Other Cricket
-
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
-
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
Interesting point.
The two most dominant teams of my cricketing watching memories ( West Indies of the 80s and Australia of the 2000s ) never had real all rounders consistently. At best they had a few batsmen who could bowl a bit and a few bowlers who could hold a bat.
But in teams with, dare I say it, weaker players across the board all rounders are a godsend. It sure helped that our spin bowling captain was also one of our best batsmen about 15 years ago as one glaring example.
-
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
Spoken like a fan of a national side that almost always has six top batters, four great bowlers, and a good keeper available
-
Yes that's certainly a fair point.
We went through a real all-rounder craze after Andrew Flintoff destroyed us in the 2005 Ashes. And we never found anyone like that (cue three more pages of Shane Watson chat).
Cameron Green looms as the best all-rounder we have had since Miller, but back issues have already struck so maybe he goes the Watto route and bats while bowling only occasionally when his body is right.
-
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
Yes that's certainly a fair point.
We went through a real all-rounder craze after Andrew Flintoff destroyed us in the 2005 Ashes. And we never found anyone like that (cue three more pages of Shane Watson chat).
Cameron Green looms as the best all-rounder we have had since Miller, but back issues have already struck so maybe he goes the Watto route and bats while bowling only occasionally when his body is right.
Jeepers did he lift for that series or what ?
I won't mentioned Shane "DRS" Watson. He's been dealt with already
-
pffft cricket is best when you have 10 guys who average 30, and can roll the arm over (the last guy averages 9 and bowls)
-
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
I think a genuine all rounder can be hugely valuable to a team, as it gives you an extra bowler or batsmen compared to the opposition. But, they have to command their place as either a bowler or batsmen (or keeper) first and foremost. Too often teams (particularly the Black Caps) have tried to shoe horn in all rounders that are not really good enough at either discipline to command a spot on its own, but are reasonably handy at both so get selected. That just weakens the team overall. The focus has to be on selecting your best 6 batsmen, your best keeper, and your best 4 bowlers, and then if any of them are good at the other discipline that's a huge bonus.
I take your point though, and I think bowling all rounders are the most valuable for that reason as your bowlers will be called upon to bat in most test matches; a guy coming in at 8 or 9 averaging 30 odd makes your batting lineup that much more formidable. A batting all rounder that can bowl a bit can be useful but at the same time your top 4 bowlers should be able to handle the bulk of the load, so the batting all rounder will often only really get used if the other team is piling it on and your 4 front line bowlers need a bit of a rest.
-
@No-Quarter said in Other Cricket:
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
I think a genuine all rounder can be hugely valuable to a team, as it gives you an extra bowler or batsmen compared to the opposition. But, they have to command their place as either a bowler or batsmen (or keeper) first and foremost. Too often teams (particularly the Black Caps) have tried to shoe horn in all rounders that are not really good enough at either discipline to command a spot on its own, but are reasonably handy at both so get selected. That just weakens the team overall. The focus has to be on selecting your best 6 batsmen, your best keeper, and your best 4 bowlers, and then if any of them are good at the other discipline that's a huge bonus.
I take your point though, and I think bowling all rounders are the most valuable for that reason as your bowlers will be called upon to bat in most test matches; a guy coming in at 8 or 9 averaging 30 odd makes your batting lineup that much more formidable. A batting all rounder that can bowl a bit can be useful but at the same time your top 4 bowlers should be able to handle the bulk of the load, so the batting all rounder will often only really get used if the other team is piling it on and your 4 front line bowlers need a bit of a rest.
Yes, this was the case right up until Sir Mitchell Santner took on board feedback from the fern and decided to become a legendary spinner who could bat a bit too.
-
-
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
SL win the toss and bat.
Karunaratne returns for his 100th and final test.
The Aussies chuck some kid from WA a cap, despite him having no first class wickets or a ton to show for it. We're just handing them out for fun, now
Sheffield Shield players from the 90s and 00s turning over in their career graves.
-
@antipodean said in Other Cricket:
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
SL win the toss and bat.
Karunaratne returns for his 100th and final test.
The Aussies chuck some kid from WA a cap, despite him having no first class wickets or a ton to show for it. We're just handing them out for fun, now
Sheffield Shield players from the 90s and 00s turning over in their career graves.
I get that we don't seem to give enough guys a chance - the continued existence of Marnus being a blight on the current selection panel IMO - but at least put in someone who has done something longer than a BBL and age cricket.
Makes it look like our "find the next big thing" rugby selections.
-
-
@NTA said in Other Cricket:
Smith's 36th Test ton. He looks cooked with over an hour remaining in the day
Fuck New Zealand cricket and fuck our scheduling for not giving KW an opportunity to try and catch him. We could easily have had 5-6 tests in Jan-March.
But in saying all that well done to an absolute modern great of the game
