Why is Steve Smith considered an all rounder?

[GraemeSmith]

I keep hearing everyone refer to Steve Smith (giving your kid such a bland name should be a crime) as an "all-rounder". Please explain in what universe someone like him can be considered all rounder with bowling stats like this

First-class Avg 48.84 SR 73.0
List A Avg 43.58 SR 47.9

 

[Burgey]

He bats and bowls a bit. Fields too.

 

[Woodster]

I keep hearing everyone refer to Steve Smith (giving your kid such a bland name should be a crime) as an "all-rounder". Please explain in what universe someone like him can be considered all rounder with bowling stats like this

First-class Avg 48.84 SR 73.0
List A Avg 43.58 SR 47.9

Presumably it is more on potential rather than anything particularly outstanding in his stats so far. Leg-spin as we all know tkaes time to develop, to master a number of deliveries and gain the accuracy essential to become a real player. Probably wouldn 't read too much into his averages at the moment, the guy's only just 21, but would like to hear how people do rate his bowling.

 

[Jono]

 

[andyc]

He's only played 13 FC games. After 13 Test matches Andrew Flintoff averaged 18 with the bat and 46 with the ball.

See here though for an idea.

 

[Noble One]

I assume you have never followed an Australian domestic game in your life?

His average is terrible largely due to a very poor start to his domestic career with the ball. His improvement since the start of the previous Australia summer has been immense, culminating in the 7 wicket haul as mentioned by andyc.

The hype surrounding Smith is what he "may" become, rather than his current output. Many wise cricketing heads have alluded to the fact that Smith has a special talent that may only be seen once every generation. The next step is for Smith to start showing his talent more consistently with the ball, with the bat he has already proven enough.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah, pretty poor thread.

 

[Nate]

Can someone re-name this thread 'STATISTICS R MY LYF' kthx.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Only going by the impression I've garnered from watching international cricket as Oz FC stuff never gets shown up here, but the SS does seem to be a graveyard for spinners (which is kinda fitting as our own SS would probably put them all in one should he ever become king). Hauritz looks infinitely better than his career figures suggest and, perhaps tellingly, the great man himself, SK Warne, averaged more in first class cricket than in tests.

Smith's raw, but the potential is there to see. There also seem to have been something of a sea change in Oz selectorial policy of late, with the panel rather keener to blood whelps (see also Hazlewood & Warner) than they've been previously.

 

[Top_Cat]

Only going by the impression I've garnered from watching international cricket as Oz FC stuff never gets shown up here, but the SS does seem to be a graveyard for spinners (which is kinda fitting as our own SS would probably put them all in one should he ever become king). Hauritz looks infinitely better than his career figures suggest and, perhaps tellingly, the great man himself, SK Warne, averaged more in first class cricket than in tests.

Indeed and by quite a bit;

FC overall

301 matches, 1319 wickets, avg 26.11

FC Victoria

46 matches, 161 wickets, avg 34.73

Averaged a whole wicket less per match too.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

He's only played 13 FC games. After 13 Test matches Andrew Flintoff averaged 18 with the bat and 46 with the ball.

See here though for an idea.

A fair comparison as we were hearing Flintoff was going to be a great allrounder for many years before he actually looked anything like one.It got to a stage where i though Bumble had lost the plot.

 

[Migara]

A fair comparison as we were hearing Flintoff was going to be a great allrounder for many years before he actually looked anything like one.It got to a stage where i though Bumble had lost the plot.

But never got to be a one BTW.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I keep hearing everyone refer to Steve Smith (giving your kid such a bland name should be a crime) as an "all-rounder". Please explain in what universe someone like him can be considered all rounder with bowling stats like this

First-class Avg 48.84 SR 73.0
List A Avg 43.58 SR 47.9

If Garry"I bowl every style crap"Sobers(who took 31 wickets @ 50 in his first 30 tests) can be considered an allrounder,anyone can.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Because he can bat and bowl.

 

[Migara]

If Garry"I bowl every style crap"Sobers(who took 31 wickets @ 50 in his first 30 tests) can be considered an allrounder,anyone can.

I like to see what would have been Imran's average bowling spin on a green track.

 

[pskov]

But never got to be a one BTW.

Maybe if you mean career as a whole, but he was certainly a great player for a decent portion of his career.

His stats 2004-06, 37 tests, 2076 runs @ 37.74, 144 wickets @ 26.96

 

[Migara]

Maybe if you mean career as a whole, but he was certainly a great player for a decent portion of his career.

His stats 2004-06, 37 tests, 2076 runs @ 37.74, 144 wickets @ 26.96

If stats selection was the rule, then Mushtaq Mohammed would be the best ever all rounder.

 

[_Ed_]

If stats selection was the rule, then Mushtaq Mohammed would be the best ever all rounder.

Not really - he only took 1.39 wickets per match.

 

[Jakester1288]

He's considered an allrounder because he bats and bowls at a decent standard.

I must say, I cant see the Aussie selectors using him much if his bowling isn't good, unless his batting is great. We have just had Hauritz have a good summer (albeit against dire opposition), and he doesn't deserve being dropped.

Smith (possibly) debuting against Pakistan in England might make him look a bit better than he is, playing a poor opposition. Hope he does well, nonetheless.

 

[Migara]

Not really - he only took 1.39 wickets per match.

This is about picking up time periods. That time period may be five days as well.