hhm wrote:How did my topic degenerate into an argument about Daniel Vettori! If there's one thing that's true about most sports forums it's that posters really like making a mountain out of a molehill. If not to prove an unsolicited point, it's a display of one's acumen. My statement was, I admit, casually open-ended BRM, but you know better and mounted an argument simply because you choose to, not have to. What I said about spinning all-rounders in Test cricket is a fact. They are really not regarded in Test cricket and the balance of a Test side will never hinge on them. Selectors would rather find a seaming all-rounder and select a specialist seamer. If he can bat it's a bonus, if not no big deal.
.
Very curious how this thread turned out to be one of a debate, nay argument as to what kind of player is qualified to classed an all-rounder, a spinner for that matter.
But all of this above is true of course, and as such have been quite unable to understand this argument or need for a number 8 batsman who can bowl; no, this bowler who bats at number 8!! Huh, what am I saying?? I am confused by it all, quite mystified!!
Eternally cricket has always been played by 11 people in a team, five batsmen, five bowlers (including an all-rounder) and a wicketkeeper, now a wicketkeeper who can bat. Seldom do you find them batting lower than 7 even six nowadays; but once, like Jack Russell and Rashid Latif of Pakistan, these wicketkeepers used to bat at 8, at 9.
No doubt cricket has evolved and as such also evolved the need to find wicketkeepers who could bat hence Adam Gilchrist, but there were already more before him of course. As such again perhaps cricket will evolve one day to demand 11 players who can a bat and bowl, other than the keeper.
But until then there requires an existing formula: 5 batsmen, a batting wicketkeeper an all rounder, normally a seeming all-rounder, and other four specialist bowlers. On may be a spinner or two of them, I don’t know.
But there is an irrefutable truth in what hhm, is saying.
A fast bowling all-rounder has always been better regarded that a batting off spinner or leg spinner. Whether this is correct or not I do not know; all a spinner is required to do in Test cricket to my knowledge is to take wickets, preferably heaps of them, like Murali, and hopefully one day like Graeme Cremer.
That therefore Cremer can also bat at 8 is incidental, it does not matter.
To go therefore to this puzzling argument about Proper batting at 8? For what purpose precisely, when you have you six batsmen plus the all rounder Chigumbura?? True, tail end batsmen now bring a little more value to the team, like Stuart Broad: but their functions remain eternally the same: strike, and get wickets. When Broad ceases to do this, he will be dropped. Hell not even Shaun Pollock was able to remain in the team once his value as a bowler was considered redundant. Again here people remember that I do not judge or considering the merits of each decision, just stating the trend worldwide.
But for this argument: why Meth, why not Utseya, or vice versa. Simply because Meth, a fast bowler or medium pace whichever you will (you don’t want to start another childish one on why I classified Meth a fast bowler!!
He offers more value that Utseya. Even if he couldn’t bat, but if he was taking wickets he will still go in ahead of Utseya, simply be because he is a fast bowler. They are four fast bowlers first in a team and THEN a spinner or two if you are in the subcontinent and in our case at Queens. That is the trend.
Puzzling however is this from hhm :
hhm wrote:Boundary, you're not disagreeing with me. You are reaffirming a lot of what I said.
But, the top order wasn't in a mess. Taylor said he prefers to open, I wonder who or what changed that. In the absence of the injured Duffin, Hamilton has been opening with him in the past, so that was settled from that standpoint. Vusi should not be opening. The only concern was a middle order batsman to replace Williams. Only Mutizwa, Ewing & Waller were the options.
If Taibu was unavailable then Taylor should have kept wicket once he recovered. Again he said his preferred fielding position is to keep wicket.
When precisely and is it on record did Taylor say he preferred to open in TEST cricket??
As far as I know we at zimcricketforums have elevated him thus, if that is indeed an elavation, simply because of the glaring gap identified and incompetency of the rest at that position.
But again remains this irrefutable truth: the best batsmen in any team have always batted at four or five and been cushioned against the new ball. Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, for a brief period David Gower, Aleck Stewart, Andy Flower, Dave Houghton, are examples among many. This is irrefutable. Virender Sewhag and Tamim Iqbal are an exception: India because they have simply not lacked a middle order, as for Bangladesh, for whatever reason.
Tendulkar will open in a one day: he simply cannot be risked in tests.
Simply put, the spot for openers are the ones that nobody wants so which will thereferore be competed over by the next batch of competent batsmen, after Taylor, Masakadza, and Sean Williams. When then did Tyalor decide that opening was best for him in Test cricket when he spent the better part of last season of franchise cricket cushioned in the middle order?
Like I said before one day when Vusi comes of age he will say I have proved myself, my wicket is too valued now: somebody else need to open.
Cue Chibhabha, Razza, at al.