How Good Is Timothy Bresnan?

[HarryPotter]

Bresnan is a good enough bowler to command a test place. He is also, as his batting position would suggest, a better batsman than Broad, so he is probably the nearest thing to a genuine all-rounder that we have, if not quite there yet.

No he isnt. Broad is a good batsman who should develop into a number 7 in Tests. Bresnan is good, but not as good.

Neither are (yet?) all rounders.

Bresnan is a better batsman than Broad. England don't have an all-rounder but Bresnan is the nearest thing to it.

One to agree to disagree on, but I would happily place a bet on who ends up with the better record.

[HarryPotter]

I see that everyone has a different definition for all rounder. However, for the team the runs and wickets are the things that matter. Kallis has done just that, time and again, and for more longevity than any other all rounder.

Less than 3 wickets a match so not an all rounder by my strict definition.

Great batsman who is a useful contributer with the ball.

I am okay if you don't consider him allrounder as i said everyone has a different view or statistics to fit a player into all rounder. I repeat, for me anyone who takes wickets, scores runs and fields well as good as Kallis has done is an allrounder. Sometimes such cricketers will only take wickets in a match, sometimes only score runs in match, sometimes take wickets and score runs in same match and sometimes contribute nothing in same match. He's done just that throughout his career and is one of the most successful all rounder IMO at least. Kallis has scored 12000+ runs and taken 274 wickets. Part time bowlers do not end up with 274 test wickets and part time batsmen do not end up scoring 12000 test runs.Since Kallis injured his shoulders two years back captain hasn't bowled him much but he's still their 4th pacer as well as specialist batsmen in the Saffers team. South African management, past cricketers, cricketers of opposition teams consider him as all rounder though. I am sure about it. That is more important to kallis.

I agree that everyone will have their own opinion and no one can be considered wrong I suppose. I would say though that the need to call everyone an all rounder is quite a modern thing, and I would stick with the classic (though tough) criteria.

One thing though, of course a PT bowler could take 274 wickets, its purely weight of matches. Murli did the double and you would not consider he had the ability to bat: he just played a lot!

[dan08]

Garry Sobers has a worse bowling record than Kallis. Does that make him a part time bowler?

[Red Devil]

I always thought Bresnan was underrated, but over the last year people have finally started to appreciate him. I think he is the closest thing Eng have to an all-rounder - will probably end up as a bowling all-rounder but has done exceptionally well with the bat to date.

I'd love to have someone like him in the Indian side

[meninblue]

I see that everyone has a different definition for all rounder. However, for the team the runs and wickets are the things that matter. Kallis has done just that, time and again, and for more longevity than any other all rounder.

Less than 3 wickets a match so not an all rounder by my strict definition.

Great batsman who is a useful contributer with the ball.

I am okay if you don't consider him allrounder as i said everyone has a different view or statistics to fit a player into all rounder. I repeat, for me anyone who takes wickets, scores runs and fields well as good as Kallis has done is an allrounder. Sometimes such cricketers will only take wickets in a match, sometimes only score runs in match, sometimes take wickets and score runs in same match and sometimes contribute nothing in same match. He's done just that throughout his career and is one of the most successful all rounder IMO at least. Kallis has scored 12000+ runs and taken 274 wickets. Part time bowlers do not end up with 274 test wickets and part time batsmen do not end up scoring 12000 test runs.Since Kallis injured his shoulders two years back captain hasn't bowled him much but he's still their 4th pacer as well as specialist batsmen in the Saffers team. South African management, past cricketers, cricketers of opposition teams consider him as all rounder though. I am sure about it. That is more important to kallis.

I agree that everyone will have their own opinion and no one can be considered wrong I suppose. I would say though that the need to call everyone an all rounder is quite a modern thing, and I would stick with the classic (though tough) criteria.

One thing though, of course a PT bowler could take 274 wickets, its purely weight of matches. Murli did the double and you would not consider he had the ability to bat: he just played a lot!

Agree to disagree about Kallis not being an all rounder.

[HarryPotter]

Garry Sobers has a worse bowling record than Kallis. Does that make him a part time bowler?

No. In fact he bowled a lot.

I would though question is he was an all rounder, because results matter.

Following the crowd and just assuming they are right doesnt make it so. Sobers record shows he was a poor front line bowler so he was either:

1 A poor all rounder
2 Not an all rounder

Cricket is a results game and his bowling results were (very) useful but not that of a front line bowler so by the strict definition of the title he is not an all rounder or he performed badly as an all rounder.

[OffStumpYorker]

Bresnan and Broad are not All rounders they are bowlers who know which end of a bat to hold and have genuine shots, rather than the classical bowler who closes his eyes and hopes the bat gets in the way of the ball (Monty).

Bresnan was under rated by many in during 2010 but came of age in the Ashes and hasnt really looked back, its still too early to see if he will be the real deal in terms of a genuine All-rounder like Botham, Dev, Hadlee, Imran Khan, Wally Hammond or Shaun Pollock, personally he'll be very lucky if he has half the career stats those.

[rich1uk]

Following the crowd and just assuming they are right doesnt make it so.

if the "crowd" comprised of absolutely everyone except me i would assume i was wrong tbh

lets put it this way if you dont think that either sobers or kallis should be considered to be an all-rounder then there hasn't been a single person worthy of being an all-rounder in the history of the game

[andy]

Kallis and Sobers are the best all-rounders to have played the game, and to question their role as an allrounder is ridiclous IMO.

[D/L]

An average of 34 overs a test does not suggest a part-time bowler, particularly in a successful team. To say that Bresnan only bowls when conditions suit will not tally with most peoples’ memories of him toiling away when other bowlers have wilted, as in 83 overs in 2 tests in Bangladesh.

I think we’d find that all bowlers are taken out of the attack when things don’t go their way!

On the batting front, Broad is little more than a slogger who has got lucky on a number of occasions. He shows little evidence of even wanting to be a recognised batsman and is certainly nowhere near Bresnan’s quality.

[andy]

bresnan is a genuine all rounder


however D/L i agree that broad isnt an all-rounder, however he isnt a slogger, he didnt slog his way to 169 agianst pakistan, and before anyone says that dosent count, the match wasnt fixed a few balls were, so it still counts..

however broad isnt an all-roundder, bresnan is

[D/L]

We can’t take anything seriously that happened in that match, cf90. How do we know nothing else untoward was taking place?

I’ll stick by my description of Broad as a “slogger”. Sometimes, we need a tail-ender to defend his wicket and not go for his shots. He’s shown little aptitude for that.

[andy]

he didnt slog his 169, and whatever you say, you must be able to bat, to get 169.

[D/L]

he didnt slog his 169, and whatever you say, you must be able to bat, to get 169.

That's a bit like saying you must have some financial acumen to win the lottery. He was lucky and he was up against bowlers who, shall we say, may not have had their minds fully on the task in hand.

[OffStumpYorker]

he didnt slog his 169, and whatever you say, you must be able to bat, to get 169.

That's a bit like saying you must have some financial acumen to win the lottery. He was lucky and he was up against bowlers who, shall we say, may not have had their minds fully on the task in hand.

Though I wouldnt describe Broad as a 'slogger', hes certainly no Bradman, I have to agree with D/L here that whole match, and parts of the series, has a bit of a wiff about it, though we didnt know at the time the NoTW published its article and put a different light on the preceeding events.

What odds (50-1, 100-1, my bet is around 300-1) would you have got for a 300+ run partnership for the 8th wicket, never mind the spread bet on Broad getting 160 when his average was hovering around 20 at the time, @ £10 per run over 40 would net you a £1200+ return.