Katich call up

[Mingster]

I think you can count Cairns as a bits and pieces player now in ODIs. He can't make the side as a bowler alone and not with the bat either.

 

[Mister Wright]

Common Allrounder -
Someone who would not make the team on neither disipline alone but who's combined proficiency with both gets them in the side.
eg Ian Harvey , Flintoff (in tests) , Craig White , Watson (although he is potentially a guenuine allrounder , time will tell) , Ian Blackwell.

Bits & Peices Player -
A player who is pretty ordinary in both departments but makes it due to his perceived ability in both or the fact that he's black & Zimbabwean or a Bangladeshi.
eg Ronnie Irani , Blessing Mahwire , Khaled Mahmud.

You are certainly being a bit kind to Ian Harvey here, he should certainly be demoted to 'Bits & Peices Player'

 

[marc71178]

Yes I do.

Are you saying Oram's captaincy is not equal if better than Streak or his fielding is better?

Streak is a very good captain in the circumstances, and also a better batsman and bowler than Oram...

 

[Richard]

Not really - Scoring a first class hundred isn't exactly easy. Just because it wasn't a one day innings doesn't mean he forgets which way to hold a bat when he puts his colours on!

No, but there are more than enough batsmen who can play in one form and not in another to make batting ability in one form no proof at all of that in the other.

 

[Richard]

My defenition is-

Guenuine Allrounder -
Someone who would make the team on either disipline , even if suffered an injury which prevented him from bowling again he would make it as a batsman , & likewise if his batting fell away he could still play with the ball.
There have been very few of these men in test history & really I cant see one of them around now , I dont reckon Kallis would make the South African side as a bowler alone , Gilchrist would probably make our side as a specialist batsman though.
Ervine , I reckon would make the Zimabwean team as a batsman or bowler.
Chris Cairns would'be before his injury but not anymore.
Abdur Razzaq is in ODI's.
Flintoff in ODI's but dosent come close in tests.

Batting Allrounder -
A player who would make the team as a specialist batsman , or come very close to it , & who does a job with the ball.
eg Kallis , Jayasuria , Symonds , Lehmann , Gavaskar jnr , Grant Flower , Russel Arnold , Chris Cairns (nowdays) , Hafeez , Afridi , Bangar , Styris , Rikki Clarke.

Bowling Allrounder -
A player who would make the team as a specialist bowler , or come very close it it , who can do a job with the bat.
eg Pollock , Streak , Bichel , Blignaut , Banks , Drakes , Mills , Oram , Vettori (well he's getting close) , Giles (likewise) , Wasim Akram , Shoaib Malik , Lokurachchi (spelling ??).

Common Allrounder -
Someone who would not make the team on neither disipline alone but who's combined proficiency with both gets them in the side.
eg Ian Harvey , Flintoff (in tests) , Craig White , Watson (although he is potentially a guenuine allrounder , time will tell) , Ian Blackwell.

Bits & Peices Player -
A player who is pretty ordinary in both departments but makes it due to his perceived ability in both or the fact that he's black & Zimbabwean or a Bangladeshi.
eg Ronnie Irani , Blessing Mahwire , Khaled Mahmud.

Personally I don't agree with your "genuine" and "common" divisions. I'd just say anyone roughly equal with both trates (and captaincy and wicketkeeping DOES NOT come into it - wicketkeepers are expected to be reasonable batsmen and captains are expected to be worth a place in the side) is an all-rounder. Like you get good specialist batsmen\bowlers and not so good ones, you get the same with all-rounders.
Bits-and-pieces player is a term I have grown to dislike. If they're all-rounders (and some are specialist batsmen or bowlers, or batting- or bowling-all-rounders) they're just not very good ones, either.

 

[Richard]

I can think of one truly world-class all-rounder currently in the truest sense of the word and that is Jacques Kallis (maybe not even him bowling has trailed off a bit recently).

Like I just said, I think Khaled Mahmud is every bit as much an all-rounder as Kallis is.
Just nowhere near as good.

 

[Richard]

Kallis - Tests - 75, Runs - 5486 @ 53.26, Wickets - 158 @ 30.23
There's an awful lot of bowlers who would like a record like Kallis'.

Hmm...
Any bowler whom I'm a fan of I'd be disappointed in a Test record like that (and that includes Kallis).
I personally would be delighted to be good enough to have a record like Kallis' in Tests, but at any level 30 is sort of a threshold average - over 30, ability must start to be questioned.

 

[Richard]

ODIs (Bat & Bowl)
Oram: 63rd & 9th

This again outlines the ludicrousy of the ratings.
Oram had two recent good series and both were very limited. The one before that, in which he played a much fuller part, returned an economy-rate of over 6-an-over, and a single wicket in the entire tournament.
On a handful of matches (6 at the most), someone rises to 9th in the rankings.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

You are certainly being a bit kind to Ian Harvey here, he should certainly be demoted to 'Bits & Peices Player'

Well, I don't rate Harvey but there's no arguing with his record from WC2003 onwards.
His bowling average is very low, albeit deflated a little by games against Bangladesh.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Shall we think back to who else has actually bowled well in ODIs over the last year or so? Struggling? So am I.

Shall we look at the rest of the ODI bowling rankings:

1 Murali 911
2 Pollock 909
3 Vaas 836
4 McGrath 824
5 Ntini 799
6 Flintoff 774
7 Gillespie 765
8 Lee 765

All fairly useful... now lets go lower

9 Oram
10 Zaheer
11 Gough
12 Harbhajan
13 Anderson
14 Bond
15 Streak
16 Tuffey
17 Gayle
18 Harvey
19 Sami
20 Dillon
21 Shoaib
22 Agarkar
23 Collymore
24 Vettori
25 Bichel
26 Hogg
27 Shoaib Malik
28 Nehra
29 Drakes
30 Williams
31 Kumble
32 Razzaq
33 Kallis
34 Styris
35 Bracken
36 Giles
37 Mills
38 Dharmasena
39 Saqlain
40 Rafique
41 Shabbir
42 Harris
43 Chandana
44 Adams
45 Blignaut
46 GW Flower
47 Bojé
48 Symonds
49 Hall
50 Jayasuriya

When you remember it's current in ODIs... 9th is fair. There are few below that have been more impressive.

 

[marc71178]

No, but there are more than enough batsmen who can play in one form and not in another to make batting ability in one form no proof at all of that in the other.

Yet there's more that are successes in both forms.

 

[Rik]

Yet there's more that are successes in both forms.

Quite a lot of the time a player who shows ability in one form can't seem to put it together in the other. Take Michael Vaughan in OD for both England and Yorkshire, he plays in a very similer way in both Tests and ODIs but he makes a lot more mistakes in ODIs and gets out a lot earlier. Then you get a Riccardo Powell who can't bat in 4D cricket. Yes there are players who either have decent records in both forms, even great ones, but often they are heavily biased towards one of the forms of the game, sometimes even becoming poor in one of the forms whilst being superb in another. Flintoff is another case, inconsistant with the bat and ball for Lancashire and England in 4D and Test cricket, yet in ODIs and Domestic OD cricket he's an accurate, economical, effective bowler and a much more consistant batsman.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

My defenition is-

Bowling Allrounder -
A player who would make the team as a specialist bowler , or come very close it it , who can do a job with the bat.
eg Pollock , Streak , Bichel , Blignaut , Banks

Banks? IMO Banks is a batting allrounder, regardless of what the WICB wants to portray him as.

 

[Mingster]

This again outlines the ludicrousy of the ratings.
Oram had two recent good series and both were very limited. The one before that, in which he played a much fuller part, returned an economy-rate of over 6-an-over, and a single wicket in the entire tournament.
On a handful of matches (6 at the most), someone rises to 9th in the rankings.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Um not 6 actually. He also bowled well in the Pakistan v NZ 'A' Tour.

Richard, look at that list. Who from outside the Top 10 in your opinion has done better than Oram in form in the past 6 months. Gough? pfffft...

 

[age_master]

Like I just said, I think Khaled Mahmud is every bit as much an all-rounder as Kallis is.
Just nowhere near as good.

its too hard to judge - he cant bat or bowl though so i suppose he is

 

[iamdavid]

Personally I don't agree with your "genuine" and "common" divisions. I'd just say anyone roughly equal with both trates (and captaincy and wicketkeeping DOES NOT come into it - wicketkeepers are expected to be reasonable batsmen and captains are expected to be worth a place in the side) is an all-rounder. Like you get good specialist batsmen\bowlers and not so good ones, you get the same with all-rounders.
Bits-and-pieces player is a term I have grown to dislike. If they're all-rounders (and some are specialist batsmen or bowlers, or batting- or bowling-all-rounders) they're just not very good ones, either.

What I mean is that both common & guenuine are generally of equal ability with both bat & ball , however a guenuine allrounder is of high enough quality to make the side with either disipline , even if he was unable to perform the other.

While a common allrounder would not make the side for either disipline alone , but gets in due to efficiency in both.

I agree on the 'keepers dont count thing' , but I included Gilchrist as I was stuck for choices , there are really only 2 guenuine allrounders in the world ATM IMO , Ervine & Streak , add Flintoff & Razzaq in ODI's.

 

[Craig]

9 Oram
11 Gough
12 Harbhajan
13 Anderson
14 Bond
15 Streak
16 Tuffey
17 Gayle
20 Dillon
21 Shoaib
22 Agarkar
23 Collymore
24 Vettori
31 Kumble
32 Razzaq
33 Kallis
34 Styris
39 Saqlain


When you remember it's current in ODIs... 9th is fair. There are few below that have been more impressive.

I would agree.

Bond and tuffey are certainly not the worst. I put AA, but maybe I'm a biased AAAS member :saint:

 

[Mister Wright]

Back to topic:

Katich failed - 2 (7)

 

[Slow Love™]

Was the squad named before or after the tragedy of Hookes?

If after, I think it's clear why he wasn't selected.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Lehmann was there, and was attacked also, let's remember. I'm not sure he'd be right to play for a while, yet.

 

[Linda]

You are certainly being a bit kind to Ian Harvey here, he should certainly be demoted to 'Bits & Peices Player'

I agree. His reputation as a death bowler was never there for me, and tonight he prooved it. Even when I saw him at the WACA a few weeks ago, he was pummled in his last few (Ged will know who by). I mean, I guess he's not that bad, but he's not that good either. In other words, once Watson's bowling again, I reckon he's gotta be out for good.

And yes, back to topic: Katich's shot was a shocker.