Allrounders Vs Batsmen and Bowlers

[Prince EWS]

Yup but soe of the options aren't the best. Oram, Razzaq, Jayasuriya, Gayle, Styris and Collingwood are all decent bowlers, no doubt about it. But they are primarily batsman who can bowl. they do a decent job but a bowler who can bat a bit is generally a better bowling option.

As far as ODIs go, there is no way I'd consider Oram a batsman who could bowl a bit apart from during one anomalistic period during the Australian summer of 2006-07. For the most part, he's been selected based on his bowling with the hope that his batting might eventually prove useful - which it finally did after about 50 matches.

 

[deeps]

As far as ODIs go, there is no way I'd consider Oram a batsman who could bowl a bit apart from during one anomalistic period during the Australian summer of 2006-07. For the most part, he's been selected based on his bowling with the hope that his batting might eventually prove useful - which it finally did after about 50 matches.

Well even in tests i've seen Oram as more a batsman than a bowler. hiw bowling is not bad but lacks penetration imo

 

[Prince EWS]

Well even in tests i've seen Oram as more a batsman than a bowler. hiw bowling is not bad but lacks penetration imo

Yes, in test cricket, Oram is most certainly a batting allrounder. He's been a bowling allrounder for virtually all of his ODI career though, regardless of what he considers himself as.

 

[xanderbiscuits]

Everyone is considering players from today. Do you think the results would be any different if payers from all time frames were considered (Bradman or Sobers etc)

Or do you think it complicates things too much because there would be too many variables to consider.

 

[allout]

a

I think this team of allrounders can beat any team in any form of cricket.

Shahid Afridi
Sanath Jayasuriya
Jacques Kallis
Scott Styris
Kumar Sangakkara
Paul Collingwood
Andrew Symonds
Andrew Flintoff
Shane Watson
Jacob Oram
Shaun Pollock