Justcrazy
ATG
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Runs
- 105,739
Who according to you are three best BITS & PIECES players ever to play cricket?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
best among the average lotThe best bits and pieces player would not qualify for being a bits and pieces player ... no?
The best bits and pieces player would not qualify for being a bits and pieces player ... no?
yuvi ? ? ?
B&P doesn't include out of form or 'past the best'. otherwise Chris Gayle too pretty much a B&P.So is Afridi
I mean 'was'
Sachin Tendulkar.
(let the hating begin)
There was recently a thread asking the difference between an all-rounder and a bits and pieces player. My response was that a bits-and-pieces player isn't good enough to make the team solely as a batsman, or solely as a bowler.
An example I can immediately think of is Luke Wright. Afridi doesn't fit in here in my opinion because his bowling is good enough to make the ODI team on its own (in fact its really the only reason he gets picked these days!).
The post above (minus Afridi) looks about right.
I would define a good B&P as someone who started as a bits and piece and had quite sufficient long carrier (people still remember) still as a 'bits and piece'.
Yusaf Pathan
Rana Naved
How about Stuart Broad?
How about Stuart Broad?
Shakib
he's doing horrible in T20, his batting is horrendous.
Shakib
he's doing horrible in T20, his batting is horrendous.
T20 is a horrendous form of the game.
Mohammad Hafeez. Never seen him win a match for his team (may be he has but I can't recall it right now).
You took his 128 out..?
..and after that 128......what happened in those 28 innings?
If your going to take out his highest score, then might as well take out his lowest too?
yeah, England had quite a few in 90's. Pringle, Mullaly, Reeve etc. How about Defreitas (did i spell correctly?)?? I haven't watched him in 80's, but in 90's he just looked ordinary.Derek Pringle
So you don't see anything wrong with a player failing for 28 consecutive innings?
If you look at Afridis record in the last 12 months, his average is 18 with the bat and bowling 35.
Excluding Canada, Zimbabwe, Kenya etc...
Does that not mean Afridi failed too?
true, but many of them didn't last long. so can't be in the king/best listI feel that the country to select most B&P players in the name of all rounders has been england, so many of them.
Mullalay
Pringle
Reeve
Mascerhanas
Adam Hollioke
Ben Hollioke
Daralympane
Samit Patel
Yardy
Luke Wright
Ian Blackwell
.......................................................The list goes on.
yeah, England had quite a few in 90's. Pringle, Mullaly, Reeve etc. How about Defreitas (did i spell correctly?)?? I haven't watched him in 80's, but in 90's he just looked ordinary.
you can not compare economies with fast bowlers. Fast bowlers usually have worse economies but better strike rates. You rely on the fast bowlers to get wickets mostly, and the spinners to choke runs.Here is his ODI record since 1/1/2010 vs major teams. He is 5th highest wicket taker. His average is not that good but his E/R (Runs per Overs) is excellent which is a huge factor in ODIs...better than Styne, Wahab Riaz, Umar Gul, Johnson, Malinga, Anderson and many other;
Under which rule of cricket, it is written that spinners like Afridi can not have stats like fast bowlers? Is ANY THING wrong with spinners like Afridi not choking for runs better than fast bowlers and ...taking wickets like fast bowlers?you can not compare economies with fast bowlers. Fast bowlers usually have worse economies but better strike rates. You rely on the fast bowlers to get wickets mostly, and the spinners to choke runs.
Just because YOU are saying so?That economy rate isn't anything special.
You can't compare him against fast bowlers, you can compare him against spinners. Comparing him against fast bowlers obviously his economy is going to look good. But his strike rate is going to look even worse. I don't think many people would rate a fast bowler with a SR of over fifty. You can perhaps compare averages as that takes into account economy and strike rate, but Afridi doesn't do that well if you go by that.Under which rule of cricket, it is written that spinners like Afridi can not have stats like fast bowlers? Is ANY THING wrong with spinners like Afridi not choking for runs better than fast bowlers and ...taking wickets like fast bowlers?
Just because YOU are saying so?
Let me explain what E/R is: It is number of runs per over (or runs per 100 balls). In a limited over cricket game, the team with BETTER E/R (runs per over) wins....doesn't it? Not special...
I stopped reading your post after this comment.
was that Umer Akmal? or Misbah? suspense!!!Btw W65 - who is the mystery 28 consecutive game failure you cited stats for earlier?
was that Umer Akmal? or Misbah? suspense!!!
4.65 is a respectable economy rate, not much more.Under which rule of cricket, it is written that spinners like Afridi can not have stats like fast bowlers? Is ANY THING wrong with spinners like Afridi not choking for runs better than fast bowlers and ...taking wickets like fast bowlers?
Just because YOU are saying so?
Let me explain what E/R is: It is number of runs per over (or runs per 100 balls). In a limited over cricket game, the team with BETTER E/R (runs per over) wins....doesn't it? Not special...
I stopped reading your post after this comment.