Without Mcgrath.....

[Rik]

I think of Pollock as an All-Rounder but he never gives himself a chance to bat in ODIs. Pollock and Kallis are about equal as Pollock's bowling and batting averages when compared with Kallis' basically show 2 players with different strengths but equal abilities in them. Kallis needs to start scoring faster though in my opinion.

 

[marc71178]

Pollock and Kallis are about equal as Pollock's bowling and batting averages when compared with Kallis' basically show 2 players with different strengths but equal abilities in them.

Absolute Rubbish - Kallis is in the top 10 for both disciplines, and is worth a place in the team on both his batting and his bowling individually.

Pollok is nowhere near worth a place in the team as a specialist batsman.

 

[Rik]

Rubish? I think not! Kallis averages 47 with the bat and 30 with the ball, Pollock averages 20 with the ball and 31 with the bat. If that does not class Pollock as an All-Rounder then hell I suppose Darren Gough is an All-Rounder and Craig White and Andrew Flintoff are just batsmen who bowl...

 

[Gotchya]

Pollock is not a world class all rounder and he's not comparable to Kallis in that regard. Stats is not the greatest way to judge players.

 

[Rik]

If Pollock is not a world class All-Rounder then how come he has the best career average of current bowlers, opens the bowling and captains SA and yet still manages to average 31 with the bat? Kallis would not be one of the top bowlers in SA no doubt he is a good bowler but there are others that would take his place if he didn't bat. Kallis is basically a Batting All-Rounder as he doesn't bowl much any more and Pollock is a Bowling All-Rounder, without either of them SA would be weak though

hmmm what about Gilchrist or Andy Flower? They are both All-Rounders in a sense.

[Edited on 30/10/2002 by Rik]

 

[marc71178]

An All Rounder is one who would get in the side on the strength of just one of their disciplines.

Pollock would not make it into a Test side as a specialist batsman, so is not an all rounder.

Kallis is in the top 10 bowlers in the world, and is number 6 - so would get in on the strength of either discipline.

As for Gilchrist, I dare say there's better Australian wicket-keepers than him, but not seeing much Aussie domestic cricket I can't comment.

Flower maybe for Zimbabwe, but he played for Essex as a batsman when Foster was fit.

 

[Blewy]

Originally posted by marc71178
An All Rounder is one who would get in the side on the strength of just one of their disciplines.

Pollock would not make it into a Test side as a specialist batsman, so is not an all rounder.

Kallis is in the top 10 bowlers in the world, and is number 6 - so would get in on the strength of either discipline.

As for Gilchrist, I dare say there's better Australian wicket-keepers than him, but not seeing much Aussie domestic cricket I can't comment.

Flower maybe for Zimbabwe, but he played for Essex as a batsman when Foster was fit.

I have to agree with Marc here...
Kallis is the only real Classy allrounder...
I know for Sure Pollock wouldn't be in my side on batting ability...

As for Gilly, if it went on Keeping ability then Wade Seccombe would be Keeping for Australia, he is one of if no the BEST gloveman in the world...

 

[marc71178]

As for Gilly, if it went on Keeping ability then Wade Seccombe would be Keeping for Australia, he is one of if no the BEST gloveman in the world...

Erm Jack Russell.

 

[Blewy]

Originally posted by marc71178

As for Gilly, if it went on Keeping ability then Wade Seccombe would be Keeping for Australia, he is one of if no the BEST gloveman in the world...

Erm Jack Russell.

I did say "One of the Best, If not the BEST"
I have not seen as much of Russell in the same way u have not seen much of Seccombe, but i can tell u Seccombe was a better Keeper than Ian Healy on Skills..
And Healy has said that himself...

 

[marc71178]

IMO, so was Russell, and the stupid thing is, his Test average isn't much worse than Stewart's is when keeping!

 

[Blewy]

Yeah, Is he still playing???

I mean wouldn't he be about 100???
:O:O:O:O:O:O:O

 

[Neil Pickup]

We all love Jack Russell .

RE: Australia being in trouble without McGrath against England?!

Warne. Ponting. Hayden. Martyn. Gillespie. Lehmann. Langer. Gilchrist.

These would all walk into England's side... I'm looking forward to Australia A v England - should be a good pointer for years to come

 

[Top_Cat]

Pollock would not make it into a Test side as a specialist batsman, so is not an all rounder.

Mark Ramprakash averages less than that and he's always been in the English side as a specialist batsman.

I did say "One of the Best, If not the BEST"
I have not seen as much of Russell in the same way u have not seen much of Seccombe, but i can tell u Seccombe was a better Keeper than Ian Healy on Skills..
And Healy has said that himself...

I heard that too but I reackon Heals might have been just pumping up Seccombe's skills a little.

But seriously, Seccombe has to be the best skilled keeper in the world right now, including Jack Russell. Jack was probably a slightly better batsman, though.

Read my 'Lost Boys' article for what I think of Seccombe.

 

[Blewy]

Originally posted by Neil Pickup
We all love Jack Russell .

RE: Australia being in trouble without McGrath against England?!

Warne. Ponting. Hayden. Martyn. Gillespie. Lehmann. Langer. Gilchrist.

These would all walk into England's side... I'm looking forward to Australia A v England - should be a good pointer for years to come

Blewy will be the star of the Aussie 'A' team hopefully...

He has started the season in good form....

 

[Neil Pickup]

Originally posted by Top_Cat
[Mark Ramprakash averages less than that and he's always been in the English side as a specialist batsman.

But he plays for Surrey, so the selectors multiply his average by 1.5...

But seriously, Seccombe has to be the best skilled keeper in the world right now, including Jack Russell. Jack was probably a slightly better batsman, though.

Well... Jack's getting on a bit now, but in his prime I daresay Jack was better (not having seen Seccombe play, mind).

 

[Top_Cat]

I've seen a lot of both and in their prime, they are at least on par with their keeping against pace, whereas Jack was obviously a far superior gloveman against spin. But bear in mind that it's pretty rare to see a decent spinner on the pace-friendly 'Gabba.

So I guess Jack wins on points but I'm sure Wade hasn't had a chance to prove himself against spin too much.

 

[Blewy]

Fair call, i will go with TC seeing as though i aint seen to much of Russell....

 

[marc71178]

The ultimate eccentric!

 

[Rik]

Jack Russel is actually younger than Stewie...:S