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

[Somerset]

most of those (Gayle, Jayasuria etc) are batsmen who bowl abit, or (like Pollock) are bowlers who can bat abit.

Symonds, Razzaq, Flintoff, Afridi, Styris, Oram and Cairns are the only ones id really count as all rounders there.

Fair enough, I was just taking the original list without the keepers and Clarke and Rudolph. Tend to agree that there's only a very small group who would be classed as great allrounders in terms of their ability in both forms of the game though.

 

[Josh]

I say Kallis and the only reason Flintoff is leading the votes is because of the usual UK bias.

 

[Dasa]

I say Kallis and the only reason Flintoff is leading the votes is because of the usual UK bias.

No, the reason Flintoff is leading the votes is because most people actually watch cricket rather than just go by stats.

 

[marc71178]

No, it's because he is actually an all round player, rather than a batsman who fills in unpenetratively and suddenly develops a niggle so he can't bowl when SA face decent batting line-ups.

 

[Swervy]

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

it is debatable to the extreme whether Gayle is a better batsman than Flintoff

 

[social]

it is debatable to the extreme whether Gayle is a better batsman than Flintoff

Flintoff had a great test match but he is regarded as a bowling all-rounder for very good reason.

 

[cric_manic]

Who voted for Dhoni?

 

[greg]

Flintoff would be in the England team even if he couldn't bowl.

 

[Swervy]

Flintoff had a great test match but he is regarded as a bowling all-rounder for very good reason.

I dont really agree with this...this is where the difference between players like Flintoff and the rest is...Flintoff is just about the only player in the world who could probably make the test scene as either batsman or bowler.

Flintoff initially made the England team more for his batting..he has always been regarded as a batsman who can bowl a bit...but his bowling has progressed so much in the last 3 years.

I think you underestimate Flintoffs batting powers to be honest..we all know he gets himself out sometimes..and he has one or two weaknesses (shaky vs spinners early on.....hello Mr Gilchrist) ,but the number of times in the last few years that he has delivered the goods when needed must also be remembered.

I guess I have seen a lot more of Flintoff than you, given that I live here in UK and I am a Lancashire supporter...and so I have probably seen more of the good batting from Flintoff than you...just trust me on this one...HE CAN BAT..and on his day he can bat as well as anyone short of Sachin and Lara.

Thats isnt a bowling allrounder I am afraid

 

[andyc]

i think the recent ashes has pretty much made it clear flintoff is pretty damn good

 

[Swervy]

i think the recent ashes has pretty much made it clear flintoff is pretty damn good

you see..us beleivers told all the non beleivers ages ago, and they just wouldnt listen ...some of us knew he was pretty damn good before this game. He is the only Allrounder who can change test matches with all three assets of his game..hence, best allrounder in the world

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Flintoff had a great test match but he is regarded as a bowling all-rounder for very good reason.

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.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Flintoff would be in the England team even if he couldn't bowl.

No he wouldn't. Flintoff is an excellent allrounder, but he's in the team to keep a balance. If he was just a batsman, he would not be there. Bowler, definitely, but batsman, no.

Keep in mind also that Flintoff wouldn't have gotten as long a run in the team if not for his role as an allrounder. He got off to a slow start to his career, but was persisted with due to his allround talents.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Gayle is better than Flintoff.

Because Gayle was never instrumental in beating Australia. Agreed. Tears much? SLS...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

well thats got to be the one of the biggest jokes i've heard mate, Gayle isn't better than Freddie in either bowling/batting in either Test or ODI's

Surely you wouldn't say Flintoff is better than Gayle with the bat though? At the least, they're equally potent.

 

[Swervy]

No he wouldn't. Flintoff is an excellent allrounder, but he's in the team to keep a balance. If he was just a batsman, he would not be there. Bowler, definitely, but batsman, no.

Keep in mind also that Flintoff wouldn't have gotten as long a run in the team if not for his role as an allrounder. He got off to a slow start to his career, but was persisted with due to his allround talents.

I agree in part..I agree that if he hadnt done enough with the ball a bit ago, he probably wouldnt have stayed in the team..simply for lack of anyone else around to provide the allrounder role.

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

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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

Ability is one thing and Flintoff has averaged 40+ over 30 Tests, but he's not quite consistent enough with the big scores to be a specialist batsman.

 

[Swervy]

Surely you wouldn't say Flintoff is better than Gayle with the bat though? At the least, they're equally potent.

If a choice was made between the two, to play for my life, and the way the would save my life was to score a 50 in test match conditions vs a World XI..I would choose Flintoff.

Gayle is way to hit or miss for me. I love wtaching him bat, but I wouldnt really want to rely on him ,esp. opening that batting

 

[Swervy]

Ability is one thing and Flintoff has averaged 40+ over 30 Tests, but he's not quite consistent enough with the big scores to be a specialist batsman.

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

 

[social]

If a choice was made between the two, to play for my life, and the way the would save my life was to score a 50 in test match conditions vs a World XI

What a choice!

History says you'd better have your affairs in order.