David Terbrugge

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Justin Ontong for one is less of a genuine allrounder than Carl Hooper.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Is that the same Carl Hooper with a Test bowling average of something like 50?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Thank you Halsey. You proved my point well. Carl Hooper is not a genuine allrounder, but with 540 FC wickets at 35.18 apiece and 387 OD wickets (34.1), combined with an FC batting avge of 48.04 and an OD batting avge of 40.31, he's more one than Ontong.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yep, agree.

Never rated Ontong.

But, by the same token, I have never rated Hooper's bowling, which is what you said.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I rate Hooper's bowling as useful (economical) but not at all potent. That said, I don't think he ever really bowled for wickets at the highest level.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yep, agree exactly.

 

[Kent]

There is no way near 11m in New Zealand.

Not even in 500 years I wouldn't imagine!

There's now 4 million in NZ, but perhaps only about 800,000 in what you'd call a decent cricket climate. All we've genuinely had out of Auckland recently is Adam Parore, Dion Nash and Mark Richardson I think.

 

[Richard]

Calling some of that list "genuine" all-rounders is stretching it more than a little!

Approximately equal in bowling and batting ability.
"Genuine all-rounder" doesn't, despite some people's misconceptions, mean you have to be able to use either trait to get into the side.
It just means you're as good at one as the other.
All of them, in my estimation, are so.

 

[marc71178]

"Genuine all-rounder" doesn't, despite some people's misconceptions, mean you have to be able to use either trait to get into the side.

Says who?

Is this another of your proclamations that we must all just nod and accept?

 

[Tom Halsey]

It would appear so.

 

[Swervy]

Genuine All rounder has always been taken as someone who can get into a team with either batting or bowling.

And whats all that about South Africas population...NZ must have a population of a least ten times LESS than SA's

 

[Richard]

If you think about it, what does "all-round" er mean? It means someone who is all-round, equal at the two trates of the game. At least that's how it seems to me.
Like with batsmen and bowlers, there are good all-rounders and there are bad all-rounders. Some of the very best all-rounders would have got into their international side on either trate.
Very, very rarely do these players occur, though. Most all-rounders are good enough at both trates for this combination to earn them a place in the side. Then, of course, you get bits-and-pieces players who aren't good enough at either trate, but are perceived by poor selectors to be so. England had a few of them in one side at one point, Matthew Fleming, Vince Wells, Dougie Brown. All all-rounders by county standards; not by international ones.

 

[Prince EWS]

I agree with Richard. All types of players can be very, very good, or very, very bad.

A genuine allrounder is someone who is equal at both batting and bowling. They dont have to be good at either one of them. I would say a new born baby would be a genuine allrounder!

Chris Cairns is an example of a good genuin allrounder. Khaled Mahmud is an exmple of a bad one.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes, it was merely a typo.

I was thinking of Mahmud, I even know his name is Mahmud, but for some reason I typed Mashud... I hate it when that happens!

Probably due to the fact their names are both Khaled and Mahmud has been axed from the test team so I havent been seeing/typing it as often. Anyway, its been editted now.

 

[Richard]

I preferred it when they both played in the ODI team.
It was really nice and neat.
I've always thought Khaled Mahmud was worth his place in the ODI team. Mashud is probably the best wicketkeeper-batsman in Bangladesh in both game forms.

 

[Prince EWS]

If mahmud was just never put in the test team, Im sure he would be a very good one day player by now. But with this in mind, they were bound to try him at one stage.

I think he could make the Bangladesh ODI team on his bowling alone, especially with Mushrafe basically permanentely injurred.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.
Poor old Mortaza. He looked like he might become a good bowler, he was uncannily accurate since the time Whatmore took over.
In fact, in the one-day game Mahmud isn't really an all-rounder - he's a bowler who bats a bit! Because I totally agree that he could be quite a good one-day bowler. I don't think his batting's that good in the one-day game either, though.

 

[Rik]

Says who?

Is this another of your proclamations that we must all just nod and accept?

Nope, it's just the general opinion these days. An all-rounder is someone who can bat and bowl (or keep wicket) well enough to be considered for either discipline on a full-time basis. Gilchrist is an all-rounder since he keeps wicket well enough to be given the gloves but no one would say he's in the team for his keeping, and if he couldn't hold a bat then Wade Seccombe would be in the Australian side now. Many a time you have expressed your views on what an all-rounder is in your opinion. Many people have agreed, many people have disagreed, that's how it goes. Richard is only stating that your idealistic all-rounder definition is not common these days.

Since you believe an all-rounder must be good enough to get into the side on either discipline, and you refuse to agree with Richard on anything, even if he's got a point, are you saying that we all must agree to your rules? You are quite obviously having a go at Richard for one reason, and, without any question weather you are right or wrong, you are telling us we should accept yours! Double standards to the extream. Try reading posts next time before you slag them off, especially if the poster has a point, because it just makes you look silly! As does having a go at one poster, whatever the post or the opinion, simply because their name appears.

 

[Langeveldt]

And whats all that about South Africas population...NZ must have a population of a least ten times LESS than SA's

Not really, when you take into account the percentage of SA'ers who for many years had no hope of representing the country...

 

[marc71178]

Nope, it's just the general opinion these days. An all-rounder is someone who can bat and bowl (or keep wicket) well enough to be considered for either discipline on a full-time basis.

Which is incidentally not the same as Richard has posted, and more like what I thought the general view of an AR was.