• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Warne - The allrounder of the ashes so far??

Pedro Delgado

International Debutant
zinzan12 said:
My point is simply raising the question as to whether Warne has been the allrounder of the series so far ....Looks like your a little slow, reading not your strong point aye ??

I can't see why raising this question automatically means i'm belittling Flintoff, as opposed to you and your straight-out attack of players you find overated over the years
Warne isn't an all-rounder.
Flintoff is.

You do the math.

Warne has done well for a tailender though, no-one can deny that, and his batting continues to improve, shame it's a little late in the day for him.
 

greg

International Debutant
Pedro Delgado said:
Warne isn't an all-rounder.
Flintoff is.

You do the math.

Warne has done well for a tailender though, no-one can deny that, and his batting continues to improve, shame it's a little late in the day for him.
How does one qualify to be an "allrounder" then?
 

Pedro Delgado

International Debutant
greg said:
So Warne can be classed as an allrounder in this series then 8-)
It doesn't work like that though does it. You're either an all-rounder or you aren't. He wasn't one before the series began, but now he is? When does he cease being one again? When he fails with the bat? Does he then become a slogging tailender again?

Crumbs, with this rationale Gillespie will be considered an all-rounder next.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Pedro Delgado said:
It doesn't work like that though does it. You're either an all-rounder or you aren't. He wasn't one before the series began, but now he is? When does he cease being one again? When he fails with the bat? Does he then become a slogging tailender again?

Crumbs, with this rationale Gillespie will be considered an all-rounder next.
Yeah. Warne for me always had the potential to be considered a bowling all-rounder in the league of guys like Hadlee and Davidson, but he never quite fulfilled it with the bat, like Wasim Akram.

Incidentally though, speaking of averages, it's interesting that Wasim with his batting average of 24 and three test centuries was never really spoken about as an all-rounder, while Hadlee averaging 27 with 2 centuries, Benaud with an average of 24 and three centuries and Davidson with a batting average of 24 and no centuries all are. Certainly think he deserves the title if any of the others do, even if he never quite played as well as he might have. Warne is in the same boat, probably equally irresponsible as Wasim but blessed with less talent with the bat. As we've seen in this series, when he applies himself he's quite capable of being a 25+ average player.
 

Pedro Delgado

International Debutant
I'm not having a go, I like Warne and it's been a privilage to watch him play. It's just that I feel there is only one "genuine" all-rounder playing in this series, call me old fashioned.

FWIW White was picked as an all-rounder at the start of his career, number 6 bat and fourth seamer.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
zinzan12 said:
My point is simply raising the question as to whether Warne has been the allrounder of the series so far ....Looks like your a little slow, reading not your strong point aye ??
really? so half way through the series you're raising a rather pointless question about warne being the all rounder of the series by starting a new thread on it then?
and the worse part of it all, is that everyone already knows that warne has been the 'allrounder of the series' thus far but most people 'how in the world does it matter if he has?'

zinzan12 said:
I can't see why raising this question automatically means i'm belittling Flintoff, as opposed to you and your straight-out attack of players you find overated over the years
err yes and wouldnt it be better for you to do the same instead of hiding it under all the pretence?
i could start a new thread saying "hayden has been rubbish against seam and swing so far in this series", but you wont see me doing it at any point during(or even after) this series.
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
Pedro Delgado said:
Crumbs, with this rationale Gillespie will be considered an all-rounder next.
no...gillespie can only be considered as a batsman right now... :D
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
tooextracool said:
err yes and wouldnt it be better for you to do the same instead of hiding it under all the pretence?
i could start a new thread saying "hayden has been rubbish against seam and swing so far in this series", but you wont see me doing it at any point during(or even after) this series.
How do you know he is pretending ? Are you some expert at it or what ? At least he changes his opinion about the players after their performance, but If you think a player is over rated, you will attack him no matter what. Such as If Tendulkar scores a century at Perth, you will argue to death that 'although Perth traditionally is a fast and bouncy pitch, on that Particular day it was playing like a flat track and all the aussie bowlers were bowling crap, all the other batsman got out to poor shots etc etc.'
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Sanz said:
How do you know he is pretending ? Are you some expert at it or what ? At least he changes his opinion about the players after their performance, but If you think a player is over rated, you will attack him no matter what. Such as If Tendulkar scores a century at Perth, you will argue to death that 'although Perth traditionally is a fast and bouncy pitch, on that Particular day it was playing like a flat track and all the aussie bowlers were bowling crap, all the other batsman got out to poor shots etc etc.'
and if i started a thread everytime tendulkar choked and said :
tendulkar just choked in THIS game, im not trying to say hes a choker, but i just wanted to point out that he choked in this game, what would you think given the arguments that have happened about sachin in the past?
and if you think that i dont change my opinion on players when they improve their performances then you're obviously not paying attention.
and as far as perth is concerned, a fast and bouncy pitch without seam or swing isnt really hard to handle, and most people who watched that game will tell you that there was no seam or swing on that day.
now instead of going all around the forum trying to attack every post i make, i hope you make it a point of actually reading some of them more carefully.
 

greg

International Debutant
Pedro Delgado said:
I'm not having a go, I like Warne and it's been a privilage to watch him play. It's just that I feel there is only one "genuine" all-rounder playing in this series, call me old fashioned.

FWIW White was picked as an all-rounder at the start of his career, number 6 bat and fourth seamer.
Not much good at either though, and only showed any sort of test standard potential with the bat at the end of his career when touring the subcontinent.
 

Top