219 & 7 or 13 & 114

Dilscoop · #1 December 20, 2011, 04:56 PM

Which one would you take? Denis Atkinson's 219 runs and 7 wickets or Ian Botham's 13 wickets and 114 runs? In other words, a Double + a 5-for, or a Century + a 10-for?

(Based on CI's 5-for and Century stats)

Dilscoop · #2 December 20, 2011, 04:58 PM

DAMN! That fool Ian did it 4 times! I guess that's why they call him Sir.

Gowza · #3 December 20, 2011, 09:47 PM

i'd take the century and the 10fer. the double is great but it's one innings, if it were 2 centuries in the match and a 5fer on top of that then i'd probably pick the double ton but if the 200 runs come as one innings i'd take the century and the 10fer.

i think they're pretty much the same though....contributing basically the same amount.

Dilscoop · #4 December 20, 2011, 11:36 PM

^^Now then. Is scoring a 2nd ton in the 2nd inn more difficult than a double-century? hmm that's tough

World class batters usually have the concentration, urge and stamina to score some more runs after getting 150. It's more rare to see a back-back ton in the same match (?)

Gowza · #5 December 21, 2011, 04:01 AM

yes i believe it's tougher to score back to back tons in the one match as opposed to the double ton.

Dilscoop · #6 December 21, 2011, 12:31 PM

Eeh. Debatable. I wouldn't say its tougher but rare.

Anyway, on topic. I'd take a double ton and a 5for. Because that shows true test allround ability. A 10for makes me a Bowling ALR. But I like picking up wickets and a 10 for is very rare these days.

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Android)

Gowza · #7 December 22, 2011, 08:27 PM

i don't know, real bowling allrounders tend to not score that many centuries, a lot of half centuries but not soo many centuries. tbh a century and a 10fer makes a bowling allrounder, a double ton and a 5fer makes them a batting allrounder.

you can't really categorize a player into what type of allrounder from just one match imo. a genuine allrounder excels both in batting and bowling (even fielding if you like) but contributes those assets on a more equal level. once they start taking more runs than wickets they're more of a batsman and once they start taking more wickets than runs they're more a bowler, it's how it equals out overall that describes what type of allrounder they are imo.

Navo · #8 January 4, 2012, 11:31 AM

What would you guys say Shakib was? If one looks at his stats, it would seem he is more of a batting all-rounder in ODIs and a bowling all-rounder in Tests. I say this because of the number of centuries and half-centuries he has in ODIs but with a surprising lack of 5-wicket hauls. In comparison, he only has 2 centuries and 9 half centuries in Tests but a very impressive record of 9 5-wicket hauls. At the moment, there are only 63 bowlers with more than 9 5-wicket hauls and I'm confident that Shakib will move up that list very quickly.

He's also done it incredibly quick time! All the other bowlers on this list: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/eng...s;type=bowling
either took 9 5-wicket hauls in more innings/matches or played before the Second World War!