• 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.

Gillespie - All Rounder??

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Can Dizzy now be classed as an alrounder? lol i say this in jest, but really... richie Benaud pointed out that he could (and most likely will) become something like the 5th Australian to take 200+ wickets and score 1000+ runs with the bat, a very good achievement... Surely he can't be classed as an all rounder.... can he??

And also... what players do you know of had (or have) a career where theres noway you can consider them an all rounder, but when you look at their statistics, they give the impression of someone who can bat and bowl
 
Last edited:

The Baconator

International Vice-Captain
yeah he cant really he averages about 15 and has only 1 half-century
he's just a bowler who can bat a bit

i was quite surprised by Giles's average though, over 20 now
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The Baconator said:
yeah he cant really he averages about 15 and has only 1 half-century
he's just a bowler who can bat a bit
2 half centuries! lol.... i realise that he cant, it was sort of a passing comment, but im just wondering about players who's statistics tell a different story to their career.... the second part of my question is the one im most interested in,lol
 

C_C

International Captain
i would say people i wouldnt consider allrounders though statistics might say a different story ( based on batting skill) would be the likes of Malcolm Marshall, Alan Davidson, Wasim Akram,Chaminda Vaas,Heath Streak,Lindwall,Titmus,Vettori,etc..... basically people with 20ish average ( +/- 3-4) or so.
 

Buddhmaster

International Captain
I've been reading a book I got for Christmas, 200 Years of Australian Tests, and in it, it has scorecards from every game, and in quite a few, Malcolm Marshall did more then he needed to with the bat.
 

bryce

International Regular
interesting to note that this season(including his recent 50*) gillespie has 206 runs@29.43
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
C_C said:
i would say people i wouldnt consider allrounders though statistics might say a different story ( based on batting skill) would be the likes of Malcolm Marshall, Alan Davidson, Wasim Akram,Chaminda Vaas,Heath Streak,Lindwall,Titmus,Vettori,etc..... basically people with 20ish average ( +/- 3-4) or so.
Alan Davidson was certainly an all-rounder - along with a bowler as good as you'll see.
In the later stages of his career his Test-batting improved.
Wasim Akram largely wasted a pretty large amount of batting talent.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
benchmark00 said:
2 half centuries! lol.... i realise that he cant, it was sort of a passing comment, but im just wondering about players who's statistics tell a different story to their career.... the second part of my question is the one im most interested in,lol
Gillespie is a pretty decent batsman - like Hoggard in quite a few ways, and it seems that, having both trod water for a couple of years, they're both getting better very quickly of late.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
No, he's not an all-rounder - shows how desperate the Aussies are for an all-rounder since Miller and to a lesser extent Davidson, doesn't it? ;)
 

shaka

International Regular
If somebody was on 75 and going for their hundred, then they could trust Gillespie to hold his end up with solid defence. After the other guy goes out, he starts to hit quality shots. All one really needs is a good defence and the ability to play strokes of class.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Neil Pickup said:
No, he's not an all-rounder - shows how desperate the Aussies are for an all-rounder since Miller and to a lesser extent Davidson, doesn't it? ;)
They've had plenty - Harvey, Watson anyone?
None of whom have really been very good all-rounders, but they've been all-rounders nonetheless.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
shaka said:
If somebody was on 75 and going for their hundred, then they could trust Gillespie to hold his end up with solid defence. After the other guy goes out, he starts to hit quality shots. All one really needs is a good defence and the ability to play strokes of class.
Yep - you get those you're sorted!
Sadly, most of us don't get those sort of gifts!
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
Neil Pickup said:
No, he's not an all-rounder - shows how desperate the Aussies are for an all-rounder since Miller and to a lesser extent Davidson, doesn't it? ;)
And we should be too Neil! Look how our results are affected by not having one! :p
 

tooextracool

International Coach
benchmark00 said:
Can Dizzy now be classed as an alrounder? lol i say this in jest, but really... richie Benaud pointed out that he could (and most likely will) become something like the 5th Australian to take 200+ wickets and score 1000+ runs with the bat, a very good achievement... Surely he can't be classed as an all rounder.... can he??

And also... what players do you know of had (or have) a career where theres noway you can consider them an all rounder, but when you look at their statistics, they give the impression of someone who can bat and bowl
an all rounder is someonewho can make it into the side on his bowling or batting alone. would gillespie make the side on his batting alone(and since this aussie side is extremely hard to get into,lets just say any test quality side)?
NO.
hes a bowler who can bat a bit, just like giles, but if either of them bowled poorly for a year and continued to bat the way they have been of late, they'd still be dropped.
 

Top