Flintoff v/s other all-rounders (ODI figures)

[Arjun]

Here's what I have noticed in ODI figures of some all-rounders who are batting lynchpins for their teams. We've heard so much about Flintoff being the best all-rounder in action today, so here's what I've found comparing Flintoff with other all-rounders:

                    Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  Ave   100  50    O      W   BB     Ave   Econ    SR  4w 5w

[b]Flintoff            105   93  12  2703 123  33.37   3  15   652    110  4/14   26.06  4.39  35.5  4  0[/b]
Gayle               149  146   8  5406 153* 39.17  14  28   860.4  126  5/46   31.51  4.61  40.9  3  1
Symonds             153  123  23  3863 156  38.63   5  20   874.3  118  5/18   36.78  4.96  44.4  2  1
Jayasuriya          370  360  16 11260 189  32.73  22  60   2179   284  6/29   36.55  4.76  46.0  6  4
Kallis              237  227  39  8143 139  43.31  13  57  1386.2  211  5/30   31.58  4.80  39.42 2  2 
Shoaib Malik        125  110  12  3216 143  32.81   5  19   771.2  101  4/19   33.86  4.43  45.8  1  0
Abdul Razzaq        220  190  48  4346 112  30.60   2  22  1583.5  243  6/35   30.25  4.64  39.1  8  3
Styris              118  101  12  2592 141  29.12   3  15   714.3  106  6/25   31.74  4.70  40.4  3  1

Here's what I've observed:

• All of them are frontline batsmen who also support their main bowlers by bowling at least six (on an average) overs a match.
• Flintoff scores over the rest by playing fewer matches than taking wickets (except Razzaq) but the others have performed better with the bat.
• EDIT: Afridi's out of this list. He's more of a legspinner than a batsman, so he should be evaluated with a different list, with Vettori, Irfan, Oram and Pollock.
• These days, however, Flintoff has been (or rather, has had to be) England's frontline batsman.
• He seems to score over Styris, who's a support act with bat and ball though still just right for his team.
• Except Flintoff and Malik, all of them have taken five wickets in an innings at least once. That said, they're all better than Indian part-time bowlers who can't last more than two overs a match.

 

[Retox]

You have Gayles 50s and 100s around the wrong way

 

[irfan]

Clearly, from your statistical analysis - Gayle is the best.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Flintoff is better than Gayle in my opinion, though Gayle is obviously a fine ODI all-rounder. Flintoff's the only one of the bunch who is a genuine front-line threat with the ball as well as being a quality ODI batsman, and his record since the 2003 WC or so is fantastic in ODIs.

I'd rate Gayle second, then probably Jayasuria and Symonds. Symonds is probably the worst bowler of the bunch but the best batsman after Gayle, while Jayasuria is still a high class ODI opener as well as being handy with the ball. Then it's Razzaq, Malik, Styris and Afridi. Harsh on Styris, but his batting record just doesn't match up.

 

[Pratters]

Harsh on Styris, but his batting record just doesn't match up.

Styris actually had a dreadful start which means his average is 29. In the last four years, he has done better..

1999 (age: 23y 175d) 5 5 0 74 43 25 3 14.80 0 0 0
2000 (24y 175d) 22 12 2 123 28* 23 19 12.30 0 0 1
2001 (25y 175d) 3 3 0 65 48 9 8 21.66 0 0 0
2002 (26y 175d) 17 17 3 358 85 63* 43 25.57 0 2 1
2003 (27y 175d) 23 21 3 646 141 68 54* 35.88 1 4 2
2004 (28y 175d) 25 23 4 622 101* 75 69 32.73 1 4 1
2005 (29y 175d) 14 11 0 432 101 78 63 39.27 1 3 0
2006 (30y 175d) 9 9 0 272 90 86 36 30.22 0 2 0

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah I know that, but we're mainly judging players on their career records aren't we? Symonds and Flintoff had terrible starts to their ODI careers as well but their records look a lot better now because they've been averaging in the 40s for a few years and pushed them up.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah I know that, but we're mainly judging players on their career records aren't we? Symonds and Flintoff had terrible starts to their ODI careers as well but their records look a lot better now because they've been averaging in the 40s for a few years and pushed them up.

If we are judging on over all career records (Arjun's title indicates that as well), fair enough.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Flintoff's figures really don't do him justice. He is a far better player than his stats might suggest. His figures are pretty crap to be honest.

 

[Arjun]

I just sneaked in Kallis and he's actually got the best average, but the strike rate for an all-rounder is unusual, more like Rahul Dravid. His bowling, once reasonably good as a support act, isn't of much use now and he's actually a reluctant bowler now. Styris and Flintoff, bits-and-pieces players once, needed one good season for a turnaround.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Flintoff's figures really don't do him justice. He is a far better player than his stats might suggest. His figures are pretty crap to be honest.

I wouldn't say crap. A bowling average of 26 with a good economy rate is solid, though obviously the best ODI bowlers average under 25. Batting average of 33 isn't great, but plenty of good ODI batsmen average in the 30s. Look at Jayasuria, Gilchrist etc.

Also, since 2003 he averages 40 with the bat and 24 with the ball, which is certainly world class. Similar case to Symonds, who has clearly been a better batsman since 2003 and averages 44 since then, compared to his career average of 38.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I just sneaked in Kallis and he's actually got the best average, but the strike rate for an all-rounder is unusual, more like Rahul Dravid. His bowling, once reasonably good as a support act, isn't of much use now and he's actually a reluctant bowler now. Styris and Flintoff, bits-and-pieces players once, needed one good season for a turnaround.

Since 2004, Kallis only averages just over 4 overs per match in ODIs and regularly doesn't bowl at all, so I don't think he qualifies as an all-rounder.

You could add Watson to the list I guess, though he's only played 51 matches and the others have 100+. His record is quite similar to Scott Styris, actually.

 

[Pratters]

Since 2004, Kallis only averages just over 4 overs per match in ODIs and regularly doesn't bowl at all, so I don't think he qualifies as an all-rounder.

If we are judging over all, since 2004 argument wouldn't hold much weight.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If we are judging over all, since 2004 argument wouldn't hold much weight.

Yeah, but someone who hardly bowls any more can't really be rated the best all-rounder around. Arjun was using career stats, but in order to qualify as an all-rounder in the first place you have to bowl fairly regularly, and 4 overs a match doesn't cut it.

 

[andmark]

Out of personal apinion how Chris Gayle played today i think hes the best.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah, but someone who hardly bowls any more can't really be rated the best all-rounder around. Arjun was using career stats, but in order to qualify as an all-rounder in the first place you have to bowl fairly regularly, and 4 overs a match doesn't cut it.

If we are rating how players are all rounders currently then, I would think looking at over all stats wouldn't be the be all. For current players as all rounders, I would take Styris then in the list given this record from Jan 2003. Hasn't bowled as much but still good bowling and overs versus specific teams (Australia, South Africa, India).

 

[Jono]

I love how Siva today when interviewing Lara at the toss described Gayle as a part-timer when he was praising the WI attack, and Lara corrected him calling him an allrounder (did the same with Smith too I think).

For people to still call Gayle a part-timer in ODI cricket is ridiculous really. The man can bowl.

 

[Arjun]

Since 2004, Kallis only averages just over 4 overs per match in ODIs and regularly doesn't bowl at all, so I don't think he qualifies as an all-rounder.

You could add Watson to the list I guess, though he's only played 51 matches and the others have 100+. His record is quite similar to Scott Styris, actually.

Interesting idea, although we haven't seen much of Watson. I've had to leave out Bravo and Smith because they've not played much and their figures pale in comparison to these.

Another point to note is that I've left out the batting strike rates; Kallis and Styris have strike rates less than 80.

 

[Perm]

Scott Styris usually takes a little while to build into an innings but he can be quite effective going into the slog overs. I also laughed when Lara corrected the commentator on Gayle and Samuels being all rounders and not part timers.

 

[Arjun]

I also laughed when Lara corrected the commentator on Gayle and Samuels being all rounders and not part timers.

Surprisingly, Samuels bowls nearly 5 and a half overs a match, but figures indicate he isn't very useful– in 74 matches, he's picked up 49 wickets at nearly 40 runs a wicket.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Surprisingly, Samuels bowls nearly 5 and a half overs a match, but figures indicate he isn't very useful– in 74 matches, he's picked up 49 wickets at nearly 40 runs a wicket.

Better than Anil Kumble recently.