Worlds Best All Rounder - Poll 1 - Australia

[Dan]

I will do a series of polls, 1 for each test playing nation (now including Zim and Bangla + a combined associates poll) to see who you believe is the best all rounder of that country. I will then place all of the poll winners in another poll, to determine who the worlds best all-rounder is.

This poll will end in 1 week.
Next Poll: England

 

[Matt79]

Clarke isn't really an allrounder, and White can't bowl anymore based on recent evidence, so this is between Symonds and Watson. Watson has a better batting technique, and the most development left in his bowling, so I'll go for him.

 

[andruid]

I will do a series of polls, 1 for each test playing nation (bar Zim and Bangla) to see who you believe is the best all rounder of that country. I will then place all of the poll winners in another poll, to determine who the worlds best all-rounder is.

This poll will end in 1 week.
Next Poll: England

Are you implyimg Bangla and Zim don't have allrounders?

 

[Dan]

no i'm not implying that they don't have all-rounders, they just aren't of the quality of other countries

 

[andruid]

Still I dont see why their shouldn't have a poll for the best allrounders in all test teams

 

[Dan]

fair enough, i'll make a poll for them. There is now a bangla poll, a zim poll and a combined associates poll

 

[Richard]

Still I dont see why their shouldn't have a poll for the best allrounders in all test teams

Because they're not Test-class teams.

 

[Richard]

Clarke isn't really an allrounder, and White can't bowl anymore based on recent evidence, so this is between Symonds and Watson. Watson has a better batting technique, and the most development left in his bowling, so I'll go for him.

Symonds isn't really an all-rounder either, and TBH I think it'd suit Watson best if he wasn't considered one too, as his batting is patently his strongest suit.

 

[Matt79]

but both Symonds and Watson will only get anywhere near the Test team on the basis that they are "allrounders". So its fair enough that they are included in this poll. If the question is "Does Australia currently have a test class allrounder?" then the answer is "no, but Watson is the best candidate to become one at the moment" - but that's not what is asked.

 

[Richard]

I'd argue, TBH, that Watson has a case based purely on batting.

And I could tell you someone who'd argue that Symonds has no case regardless of whether he bowls or not too.

Anyway, I don't think either have a case to be considered all-rounders as such. Just batsmen whose bowling is worth a bit, and therefore might come into some element of consideration where selection is concerned.

 

[Matt79]

Please feel free to list the allrounders who should have been listed ahead of Symonds and Watson for the purposes of this poll then...

 

[SJS]

Please feel free to list the allrounders who should have been listed ahead of Symonds and Watson for the purposes of this poll then...

Brett Lee

 

[Matt79]

Jason Gillespie - he's got a double test century to his name you know...

 

[NUFAN]

I don't understand is this poll for Tests or overall?

By the way I think Adam Gilchrist should be added.

 

[Dan]

This is more based on ODI's, and is bat/bowl all rounder, not bat/keeper all rounder

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd argue, TBH, that Watson has a case based purely on batting.

And I could tell you someone who'd argue that Symonds has no case regardless of whether he bowls or not too.

Anyway, I don't think either have a case to be considered all-rounders as such. Just batsmen whose bowling is worth a bit, and therefore might come into some element of consideration where selection is concerned.

An allrounder IMO is someone whose batting and bowling influences selection. It doesn't have to influence their own selection of course - as Flintoff for example could make the English test team on bowling alone, but if he could not bat, England would have played an extra batsman much more often.

Watson and Symonds wouldn't be selected at all if they couldn't bat, or if they couldn't bowl (as much as Watson "has a case", he wouldn't have been picked), hence they are both allrounders in the context of the Australian cricket team, IMO.

 

[Prince EWS]

This is more based on ODI's

No-one is going to treat it so. A general CW rule is "tests unless specifically stated otherwise in the opening post."

 

[Dan]

fair enough, lol

 

[shortpitched713]

Considering that Clarke is in the poll, and hes not much more than a part timer I find it a terrible travesty that one Bradley Hogg could not find a place.

 

[Dan]

damn, the one guy i forgot, soz