**Official** New Zealand v World XI

[southern man]

We get caught up with the term all rounder here. Most of our ''all rounders'' are generally specilists who are nothing more than useful with the discipline.

What is the true definition as an all rounder anyway? A player who has a higher batting average than bowling?

 

[Ming]

I believe that is the definition of a "genuine" allrounder.

People label allrounders as people who can slog a 20 off 10 balls ala Adams and co...

 

[bryce]

there is no fixed definiton of an allrounder - i suppose it's all down to personal opinion

 

[bryce]

out of all the multi-skilled players on show in this rounds state championship and in the NZ match i will categorise them in the group I think they belong in,

All-Rounders: Glen Sulzberger, Scott Styris, Chris Cairns
Bits and Pieces Players: Aaron Redmond, Matthew Hart, Mark Orchard,
Batsman who Bowl: Aaron Barnes, Nathan Astle, Craig McMillan,
Bowlers who Bat: Joseph Yovich, James Franklin, Andre Adams, Tama Canning, Jeff Wilson, Daniel Vettori, Kyle Mills

A bit too early to judge: Greg Todd, Anton Devcich, Andrew Ellis, Luke Woodcock

*note* = just because a player is in one group does not mean they are more valuable than a player in another group

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What is the true definition as an all rounder anyway? A player who has a higher batting average than bowling?

Not really, that would be part of the definition of a good all-rounder.

Someone can easily average 30 with the bat and 40 with the ball and be an all-rounder, it simply means that you are picked for the side for your abilities with both the bat and the ball (or the bat and the gloves). A bowler who can bat a bit is not an all-rounder, and neither is a batsmen who can roll the arm over a bit.

 

[southern man]

If it is in first class Cricket then Nathan McCullum should be there. He averages 26 with the bat and 29 with the ball.

With Greg Todd, he will become a batsman who bowls abit.

Astle and Macca at first class level have to be genuine allrounders don't they?

 

[Arrow]

Im my mind "genuine all rounder" has always meant someone who CAN bat and bowl, in other words someone who is a GOOD batsman and bowler. Its an over used term because there are not many genuine all rounders playing.

 

[bryce]

If it is in first class Cricket then Nathan McCullum should be there. He averages 26 with the bat and 29 with the ball.

yeah he didn't play today - but he would probaly be in the bit too early to judge category

With Greg Todd, he will become a batsman who bowls abit.

yeah he probaly will

Astle and Macca at first class level have to be genuine allrounders don't they?

it's really tough to say, there are several inconsistencies you can come up with for every type of all rounder theory i suppose since their is no 'correct' way to define who is and who isn't an allrounder, i have just realised that since i believe sulzberger is an allrounder styris probaly deserves to be in that category too despite his ineffectiveness at tests level

 

[JASON]

Flemming 102 off 54 balls

=]
9 Fours
9 Sixes

Absolutely brilliant innings by Fleming . He absolutely curried Murali !!

Fleming only confirms what I had always thought of him before, a great one day opener who is getting nearer to the form of his life .

Now if I was a world XI selector for October's special ODI match, Fleming would be the obvious choice to open or come in at 3 and captain the Restof the World side in ODI against Australia.

 

[anzac]

yet again I missed the match because of work, and will also miss the remaining matches as well...............bugger damn sh*t etc etc etc.......

absolutely gob smacking innings from Fleming - either he's just really in the groove or he thought he needed to do something to enliven the match after the World XI batting effort......................

I wonder when Murali last had figures like that????????

 

[PAKMAN]

great innings by flemng ,poor murli

 

[anzac]

so far as the other talking points go.................

*I'd not have Oram as Test #6 while he is still being expected to bowl as much as he does - in other words only when he becomes a 5th bowling option as Styris / Astle are now...............IMO the improvement in his batting has been to the detriment of his bowling, and his batting needs to be proven over more than 1 season for me to rate him as a genuine Test #6.........currently I'd prefer to see a 6th batsman, and would even rate McCullum as a better prospect at #6 of the current lineup.........

*of the Mills / Franklin / Butler / Wilson bowling debate I'd not use Mills in Tests despite his batting in OZ as IMO his swing is too limited; likewise I'd not consider Franklin for ODIs but do like him for his different lines (when he gets it right); Butler needs to prove he can do more than bang it in short of a length; which leaves Wilson who looks to have better pace than anyone else currently in the attack, got good bounce & had a good yorker from the little I saw today........

if he can show consistency in the current series he must be a genuine chance for AUS as he can be a punishing hitter in the tail & NZL would not loose any effectiveness in batting with him in the tail as opposed to Mills or Franklin - not a lot of difference IMO re batting skills at #9 - #11 between hitter & stroke players, as the innings is not likely to last too much longer if there isn't a batsman at the other end.............

 

[Ming]

so far as the other talking points go.................

*I'd not have Oram as Test #6 while he is still being expected to bowl as much as he does - in other words only when he becomes a 5th bowling option as Styris / Astle are now...............IMO the improvement in his batting has been to the detriment of his bowling, and his batting needs to be proven over more than 1 season for me to rate him as a genuine Test #6.........currently I'd prefer to see a 6th batsman, and would even rate McCullum as a better prospect at #6 of the current lineup.........

Oram's test bowling is becoming more and more ineffective, and I don't think he would make the team as a 3rd seamer alone. NZ have struggled to bowl out sides in the past year or so, and that is mainly because of our "pop-gun" attack. Oram is a great containing bowler, definitely the most accurate in NZ, but he simply can't seam or swing the ball to much effect. Having him at first-change would again limit our chance of getting 20 wickets in a Test match.

But if you use him as the fourth pace bowler, it would allow NZ to play an extra bowler, without sacrificing much of it's batting strength (Franklin/Wilson at 8 and Vettori at 9).

 

[anzac]

lastly so far as the question of allrounders is concerned.............

IMO the NZL Test side does NOT currently have any genuine allrounders in the squad - there are IMO 2 players of potential at this level in McCullum & Oram, but IMO Oram's bowling will limit him to a containing / partnership breaking 5th seamer's role...........

AFAIC the rest are nothing more than decent - good ODI performers who can be useful at times at Test level - hence why the batting is sooo bloody brittle so often...........

 

[Ming]

Anzac, would you have Jacob Oram in the side as a Test number 6 batsman alone?

 

[marc71178]

Also, whoever said Adams isn't an all rounder might need to think about the fact that he's scored a 100 in county cricket debut off 80 balls if I remember rightly.

People like Ian Harvey and Andy Bichel score tons in County Cricket though!

 

[marc71178]

What is the true definition as an all rounder anyway? A player who has a higher batting average than bowling?

I like to look at it as being someone who'd get in the side purely on one of the 2 disciplines.

Of course that does mean "true" all-rounders are thin on the ground.

I wouldn't just look at it based on numbers, because a great batsman who isn't so good with the ball would then be classed as such.

 

[marc71178]

If it is in first class Cricket then Nathan McCullum should be there. He averages 26 with the bat and 29 with the ball.

I would say he's more of a bowler who can bat - Giles' figures are almost identical to them (in FC Cricket), but I'd never think of him as an all rounder.

 

[marc71178]

IMO Oram's bowling will limit him to a containing / partnership breaking 5th seamer's role...........

For a long time, that was what Flintoff was limited to with the ball, so it's a good start if he can work on it a bit more (with Flintoff it just needed to him to be thinking more as a strike bowler than a stock bowler)

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

I would say he's more of a bowler who can bat - Giles' figures are almost identical to them (in FC Cricket), but I'd never think of him as an all rounder.

Bear in mind that the NZ pitches are generally bowler friendly.