• 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.

Aussie Allrounder spot for WC

warrioryohannan

U19 Cricketer
Originally posted by Tim
I reckon it will be Symonds & Watson although I don't really think Symonds is an all-rounder as such, hes more of a batsman who can bowl.
Symonds is a fine batsman who can bowl a bit.Watson is a genuine allrounder and he should definately be in the playing 11!
 

The Argonaut

State Vice-Captain
Symonds has never been given an extended run in the side like it looks like Watson is getting. The selectors have always included Shane Lee or Ian Harvey in there as well so the 2 were competing for the one spot. That sort of thing can damage the confidence.

Admittedly Symonds has not taken the chances that he's been given but has the potential to be a match winner with either bat or ball.

As long as the massively over rated Ian Harvey doesn't get picked I'll be happy.
 

Kiwi

State Vice-Captain
I think that Watson will go and then whoever performs best out of Symonds and Harvey this year will fill in the other spot..
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Watson is a genuine allrounder and he should definately be in the playing 11!
No, there's only one genuine all rounder in World Cricket at the moment.

Watson isn't even an automatic pick based on his combined skills let alone just as a bowler or just as a batsman!
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
The World Cup squad size has traditionally been 16 but maybe less thsi time.
It's not - in 99 it was 15, and for at least the 2 before that it was 14!

I think it's 15 this year, but can't find confirmation yet.
 

Bazza

International 12th Man
Originally posted by Tim
Again, at intl level Harvey is a bowler who bats. His highest score is 47* or something close to it which does not justify him as being an all-rounder.
His highest score is 47*, but he averages nearly 18, which is not bad because his SR is 85.8, showing that he scores those runs quickly. If he can come in at #8 occasionally and smash a few to the boundary he is an all-rounder.
 

Bazza

International 12th Man
Originally posted by marc71178No, there's only one genuine all rounder in World Cricket at the moment.
I'd be interested to hear you reveal who you give that coveted title to Marc! After all I can think of 3 South African's alone who would claim to be genuine ARs.

And I'm sure there are plenty of Kiwi's out there who will insist that when Cairns can walk again he will be the best AR the world's ever seen.

Also I'd like to think Flintoff will soon fit into that category after another run in the side.
 

Eclipse

International Debutant
Yeah but the problem with Harvey is he will never score runs when the team is in trouble. He has had the opertunity many times but always fails when the pressure is on him.

Also I like Watson because he appears to be a real good bloke. He tries really hard and really wants to succses at his cricket and he pobably takes it to seriously.

In the last Pure Milk cup game Watson was almost in tears because he faild to take a wickt in the second innings when queensland were cahsing 115 or so to win.

this despite the fact he was the only player to do anything with the bat for Tasmania and there best bowler in the first innings.
 

Kiwi

State Vice-Captain
Originally posted by Bazzaroodoo
Originally posted by marc71178No, there's only one genuine all rounder in World Cricket at the moment.
I'd be interested to hear you reveal who you give that coveted title to Marc! After all I can think of 3 South African's alone who would claim to be genuine ARs.

And I'm sure there are plenty of Kiwi's out there who will insist that when Cairns can walk again he will be the best AR the world's ever seen.

Also I'd like to think Flintoff will soon fit into that category after another run in the side.
I agree with you here Bazzaroodoo. Also a couple from the West Indies
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Originally posted by Bazzaroodoo
Originally posted by marc71178No, there's only one genuine all rounder in World Cricket at the moment.
I'd be interested to hear you reveal who you give that coveted title to Marc! After all I can think of 3 South African's alone who would claim to be genuine ARs.

And I'm sure there are plenty of Kiwi's out there who will insist that when Cairns can walk again he will be the best AR the world's ever seen.

Also I'd like to think Flintoff will soon fit into that category after another run in the side.
Kallis is the only true all-rounder as he is the only player in the world who would get into a side for his batting on it's own or his bowling on it's own.

No other player would - Cairns and Pollock are not good enough batsmen and Flintoff isn't good enough at either!
 

Rik

Cricketer Of The Year
Originally posted by marc71178
Originally posted by Bazzaroodoo
Originally posted by marc71178No, there's only one genuine all rounder in World Cricket at the moment.
I'd be interested to hear you reveal who you give that coveted title to Marc! After all I can think of 3 South African's alone who would claim to be genuine ARs.

And I'm sure there are plenty of Kiwi's out there who will insist that when Cairns can walk again he will be the best AR the world's ever seen.

Also I'd like to think Flintoff will soon fit into that category after another run in the side.
Kallis is the only true all-rounder as he is the only player in the world who would get into a side for his batting on it's own or his bowling on it's own.

No other player would - Cairns and Pollock are not good enough batsmen and Flintoff isn't good enough at either!
No Cairns has won many games off his own bat and he's been batting brilliantly lately averaging well over 40 most series. He IS a world class all-rounder.
 

Eclipse

International Debutant
Who cares about "true" allrounders I mean I dont think Botham would have made the test team on his batting alone same goes for K.Miller and he was a suposed great allrounder.

If they can bat well and bowl well as far as i am concerned there an allrounder. This "true" allrounder **** makes sense but if we go by that there have probably only been like 10 allrounders ever in the history of test cricket.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I dunno about any of you guys but I don't think Jacques Kallis could get into the SA side on the strength of his bowling alone at all. He bowls alright and swings the ball away well but it's most definately his batting which really does the job for him. How bowling is more of a bonus rather than an integral part of the SA attack.

So marc I'll have to disagree with you and say that Kallis would definately not (in my opinion) hold his place in the side in both disciplines, only his batting.

As for Botham, early on in his career, he would definately have played as either and held his spot. Keith Miller too. I just can't say the same about Kallis.
 

The Argonaut

State Vice-Captain
The term true all rounder should be replaced by great all rounder. All rounders should be guys that are particularly good at one discipline and handy at the other (averaging marginally less than a full time exponent).

I disagree with TC in that I think Kallis is a quality bowler who could get picked for bowling alone. He is probably the best all rounder in world cricket currently.

Others in the game at the moment are Klusener, Pollock, Cairns, Flintoff, White, Agarkar, Hooper, Razzaq plus others I'm sure. There are some on the list above that aren't very good all rounders (Flintoff, White and Agarkar) but strictly speaking must be considered that by definition alone.
 

warrioryohannan

U19 Cricketer
Originally posted by The Argonaut
The term true all rounder should be replaced by great all rounder. All rounders should be guys that are particularly good at one discipline and handy at the other (averaging marginally less than a full time exponent).
Good defination!

I think apart from Kallis, Pollock, Razzak,Cairns, Watson and Klusener are fine allrounders!
 

Andre

International Regular
Originally posted by The Argonaut
The term true all rounder should be replaced by great all rounder. All rounders should be guys that are particularly good at one discipline and handy at the other (averaging marginally less than a full time exponent).

I disagree with TC in that I think Kallis is a quality bowler who could get picked for bowling alone. He is probably the best all rounder in world cricket currently.

Others in the game at the moment are Klusener, Pollock, Cairns, Flintoff, White, Agarkar, Hooper, Razzaq plus others I'm sure. There are some on the list above that aren't very good all rounders (Flintoff, White and Agarkar) but strictly speaking must be considered that by definition alone.
Hehe - Agarkar is a genuine all-rounder - can't bat or bowl :).
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
No Cairns has won many games off his own bat and he's been batting brilliantly lately averaging well over 40 most series. He IS a world class all-rounder.
If he were worth a place on his batting, he'd be in the top 4 or 5, not at 7 or 8.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Originally posted by Top_Cat
I dunno about any of you guys but I don't think Jacques Kallis could get into the SA side on the strength of his bowling alone at all. He bowls alright and swings the ball away well but it's most definately his batting which really does the job for him. How bowling is more of a bonus rather than an integral part of the SA attack.
He's rated in the Top 10 for bowling, so must be doing something right!
 

Top