a good slip cordon do in and of itself? ATG teams have great slip cordons because they have good bowling. Otherwise the slip cordon is as good a fielding position as any other.

If your top and middle order does its job, a bowling all rounder batting at 8, is not as important as having supprt for your bowlers.

If the batting doesn't do its job? Then wouldn't the bowling all rounder come in handy?

 

[smash84]

I never said not. I said batting all rounders are useful as its always important to have a fifth bolwer..

Really?

How many ATG teams had a decent to good fifth bowler?

 

[Pothas]

Grace at 12 probably reflects that half of us did it on all cricket and the rest just on tests, had him at 2 myself.

If it was on all cricket then having him any lower then 2nd is fairly ridiculous if you ask me.

 

[Pothas]

I never said not. I said batting all rounders are useful as its always important to have a fifth bolwer. I was just talking about bowling all rounders, I was specifically talking about Hadlee being over rated on this site because of his batting. Which when you bat at number 8, unless you have a weak batting team is less valuable to me.

Can see what you mean but having a bowling all rounder is never going to be anything but good for your side, having a genuinely great batting one might be more valuable but they are also an awful lot less common.

 

[The Sean]

Grace at 12 probably reflects that half of us did it on all cricket and the rest just on tests, had him at 2 myself.

If it was on all cricket then having him any lower then 2nd is fairly ridiculous if you ask me.

Had him at 3, on another day might have had him at 2. Can I have partial credit?

 

[ankitj]

I never said not. I said batting all rounders are useful as its always important to have a fifth bolwer. I was just talking about bowling all rounders, I was specifically talking about Hadlee being over rated on this site because of his batting. Which when you bat at number 8, unless you have a weak batting team is less valuable to me.

I don't know what you are trying to say. Hadlee has a fair claim to be considered the greatest bowler. Ever. It looks like you are underrating his bowling just because he could also bat.

 

[ankitj]

Grace at 12 probably reflects that half of us did it on all cricket and the rest just on tests, had him at 2 myself.

If it was on all cricket then having him any lower then 2nd is fairly ridiculous if you ask me.

Had him at #6. Often I exclude from list of great cricketers because I can't find a yardstick to assess his performance with. Included him here and ranked him rather arbitrarily. I did not want to touch my top 5 test cricketers, so put Grace right after them.

 

[Pothas]

Had him at 3, on another day might have had him at 2. Can I have partial credit?

Yeah that top 3 we had last tine seemed fairly clear cut.

 

[smash84]

Can see what you mean but having a bowling all rounder is never going to be anything but good for your side, having a genuinely great batting one might be more valuable but they are also an awful lot less common.

Nopes. Everybody has to bat but not everybody has to bowl hence your bowling all rounders are more valuable

 

[kyear2]

A batting all rounder gives a fifth bowler, who can help you rest your front line bolwers or make a vital break through. A bowling all rounder batting at 8 adds a little depth but that is more iceing on the cake that a consistent neccesity. What is more valuable Kallis's bowling or Hadlee batting. To me a quailty fifth bolwer (Sobers, Kallis, Simpson, Hammond even) is more valauble than a number 8 batsman who in 86 matches has 17 scores over 50 and a average under 30. If you have a good team, you want some one who can help you win, not help you avoid defeat.

I will say nothing more on the matter.

 

[Pothas]

Nopes. Everybody has to bat but not everybody has to bowl hence your bowling all rounders are more valuable

Not really, the very fact that everyone contributes with the bat makes the batting all rounder more special.

 

[Ikki]

Not really, the very fact that everyone contributes with the bat makes the batting all rounder more special.

Disagree. It just means you don't need really more than 4 front line bowlers whereas you need as many batsmen as possible. There hasn't been a batting all-rounder IMO who could really be given a bowl in an ATG side without lowering the all-round bowling quality. Whereas all-rounders like Miller and Imran can make those sides and their batting is a plus because they have to bat anyway.

 

[Pothas]

See I wouldn't class Miller as a bowling all-rounder as such, basically those that bat in the top 6 and genuinely contribute with the ball are more valuable than bowling all-rounders.

 

[zaremba]

Disagree. It just means you don't need really more than 4 front line bowlers whereas you need as many batsmen as possible. There hasn't been a batting all-rounder IMO who could really be given a bowl in an ATG side without lowering the all-round bowling quality. Whereas all-rounders like Miller and Imran can make those sides and their batting is a plus because they have to bat anyway.

Agree with the second half of this. For the reason you've given, when you look at someone like Hadlee it's nonsensical to suggest that his batting isn't a big plus. Don't really agree with the first part though - having one of your batsmen being able to bowl properly is always going to be a useful tool in the box. They might not be called upon when you're bowling the opposition out for 150 but when you have a long hot day in the field, having a 5th or 6th bowler of quality is a massive plus.

 

[Ikki]

Agree with the second half of this. For the reason you've given, when you look at someone like Hadlee it's nonsensical to suggest that his batting isn't a big plus. Don't really agree with the first part though - having one of your batsmen being able to bowl properly is always going to be a useful tool in the box. They might not be called upon when you're bowling the opposition out for 150 but when you have a long hot day in the field, having a 5th or 6th bowler of quality is a massive plus.

Think about this scenario: you have Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee and Warne. They are more than capable of getting through all the overs themselves and taking 20 wickets. Why would you even give the ball to Kallis or Sobers? You are just handing over runs and time.

The reverse with bowling all-rounders doesn't work: they have to bat and you want them to bat. By them scoring with the bat they are not inhibiting the other better batsmen - whereas Kallis and Sobers would be taking overs away from the other far better bowlers.

See I wouldn't class Miller as a bowling all-rounder as such, basically those that bat in the top 6 and genuinely contribute with the ball are more valuable than bowling all-rounders.

He's the most rounded all-rounder - I agree. Are you saying that makes him a batting all-rounder? I think it's fair and easy to see bowling was his main strength in Tests.

 

[zaremba]

Think about this scenario: you have Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee and Warne. They are more than capable of getting through all the overs themselves and taking 20 wickets. Why would you even give the ball to Kallis or Sobers? You are just handing over runs and time.

Well that kind of bowling attack will obviously come up with the goods pretty often, particularly if playing against lesser teams. But we should assume they're playing against another team of all-time greats, or the legendary Martian batting line-up. And let's assume that it hasn't gone as well in the match as it looked as though it should on paper, and Mars are handling the bowling with ease and are looking comfortable at 250-2. It's hot. One or two of the bowlers are looking a little out of sorts. In that situation I would certainly want a Kallis or Sobers to be able to give me a dozen overs, to give the others a rest and to mix things up.

p.s. As I've said, I completely agree with you about bowling all-rounders. Having a number 8 who can bat like, say, Hadlee is always an advantage.