World's Best All-Rounder ~ Final Poll ~ Best of the Best

[NUFAN]

Yeah, but if they had conceded 80 or 90 runs each, then that wouldn't be the case. Bowlers have to support their batsman.

Yeh mate I know it's important you can't bowl pies and expect to win, but I think it's crazy to weaken Symonds performance saying "bowling combination of Harvey and Hogg had a fair amount to do with Australia's victory"

Because when are you not going to say that when the team batting first wins the match and has a big innings?

 

[Perm]

Yeh mate I know it's important you can't bowl pies and expect to win, but I think it's crazy to weaken Symonds performance saying "bowling combination of Harvey and Hogg had a fair amount to do with Australia's victory"

Because when are you not going to say that when the team batting first wins the match and has a big innings?

I wasn't trying to take away from Symond's innings, but I was saying that Hogg and Harvey put in a good effort and bowled well, taking wickets and restricting Pakistan, which was a factor in Australia's victory.

 

[vic_orthdox]

They didn't really "restrict" Pakistan. That was done earlier, and they received the benefits from it.

 

[SJS]

I voted Mahrafe to protect the face of those who got him included in the first place

Also to lament the lack of a genuine all rounder in the world today.

 

[Prince EWS]

I wasn't trying to take away from Symond's innings, but I was saying that Hogg and Harvey put in a good effort and bowled well, taking wickets and restricting Pakistan, which was a factor in Australia's victory.

Seriously, I probably rate Symonds lower than anyone on the whole forum, but you can't take away from that innings. Sure, Hogg and Harvey needed to bowl somewhat decently for Australia to win the game, but the innings still would have been great (in as much as an ODI innings can be great) if Australia bowled dross and managed to lose IMO. Gun innings, and admittedly quite a good one day player. Needs to GTFA from the test squad though.

 

[Ikki]

Kallis is easily the best all-rounder here. And as for Watson V Symonds; Watson quite easily too.

 

[Perm]

Seriously, I probably rate Symonds lower than anyone on the whole forum, but you can't take away from that innings. Sure, Hogg and Harvey needed to bowl somewhat decently for Australia to win the game, but the innings still would have been great (in as much as an ODI innings can be great) if Australia bowled dross and managed to lose IMO. Gun innings, and admittedly quite a good one day player. Needs to GTFA from the test squad though.

It wasn't my intention to take away from Symond's innings, and I agree, it would have still been a very good one if Australia had lost. But Hogg, Harvey and the other bowlerss all played their part in winning the game for Australia, as did Symonds with the bat.

 

[Richard]

voted for flintoff. kallis is a batter who bowls - less than 2 wickets per test. pollock is a bowler who bats - only 2 centuries in 100 + tests. flintoff is more balanced as an all-rounder. though kallis and pollock are probably superior cricketers in terms of specializing in their stronger crafts.

Flintoff these days is pretty close to being a lesser batsman than Pollock, if not actually being so.

 

[bond21]

well i was under the impression that he was a bowling all rounder, which technically he was until around the 2006 ICC champions trophy which i found out they moved him up from the lower order to opener.

a lot of his state games i watched he batted middle - lower order about 5 or 6 and he bowled like first change.

So i accept that he can handle a bat, but i still maintain my view that he is sub par with the ball.

I would class him with Kallis, a lot better with the bat than with the ball, rather than Flintoff and Pollock who are a bit better with the ball but good with the bat aswell.

I mean his bowling is the type which is easy to hit. Not much bounce, quickish, but not express and no swing.

Dont kid yourselves though, he is nowhere near the skill of flintoff with the ball.

 

[bond21]

And I admit Symonds does look shaky at the start of his innings. He looks like a bad starter to me. Compare his first 10 or 15 balls to someone like Ponting who dominates from the get go, theres a huge difference. Even when Ponting leaves the ball, he is almost attacking the ball, he goes that far across.

Unless Watson gets fit or Symonds proves himself in the test arena, Australia should just pick another batsman or maybe even a bowler seeing brett lee can bat pretty well. People were saying if he improves his batting a bit he could be an all rounder aswell.

And theres no need for petty insults here, I never insulted anyone here personally(i think) all i did was question Watson's place in the team. I expect most of us are adults or at least mature enough to discuss things without calling people idiots etc.

 

[Ikki]

well i was under the impression that he was a bowling all rounder, which technically he was until around the 2006 ICC champions trophy which i found out they moved him up from the lower order to opener.

a lot of his state games i watched he batted middle - lower order about 5 or 6 and he bowled like first change.

So i accept that he can handle a bat, but i still maintain my view that he is sub par with the ball.

I would class him with Kallis, a lot better with the bat than with the ball, rather than Flintoff and Pollock who are a bit better with the ball but good with the bat aswell.

I mean his bowling is the type which is easy to hit. Not much bounce, quickish, but not express and no swing.

Dont kid yourselves though, he is nowhere near the skill of flintoff with the ball.

Yeah, he probably is as good as Flintoff with the ball. Flintoff is overrated, I'm sorry to say, based on 1 very impressive series. I'll add: he had made great strides in the past few years, but I'd still say he was a tad overrated.

Watson is a very good bat and pretty good bowl. To compare with Kallis: strikes much quicker with the ball and averages a bit less with the bat.

For me, the fact that you considered him a bowling all-rounder is a Freudian slip. He is a batting all-rounder, and you were fooled enough to think he was a bowling all-rounder. That's as high as compliment you can pay to the man .

 

[Pup Clarke]

Yeah, he probably is as good as Flintoff with the ball.

Nah, Flintoff quite a bit better with the ball then Kallis I'm afraid.

 

[PhoenixFire]

AWTA, not sure how anyone can bracket Flintoff and Kallis equal bowlers.

 

[Goughy]

For me, the fact that you considered him a bowling all-rounder is a Freudian slip. He is a batting all-rounder, and you were fooled enough to think he was a bowling all-rounder. That's as high as compliment you can pay to the man .

Whilst his batting is his strongest suit, he averages 6.5 overs an ODI whilst only scoring 15 runs per appearance (very low) and batting the vast majority of the time at 7 or below.

Whether we think he is a bowling allrounder or not, the fact is he has been played as such.

As for his bowling, it isnt close to as good as that of Kallis

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

That doesn't mean he's been played as a bowling all rounder, all that means is that he rarely gets a decent bat because he's batting behind the best top 6 in the world.

 

[SJS]

Freddie Flintoff is only as good an all rounder as Saun Pollock (ten votes each).

Ha ha. How the mighty have fallen.

 

[shortpitched713]

Freddie Flintoff is only as good an all rounder as Saun Pollock (ten votes each).

Not even, IMO. There really isn't all that much between them in their batting, Flintoff just looks better cause he bats at 6 and Pollock bats at 8, but that says more about the frailty of the English lower middle order and South Africa's strength in that regard than anything else.

And Pollock is streets ahead of Flintoff as a bowler. Flintoff's only been comparable in 2005, maybe early 2006.

 

[Goughy]

That doesn't mean he's been played as a bowling all rounder, all that means is that he rarely gets a decent bat because he's batting behind the best top 6 in the world.

Of course it does. It means he is expected to bowl a good few overs in the team but isnt expected to contribute much with the bat.

Contributing 15 runs a game says that is selection has had little to do with the runs the selectors think he will score. Bowling almost 7 overs a game shows the selectors have had him contributing far more with the ball than the bat.

Whilst we all agree that his battling is better than his bowling, if you are picked (like Watson) with the expectation and team role of contributing more with the ball than the bat then you have been selected in the team role of bowling allrounder

 

[Ikki]

Nah, Flintoff quite a bit better with the ball then Kallis I'm afraid.

I wasn't talking about Kallis, I mean't Watson.

 

[Ikki]

Whilst his batting is his strongest suit, he averages 6.5 overs an ODI whilst only scoring 15 runs per appearance (very low) and batting the vast majority of the time at 7 or below.

Whether we think he is a bowling allrounder or not, the fact is he has been played as such.

As for his bowling, it isnt close to as good as that of Kallis

That doesn't mean he's been played as a bowling all rounder, all that means is that he rarely gets a decent bat because he's batting behind the best top 6 in the world.

I definitely agree with that. Watson is underrated on these boards and especially so for his batting.

When you look at it with an Aussie perspective, it is a real shame he can't stay fit. If he could replicate his FC form then we'd really witness something special.