Hussey Best in World

[FaaipDeOiad]

You said "if you open the bowling and bowl in the top 6"... Arnold has done such things both recently and less recently.
So he's an all-rounder?
No, of course he's not.
My point is that your definition of "all-rounder" was a bit woolly - not here anything to do with Symonds.
I'd define both Jayasuriya and Stephen Waugh as batsmen-who-bowl-a-bit... nothing more for either.
Obviously it took a long time for Jayasuriya to become a ODI-standard batsman, and earlier on he might, well, have been picked as an all-rounder. Stephen Waugh, I know his bowling influenced his early retention in the Test side, don't know about ODIs except to say that Waugh was always a bit overrated in ODIs.

Waugh was much more an all-rounder in ODIs than in tests, early in his career. He was in all respects a front-line bowler, and gained a reputation for being a quality death bowler. He had a major hand in the 1987 world cup win with the ball for example - check the scorecards. Jayasuria certainly was an all-rounder until quite recently, he was simply a batting all-rounder.

Anyway, Arnold doesn't do that regularly, which is obviously what I meant. Any player who regularly opens the bowling and bats in the top order is quite obviously an all-rounder, but that was mostly a throwaway comment to indicate that you didn't have to be a -good- all-rounder to be an all-rounder.

 

[Blaze]

. Brett Lee isn't an all-rounder at the moment, but like someone like Vettori he's shown significant improvement with the bat in recent times and may get there.

Vettori has already made it. At least at test level where he averages over 30 in the last couple of years.

 

[marc71178]

Vettori has already made it. At least at test level where he averages over 30 in the last couple of years.

But his bowling in the last couple of years is 55.86 when the minnows are removed....

 

[Richard]

Waugh was much more an all-rounder in ODIs than in tests, early in his career. He was in all respects a front-line bowler, and gained a reputation for being a quality death bowler. He had a major hand in the 1987 world cup win with the ball for example - check the scorecards. Jayasuria certainly was an all-rounder until quite recently, he was simply a batting all-rounder.

Anyway, Arnold doesn't do that regularly, which is obviously what I meant. Any player who regularly opens the bowling and bats in the top order is quite obviously an all-rounder, but that was mostly a throwaway comment to indicate that you didn't have to be a -good- all-rounder to be an all-rounder.

Arnold generally opens the bowling whenever Sri Lanka decide to play 1 seamer (as long as he's in the side).
I've said many times that you don't have to be a good all-rounder to be an all-rounder, but you do have to be equal in both skills, and Symonds is clearly a far better batsman than bowler.
If you mean "recently" as in 1996 (10 years ago) with Jayasuriya, yes, it was only recently he became a specialist-batsman. Because he's certainly been a specialist-batsman since then and his record as an opener justifies it (unlike, sadly, Kaluwitharana), whereas his bowling has only rarely been effective.

 

[Richard]

But his bowling in the last couple of years is 55.86 when the minnows are removed....

Ah, but you're not allowed to remove the substandard teams, Bangladesh were making an improvement when he played them and someone said Zimbabwe had some promising young players.
Vettori did have a poor period, this here, but he's actually bowled pretty well in the last year, these games, all against Australia and the ongoing one, where he was very unlucky on several occasions.

 

[benchmark00]

So Russel Arnold is an all-rounder?
All-rounders, simply, are people equal in ability, and anyone should really be able to tell that Symonds is a batsman who can also bowl... but not very well.

What? that's ridiculous. By that definition Kallis isn't an all rounder because his batting is better than his bowling.

An all rounder someone who does both disciplines on a regular basis, reasonably.

 

[Jono]

But his bowling in the last couple of years is 55.86 when the minnows are removed....

That just means he's not a very good allrounder.

I don't see how people can deny that Symonds is an allrounder in ODI cricket. He regularly bowls, and is obviously a top batsman. He's a batting allrounder, whereas Flintoff is a genuine allrounder. Flintoff is the better allrounder quite clearly (And Faaip made it sound like it was close between Symonds and Freddy which was wrong) but other than that I agree with what he said.

People have to realise that the definition of an allrounder in ODI cricket is a lot more loose than in test cricket. For example Styris is a ODI allrounder IMO.

 

[alternative]

For me Hussey is just in the best form of his life.. and just showing excellent form doesn't mean he is the BEST...

 

[Richard]

What? that's ridiculous.

No, it's not - that's what "all-rounder" implies - someone who has "all-round" strength - ie is as good with bat as ball and vice-versa.

By that definition Kallis isn't an all rounder because his batting is better than his bowling.

Of course Kallis isn't an all-rounder any more, I can't remember the last time he bowled well for a sustained period.
He's now a batsman who bowls... not very well.

An all rounder someone who does both disciplines on a regular basis, reasonably.

"Reasonably" is extremely woolly.

 

[Richard]

That just means he's not a very good allrounder.

I don't see how people can deny that Symonds is an allrounder in ODI cricket. He regularly bowls, and is obviously a top batsman. He's a batting allrounder, whereas Flintoff is a genuine allrounder. Flintoff is the better allrounder quite clearly (And Faaip made it sound like it was close between Symonds and Freddy which was wrong) but other than that I agree with what he said.

People have to realise that the definition of an allrounder in ODI cricket is a lot more loose than in test cricket. For example Styris is a ODI allrounder IMO.

I'd say it's more accurate to describe Symonds as a batsman who bowls (not very well) in ODIs than a batting-all-rounder.
Symonds, IMO, is enormously better with the bat than the ball.
Styris is an all-rounder, yes, but hardly that good a one.

 

[Richard]

For me Hussey is just in the best form of his life.. and just showing excellent form doesn't mean he is the BEST...

Well... he has been showing it for a while.
I remain to be convinced but only very rarely have people done so sensationally well in both Tests and ODIs while doing only well in domestic cricket.

 

[simmy]

Mine...

Bat - Dravid
Bowl - Warne
Allrounder - Flintoff (then daylight... then Kallis)
Field - Collingwood

 

[open365]

To compare then, Flintoff averages 6.24 overs and 1.06 wickets per ODI, while Symonds averages 5.76 overs and 0.77 wickets. I don't really see how you could look at that and say that Flintoff is both a batsman and a bowler and Symonds is only a batsman.

TBH, i think people should only count Flintoff's stats for the past 4 years or so, his record is survely damaged by being picked when he was far too young, he has improved so much it is pointless to show his career record.

Flintoff playing well would bowl 10 overs for a world 11 and bat number 7,8. Symonds wouldn't bowl at all.

 

[Richard]

Flintoff's stats aren't "damaged", they show a great deal about him.
Until 2001\02 he was an utterly useless bowler; until 2002 he was an utterly useless batsman. Since those points he's been much better at both.
The stats are best divided-up into 2 groups, and 1 used to say that he used to be rubbish, the other that he's become rather good.

 

[the_last_rites]

Anyone mention Pollock in there somewhere? This is amazing. This guy just became #1 on ICC allrounders list for ODIs and he doesnt even get a mention?

 

[Richard]

Indeed - a quite magnificent bowler who also happens to bat very well.

 

[tooextracool]

Symonds is certainly an all-rounder in ODIs. Since when does the criteria for an all-rounder require a particular average? If someone opens the bowling and bats in the top 6, they are an all-rounder. If they average 10 with the bat, they just aren't a very good one. Similarly, if someone averages 30 balls a match in ODIs and bowls in pretty much every game, they are an all-rounder. Symonds isn't a great bowler, but he's a handy one in the shorter form, and obviously he's an excellent ODI batsman..

i dont buy that one bit. by your definition almost anyone who plays the game is an all rounder because most people can and do bowl occasionally in ODI cricket. a comparison like flintoff vs Symonds is like saying Flintoff is a marginally better all rounder than ganguly or tendulkar, simply because the other 2 are(or in ganguly's case 'were') better ODI batsmen despite the fact that neither were anything other than mediocre bowlers. for me Symonds is nothing more than a batsman who can bowl a bit.

Symonds obviously isn't going to be a major bowler in tests, so he might not turn out to be an all-rounder in that form, but that doesn't really have any bearing on his status in ODIs.

i'd be surprised if he ends up being a major batsman in test matches too.

Brett Lee isn't an all-rounder at the moment, but like someone like Vettori he's shown significant improvement with the bat in recent times and may get there. Watson's obviously an all-rounder in ODIs and you'd have to be pretty silly to argue otherwise given he bowls nearly 7 overs per match and averages over 30.

as you probably know by now, i have a different definition of 'all rounder'. nonetheless going by your definition you cannot deny the fact that Watson is a very poor all rounder considering he averages 37 with the ball at 4.75.

 

[GIMH]

People have neglected to mention that Freddie is a fantastic slip fielder also

 

[Top_Cat]

For me Hussey is just in the best form of his life.. and just showing excellent form doesn't mean he is the BEST...

Thank you. I've said it before and I'll say it again; all of those sub-40 average summers in Sheffield Shield/Pura Cup cricket don't mean nothing. He's hitting the ball well, yes, but we shall see how much he returns to the pack when he's a little more out-of-form.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

TBH, i think people should only count Flintoff's stats for the past 4 years or so, his record is survely damaged by being picked when he was far too young, he has improved so much it is pointless to show his career record.

Flintoff playing well would bowl 10 overs for a world 11 and bat number 7,8. Symonds wouldn't bowl at all.

If you do that for Flintoff, why not do it for Symonds? Going into the 2003 WC, Symonds was averaging in the 20s and not a first choice member of the team despite a large number of ODIs. Now he averages almost 40 with the bat over his whole career.