Bingo. If you can bat & bowl..
Correction. If you can be a batsman, or a bowler.
Shane Warne could bat.
I’m not about to classify him as an all rounder.
Joe Root can bowl. Im not about to classify him as one either.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bingo. If you can bat & bowl..
He did a bit of an anti-Botham.interesting to note imran in the back half of his career averaged something cray like 50+/20- (i'm sure someone will have the exact stat).
He did a bit of an anti-Botham.
Botham first 51 tests (1977 - 1982), 38.8 batting average, 23.1 bowling average. Last 51 tests (1982 - 1992), 28.9 batting average, 36.5 bowling average.
Imran Khan last 53 tests (1981 - 1992), 52.8 batting average, 19.0 bowling average. First 35 tests (1971 - 1981), 23.5 batting average, 28.9 bowling average.
Mind you once he got settled into the team Imran Khan's bowling was always good enough to get him selected whereas Botham did flounder in the second half of his career, had some pretty rough series with the ball and was probably selected only on reputation at any point after the mid 80's - 18 @ 42 v Aus 1982/83, 7 @ 50 v NZ 1983/84, 11 @ 48 v WIN 1985/86, 7 @ 61 v Pak 1987, 3 @ 80 v Aus 1989, 0/61 v Pak 1992.
Imran Khan had just one series with a 50+ bowling average with 5 @ 51.6 v Eng 1974 (his second series) and I guess you could count his 0/55 on debut v Eng in 1971. He had three series with a 40+ bowling average to his name but spread out through his career so they are more indicative of a one-off poor series whereas Botham's performances showed a clear arc of decline as the 80's progressed.
That’s exactly what you’re doing - not viewing something through context.
Correction. If you can be a batsman, or a bowler.
Shane Warne could bat.
I’m not about to classify him as an all rounder.
Joe Root can bowl. Im not about to classify him as one either.
Did Warne regularly bat at 7 & average mid 20's like Tate, Hadlee or Benuad?! There's a whole category of bowling all rounders being ignored. Ppl looking at record through very modern lens of today's numbers.
For the precise reason that mid 20s is nothing more than handy. It doesn’t make you a batsman any more than Dean Elgar is made a bowler.
I do t get why you would be so reluctant to acknowledge someone who has a decent sample size with freak numbers but so adamant to acknowledge others who have done nothing with the bat beyond proving that ‘they had some ability.’
A small sample size of tests over 2 years (Voges 2015-16) is much less reliable than a similar sample size of tests over a decade or more such as Faulkner (25 tests, 1906-1924) or George Headley who only played 22 tests between 1930 and 1954.Problem with using Faulkner to disprove 40/30 rule is sample size. Aubrey only played a few more matches than Adam Voges but who's putting him in an all time xi?!
I would love you to point me to people on this forum who didn't know this.... I'm pretty sure this is very common knowledge.In a post Gilchrist world ppl don't realize that for a long time no.7's averaged mid 20's & bowlers who did that were rare.
Voges' test career was clearly an abberation. It was a one year purple patch period where he cashed in on roads against West Indies and New Zealand. He also had a large proportion of not outs, including a not out double hundred when he should've been bowled for a duck but for the umpire incorrectly calling a no ball! Lastly, because he debuted in his mid thirties, his inevitable reality check period after the circumstantial boom was cut off when Australian cricket looked to reinvigorate in 2016.In a post Gilchrist world ppl don't realize that for a long time no.7's averaged mid 20's & bowlers who did that were rare. Consider that Marsh & Healy were regarded as our best wicket keeping all rounders when they retired. Their stats are in the same range.
Problem with using Faulkner to disprove 40/30 rule is sample size. Aubrey only played a few more matches than Adam Voges but who's putting him in an all time xi?!
In cricket, players can produce great numbers for a brief period especially all rounders. Shane Watson averaged 40 & 28 after 29 tests. The wear & tear of duel roles usually see's numbers diminish over time.
He’s going to be a lot better than Flintoff, if not already.
A small sample size of tests over 2 years (Voges 2015-16) is much less reliable than a similar sample size of tests over a decade or more such as Faulkner (25 tests, 1906-1924) or George Headley who only played 22 tests between 1930 and 1954.
More sparse cricket schedules and the fact players had other jobs played a huge factor in this discrepancy, compared to the modern player.
Also for Pre WWII cricketers first class records are considered much more of import than a modern cricketer. There wasn't considered a huge difference in standard between first class and test cricket at that time.
In fact the first handful of test matches were only considered as test matches retrospectively. To those playing at the time, they were considered just another first class match.
I would love you to point me to people on this forum who didn't know this.... I'm pretty sure this is very common knowledge.
Voges' test career was clearly an abberation. It was a one year purple patch period where he cashed in on roads against West Indies and New Zealand. He also had a large proportion of not outs, including a not out double hundred when he should've been bowled for a duck but for the umpire incorrectly calling a no ball! Lastly, because he debuted in his mid thirties, his inevitable reality check period after the circumstantial boom was cut off when Australian cricket looked to reinvigorate in 2016.
I take your point about some all-rounders often having a couple of year periods where it clicks. But Faulkner's test record is in the main over a six year period. His first class career stats mirror that record, indicating it was not just some flash in the pan golden run.
Long story short, if we want to compare cricketers that debuted in 1906 to those that debuted in 2015, we have to use a bit of context.
Batting looks awkward with movement around front leg. Don't see Sobers comparison. Bowling will be strength
Yes well he'd certainly be discussed, and he should still be discussed as a good all-rounder with his overall record. Watson's career in general is massively underrated, particularly by us contemporary viewers who saw it play out in real time with all the frustrating injuries which led to underutilising his bowling, the comical reviews, run outs and choking in the 90s, the lbw weakness. In 50 years people will probably look back on him and see him as one of the best Australian cricketers of the Crumbling Empire (i.e. post Warne/McGrath/Gilchrist et al.) era.From 2005 to 2011 Shane Watson played 29 tests & averaged 40 & 29. Modern Faulkner. If he stopped there he'd be at top too?! Ha
First class batting average of 50+ is not too bad. Also had a better (batting) average than root for the ashes - who was rated 1 in the world & had made a shitton of runs that year.
Can't remember if it was Jm Maxwel or lan Chappell talking about; there have only been like 4 players, ever, good enough to bat top4 in tests and open the bowling.
Alluding to green had that type of ceiling. Thought it was an intriguing discussion
25 tests are 25 tests - an exceedingly small sample size. The fact the 40/30 stat line is a thing & Faulkner doesn't even meet criteria that Nathan Lyon does shows where we're at.
Don't talk about players of that era not being professional because that applys to everything before 1980 & can work against you with questions over opposition.
First class records are irreverent. Go look at Warwick Armstrong's numbers & he was doing it in Australia against much better competition than South Africa. You going to put him on top?!
Ppl who name Andrew Symonds & Colin de grandhomme on a list of great all rounders but not Richie or hadlee, need to be reminded how numbers looked in past years
It brought Green to the crease at 83 for 4 in the 23rd over. It was just the fourth time in Test cricket he had entered with the team total under 100. He has scores of 74, 74 and 45 in three of those innings - with the fourth having come on his debut in Test cricket - and has shared in two century stands and a half-century stand in them. Despite his incredible all-round skill set, at his core he is a top-order batter. He can't handle watching and waiting, having been a top-order batter for most of his life. In his first first-class century batting at No. 8 for Western Australia, he entered at 50 for 6 in the 28th over. In first-class cricket he averages 63.55 at No. 4, 86.00 at No. 5 but just 36.20 at No. 6 and 25 at No. 7.
And given Lyon less overs or no overs last test.. Although last test wasnt really a spinners pitch. Still you would never not bowl Warne even if its not a spinners pitch.The crux of all this historical discussion is that if Green can finish with >40/<30 averages then it will be a truly remarkable career. Pippen94 is right to point this out, we can disagree one the relative worth of allrounders from different eras but ultimately, noone has ever done >40/<30 over a long career.
Australia need to be smart with how they use Green. Don't just pigeonhole him at 6 because "that's where the allrounder bats". Watson was best as a top 3 bat but spent his early career at 6. I think Green is probably best suited to 4 or 5. Although you probably couldn't pull the lever yet, ideally Green and Head swap positions (Head is the perfect number 6 IMO).
Alex Malcolm mentions this in his article after day one in Hobart:
Likewise, if he is bowling well (and the boffins will allow it!) don't be afraid to give him the new pill, and don't be afraid to give him long spells. Thankfully it looks like Cummins is a much more lateral thinker than other recent captains, and has already given Green more bowling responsibility than most Australian allrounders of the last 10 years.
You can’t have it both ways - brushing off a players numbers because in your eyes he didn’t play enough games even though his career was stretched over a lengthy period and even long past his best he still hit 153 against a touring Australian side in England where he was living - and then trying to say that other players’ numbers are better than they actually are given when they played.
So if he can’t have it both ways, where do you rate Voges then?
He too averaged ridiculous numbers in a terrible side.