Gillespie - All Rounder??

[bryce]

agreed eclipse, IIRC the only way he has got out since india is caught in the slips

 

[Peanutbutterbar]

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

He said his figures could have been, but his ability is.

 

[C_C]

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.

yes thats the definition.
And your definition doesnt fit Alan Davidson.
While he was a great bowler, a low-20s batting average indicates someone who can hold a bat well rather than an allrounder.
low 20-ish batting average and low 20-ish bowling average are not approximately equally good.

 

[Tim]

Daniel Vettori has a test match hundred & something like 7 or 8 half-centuries & yet he isn't called an all-rounder...so I think Gillespie has a fair way yet to prove himself as an all-rounder.

 

[shaka]

People would argue that Vettori deserves to be called an allrounder. Although i doubt it makes much difference between being called an all rounder and being a called a lower order / tail end batsman.

 

[Mr Casson]

Gillespie isn't an allrounder, but he is a very handy man to have at number 9. No one will dispute that.

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.

Pollock is a very, very, very good bowler and a merely good batsman. There's no equality there, but he's still a lot closer than a lot of people to being an allrounder.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I think Pollock's batting talent is realized more in the one-day arena.

He's more of an all-rounder there.

 

[shaka]

On TV they showed his performance against NZ. In one of the ODI's he hit 3 sixes in 4 deliveries, and in doing so meant that he needed to hit a six off the last ball of the innings, the bowler was Kyle Mills, luckily for NZ he finally got a good ball in and Polly couldnt hit it for six.

 

[Eclipse]

I remember Pollock Hitting Jame's Franklin for 4 sixes in a row at the WACA

 

[benchmark00]

lol ok people's let me make this clear.... i know gillespie isnt an all rounder, lol im not that stupid, so i wish people would stop saying: no he isnt an all rounder and giving me a definition what an all rounder is, lol... as i said earlier... the second part of my original question is what im most interested in.... and an all rounder isnt someone who can be picked soley on their batting or soley on their bowling... thats crazy, i mean then you couldnt class ian harvey as an all rounder... only people like Maybe Kallis and maybe (on a good day) Chris Cairns could be picked soley on either one...

 

[bryce]

it will be interesting to see how daniel vettori's batting record turns out come the end of his career, personally i can only see him going from strength to strength which has been the pattern of his batting in his career to date

 

[sledger]

if we're going to go down this road then remember harmison hitting those sixes against the west indies in the summer?

there are countless tailenders who can make big scores when the pressure is off, it is when the pressure is on that the real quality would have been shown, for instance had australia needed to rely on gillespie to make 50 runs in order to win the match whilst batting with mcgrath he would not have been able to do it,

the circumstances in which the tailenders make these big scores is important when evaluating this matter,

take nothing away from gillespie but i think it would be paying him a huge compliment to say that he was an all rounder.

 

[Richard]

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

No, I've said the potential was about equal and the outcomes were different.

 

[Richard]

yes thats the definition.
And your definition doesnt fit Alan Davidson.
While he was a great bowler, a low-20s batting average indicates someone who can hold a bat well rather than an allrounder.
low 20-ish batting average and low 20-ish bowling average are not approximately equally good.

As I've shown Alan Davidson was a much better batsman in the latter part of his career than he was earlier on.

 

[Richard]

People would argue that Vettori deserves to be called an allrounder. Although i doubt it makes much difference between being called an all rounder and being a called a lower order / tail end batsman.

Vettori is not quite an all-rounder for mine - though he could be in a couple of years time - plenty of good judges have always said he possessed better ability than his average suggested.

 

[C_C]

Ability is irrelevant.
Performance isnt.

 

[Richard]

Without ability you cannot perform.
Ability seems pretty relevant to me.

 

[Mr Casson]

Without ability you cannot perform.
Ability seems pretty relevant to me.

Not if you don't perform, which is C_C's point. It doesn't matter how much ability you have if you don't use it.

 

[Richard]

Fairly obviously.
Nonetheless ability is a rather relevant thing.

 

[C_C]

Fairly obviously.
Nonetheless ability is a rather relevant thing.

Mr Casson got what i was trying to say.
And ability is irrelevant because the only relevant guage is performance. Not ability.
One might argue that Mark Waugh had much more ability than Steve Waugh or Doug Walters had more ability than Allan Border, but its the performance that counts.