Who is currently the best all-rounder at international level?

[greg]

however, he is certainly good enough , ability-wise, to be in most test teams on batting alone. I would say that if he decided to give up the bowling altogether, his batting performances would improve even further

A slightly different game, granted but one only has to look at last summer for limited evidence of this - left out of the oneday side because he was injured and to give him time to recover he was brought back in when England's batting slumped repeatedly. In two pressure (20-3 as usual ) situations he responded with back to back centuries batting properly (something which undoubtedly contributed to the amazing test run with the bat he went on subsequently).

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

well neither is Gayle then, I would say.

If you take away both batsmens three highest scoring innings in the last 30 matches (something I hate doing, but it gives some measure of consistancy, without going to standard deviations etc)..

Flintoff averages 33.21..Gayle averages 35..not that much difference...and when you consider Flintoff probably has to work with the tail a lot more,and sacrifise his wicket sometimes for runs, then it looks pretty even.

It would be interesting to see a proper spread measure done though..both players seem to me to be very vunerable early and then after a bit, look high class batsmen

Yet I'm not stating a point for Gayle. I was referring entirely to Flintoff. Different types of players, but Gayle is a specialist batsman who has scored big runs more often than Flintoff - that's what's required of a specialist batsman.

I'm not denying the talent of Flintoff with the bat, nor am I saying that Gayle has lived up to his potential as yet.

 

[Swervy]

Yet I'm not stating a point for Gayle. I was referring entirely to Flintoff. Different types of players, but Gayle is a specialist batsman who has scored big runs more often than Flintoff - that's what's required of a specialist batsman.

I'm not denying the talent of Flintoff with the bat, nor am I saying that Gayle has lived up to his potential as yet.

fair enough

 

[Blaze]

Flintoff is certainly the best but I reckon at the moment the second best all-rounder in the world is Dan Vettori. He is more than handy with the bat and it's getting to the stage now where, if he keeps his batting performances up, he would almost get picked for NZ for his batting alone.

 

[greg]

Different types of players, but Gayle is a specialist batsman who has scored big runs more often than Flintoff - that's what's required of a specialist batsman.

I think you are somewhat inflating Gayle's record in you own mind

7 hundreds and 19 fifties in 91 innings vs 4 hundreds and 16 fifties in 76 innings does not speak of a player who has "scored big runs more often". And it usually helps a players stats when they've scored a 300

Added to that that IMO the destructive nature of the two players is far more valuable to the team coming from Flintoff at no6 than Gayle at no1. It is of the nature of cricket that the Windies are usually in some trouble when Gayle gets out (even when he's scored runs!) because he can sometimes have an almost complete monopoly on the scoring. So even if he scores 70 or 80 the windies are usually at best around 100 odd for 2 or 3 when he gets out. In most circumstances two batsmen scoring 40 apiece in a partnership is as good as one scoring 60 and the other 20 in slightly quicker time.

On the other hand speed of scoring lower down the order is crucial because of the "race effect" of batting with the tail (ie. you have to score the runs before the wickets run out at the other end). The more wickets are lost the faster the speed of scoring from the specialist batsman needs to be.

 

[social]

It's fascinating how he's scored 1773 runs at 41.23 with a bowling average of 29.62 over his last 30 Tests, ey? Bowling allrounder indeed.

3 hundreds and 14 fifties in that time by the way.

Flintoff is one of the top 3 seamers in the world at present - behind McGrath and Harmy.

However, on batting alone, he'd struggle to make the top 20 (and maybe that's too generous).

He has had precisely one decent season with the bat and that was against the abysmal Kiwis (no Bond, unfit Vettori) and even worse Wi ('nuff said) last year.

He was very ordinary in SA.

He failed in the first test against Aus and hit his way to 2 half centuries in the second (great result but he could've been out at any time in either innings). The gulf in quality when compared to KP was evident for all to see in the first innings.

His batting, fortunately for the rest of the world, is not in the same class as his bowling.

 

[luckyeddie]

It's fascinating how he's scored 1773 runs at 41.23 with a bowling average of 29.62 over his last 30 Tests, ey? Bowling allrounder indeed.

3 hundreds and 14 fifties in that time by the way.

I think that a number of us old-stagers (in a CricketWeb sense) were discussing him 3 or more years ago.

The consensus then was that he was the most prodigious talent the English game had seen since Botham - only he didn't know it, consequently he never took himself seriously, never took his game at all seriously and tried to belt the living daylights out of everything.

He came through that period with flying colours, but it took an eternity.

My fear this year was that when Pietersen got into the side, that attitude would come to the fore again as both got caught up in the media hype that is a constant companion.

I needn't have worried. I reckon Flintoff can kick on from here and perhaps even go on to true greatness, but I hope it won't be at the expense of that wonderful sense of fun he displays every time he plays. Best English all-rounder since Botham, certainly. Best English all-rounder ever? Wait and see.

 

[Dasa]

Flintoff is certainly the best but I reckon at the moment the second best all-rounder in the world is Dan Vettori. He is more than handy with the bat and it's getting to the stage now where, if he keeps his batting performances up, he would almost get picked for NZ for his batting alone.

I could certainly agree with that. I'm struggling to think of another player who can consistently contributes with both bat and ball (other than Flintoff, of course). Afridi seems as if he's improving though.

 

[Shoaib]

I think that considering the current batting and bowling performances,Afridi is a better allrounder than Freddie.

 

[Swervy]

I think that considering the current batting and bowling performances,Afridi is a better allrounder than Freddie.

hahahaha..good one mate....

*looks at calendar....mmm..not 1st of April*


oh you are being serious!!!!????

 

[Shoaib]

While talking of allrounders,why do u guys forget Andrew Symonds?

 

[Swervy]

While talking of allrounders,why do u guys forget Andrew Symonds?

because the ultimate test of a cricketers worth is in test matches..Symonds has scored 50 test runs and taken one test wicket

 

[King_Ponting]

While talking of allrounders,why do u guys forget Andrew Symonds?

Ummmm hes the first choice on the poll?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Don't think anyone's made the point yet that opening the batting is a lot harder role to take on than number 6.

Maybe it was just a given.

 

[Swervy]

Don't think anyone's made the point yet that opening the batting is a lot harder role to take on than number 6.

Maybe it was just a given.

in some ways it is, in some ways it isnt.

Some players are suited to the opening role..some are suited to lower down the order. In fact , traditionally, the opening role hasnt been given to the most talented batsmen in the team, it used to be numbers 4 and 5 that used to be the best because they were the most likely to face all types of bowling (an opener HAS to be good vs the new ball, but it is debatable whether a good opener has to be good vs a spinner, or the reverse swing ball etc)..I think nowadays the best batsmen are 3 or 4.

The number 6 position is as difficult though as opening...chances are the number 6 will get to face the second new ball, as well as the spinners ..the number 6 batsman will be expected to protect the tail, whilst be expected to score quickly.

So no, it isnt a given that opening is more difficult, because in some ways it isnt

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think you are somewhat inflating Gayle's record in you own mind

7 hundreds and 19 fifties in 91 innings vs 4 hundreds and 16 fifties in 76 innings does not speak of a player who has "scored big runs more often". And it usually helps a players stats when they've scored a 300

How does a score of 300 inflate the number of big innings a player has had? That's just one innings.

Also, common sense suggests that 7 hundreds in 91 innings - 1 per 13 innings - is more than 4 hundreds in 76 innings - 1 per 19 knocks. Scored big runs more often.

 

[marc71178]

I think that considering the current batting and bowling performances,Afridi is a better allrounder than Freddie.

You been sharing things with Liam?

 

[steds]

I think that considering the current batting and bowling performances,Afridi is a better allrounder than Freddie.

That one's almost as good as you saying Shoaib Malik is the best allrounder in the worls earlier in the thread

 

[luckyeddie]

You been sharing things with Liam?

I have no dispute with anyone who argues in favour of Kallis (for reasons stated, we've just descended into semantics) but there are FIVE who have voted for Afridi.

I guess the terrace element have come back for a holiday.

 

[aussie]

Gayle is a better batsmen than Flintoff but is, at best, a part-time bowler.

i'd say Gayle & Mr. Infredible are about eqaul......