How Good Is Timothy Bresnan?

[HarryPotter]

Kallis Bowls an average of 12.3 overs per Innings, Sobers bowled 22.3 overs per test, in comparrison to say Botham who bowled 21.3 overs per innings, and Imran who bowled 22.8 overs per Innings.

So I can see you point about Kallis, however Kallis doesnt bowl regularly due to the Saffa's have a resonable pace attack with Donald and Pollock, then Steyn and Morkle, now with Philander and De lange in the unit he bowls even less. However, Basedon the amount of overs he bowled Sobers on par with Botham and Imran in terms of being considered a front line bowler.

Unless you have another definition of front line.

Yes, I absolutely agree with you that Sobers was not PT in terms of numbers of overs bowled. As I mentioned earlier he bowled the number of overs of a front line bowler but he did not get the results. So you could argue that he just wasnt a very effective bowler, with a high average and SR. I dont feel comfortable saying the best AR of all time was Sobers when his results over 93 Tests were not that great as a bowler.

Clearly he was very useful with the ball, as a 5th bowler, but his results are not that of a player who would have being picked as a bowler alone, so he isnt the classic AR in my eyes (clearly a great batmen though, obviously).

[OffStumpYorker]

Kallis Bowls an average of 12.3 overs per Innings, Sobers bowled 22.3 overs per test, in comparrison to say Botham who bowled 21.3 overs per innings, and Imran who bowled 22.8 overs per Innings.

So I can see you point about Kallis, however Kallis doesnt bowl regularly due to the Saffa's have a resonable pace attack with Donald and Pollock, then Steyn and Morkle, now with Philander and De lange in the unit he bowls even less. However, Basedon the amount of overs he bowled Sobers on par with Botham and Imran in terms of being considered a front line bowler.

Unless you have another definition of front line.

Yes, I absolutely agree with you that Sobers was not PT in terms of numbers of overs bowled. As I mentioned earlier he bowled the number of overs of a front line bowler but he did not get the results. So you could argue that he just wasnt a very effective bowler, with a high average and SR. I dont feel comfortable saying the best AR of all time was Sobers when his results over 93 Tests were not that great as a bowler.

Clearly he was very useful with the ball, as a 5th bowler, but his results are not that of a player who would have being picked as a bowler alone, so he isnt the classic AR in my eyes (clearly a great batmen though, obviously).

So now its based on the number of wickets/average, Sobers took 235 wickets at an average of 34.03, which for someone who bowled 2 varieties of spin and fast medium isnt bad, Kapil dev's average was a shade under 30/wicket, even Lance Gibbs who was a contemporary of Sobers averaged a shade under 30.

[D/L]

I had to smile at the use of the word “finesse” in a description of Broad’s batting ability. If it’s appropriate, then one would have to say that Colin Milburn had it too.

At times, Broad looks like a fish out of water at the crease. Predictions that he will ever become a very good batsman seem a little optimistic.

Bresnan never looks elegant at the crease, though his technique is sound, and he has shown that he can adapt his batting to the demands of the situation.

[HarryPotter]

So now its based on the number of wickets/average, Sobers took 235 wickets at an average of 34.03, which for someone who bowled 2 varieties of spin and fast medium isnt bad, Kapil dev's average was a shade under 30/wicket, even Lance Gibbs who was a contemporary of Sobers averaged a shade under 30.

Yes, as I said at the beginning wickets per match and average are hugely important when considering if a player is an all rounder.

Yes Gibbs and Dev's average are only just below 30 but that is a whole lot better than Sobers and Gibbs took nearly 4 wickets a match (very good for a spinner) and even Dev is well over 3 despite playing on for so many years to break records and playing on dead Indian surfaces.

Remember the contention is Sobers is the best AR ever so I think its reasonable to have high expectation of his results as a bowler and tbh they are not there.

Great player, obviously, I just have an issue with his results as a bowler.

[OffStumpYorker]

The classic definition of an all rounder is one where a player would be picked in the team soley based on each side of his game, so the question is would sobers have made it into the WI's team at the time as a Bowler only?

Sobers was inititally picked for his first test as a bowler only, and his batting in the early days was abysmal, 3 fifties in his first 14 games and 17 wickets, it wasnt until his 5th year in test cricket that he scored his first ton.

[HarryPotter]

Yes, he was picked as a spinner first of all.

So doesnt that make his bowling record pretty poor for someone held up as the best all rounder ever?

[rich1uk]

Yes, he was picked as a spinner first of all.

So doesnt that make his bowling record pretty poor for someone held up as the best all rounder ever?

the whole point of an all-rounder is you look at them as a total package and not just their batting , their bowling, their fielding or wicket-keeping or whatever else

take kallis for example, i have absolutely no doubt he is, or at least was when he was younger, good enough to get into the SA team based on his bowling alone. however his value to the team as a batsman restricted how much he was used as a bowler, anyone with an iota of common sense would realise this and not just get hung up on statistics without looking at context.

tbh i dont even know why this debate is still going on , one person's ridiculous opinion that kallis and sobers should not be classed as all-rounders is something i would usually call "troll" on.

[HarryPotter]

No one is forcing you to debate the point, if you don't want to then dont.

Certainly there is no need to be rude. I am sure you understand the difference between a Troll and a WUM and I while I would dispute being either I would rather you didn't associate me with being a Troll.

Why are my opinions ridiculous? Because I don't follow the crowd and spout their opinions?

Cricket is a results game, to suggest that Kallis is one of the greatest 2 all rounders ever and then base that on him having the ability but not actually showing it because he wasn't needed or it was too much for him is the actual ridiculous suggestion.

To suggest that Sobers is an all rounder when his results as a bowler were so poor that they can't be considered front line is bad enough but for sheep fans to say he was the best all rounder of all time just because commies say it all the time is ridiculous. The man got barely 2.5 wickets a match at nearly 35...how can he be the best all rounder ever?

I have high standards and an all rounder has to be front line in both disciplines. If not they are useful at the others. Thats a valid opinion and falls in line with the traditional opinion.

Feel free not to answer if you can only answer by being abusive.

[dan08]

Kallis' international record
24216 runs
58 hundreds
144 fifties
546 wickets
309 catches

In his younger days, he could easily get into the team as a batsman or bowler.

Kallis' 24216 runs is the 3rd most ever! Kallis and Mike Hussey are the only players with over 10000 international runs to average above 50.

Kallis' 546 wickets is the 20th most ever!

I think that proves he is one of the best all-rounders if not the best.

[HarryPotter]

Definately not a fan of lumping ODIs in with Tests, they are two completely different sports.

As someone rightly said earlier if we are talking All Rounders in ODIs then far more players come into the mix.

Kallis is definately an AR in ODIs, no doubt.

No offence but having watched Kallis live in his younger days its simply not true that he would have got in to the Test team as a bowler, I can't believe you have watched much of his bowling when he first hit the Test team if you think that. The similarities with Flintoff in terms of the penetration of his bowling were striking. Kallis could have made the ODI team as a bowler but not the Test team.

[dan08]

Definately not a fan of lumping ODIs in with Tests, they are two completely different sports.

As someone rightly said earlier if we are talking All Rounders in ODIs then far more players come into the mix.

Kallis is definately an AR in ODIs, no doubt.

No offence but having watched Kallis live in his younger days its simply not true that he would have got in to the Test team as a bowler, I can't believe you have watched much of his bowling when he first hit the Test team if you think that. The similarities with Flintoff in terms of the penetration of his bowling were striking. Kallis could have made the ODI team as a bowler but not the Test team.

His Test average is 32. If you compare that to specialist bowlers that are playing today then he is better than quite a few. Broad - 32(was 36 before India series), Harbhajan 32, Gul 33. Even Jimmy Anderson - who is regarded as one of the best Test bowlers in the world - averages just 30.

His bowling is more than useful and if he hadn't been such a great batsman and didn't play all formats then he would have been good enough to get in as a specialist bowler.

[HarryPotter]

Well that comes back to the amount he bowls and therefore the lack of wickets, but I know we disagree on that so there is no point revisiting

I guess I cannot persuade you, but fair enough, its probably mainly a discussion over langauge anyway. You say All Rounder, I say useful bowler. His actual results are the same!

[yorker_129-7]

Just to throw a grenade into this whole all-rounder debate, Daniel Vettori seems to have become a more than decent one in recent years

[HarryPotter]

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'.

[backfootpunch]

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