Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 67
Like Tree18Likes

Thread: Benaud, Davidson, Rhodes and such - Allrounders True?

  1. #1
    International Debutant harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,309

    Benaud, Davidson, Rhodes and such - Allrounders True?

    This is to discuss whether Richie Benaud, Alan Davidson and Wilfred Rhodes (and anyone else you can find to put in this category, maybe Shaun Pollock) should be referred to as all-rounders or not.

    Rhodes had a historic opening partnership with Sir Jack Hobbs (partnership average of 87!), but apart from that phase, he was a full time spinner, a great one, perhaps the first great one (discounting the mysteries of Sydney Barnes).

    Benaud and Davidson both have similar records to Richard Hadlee, who is regarded as an all-rounder by all and sundry. I think if we challenge their claims of all-roundership(?), then we must do so for Hadlee too. And this should not be a taboo, I think.

    There are others, maybe Shaun Pollock and Trevor Goddard could be in this conversation. Aubrey Faulkner, a fine batsman, had a bowling average of 26 which sounds fantastic by contemporary measures, but was quite high for his time.

    What are your thoughts?
    If you were that old, and that kind, and the very last of your kind, you couldn't just stand back and watch children cry.

  2. #2
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    32,674
    i don't really consider hadlee an all-rounder
    hendrix likes this.
    Indians can't bowl - Where has the rumour come from as I myself and many indian friends arwe competent fast bowlers ?

    With the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left

  3. #3
    International Debutant harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikey View Post
    i don't really consider hadlee an all-rounder
    Good for you

  4. #4
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    32,674
    i carry a lot of weight around here so I hope my classification finally sorts this mess out
    bagapath and andyc like this.


  5. #5
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,996
    Hadlee himself said he wasn't an all rounder, just a bowler who could bat a bit. Faulkner's stats are somewhat misleading and not as good as they seem. I think that it also has been proven that Rhodes was either a batsman or a great bowler, but seldom if ever both at the same timem
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  6. #6
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikey View Post
    i don't really consider hadlee an all-rounder
    Yeah I'm not sure on it either. For me an allrounder is someone whose batting and bowling can influence the selection balance of a team. I definitely consider Benaud an allrounder but if we remove the cop out "bowling allrounder" definition which Hadlee and Davidson both fall into to, I'd sooner consider them bowlers than I would allrounders. They were handy number eights at Test level but I wouldn't want them batting higher and therefore their batting skills, while obviously contributing to the side, don't really contribute to the selection balance of the side. Someone like Kapil was a step above with the bat in that he regularly batted seven and gave India other balance options.

    Davidson is a bit of a funny one though because he was a genuine middle order batsman in Shield cricket with a really good record; it's possible he just didn't have such a great Test record with the bat because he wasn't really needed to. Hadlee similarly hit 14 First Class hundreds including a double so he was certainly an allrounder at the level below Test cricket.
    ~ Cribbage ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  7. #7
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,024
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    Hadlee himself said he wasn't an all rounder, just a bowler who could bat a bit. Faulkner's stats are somewhat misleading and not as good as they seem. I think that it also has been proven that Rhodes was either a batsman or a great bowler, but seldom if ever both at the same timem
    I guess so, but whenever he batted he would always do what's best for the team. Took a good number of lower order wickets too, but nothing bad. Definitely a true all rounder.

  8. #8
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,528
    NUFAN in pro-Faulkner post shocker.
    andyc and LongHopCassidy like this.

  9. #9
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,627
    Would Wasim Akram fall in the same league as Alan Davidson?
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  10. #10
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,391
    I wouldn't consider Peter Such to be an allrounder.
    NUFAN likes this.

  11. #11
    U19 12th Man
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Unzud (aka NZ)
    Posts
    279
    Of course Hadlee was an allrounder. He averaged almost 32 with the bat from 1980 on, didn't have Bangladesh around to boost his batting average, had a better overall batting average (27) than specialist NZ batsmen such as Jeff Crowe, Ken Rutherford and John Parker and even averaged 32.4 against the great West Indian attack (the same attack that Ian Botham averaged 14 against).

  12. #12
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,586
    I reckon to deserve the classification bowling all-rounder, a bowler should be capable of batting at #7 in a test team.

    Beaud, Davidson & Hadlee were all able to do this.

    Pollock could've also, but he generally batted after Boucher in SA's line up.
    Last edited by Monk; 31-08-2013 at 01:47 PM.
    schearzie likes this.

  13. #13
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,807
    In general, we have no problem categorising wicket-keepers as 'allrounders' if they bat regularly at No.7 and score good runs in that position (Haddin, Prior, Gilchrist, Flower, Dujon, Knott, Lindsay, Waite, and Parks spring to mind) - so I don't see why we can't have the same standard for bowlers.

    Hadlee batted at No.7 or higher in 40% (53/134) of his Test innings - therefore I wouldn't classify him as an 'allrounder' because I don't think that this percentage is high enough. That is, if the majority of Hadlee's innings were in the tail (No's 8-11) then I don't think we have any choice but to categorise him as a 'bowling allrounder'. And this is despite the fact that Hadlee averaged 32.15 during the 36 occasions that he was promoted to No.7.

    Similarly, the same applies to Benaud (56%) and Davidson (39%) - their team management didn't think their batting skills quite good enough to hold-down the important No.7 spot despite playing some good innings in that position.

    kyear has already pointed out that Wilfred Rhodes cannot be categorised as an 'allrounder' because he more-or-less quit bowling when he opened the England innings with Jack Hobbs. And he's quite right.
    Tendulkar - M.Waugh - Ponting - Richards - Dhoni - Bevan - Kapil Dev - Hadlee - Akram - Garner - Muralitharan

  14. #14
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,807
    Good morning Monk.

  15. #15
    International Vice-Captain Monk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,586
    It depends on how pedantic people want to be with the term "all-rounder" I guess. Obviously someone who averages over 30 is far more valuable with the bat than Chris Martin or Courtney Walsh. They probably wouldn't make the team on their batting alone, but they balance a team a lot better.

    Benaud and Davidson played in some teams that were a bit less conventional than a traditional 6 bat, keeper and 4 bowler set up. Early in their careers, Miller and Lindwall were around, both of whom were very capable batsman as well as opening bowlers. Miller usually batted top 6. Later on Ken McKay, Davidson and Benaud were often in the same team as all rounders. It's arguable whether Mackay was a better batsman than Benaud, but Mackay usually batted higher in the order than him. Mackay was probably more reliable with the bat, but Benaud more dynamic.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Tied Test - Alan Davidson
    By weldone in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-08-2011, 07:20 AM
  2. Alan Davidson or Wasim Akram
    By Sanz in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 18-07-2008, 08:13 AM
  3. Fred Trueman vs. Alan Davidson
    By Ikki in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 08:37 AM
  4. Best Fielder After Rhodes????
    By Jonty Lathwal in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 09-06-2008, 12:19 PM
  5. Rhodes vs Marshall
    By Natman20 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 14-09-2005, 02:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •