Cameron Green

Remove this Banner Ad

Pippen94 said:
If he does average over 40 with bat & under 30 with ball then he'll be the only player in test cricket history to do so.

Somebody like stokes definitely has potential to play as a batter or bowler. It's the duel roles which limit a player's numbers
Click to expand...


No he won’t, it’s already been put to bed. Aubrey Faulkner did it.
 
The Passenger said:
As long as he stays healthy he really has the potential to be the best #5 bowler the game has seen. There's been plenty of good #5 bowlers over the years - Garfield Sobers*, Jaques Kallis, Ben Stokes, Shakib Al Hasan and Tony Greig at the top of that list. Shane Watson, Brian McMillan, Warwick Armstrong amongst others coming in behind them. But everyone of those guys settled for an average in excess of 30. There's a long way to go and injuries could still play a huge part, but an average of 25 is well achievable for Green. As good as guys like Stokes or Kallis are with the ball, I would have never considered them a chance to finish their career with a bowling average in that vicinity.

Aubrey Faulkner, Imran Khan and Keith Miller would be considered genuine front line bowlers. * Sobers could probably be considered a front line bowler too given he took the new ball or bowled first change just over half his bowling innings - doesn't invalidate the point above.

When he first got picked for WA most had him pegged as a bowling all rounder but then his batting came on in leaps and bounds at FC level. It will be interesting to see if it happens at test level and if so, how far does it go. Ideally all your top six batsmen average 40+, but if his current level of bowling is maintained 35+ would be more than adequate for Green. His confidence definitely improved at the end of the series - you could see in Hobart he wasn't pushing and prodding at the ball like he was earlier in the series which led to a couple of cheap dismissals.

There's a definite excitement in the air and not much gets a cricket lovers blood pumping like a young guy bursting onto the scene looking like he might be the 40/30 unicorn.
Click to expand...

Don't like the term unicorn working it's way into cricket but there it is. Reminds me of Bill Simmons who I hate.

The 40/30 stat is important because it shows being an all rounder is hard. Think about Stokes being asked to bowl long spells banging ball in (which isn't his mo) then backing up looking to rescue the English innings batting at 5.
This is generally why allrounders favor one part of their game over another or finish with an in between record.

My main point is that ppl here are pretty much predicting that Green will be statistically the greatest all rounder of all time. He may well achieve that but that level of expectation needs to be acknowledged
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Pippen94 said:
Saying Green is better now is premature to say the least
Click to expand...

That's true, because his Test career is only beginning.

Maybe I should have made my point more clearly - there's no harm in idle speculation, and Green should definitely surpass Flintoff's mean performance in Tests, even if he doesn't ultimately reach Flintoff's 2005 Ashes peak.

Hell, Flintoff's overall record is worse than Shane Watson's, whom everyone agrees was a big underachiever.
 
Pippen94 said:
Don't like the term unicorn working it's way into cricket but there it is. Reminds me of Bill Simmons who I hate.

The 40/30 stat is important because it shows being an all rounder is hard. Think about Stokes being asked to bowl long spells banging ball in (which isn't his mo) then backing up looking to rescue the English innings batting at 5.
This is generally why allrounders favor one part of their game over another or finish with an in between record.

My main point is that ppl here are pretty much predicting that Green will be statistically the greatest all rounder of all time. He may well achieve that but that level of expectation needs to be acknowledged
Click to expand...


I think a major part of it isn’t that they aren’t capable of doing it, it’s that they’re not expected to.

Look at someone like Botham. He was primarily a bowler but he could absolutely clobber the ball. He could also have probably (I didn’t watch enough of him) have batted steadily like a normal top order batsman but he wasn’t expected to - he was expected ti be aggressive and play his shots so he did. It won his side some test matches, maybe his lack of ‘80 off 250 to rebuild the innings’ performances also cost them a few too. But he wasn’t there to do that so it was a rarity. Green clearly has genuine batting ability in defence and attack but how much of his career is going to be spent batting with the expectation that he will approach most of his innings the same way most specialist batsmen approach it? That will probably determine what sort of record he ends up with.

Stokes at the moment is being expected to play as well as a specialist batsman would. He has the innings’ in him - he produced a textbook top order go slow hundred in India once from memory - it’s testing him at the moment and I’m interested to see how he copes if that expectation continues
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The great genuine all rounder 20+ tests, 40+ batting average, -30 bowling average, 3+ wkts per test
Aubrey Faulkner

The great batting all rounders 20+ tests, 40+ batting average, -35 bowling average, 1.5+ wkts per test
Jacques Kallis, Gary Sobers, Tony Greig

The great bowling all rounders 20+ tests, 35+ batting average, -30 bowling average, 3+ wkts per test
Imran Khan, Keith Miller

The good genuine all rounders 20+ tests, 35+ batting average, -35 bowling average, 1+ wkts per test
Ben Stokes, Frank Woolley, Ted Dexter, Shakib Al Hasan, Shane Watson, Asif Iqbal, Mushtaq Mohammad, Warwick Armstrong, Brian McMillan, Charlie McCartney, Jacob Oram, Bob Cowper, Colin de Grandhomme, Charles Kellaway, Jack Gregory, Stanley Jackson

The good batting all rounders 20+ tests, 40+ batting average, -40 bowling average, 1+ wkts per test
Wally Hammond, Frank Worrell, Basil D'Oliviera, Andrew Symonds

The good bowling all rounders 20+ tests, 30+ batting average, -30 bowling average, 2.5+ wkts per test
Kapil Dev, Shaun Pollock, Ian Botham, Chris Cairns, Wilfred Rhodes, Ravindra Jadeja, Jason Holder, Monty Noble, Trevor Goddard
 
Interestingly, couldn't find a category to fit Flintoff into above.

DaRick said:
Peak Flintoff was an absolute weapon, but he was nowhere near that good for most of his career.

Before his 2003-05 peak he was just generally ineffective; after his peak he made sporadic contributions, but largely lost that match-winning ability that he had. Injury blunted his pace and effectiveness.
Click to expand...
I would go as far to see before his peak Flintoff was a liability in the team. The investment paid off with an Ashes win, but it took a lot of s**t performances to get there.

If I was to rank my top XI all rounders I would go Sobers, Miller, Imran Khan, Kallis, Faulkner, Greig, Botham, Kapil Dev, Pollock, Stokes, Shakib Al Hasan. Goddard (12th man).
 
Last edited:
The Passenger said:
The great genuine all rounder 20+ tests, 40+ batting average, -30 bowling average, 3+ wkts per test
Aubrey Faulkner

The great batting all rounders 20+ tests, 40+ batting average, -35 bowling average, 1.5+ wkts per test
Jacques Kallis, Gary Sobers, Tony Greig

The great bowling all rounders 20+ tests, 35+ batting average, -30 bowling average, 3+ wkts per test
Imran Khan, Keith Miller

The good genuine all rounders 20+ tests, 35+ batting average, -35 bowling average, 1+ wkts per test
Ben Stokes, Frank Woolley, Ted Dexter, Shakib Al Hasan, Shane Watson, Asif Iqbal, Mushtaq Mohammad, Warwick Armstrong, Brian McMillan, Charlie McCartney, Jacob Oram, Bob Cowper, Colin de Grandhomme, Charles Kellaway, Jack Gregory, Stanley Jackson

The good batting all rounders 20+ tests, 40+ batting average, -40 bowling average, 1+ wkts per test
Wally Hammond, Frank Worrell, Basil D'Oliviera, Andrew Symonds

The good bowling all rounders 20+ tests, 30+ batting average, -30 bowling average, 2.5+ wkts per test
Kapil Dev, Shaun Pollock, Ian Botham, Chris Cairns, Wilfred Rhodes, Ravindra Jadeja, Jason Holder, Monty Noble, Trevor Goddard
Click to expand...


interesting to see how many played 30+ tests (as a better benchmark).

that would filter a few of those out.

and furthermore how many scored lets say 10 tons and averaged 2 wickets per test.
 
DaRick said:
That's true, because his Test career is only beginning.

Maybe I should have made my point more clearly - there's no harm in idle speculation, and Green should definitely surpass Flintoff's mean performance in Tests, even if he doesn't ultimately reach Flintoff's 2005 Ashes peak.

Hell, Flintoff's overall record is worse than Shane Watson's, whom everyone agrees was a big underachiever.
Click to expand...
If you looked at pure cricketing ability Watson really should go down as one of the true great allrounders. But he was under bowled due to injury history and mentally he just seemed to implode whenever he got close to a century. 24 50s and only 4 100s, such a shame. He was so much better than that. Was a superb fielder and great in all 3 formats as well.
 
The Passenger said:
Interestingly, couldn't find a category to fit Flintoff into above.


I would go as far to see before his peak Flintoff was a liability in the team. The investment paid off with an Ashes win, but it took a lot of sh*t performances to get there.

If I was to rank my top XI all rounders I would go Sobers, Miller, Imran Khan, Kallis, Faulkner, Greig, Botham, Kapil Dev, Pollock, Stokes, Shakib Al Hasan. Goddard (12th man).
Click to expand...


I think that’s very fair.
I’d go Sobers, Jason Holder, Carl Hooper, Marlon Samu-


I mean….

Sobers
Kallis
Khan
Miller
Botham
Faulkner
Shakib
Greig
Pollock
Dev
Stokes


HMs to:
Cairns: I genuinely believe that in a stronger side he could have gone very close to top tier status

My boy Jason. He too - I definitely think his bowling benefits from being in what is a reasonably strong seam attack but his batting is remarkably good for a batsman who as a rule NEVER comes in with the freedom to play guilt free cricket.
 
Broar said:
If you looked at pure cricketing ability Watson really should go down as one of the true great allrounders. But he was under bowled due to injury history and mentally he just seemed to implode whenever he got close to a century. 24 50s and only 4 100s, such a shame. He was so much better than that. Was a superb fielder and great in all 3 formats as well.
Click to expand...

I think his injury history affected his batting as well, in that it made him overly stiff and robotic.

Not only did that mean that he had trouble adjusting quickly to late inward movement (the pad-first LBW became a trademark) but it also meant that he couldn't rotate the strike well.

It effectively meant that he was often forced to search for the boundary to try and get the century, which increased his chances of getting out prematurely.

In ODI cricket that wasn't an issue, because he was very adept at clearing the fence if he had to.
 
PhatBoy said:
I think that’s very fair.
I’d go Sobers, Jason Holder, Carl Hooper, Marlon Samu-


I mean….

Sobers
Kallis
Khan
Miller
Botham
Faulkner
Shakib
Greig
Pollock
Dev
Stokes


HMs to:
Cairns: I genuinely believe that in a stronger side he could have gone very close to top tier status

My boy Jason. He too - I definitely think his bowling benefits from being in what is a reasonably strong seam attack but his batting is remarkably good for a batsman who as a rule NEVER comes in with the freedom to play guilt free cricket.
Click to expand...

On reflection I think Trevor Goddard should be in that top XI. I've seen his name pop up over the years but never fully realised just how good his record is. He was only 34 runs shy of a 35+ average which would have put him in that category alongside Miller and Imran Khan. If he hadn't toured Australia in 1969/70 he indeed would have finished with a batting average of 36.1. Opening batsmen as well, of which they are very few on the above lists. Being an all rounder is hard enough let alone facing the new ball. Bang on 3 wickets a test, bowling average 26 and took over a catch a test match. That is a very fine record indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BGman
Test The BAGGY GREENS Thread.
Replies
11
Views
692
BGman
BGman

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top