Greatest Allrounder of the decade?

[SJS]

Pollock is easily the most under-rated of all cricketers I have seen and thats quite a few.

It doesnt pay to be understated in the modern world.

 

[Perm]

Anyway, just browsing through some stats and Chris Cairns has only played 14 Tests against quality opposition since 2000 so I don't that he has really played enough games to qualify for this, I probably should've checked before voting. However, if Flem274* was referring to the last 10 years (1997-2007) you'd find it very hard to make a case against Chris Cairns, who scored his runs at 36.47 and took his wickets at 28.51.

 

[The Sean]

I was about to make the same point, that as big a fan as I am of Chris Cairns, I always thought his peak performances came in the '90s.

With that in mind I'd lean toward Flintoff - in terms of combining excellent batting and bowling performances in genuine all round style. I consider Kallis to be the better - or at least the higher-achieving - cricketer though, if that makes sense...

 

[Perm]

I was about to make the same point, that as big a fan as I am of Chris Cairns, I always thought his peak performances came in the '90s.

With that in mind I'd lean toward Flintoff - in terms of combining excellent batting and bowling performances in genuine all round style. I consider Kallis to be the better - or at least the higher-achieving - cricketer though, if that makes sense...

It certainly does.

Anyway, it depends what the thread-starter meant when he said 'decade'. Technically we would assume 1997-2007, as that is ten years and I think a lot of people would vote for Cairns, but he could also have meant from 2000 onwards, meaning more votes for Flintoff and Kallis.

 

[The Sean]

It certainly does.

Anyway, it depends what the thread-starter meant when he said 'decade'. Technically we would assume 1997-2007, as that is ten years and I think a lot of people would vote for Cairns, but he could also have meant from 2000 onwards, meaning more votes for Flintoff and Kallis.

Ah I hadn't even thought of the decade meaning the last 10 years, I was narrow-mindedly assuming it was just broken down by calendar decade, hence 2000-onwards!

 

[Athlai]

Well just because Flintoff or Cairns are the best allrounders doesn't take away the fact that Kallis is probably the better cricketer. Being good with both bad and ball IMO is not better than being great at one or the other most of the time. Kallis has been one of the best batsman in the world in the last ten years. Can many of the others in this list make that statement?

 

[oz_fan]

I voted for Pollock. Like SJS said he's highly underated. Would have to be one of the most valuable ODI players ever and he's taken over 400 test wickets and scored close to 4000 runs (including 2 centuries).

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Jaxques Kallis(who has hardly been an allrounder in last 5 years) getting so many votes is a joke.Anyway,top 3 allrounders of the decade for me:

1.Shaun Pollock
2.Chris Carirns
3.Andrew Flintoff

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Well just because Flintoff or Cairns are the best allrounders doesn't take away the fact that Kallis is probably the better cricketer. Being good with both bad and ball IMO is not better than being great at one or the other most of the time. Kallis has been one of the best batsman in the world in the last ten years. Can many of the others in this list make that statement?

Shaun Pollock has also been one of the best bowlers of the world in last 10 years.

A good bowling allrounder>A good batting allrounder.

 

[Julian87]

Streak. He would have been absolutely anything in a better team.

 

[Athlai]

Would be an interesting analysis, Pollock > Kallis or vice versa. Who has won the most matches and so forth. I may look into this

 

[The Sean]

When both at their best I'd take Pollock in my team over Kallis without a second thought, TBH.

 

[Richard]

Since Test cricket>ODI and Twenty20 I think we can count out the following names
Lance Klusener
Andrew Symonds
Chris Gayle
Shahid Afridi
Abdul Razzaq
Shane Watson

Carl Hooper isn't good enough to make the cut due to his bowling and I don't think Jacques Kallis is a 'true' all-rounder anymore and hasn't been for a few years now. Heath Streak and Shaun Pollock are both primarily fast bowlers and I wouldn't class them (particularly streak) as 'true' all-rounders, although Pollock comes close.

Predictably it comes down to Chris Cairns and Andrew Flintoff in which Cairns has the better of Flintoff in both departments when it comes to statistics. As a whole I think Cairns>Flintoff but performing at their respective peaks Flintoff would take it. Voting for Cairns.

Pretty much agree with all of this.

All depends on whether "decade" is 1997-2007 or 2000-2007, as you say later on. If the former, Cairns easily, if the latter, Flintoff easily (though to give Flintoff even a mention before 2003 is an abomination).

 

[Richard]

When both at their best I'd take Pollock in my team over Kallis without a second thought, TBH.

It depends what the hole is. If you needed a batsman more than a bowler, Kallis obviously, if a bowler more than a batsman, Pollock obviously.

Of course, it'd be great to have them both... SA have been pretty damn lucky if we think about it.

 

[Richard]

I gather from the names in the poll that we're exlcuding batsmen/keepers from the list? If they were in, Gilly, Sanga & Flower would be up there.

Big difference between an all-rounder and a wicketkeeper-batsman.

 

[Perm]

Big difference between an all-rounder and a wicketkeeper-batsman.

Only in their defined roles. A lot of people consider wicket keeper-batsman as all-rounders bceause of their all-round skills, funnily enough . Although IMO, and most others, an all-rounder bats and bowls.

 

[Richard]

Yes, I've always considered an all-rounder someone (roughly) equal in ability with bat and ball. A wicketkeeper-batsman is, well... someone who keeps wicket and can bat.

Of course, you also get bowling-all-rounders (Pollock) and batting-all-rounders (Kallis) but I tend to have them as slightly different again.

 

[sps]

their isn't many good allrounders around these days i wouldn't call a wicket keeper an allrounder because they our just a very good fielder and batsmen. i'd call a class alrounder sombody who could bat bow and field very well.

 

[pup11]

I would vote for Cairnsy as he had the ability to win games with both bat and ball on a consistent basis, other all-rounders on that list have also won games with both bat and ball but all of them either excelled more in batting or bowling but Cairns had a perfect balance to his game, he was good enough to play either as a frontline batsman or a bowler.

 

[Prince EWS]

Rvd619323 and sps should be banned for life IMO.