Kings of Mediocrity

Justcrazy

ATG
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Runs
105,458
Who according to you are three best BITS & PIECES players ever to play cricket?
 
The best bits and pieces player would not qualify for being a bits and pieces player ... no?
 
chris harris is the master of bits and pieces, styris was actually quite a good bat.
 
The best bits and pieces player would not qualify for being a bits and pieces player ... no?
best among the average lot :) :)

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'. Afridi, Razzaq, Bhajji, Flintoff etc. wouldn't fit in that definition as they started their career way more than that. notable B&Ps in my memory,

Chris Harris
Darren Lehmann
Robin Singh
 
Sammy, good pick! probably the first B&P captain of the major team (If WI still a major team!)
 
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.
 
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.

Yes brother that thread was also started by me. I have a feeling that Pollard is fats becoming the best B&P player.
 
I think the best ever of this type player could be Chris Harris, who played for very long for NZ inspite of not being a specialist in any category nor a true allrounder.

Some others are Robin Singh, Dermot Reeve, Ian Harvey.


Agree with Shayan. Shahid Afridi can now be regarded as a specialist ODI/T-20 bowler who can bowl his full quota of overs economically and also taking wickets. He can no longer be considered as a batting allrounder, but a bowler who can bat a bit.
 
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'.

Derek Pringle
 
Afridi for much of his career was a bits and pieces player without a defined role. But not anymore I'd say.
 
mohammad hafeez. everytime i see him i wish he gets out quickly so that he is eventually dropped from the team but somehow he finds ways to stay in the team and frustrate me.
 
I feel currently Broad is being kept in the side due to the illusion that he makes the batting lineup seem longer ... just cracked through cover for 4 by Suraj Randiv, Broad is really quite terrible.
 
One year ago Hafeez would have been at the top of my left. Funny how a sublime year really changes things.

off the top of my head sammy (wi skipper) has to be the biggest bit's n' pieces bloke in cricket today.
 
Mohammad Hafeez. Never seen him win a match for his team (may be he has but I can't recall it right now).
 
Amazing how so many of those mentioned have actually captained their teams, and are all-rounders.

Flintoff, Afridi, Malik, Cairns, Sammy etc.

Not judging people's posts, but it raises an interesting point.

Are star players purposely not given the burden of captaincy for fear of their performances being effected? And so Boards and Selection Committees opt for one who is probably more 'disposable' (for want of a better word) in terms of talent and performance.

?
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith - specialist fielder.
 
Show me one batsman in recent years who has failed in these many consecutive international innings without being dropped....... and I'll quit watching cricket;
 

Attachments

  • sm.jpg
    sm.jpg
    295.8 KB · Views: 851
Last edited:
..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?
 
James Hopes
Fawad Alam
Paul Collingwood

Three recent bits and pieces players :p
 
If your going to take out his highest score, then might as well take out his lowest too?

So you don't see anything wrong with a player failing for 28 consecutive innings?
 
Derek Pringle
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
I 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.
 
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?

Here is his T20 record since 1/1/2010 vs major teams. Yes, I can see he failed miserably.
 

Attachments

  • sat.jpg
    sat.jpg
    224 KB · Views: 810
I 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.
true, but many of them didn't last long. so can't be in the king/best list :) :) due to the mediocrity of the entire team those 'all-rounders' in 90's had long career. good that England improved in this millennium.
 
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;
 

Attachments

  • tttt.jpg
    tttt.jpg
    286.2 KB · Views: 819
Last edited:
Jacob Oram
James Franklin
Manzoor Akhtar
Hrishikesh Kanitkar
Ian Austin
Mark Ealham
Craig McMillan
Brian McMillan
Faf du Plessis
Gyanendra Pandey
Ajay Sharma
Manoj Prabhakar
Jimmy Adams
Roger Harper
 
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.


Aye, good ODI bowler but he only really had one good year as a test bowler, against the WI in 1991. Big factor in our holding them to 2-2 with limited firepower.
 
NZ and England produced most B&P cricketers , maybe it is because of the conditions they play in.
 
@Justcrazy -- Agree with you with regards to England producing most number of b&p players. They also chop and change many cricketers specially in ODIs, may be this is due to the fact they have lots of B&P players.
 
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;
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.

That economy rate isn't anything special. It's average for a spinner. Both Ajmal and Hafeez have done better, Hafeez much better in economy wise. Ajmal's only been a little more economical than Afridi, but a much better wicket taker than Afridi and Hafeez. Afridi doesn't even bowl in powerplays unlike ajmal and Hafeez.

If you rank in terms of averages, Afridi will be at the bottom. If you rank in terms of economy he will also be near the bottom, from what i can see in that list all the spinners, Swann, Ajmal, Hafeez, Harbajan all have better economies.

I'm a bit surprised actually, I thought he did a lot better than that.

Afridi as I've said time and time again can not play as a bowler. He isn't the best spin bowler in the team, it's ajmal. Ajmal's replaced Afridi in this respect. Even Hafeez might now be a better bowler given his ridiculously good economy rate. Afridi has to take responsibility and play as an all rounder. Playing first class cricket in Pakistan working on his batting would help, and batting up the order, ideally opening would be good too. And should stick there for a long time, rather than giving up after one or two games. Too much time and games has been invested in him for him simply to stick his place in the side as an average spin bowler.

I still have faith he can be a good all rounder for us, but he needs to start batting up the order, ideally as an opener where he doesn't have any pressure.
 
Last edited:
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.
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?

That economy rate isn't anything special.
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... :20:


I stopped reading your post after this comment.
 
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... :20:


I stopped reading your post after this comment.
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.

His economy rate compared to other spinners isn't anything special, in fact as I said it's worse than other spinners like Hafeez, Ajmal, Swann, Harbajan etc. Is his economy rate good in comparison to other spinners? No.

I never said economy rate isn't important. But Afridi's economy rate is about average for a spinner.

The real stand out economy rates are Swann and Hafeez in that list.
 
Last edited:
Haven't economy rates for Spinners typically been higher than Fast Bowlers?

Btw W65 - who is the mystery 28 consecutive game failure you cited stats for earlier?
 
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... :20:


I stopped reading your post after this comment.
4.65 is a respectable economy rate, not much more.

Personally I think bits and pieces players as they are unfairly called are generally underrated as LOI cricketers. Look at Chris Harris, Johan Botha, Gavin Larsen--one could call each of these and plenty of others bits-and-pieces players, but they were simply allrounders who weren't exceptional at either field yet good enough to contribute regularly in one-day cricket. Interestingly England's most successful one-day campaign of the 90s, in Sharjah during 1997/98, was almost exclusively a bits-and-pieces campaign. They really can be useful

"Bits and pieces" cricketers, a generally overused and unfair term, are usually pretty handy in one-day cricket. Test cricket is where you need top-class allrounders to strut their stuff, and what separates these.

I also think the term of an allrounder as somebody good enough to chip in specially in either field is wrong, as far as LOI cricket goes (again, in Tests it's a different matter). If you have somebody who can hit 20-40 runs and take 1-3 miserly wickets on a regular basis, that's an allrounder and not a bits-and-pieces cricketer as far as I'm concerned. Generally a useful, matchwinning one too. Having said that with these sorts of players you NEED strong specialists to set up the game.
 
Last edited:
Like Imran Khan I am not a fan of bits and pieces player, when you are selecting the team first you pick your best batsmen and then your best bowlers, after that if there is a geniune all rounder who is capable of competing with a geniune batsman/bowler then you put them in.
 
Back
Top