How Good Is Timothy Bresnan?

[dan08]

If I skate over the disagreement of defintion , I have to say I agree.

I very useful batsman.

I think I mentioned elsewhere that from an English point of view I wish we would look to develop Luke Wrights bowling. He could develop into an 'all rounder'.

luke wright is an all rounder, he cant bat or bowl

That's very harsh.

I wouldn't classify him as an all-rounder but he is a very useful cricketer. He can contribute with the bat and ball. His FC record is similar to Morgan's but he has the added advantage of being a decent bowler.

[m@tt]

So what HP is saying is that to be an all-rounder, you have to be a front-line batsman and a front-line bowler? Doesn't such a definition exclude pretty much every player in history?

To suggest Kallis and Sobers weren't all-rounders just because it doesn't fit some formula is, to be blunt, madness.

If you have to create a formula, I'd propose the "35 rule" - you need to average under 35 with the ball and over 35 with the bat. But in general, I think you just need to apply a bit of common sense - all-rounders are players who regularly contribute in both disciplines, even if they aren't the best batsman or the best bowler.

[HarryPotter]

I like that sort of definition, but I would say that 35 is a little to high for a bowler and potentially 35 a little too low for a batsmen now a days.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I agree with Matt there. I think the front line batter and bowler rule is a bit fanciful and I doubt it is widely held. If Kallis and Sobers aren't all rounders, then there is no point even talking about them. As there aren't any.

[m@tt]

I like that sort of definition, but I would say that 35 is a little to high for a bowler and potentially 35 a little too low for a batsmen now a days.

Yes, maybe "a little". But saying you have to average sub-33 as a bowler and over 38 as a batsman isn't quite as memorable!

Plus, there are plenty of front-line bowlers who average between 30 and 35:

Anderson (31), Broad (32), Hilfenhaus (30), Siddle (30), Khan (32), Panesar (34), Morkel (32), Roach (33), Harbhajan (32), Johnson (31).

I don't think it's fair to expect an all-rounder to average the same as a front-line player. After all, they have to focus on excelling in two disciplines, so there's a bit of lee-way. For the same reason, Test wicket-keepers have rarely averaged over 40 (although it has recently become more of an expectation) and players captaining a side have often suffered a bit with their form.

In terms of said lee-way, again it comes down to a bit of common sense. If player X takes regular wickets at 38 and scores runs at 48, then you've got yourself a batting all-rounder, but an all-rounder nonetheless. Same for player Y who takes wickets at 28 and scores runs at 37, except in this case it's a bowling all-rounder.

Generally, I think people are more relaxed about bowling averages. Look at the aforementioned players who average above 30 with the ball. Yet if a batsman's average drops below 40, the hounds are out - for instance if Morgan is attaining a healthy average by the end of the Sri Lanka Test series, he'll find himself out the side come the summer, yet players like Broad have played Test after Test despite a bowling average that was over 35 until this summer.

[yorker_129-7]

If I skate over the disagreement of defintion , I have to say I agree.

I very useful batsman.

I think I mentioned elsewhere that from an English point of view I wish we would look to develop Luke Wrights bowling. He could develop into an 'all rounder'.

luke wright is an all rounder, he cant bat or bowl

Try telling Xavier Doherty Luke Wright can't bat.

It's amazing how many people tapping away at their keyboard are the next Don Bradman when judging cricketers who made it to a level far higher than they could attain.

[HarryPotter]

I like that sort of definition, but I would say that 35 is a little to high for a bowler and potentially 35 a little too low for a batsmen now a days.

Yes, maybe "a little". But saying you have to average sub-33 as a bowler and over 38 as a batsman isn't quite as memorable!

Plus, there are plenty of front-line bowlers who average between 30 and 35:

Anderson (31), Broad (32), Hilfenhaus (30), Siddle (30), Khan (32), Panesar (34), Morkel (32), Roach (33), Harbhajan (32), Johnson (31).

I don't think it's fair to expect an all-rounder to average the same as a front-line player. After all, they have to focus on excelling in two disciplines, so there's a bit of lee-way. For the same reason, Test wicket-keepers have rarely averaged over 40 (although it has recently become more of an expectation) and players captaining a side have often suffered a bit with their form.

In terms of said lee-way, again it comes down to a bit of common sense. If player X takes regular wickets at 38 and scores runs at 48, then you've got yourself a batting all-rounder, but an all-rounder nonetheless. Same for player Y who takes wickets at 28 and scores runs at 37, except in this case it's a bowling all-rounder.

Generally, I think people are more relaxed about bowling averages. Look at the aforementioned players who average above 30 with the ball. Yet if a batsman's average drops below 40, the hounds are out - for instance if Morgan is attaining a healthy average by the end of the Sri Lanka Test series, he'll find himself out the side come the summer, yet players like Broad have played Test after Test despite a bowling average that was over 35 until this summer.

Which is why wickets and runs per match must be taken in combination with averages, as I did with Imran and Kallis.

The reason bowlers are given leeway now a days is because everything is stacked in the batsmans favour.

And frankly thats not true, until recently bowlers could be dropped after 2 bad matches. And dont even get me started on the extended chance Morgan has already had!

[rich1uk]

extended chances

are you being serious ?

the guy has only played 13 tests and has 2 100s and 3 50s in 18 innings

talk about a witch-hunt , that attitude that 13 tests is an extended run and he should be dropped despite having a fairly decent start in that period is what used to be wrong with english cricket, constantly chopping and changing players after a handful of games. you might not have noticed but over the past 3 years when a policy of stability and continuity of selection has been adopted we have been a much better team

[D/L]

Whether Morgan’s test run represents an “extended chance” or not, he was certainly fortunate to be picked in the first place, given his performances in first class cricket at county level. In tests, he has not really impressed and his better scores have been made with a great deal of good fortune. The selectors will be right to drop him if he does not come good soon.

However, back to Bresnan, his injury is a real blow for our chances against Pakistan. Let’s hope he’ll be OK for Sri Lanka.

[HarryPotter]

I have to say its greatly to his credit that Bresnan has become the player he has. 4 years ago he was a bit of a joke, the Ian Austin of the 00s. Most people said how lucky he was to be picked.

His bowling has improved beyond recognition, so good on him.

We are lucky we have bowlers of the quality of Tremlett, Finn and Onion fighting for his place otherwise he would be missed greatly.

[HarryPotter]

extended chances

are you being serious ?

the guy has only played 13 tests and has 2 100s and 3 50s in 18 innings

talk about a witch-hunt , that attitude that 13 tests is an extended run and he should be dropped despite having a fairly decent start in that period is what used to be wrong with english cricket, constantly chopping and changing players after a handful of games. you might not have noticed but over the past 3 years when a policy of stability and continuity of selection has been adopted we have been a much better team

I remember what chop and change meant it it wasn't playing 4 full series and then being dropped. I have to ask the question: were you following cricket when chop and change was happening because it would not appear to be so.

[rich1uk]

dont start questioning my cricket knowledge or how long i have been watching cricket for

this coming from a guy who thinks sobers isn't an all-rounder which somewhat questions your credibility as an observer of cricket full stop

morgan hasn't made a stellar start to his career but he has shown enough to be given the chance to continue imo and 13 tests, interrupted by injury and being given his debut as a replacement for injuries then dropped again, is not a very long time, he hasn't had the run of tests you suggest

we all have our favourite players and players we dislike for whatever reason , some of us however do not allow things like that to affect our judgement of a players ability and given the selectors seem to agree with me then thats good enough for me

[HarryPotter]

To be fair you started it by reacting to a sarcastic comment by accusing me of a witch hunt so dont try and take the moral high ground.

It is clearly silly to suggest that 13 Tests and dropping would be chop and change and you were suggesting that it harked back to the bad old days. Well thats not what the bad old days were and if you think it was you clearly were not following cricket then and have not taken the time to find out what was happening.

Chop and change was 29 players in a series. Chop and change was 2 Tests in the 80s or a single series in the 90s. You could also quite easily argue that chop and change is what happened to Bopara after a single series in SL, dropping, and a bumping up to 3. You can't argue that 4 full series (separated by 12th man duties in the hardest series of the 5 he could have played in) is chop and change unless you have an agenda or are ignoring the facts.

If you dole it out you have to expect some criticism back and getting all sensitive when I suggest you might need to check your facts when you have suggested my opinions are ridiculous rather than just different to yours (bearing in mind I do have some facts to back them up rather than just rhetoric), is a rather childish stance.

[dan08]

To be fair you started it by reacting to a sarcastic comment by accusing me of a witch hunt so dont try and take the moral high ground.

It is clearly silly to suggest that 13 Tests and dropping would be chop and change and you were suggesting that it harked back to the bad old days. Well thats not what the bad old days were and if you think it was you clearly were not following cricket then and have not taken the time to find out what was happening.

Chop and change was 29 players in a series. Chop and change was 2 Tests in the 80s or a single series in the 90s. You could also quite easily argue that chop and change is what happened to Bopara after a single series in SL, dropping, and a bumping up to 3. You can't argue that 4 full series (separated by 12th man duties in the hardest series of the 5 he could have played in) is chop and change unless you have an agenda or are ignoring the facts.

If you dole it out you have to expect some criticism back and getting all sensitive when I suggest you might need to check your facts when you have suggested my opinions are ridiculous rather than just different to yours (bearing in mind I do have some facts to back them up rather than just rhetoric), is a rather childish stance.

How many full series has Morgan had?

[rich1uk]

welcome to my ignore list

i called you a troll previously and i'm sticking with that tbh

almost every single post you have made since joining this site has been designed to provoke a reaction rather than debate and i cba with that