The Myths & The Truth

[weldone]

Why has it become something of an accepted truth that bowling allrounder > batting allrounder? Not contesting it BTW, just curious. Sure if you're picking an all-time XI that's true, but otherwise I'm not convinced at all.

Saying bowling alrounder > batting alrounder is like saying bowlers > batsmen, or like saying wicketkeepers > opening batsmen, or like saying football > cricket. People can opine that way, as long as similar number of people think the other way round.

 

[andyc]

It's because everyone in the team has to bat, but not everyone has to bowl. It's better to have a good bowler who can get you 25-30 runs each time than a good batsman who averages 35, because in every single game, you're going to get those 25-30 runs, but half the time there's a good chance you won't even need the batsman to bowl.

 

[vcs]

OK, that makes sense.

 

[weldone]

It's because everyone in the team has to bat, but not everyone has to bowl. It's better to have a good bowler who can get you 25-30 runs each time than a good batsman who averages 35, because in every single game, you're going to get those 25-30 runs, but half the time there's a good chance you won't even need the batsman to bowl.

Yes, in an all-time side. No, in most of the sides that play test cricket.

Take the no. 1 test team in the world currently, India. They would love to have a bowler like Sobers opening the bowling with Zaheer (and then sharing the old ball with Harbhajan).

Otherwise also, Sobers will be very handy as a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th bowler in most of the sides that play test cricket...and will bowl regularly.

But of course, in a team with Hadlee, Marshall, Barnes and Murali he might not get to bowl (though Botham, too, won't bowl too many overs in such a side). But I guess Sobers is almost an automatic choice with the bat alone.

 

[Migara]

Sobers = Sachin's batting + Zaheer's pace bowling + Vettori's spin bowling + Dravid's catching

Imran = [Initially (Hadlee's bowling + Hadlee's batting). Afterwards (Ravi Shastri's batting + Shaun Pollock's bowling)] + Ganguly's fielding + better than Ganguly's captaincy

Botham = Initially (Gower's batting + Imran's bowling + Dravid's catching). Afterwards (Hadlee's batting + Srinath's bowling + Ganguly's fielding)

Srinath at his peak was way better than Botham in his latter years. And Imran's bowling was almost alwats was better than Botham's

 

[Migara]

I thought he was meant to be a great fielder...

Eknath Solkar's catching would have been a better description.

 

[vcs]

weldone - I think you have it the other way around.. India are a weak bowling team so a bowling allrounder would be better for balance IMO. Imagine Zaheer + Sharma + Harbhajan + someone who could bowl like Kumble and bat like a Mohammad Kaif..

I also think Kallis is far more useful to SA as a batting allrounder than he might have been if he was a bowling all-rounder considering bowling is SA's (relatively) strength anyway... and they have been well-stocked with bowling allrounders like Pollock, Klusener, McMillan etc.

 

[weldone]

Srinath at his peak was way better than Botham in his latter years. And Imran's bowling was almost alwats was better than Botham's

Agreed...that was done in a hurry...

 

[fredfertang]

Sobers was a magnificent batsman. Those who saw him at his peak might wax unduly lyrical at times but in an era where the game was played, on the whole, in defensive mode, he viewed himself as an entertainer and that is a large part of why he is so revered.

As for his bowling who really gives a **** - it really didn't matter that much then and there is no reason why it should now - after all we don't deny the greatness of Lara, Tendulkar or Ponting just because they haven't taken 200+ test wickets

 

[weldone]

weldone - I think you have it the other way around.. India are a weak bowling team so a bowling allrounder would be better for balance IMO. Imagine Zaheer + Sharma + Harbhajan + someone who could bowl like Kumble and bat like a Mohammad Kaif..

I also think Kallis is far more useful to SA as a batting allrounder than he might have been if he was a bowling all-rounder considering bowling is SA's (relatively) strength anyway... and they have been well-stocked with bowling allrounders like Pollock, Klusener, McMillan etc.

Everything depends on whether you're selecting a 4th bowler, or a 5th bowler. If you are selecting a 4th bowler, then he has to be a very good bowler (hence a bowling allrounder). If you're selecting a 5th bowler then he has to be a very good batsman (hence a batting allrounder).

Batting allrounders are even more useful when your wicketkeeper is not a very good batsman. Wicketkeepers have been good batsmen in the last 10 years or so, batting allrounders were even more useful before that.

 

[Debris]

This thread does bring up an interesting side question. Have there ever been any true all-rounders, players who could hold their place in the test side over their career with both their batting and bowling(in a strong test side)?

I honestly can't think of any. Keith Miller supposedly was but apparently threw his wicket away when batting if it was not important that he score runs. Raw statistics say his batting was not good enough but he seems to come closest.

 

[weldone]

This thread does bring up an interesting side question. Have there ever been any true all-rounders, players who could hold their place in the test side over their career with both their batting and bowling(in a strong test side)?

I honestly can't think of any. Keith Miller supposedly was but apparently threw his wicket away when batting if it was not important that he score runs. Raw statistics say his batting was not good enough but he seems to come closest.

All of Sobers, Miller, Botham, Imran, Dev, Wilfred Rhodes, Faulkner, Kallis (without considering Clive Rice) could hold a place in their sides both as a batsman or as a bowler for a period, however short that period might have been.

I guess some of the lesser alrounders could too, Chris Cairns and Shakib Al Hasan for example (mainly because of the sides they played in ). I'm sure there might be some more such examples.

 

[Debris]

All of Sobers, Miller, Botham, Imran, Dev, Wilfred Rhodes, Faulkner, Kallis (without considering Clive Rice) could hold a place in their sides both as a batsman or as a bowler, for a period, however short that might have been.

There have been a lot of players who have done it for a period but to be a true all-rounder you have to consider their entire career, I feel.

 

[vcs]

Everything depends on whether you're selecting a 4th bowler, or a 5th bowler. If you are selecting a 4th bowler, then he has to be a very good bowler (hence a bowling allrounder). If you're selecting a 5th bowler then he has to be a very good batsman (hence a batting allrounder).

Batting allrounders are even more useful when your wicketkeeper is not a very good batsman. Wicketkeepers have been good batsmen in the last 10 years or so, batting allrounders were even more useful before that.

Agreed. Good points there about wicketkeeper-batsmen. It's interesting that the great WI and Aussie sides did not have any great all-rounders.

 

[Ikki]

This thread does bring up an interesting side question. Have there ever been any true all-rounders, players who could hold their place in the test side over their career with both their batting and bowling(in a strong test side)?

I honestly can't think of any. Keith Miller supposedly was but apparently threw his wicket away when batting if it was not important that he score runs. Raw statistics say his batting was not good enough but he seems to come closest.

IIRC CW had a piece on this very thing and Miller and Faulkner were the top 2 who really were class in both disciplines. I don't know much about Faulkner but Miller was one of the best bowlers of his day and also batted at #5 for the Invincibles. He was a marvelous fielder and, by reports, a very good captain too. I'd say he is probably the best rounded all-rounder of the lot.

 

[Himannv]

This thread does bring up an interesting side question. Have there ever been any true all-rounders, players who could hold their place in the test side over their career with both their batting and bowling(in a strong test side)?

I honestly can't think of any. Keith Miller supposedly was but apparently threw his wicket away when batting if it was not important that he score runs. Raw statistics say his batting was not good enough but he seems to come closest.

I think almost all of them could. Faulkner, Rhodes, J.R. Reid and Warwick Armstrong are a few others. For the weaker skill however I think peaks and the team composition would come into play.

 

[Matt79]

There have been a lot of players who have done it for a period but to be a true all-rounder you have to consider their entire career, I feel.

In one sense, yes. Outside of the very specific and weird confines of a head-to-head vs with a similar player, I see no problem with saying that someone was for a chunk of their career a true allrounder while being honest about acknowledging that at different stages in that same person's career, they merited on only one discipline, or much more on one discipline than another.

 

[Matt79]

This thread does bring up an interesting side question. Have there ever been any true all-rounders, players who could hold their place in the test side over their career with both their batting and bowling(in a strong test side)?

I honestly can't think of any. Keith Miller supposedly was but apparently threw his wicket away when batting if it was not important that he score runs. Raw statistics say his batting was not good enough but he seems to come closest.

Miller was also one allrounder who's batting was unquestionably negatively affected when he was required to carry a heavy bowling load. From what I've read, the difference between him as a batsman when he was bowled heavily compared to when he was kept fresh for batting was somewhat similar to the difference between someone like Sangakkara when asked to keep or not. Unfortunately for his batting, his bowling was of a calibre that frequently it was more important to the team than his batting, so his captain threw him the ball.

 

[GotSpin]

Agreed. Good points there about wicketkeeper-batsmen. It's interesting that the great WI and Aussie sides did not have any great all-rounders.

Invincibles?

 

[vcs]

Invincibles?

No, the Steve Waugh-Ponting sides.