Marsh has great centuries and 5 wicket hauls in Test cricket.. He's just inconsistent as ****
-
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.
What Qualifies as a Test Allrounder?
- Thread starter Days of Grace
- Start date
Marsh has great centuries and 5 wicket hauls in Test cricket.. He's just inconsistent as ****
Flintoff was literally a BOWLING ALL ROUNDER. Just like Pollock, but Pollock was a much better bowler.. and was more consistent.
The Flintoff overhype is quite insane.. He literally had a great few years, including that 2005 Ashes
Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it any less true. Stop acting so ignorant boy
Imran was the most complete All Rounder, while also being the best bowler in the world at that time. Botham was out of this world for the first half of his career, before the injury. But Imran was on another level, and only got better with time
Imran's last half of his career, final 10+ years since he became the captain.. He averaged 50+ with the bat, and 20 with the ball. Captained Pakistan to the World Cup victory as well.
That man had it all.
And Pollock was EVERYTHING so many people think Flintoff was.. just because of that "ASHES".. Flintoff only had a great FEW years, and that's it. He was a bowling all rounder, but couldn't carry on. Very inconsistent
Pollock was a better bowler, and had a better career. More consistent, and lethal. A great lower order batsman as well, in both TESTS and ODI. Just like Flintoff, but again.. Pollock was more consistent, and a much larger career sample size.
Just because you think it's "right", doesn't make it right.
Career length means nothing. Kallis was never a great bowler, compared to the likes of Imran, Botham, Keith Miller, and even Sobers
Kallis was a great batsman, who could bowl. Especially later in his career, he was not even bowling as much. Fools who actually never watched him play, and only looks at his NUMBERS.. they are the ones that act so delusional.
Kallis just has the best CAREER STATS, because of his crazy longevity. He will always be the 2nd best Batting All Rounder, after Sobers. Sobers was more complete though, and a better wicket taker.
But a game changing COMPLETE all rounder, that was Peak Botham, Imran, Miller, and Sobers. Kapil Dev is also somewhere in that list.
"wickets per match" means much more, than total wickets career stats.
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
And there comes a reply to a 15 year old forum !