Gillespie - All Rounder??

[Richard]

an all rounder is someonewho can make it into the side on his bowling or batting alone.

No, it's someone who's approximately equally as good at batting and bowling.
Like specialist-batsmen and specialist-bowlers, there are good all-rounders and bad ones.
Good ones such as Chris Cairns, bad ones such as Ian Harvey.
Only the very, very best of all-rounders would make it into international sides on batting or bowling alone.

 

[steds]

hes a bowler who can bat a bit, just like giles

Giles isn't an allrounder?!?!?!!?

 

[Richard]

No, he's a bowler who bats a bit, funnily enough.
He's a far better bowler than he'll ever be batsman.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it's someone who's approximately equally as good at batting and bowling.
Like specialist-batsmen and specialist-bowlers, there are good all-rounders and bad ones.
Good ones such as Chris Cairns, bad ones such as Ian Harvey.
Only the very, very best of all-rounders would make it into international sides on batting or bowling alone.

that is your definition, this one is mine. your definition would make pollock not an all rounder since his bowling is far better than his batting.
whatever way you look at it, gillespie is not an all rounder.

 

[Scallywag]

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?

Australia dont need a "allrounder" because they carry an extra batsman in Gilly. I dont know where the desperation comes from and who is desperate but Australia consider their tail adequate.

 

[Richard]

As demonstrated by the winking eye, Neil was not being serious about any desperation.
Anyone thinking the Australians have desperately needed different cricketers over the last 15 years is seriously delusional.
I can assure you Neil is not seriously delusional.

 

[Richard]

that is your definition, this one is mine. your definition would make pollock not an all rounder since his bowling is far better than his batting.
whatever way you look at it, gillespie is not an all rounder.

Personally I feel Pollock would be a much, much better batsman were he able to devote as much time to batting as he does to bowling.
I feel the ability is roughly equal. Same true of Sobers - beyond question his batting record was massively better than his bowling. Nonetheless, had he not been a good batsman I'm pretty sure he'd have averaged about 24-6 with the ball in Test-cricket.

 

[Scallywag]

As demonstrated by the winking eye, Neil was not being serious about any desperation.
Anyone thinking the Australians have desperately needed different cricketers over the last 15 years is seriously delusional.
I can assure you Neil is not seriously delusional.

Sorry I thought all poms only watched cricket with one eye.

 

[Richard]

TBH, I've thought that about a few Cons in my time.
One not too far from here, incidentally...

 

[Richard Rash]

Jason Gillespie is a lower order batter.. he will never be an all rounder. Similar to Kyle Mills

 

[tooextracool]

Personally I feel Pollock would be a much, much better batsman were he able to devote as much time to batting as he does to bowling.
I feel the ability is roughly equal. Same true of Sobers - beyond question his batting record was massively better than his bowling. Nonetheless, had he not been a good batsman I'm pretty sure he'd have averaged about 24-6 with the ball in Test-cricket.

i dont really understand how its equal, he averages in the low 20s with the ball which would make him one of the best bowlers of the last decade, and he averages 30ish with the bat.hardly equal IMO.

 

[Richard]

And IMO he could have averaged 40 at least with the bat had he not been a good bowler. Possibly 45-7.

 

[Rich2001]

Nicky Boje?

Test Avg = 23.13 (2 fifties)
ODI Avg = 27.32 (4 fifties and 2 centuries)

 

[tooextracool]

And IMO he could have averaged 40 at least with the bat had he not been a good bowler. Possibly 45-7.

well he hasnt, and by your definition of an all rounder he therefore isnt an all rounder.

 

[Richard]

I'm not talking about how good they've turned-out - I'm talking about how good they could have been.
The amount of ability in each they've been blessed with.

 

[Richard]

Nicky Boje?

Test Avg = 23.13 (2 fifties)
ODI Avg = 27.32 (4 fifties and 2 centuries)

Boje, too, could be rather better than he's turned-out IMO.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm not talking about how good they've turned-out - I'm talking about how good they could have been.
The amount of ability in each they've been blessed with.

but we rate a player on how good they've been, otherwise ramprakash would be 2nd only to bradman.

 

[Richard]

Or about 100th... if that...
Pollock has about equal ability at batting and bowling, that's my opinion. So he's an all-rounder. Otherwise he'd just be a top-drawer bowler who also happens to bat pretty darn well.

 

[tooextracool]

Or about 100th... if that...
Pollock has about equal ability at batting and bowling, that's my opinion. So he's an all-rounder. Otherwise he'd just be a top-drawer bowler who also happens to bat pretty darn well.

and you've just said that it was not equal but it could have been.

 

[Eclipse]

Gillespie is no allrounder but I trust his defence better than I do for a hell of alot of top quality batsman.