The allrounder cut-off

[marc71178]

God, I don't know, if they came at 6-250 I'd still consider them good knocks and this may influence the decision. If he scored a half century every two tests or so and developed an ability to dig his side out of trouble or further their position with relative consistency then I'd say he might become a bowling all-rounder in my book

A half century every 2 Tests from number 8? That's a huge ask.

 

[marc71178]

You've got Imran Khan as a bowling allrounder, yet Flintoff as a genuine all-rounder?

His definition of genuine all rounder seems to be what I'd call a bit's and pieces player to be honest. Nothing genuine about it in the strictest sense of the word.

 

[Maximas]

either a half century or an important innings that actually influences the match - could be a 30* batting for a draw or a quickfire 40 that lifts the team from 6-150 to 230 all out, that kind of thing. Basically I'm trying to say the guy has to actually contribute to changing the game every now and then to be considered an all-rounder

 

[GuyFromLancs]

His definition of genuine all rounder seems to be what I'd call a bit's and pieces player to be honest. Nothing genuine about it in the strictest sense of the word.

Flintoff was a genuine allrounder. When he was bad, he was bad with both (although better with ball)

And when he was good, for about 3 years, he averaged 41 with the bat and 27 with the ball.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

What if this orange was green? Would it still be an orange?

One thing is for certain: Broad would still be a ****.

Yeah, but he's our ****

 

[The Battlers Prince]

As an opening bowler, not a great one but he filled the role at the time, but Stan McCabe was an allrounder?

 

[Howe_zat]

Would you revise this if Broad ended up with 6 test centuries?

Centuries aren't really the measure of an allrounder, or even a keeper-batsman. They score consistent fifties.

Centuries are the currency of batsmen.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Centuries aren't really the measure of an allrounder, or even a keeper-batsman. They score consistent fifties.

Centuries are the currency of batsmen.

If DeVilliers bats at 5 then centuries would be his shot as a batsmen. As a keeper he's got another job. Less often centuries still make him an allrounder though?

 

[marc71178]

either a half century or an important innings that actually influences the match - could be a 30* batting for a draw or a quickfire 40 that lifts the team from 6-150 to 230 all out, that kind of thing. Basically I'm trying to say the guy has to actually contribute to changing the game every now and then to be considered an all-rounder

But asking for that every other Test is a big ask, especially as on average batting that low down he gets less than 3 innings in 2 Tests.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Centuries aren't really the measure of an allrounder, or even a keeper-batsman. They score consistent fifties.

Centuries are the currency of batsmen.

Ok, if he scores 30 50s

 

[smash84]

Flintoff was a genuine allrounder. When he was bad, he was bad with both (although better with ball)

And when he was good, for about 3 years, he averaged 41 with the bat and 27 with the ball.

This isn't very sensational

 

[Daemon]

This isn't very sensational

Indeed. Bresnan averaged almost the same from '09 to '12

 

[Howe_zat]

If DeVilliers bats at 5 then centuries would be his shot as a batsmen. As a keeper he's got another job. Less often centuries still make him an allrounder though?

I would describe de Villiers as a batsman, yes.

If he was picked primarily for his keeping, and hit regular fifties without many tons - except against weak attacks and/or with a strong score on the board - he'd be a typical keeper-batsman.

 

[Howe_zat]

Ok, if he scores 30 50s

Then yes, absolutely. That's heaps.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Indeed. Bresnan averaged almost the same from '09 to '12

But it wasn't his true average.

 

[Migara]

Flintoff was a genuine allrounder. When he was bad, he was bad with both (although better with ball)

And when he was good, for about 3 years, he averaged 41 with the bat and 27 with the ball.

Last 5 years in his career Chaminda Vaas averaged 34 with the bat and 28.6 with the ball, and he was not even meant to be an all rounder. Nothing sensational about Flintoff's figures.

 

[Prince EWS]

Last 5 years in his career Chaminda Vaas averaged 34 with the bat and 28.6 with the ball, and he was not even meant to be an all rounder. Nothing sensational about Flintoff's figures.

Vaas could seriously bat by the end of his career though. I honestly reckon he could've played on as a domestic batsman and given up the bowling if he felt like it.

 

[Spikey]

if u cant bat in the top 6 i dont care about you and yr all rounder status

 

[Shri]

if u cant bat in the top 6 i dont care about you and yr all rounder status

Even a test 100? I tried Ashwin.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Last 5 years in his career Chaminda Vaas averaged 34 with the bat and 28.6 with the ball, and he was not even meant to be an all rounder. Nothing sensational about Flintoff's figures.

Ignoring that 41 to 27 bests 34 to 28 - Flintoff also scored 5 centuries. Hit mammoth sixes, caught the public's imagination, and was the best player in a 5 match series against a great Australia side, in which he nearly ended Adam Gilchrist. A man who up until 05 Ashes averaged 56 with the bat in test cricket.

It doesn't really compare. And I like Vaas. He was a very, very good player.