The allrounder cut-off

[Migara]

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.

Completely irrelevant to the point I made. Even a player who is not considered as an all rounder can produce results close to Flintoff's, hence his figures are far from being outstanding. Imran for a 5-6 year time averaged 50 with the bat and 19 with the ball. Kallis and Sobers would have done very close to that if not better. Flintoff is massively overrated IMHO. Pollock could every bit what Flintoff did with the bat and was miles ahead with the ball, but never rated as Flintoff. Pre-injury Lance Klusener was quick as anything that SA put on the field and bashed hundreds at run-a-ball. Steady Brain McMillan is massively underrated, and would walk in to ant test side of today. Flintoff had a magnificient peak. But top all rounders had peaks that dwarf Flintoff's. Even Shakib Al Hasan who is the only match winner in a minnow side averages 47 with the bat and 35 with the ball in last three years.

 

[smash84]

Completely irrelevant to the point I made. Even a player who is not considered as an all rounder can produce results close to Flintoff's, hence his figures are far from being outstanding. Imran for a 5-6 year time averaged 50 with the bat and 19 with the ball.

That was actually a 10 year period.

 

[smash84]

Completely irrelevant to the point I made. Even a player who is not considered as an all rounder can produce results close to Flintoff's, hence his figures are far from being outstanding. Imran for a 5-6 year time averaged 50 with the bat and 19 with the ball.

That was actually a 10 year period.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That was actually a 10 year period.

Longer periods can actually be more deceiving you know. We all know Imran bowled very very little in the last few years in that span and wasn't a very good batsman for half of those years.
Not that the achievement isn't magnificent mind

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah it definitely will, not denying it. Probably better than any other all rounder.
Just saying that that 10 year stat which is brought up time and time again is sort of meaningless without context

 

[smash84]

true

 

[smash84]

Stats analysis: Imran Khan | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

He was even more lethal in the 14 months between November 1981 and January 1983: in 16 Tests during this period he averaged almost 48 with the bat, and took 104 wickets at an incredible average of 14.87, with eight five-wicket hauls.

 

[hendrix]

Obviously everyone here knows that Imran was far, far superior to Flintoff.

What I think he's saying by these definitions is that Flintoff was about as useful with the bat as he was with the ball. (which was not very useful, IMO, but some people rate him).

Imran's bowling record is far, far superior to his batting record. But even Imran's batting record is better than Flintoff's. They're not even comparable really.

Miller and Botham are examples of players with good records who were just as useful with the ball as with the bat. I suppose these are the "genuine all rounders".

Personally I don't see the need for "genuine" all rounders in my GOAT team and would prefer to have a batting allrounder and a bowling all rounder (e.g. Sobers and Kallis).

 

[kyear2]

Ye, the thought of any of those "bowling all-rounders" bar Imran batting at 7 would fill me with dread.

Also, wicket-keeping all rounders don't exist and "batting slip fielders" is another stupid category IMO.

For your first point, nothing says a bowling all rounder has to bat at 7, that's where traditionally your wicket keeper would bat. I see a bowling all rounder as a front line bowler who is also a strong #8 batsman.

To your second point, that's your opinion which you are entitled to as I am entitled to mine.

Cricket has three aspects, batting, bowling and fielding. A wicketkeeper is a specialist fielding position and if he can bat comfortably at No. 7 or even at No. 6 then he is an all rounder, in the same way that a front line bowler would be if he could do the same.

While I acknowledge that the argument for a batsman who is also a great slip fielder to be rated as an all rounder is a weaker argument, I still believe that a Greg Chappell or Wally Hammond brings so much more to a team with their slip fielding that it cannot be argued. Additionally one can have great teams without great batting or bowling All Rounders, one would be hard pressed to find one without great fielding, and more specifically slip fielding. Not saying that validates slip fielding as an all round skill or that slip fielding is more important that batting or bowling just that its an important aspect of the game.

 

[kyear2]

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

I think he is and one that I forgot from my list. A great batsman and a useful fast bowler who opened to bowler to take the shine off the new ball for the spinners. Useful slip too.

 

[Maximas]

regarding Flintoff vs Vaas, the question for me is not particularly averages but more around the ability of said player to turn the match with both bat and ball. Flintoff had that ability, whereas I'm not entirely sure Vaas did with the bat, although Vaas was certainly able to hold up and end extremely well as shown by the 2006 England tour.

 

[Red]

Ye, the thought of any of those "bowling all-rounders" bar Imran batting at 7 would fill me with dread.

Also, wicket-keeping all rounders don't exist and "batting slip fielders" is another stupid category IMO.

Of course wicketkeeping all rounders exist. AB DeVilliers is a perfect example.

A team must have bowlers. And a team must have a wicketkeeper. When a bowler or WK can bat well, he's an AR.

The only way you can disagree is if you think that a WK who averages 12 is of equal value to the team as a WK who averages 45.

 

[watson]

It's never been convention until recently to call a wicket-keeper who can also bat an 'allrounder'. In the past, the term 'allrounder' was exclusively used for players who could bat and bowl, rather than likes of Alan Knott who tended to be called a 'wicket-keeper batsman'.

But now this new vogue has sprung up, I quite like it. Because if we're calling Gilchrist an 'allrounder' we're expecting him to bat well and keep-wicket, rather than open the bowling attack. It falls into the category of 'the bleeding obvious' - unless you don't follow cricket of course, but instead prefer Lacrosse or Hurling.

 

[Red]

Most keepers bat at seven, and that's been the case for as long as I remember.

A wicketkeeper is an allrounder IF he'd get a spot in his team as a batsman with his keeping skills. I'd suggest that Gilchrist and Dhoni would both have played tests (and batted top 6) had they been batsmen only. AB Devil obv played as a batsman before becoming a keeper.

 

[watson]

Obviously everyone here knows that Imran was far, far superior to Flintoff.

What I think he's saying by these definitions is that Flintoff was about as useful with the bat as he was with the ball. (which was not very useful, IMO, but some people rate him).

Imran's bowling record is far, far superior to his batting record. But even Imran's batting record is better than Flintoff's. They're not even comparable really.

Miller and Botham are examples of players with good records who were just as useful with the ball as with the bat. I suppose these are the "genuine all rounders".

Personally I don't see the need for "genuine" all rounders in my GOAT team and would prefer to have a batting allrounder and a bowling all rounder (e.g. Sobers and Kallis).

Depends on whether the team is trying to attack and go for the win or not.

There is little doubt that Flintoff's bowling made a significant impact in the 2005 Ashes, and it could be easily argued that Michael Vaughan's team might not have been able to bowl out the strong Australian batting line-up with only 4 front-line bowlers.

So, in the right context, a 'genuine' allrounder is more use at No.6 than someone like Kallis who is unlikely to make big break-throughs with his bowling. The gamble for Vaughan of course was that Flintoff would be able to score enough runs in the first instance to help England post competive totals to bowl at.

 

[Red]

Flintoff was an unbelievable presence in the 2005 Ashes although averaging 37 with the bat and 25 with the ball doesn't seem that good.

Overall his stats aren't awesome, but he had a big impact at times when it mattered. It does seem that a lot of all rounders do step up when it matters.

 

[hendrix]

So, in the right context, a 'genuine' allrounder is more use at No.6 than someone like Kallis who is unlikely to make big break-throughs with his bowling. The gamble for Vaughan of course was that Flintoff would be able to score enough runs in the first instance to help England post competive totals to bowl at.

no, I don't agree with this. First of because I think Kallis is just as likely to make big break throughs as Flintoff - their average and strike rates are virtually identical. Also, Flintoff's ability to bat in the top 6 isn't any better than Imran's - it's just that his bowling was never as good.

 

[andyc]

Obviously everyone here knows that Imran was far, far superior to Flintoff.

What I think he's saying by these definitions is that Flintoff was about as useful with the bat as he was with the ball. (which was not very useful, IMO, but some people rate him).

Imran's bowling record is far, far superior to his batting record. But even Imran's batting record is better than Flintoff's. They're not even comparable really.

Miller and Botham are examples of players with good records who were just as useful with the ball as with the bat. I suppose these are the "genuine all rounders".

Personally I don't see the need for "genuine" all rounders in my GOAT team and would prefer to have a batting allrounder and a bowling all rounder (e.g. Sobers and Kallis).

The qualifier for me is 'would you pick him if he couldn't bat/bowl?' For me, no way Flintoff would be getting picked regularly for England if he couldn't bowl. From what I know about Imran - and admittedly, it's not a heap - he would've been.

 

[watson]

no, I don't agree with this. First of because I think Kallis is just as likely to make big break throughs as Flintoff - their average and strike rates are virtually identical. Also, Flintoff's ability to bat in the top 6 isn't any better than Imran's - it's just that his bowling was never as good.

There are some cricketers who seem to dominate a series even though their stat's say otherwise. Flintoff and Botham are classic examples of these sorts of cricketers.

During the Ashes of '81 Botham made 2 centuries, but otherwise he tended to score close to nothing, and so he finished with a mediocre average of 36.7 for the series. If you just looked at that figure of 36.7 in isolation then you would have to conclude that Botham had a less than sensational time with the bat.

However, there is a saying that is quite true - "Cometh the hour, cometh the man." Thus cricket averages are a good goodline, but it is the timing of big scores and key break-throughs that is everything.

 

[NUFAN]

Flintoff was an unbelievable presence in the 2005 Ashes although averaging 37 with the bat and 25 with the ball doesn't seem that good.

Overall his stats aren't awesome, but he had a big impact at times when it mattered. It does seem that a lot of all rounders do step up when it matters.

Why do you think this? Given the opposition and even overall an average of 25 with the ball is terrific so even if he averaged 17 with the bat he would have still had a good series!