Aussie Allrounder spot for WC

[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!

[Rik]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .

[Paid The Umpire]

That is not very nice...

Damn funny but not very nice!

[marc71178]

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]

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!

[Paid The Umpire]

I think that...


Justin Langer should be AUSTRALIAS ALLROUNDER.

To give the other sides a chance...

[Bazza]

Just because someone doesn't bat at 4 does not mean they are not good enough to get in the side as a batsman. Look at Shaun Pollock. He averages 33 in test cricket with 11 50s and 2 centuries. That probably puts him in the same league as the likes of Butcher, who England have batting at 3.

He also averages about 23 in ODIs with 6 50s and a HS of 75. Admittedly these stats don't make him a world class batsman, but they ain't bad for someone who for me is the third best bowler in the world - makes him a far more valuable asset than McGrath or Murali really, especially as he's done a decent job as captain also and is still only 29. Now THAT's an AR!! I've just decided Pollock is a much better cricketer than I realised.

Compare Kallis and everyone knows he's a world class batsman, averaging as he does 49 in tests and 44 in ODIs. His bowling averages of ~30 in both forms are not breaking any records, but they are impressive for a second discipline. In conclusion, it would be very harsh to say Pollock is not a true all rounder, though there is no denying Kallis is currently the best of a decent crop. Considering he's still 27, Kallis could quite conceivably get about 8-10,000 runs and 250-300 wickets in each form of the game, which is mighty impressive. As for Pollock we could see numbers along the lines of 4000/400 in tests and 3000/400 in ODIs. I think those kind of stats make for an all rounder argument!!

[Eclipse]

Were the hell did you get this opinion that an True allrounder has to be worth his place in the team as both a batsman and a bowler?

When deffining someone as a true allrounder is this only for test or ODI cricket because I know players like Watson would make a State side as a bowler or a Batsman.

Also Cairns was selected in the New Zealand team in last years VB series as a batsman only when he was injured.

[Rik]

Originally posted by marc71178

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.

Cairns is actually rated as one of the best All-Rounders if ratings for batting and bowling are put together. You cannot say he is not a world class All-Rounder as he has spent a lot of time in the top 10 of the official ratings for both batting and bowling.

[marc71178]

Originally posted by Bazzaroodoo
Just because someone doesn't bat at 4 does not mean they are not good enough to get in the side as a batsman. Look at Shaun Pollock. He averages 33 in test cricket with 11 50s and 2 centuries. That probably puts him in the same league as the likes of Butcher, who England have batting at 3.

Pollock would not get in the SA side as a specialist batsman - the average of 33 is boosted by not-outs from batting lower in the order - don't get me wrong, I think he's a great player, but not a true all-rounder in the original sense of the definition.