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

[aussie]

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

Brilliant Swervy couldn't agree with this more, i have also seen a lot of Mr.Infredible here at OT & i know how destructive he can be with the bat, i maintain he hits the ball has hard has anyone in world cricket no doubt.....

 

[aussie]

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

That is debatable to the extreme....

 

[tooextracool]

by my definition an 'all rounder' is someone who is good enough in all 3 disciplines- bowling, batting and fielding. therefore gilchrist doesnt come into the frame as an all rounder, which makes flintoff easily the best all rounder ATM.

 

[tooextracool]

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

thats a joke really. gayle is barely worth his place in the test side if you ask me, and the only reason he plays is because he gets dead flat wickets in the WI for him to score runs on.

 

[lord_of_darkness]

thats a joke really. gayle is barely worth his place in the test side if you ask me, and the only reason he plays is because he gets dead flat wickets in the WI for him to score runs on.

LOL! gayle deserves his spot.. he is a very talented batsmen and he just needs to work on his bowling a little more .. but still does his job well when asked of as a part time bowler..

 

[Shane Warne]

thats a joke really. gayle is barely worth his place in the test side if you ask me, and the only reason he plays is because he gets dead flat wickets in the WI for him to score runs on.

Idiocy of the highest order.

 

[simmy]

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

Are you serious?!

Could Gayle produce anything like what Fred did yesterday?!?!?! With bat or ball? No chance! Consider the circumstances... batting against the best side in the world... with Warne bowling into rough.. hitting sixes over 9 sweepers! Then bowling out Langer and Ponting in the same over! All in the same day.

Gayle is a good player especially in the one day arena but Flintoff is the talisman of the second-best side of the world and just showed his talent against the best.

Ponting said himself that the only English player that would get in his side (before this tour mind) was Flintoff.

Do you honestly... seriously... do you honestly think that in similar circumstances that he would say the same for Gayle ???????

He'd be one of the first on most people's World XI lists... Gayle wouldnt even appear especially in a Test XI

 

[aussie]

Get out! Get out my house now!

Could Gayle produce anything like what Fred did yesterday?!?!?! No chance!

Gayle is a good player especially in the one day arena but Flintoff is the talisman of the second-best side of the world and just showed his talent against the best.

Ponting said himself that the only English player that would get in his side (before this tour mind) was Flintoff.

Do you honestly... seriously... do you honestly think that in similar circumstances that he would say the same for Gayle ???????

i was refering to their batting ability not all-round ability mate....

 

[simmy]

Even so... Averages dont really mean everything to be honest. What would have happened had he batted against Bangladesh?! Could have been painful to watch!

Gayle will bat against the worst and best attacks as he opens.. Flintoff will only get in when the opponents have knocked over the top 4.

Flintoff is just better. Full stop.

 

[aussie]

Even so... Averages dont really mean everything to be honest. What would have happened had he batted against Bangladesh?! Could have been painful to watch!

Gayle will bat against the worst and best attacks as he opens.. Flintoff will only get in when the opponents have knocked over the top 4.

Flintoff is just better. Full stop.

love your spirit mate you should have been a Lancashire fan

 

[simmy]

Hehe. Yeah maybe.

Got to bring some sense to this thread. Noone has voted for Gayle which has got to say something! Who voted for Rudolph?! Oh dear!

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Fred by a country mile, then daylight, then more daylight, then twilight, dusk, night, dawn, then....Afridi. Gilly isn't an all-rounder ffs, Kallis is pretty much a batsmen these days.

It's not rocket science.

 

[social]

Even so... Averages dont really mean everything to be honest. What would have happened had he batted against Bangladesh?! Could have been painful to watch!

Gayle will bat against the worst and best attacks as he opens.. Flintoff will only get in when the opponents have knocked over the top 4.

Flintoff is just better. Full stop.

What would Filtoff's average be as an operner? 10, 15, 20.

He bats on mainly tiny grounds and comes in against the old ball and still averages just 30.

Everyone knows Flintoff has talent with the bat, but a couple of innings does not suddenly elevate him above Gayle who has a test match 300 to his credit, averages 40, opens the batting, has every bit as much talent, hits the ball every bit as hard, but has the same mental frailties.

 

[social]

Fred by a country mile, then daylight, then more daylight, then twilight, dusk, night, dawn, then....Afridi.
It's not rocket science.

Why?

Afridi averages more with the bat (despite throwing his wicket away almost every innings), less with the ball, is every bit as good a fielder, recently won a test for Pakistan in their equivalent of the Ashes against India, and has barely scratched his potential.

I'll accept that Flintoff is the best of the traditional all-rounders (although Gilly and Sangakarra are miles ahead if they're included), but the marrgin between Flintoff and Afridi is narrow. In fact, I'd go as far to say that should Afridi continue his current rate of improvement, he'll be the best and by some distance.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Fred by a country mile, then daylight, then more daylight, then twilight, dusk, night, dawn, then....Afridi. Gilly isn't an all-rounder ffs, Kallis is pretty much a batsmen these days.

It's not rocket science.

I think that people are beginning to see that now. Gilchrist doesn't really add an extra position to the side like Flintoff can - he's just very very good in his position. England can afford to take five out and out bowlers, and seven out and out batsmen, into their side, while Australia can only take four bowlers in comparison.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Why?

Afridi averages more with the bat (despite throwing his wicket away almost every innings), less with the ball, is every bit as good a fielder, recently won a test for Pakistan in their equivalent of the Ashes against India, and has barely scratched his potential.

I'll accept that Flintoff is the best of the traditional all-rounders (although Gilly and Sangakarra are miles ahead if they're included), but the marrgin between Flintoff and Afridi is narrow. In fact, I'd go as far to say that should Afridi continue his current rate of improvement, he'll be the best and by some distance.

Going by their respective performances against the Australians, Fred is the one.

My "dusk, night.." thing was a little tongue-in-cheek, I refuse to use emoticons however.

 

[social]

Going by their respective performances against the Australians, Fred is the one.

My "dusk, night.." thing was a little tongue-in-cheek, I refuse to use emoticons however.

Both have only played 2 matches vs Aus - too early to tell on that basis alone.

Flintoff has improved significantly over the past 2 years to the extent that he is a threat with bat and ball.

He is undoubtedly the no. 1 all-rounder at present.

Unfortunately, he will be hyped up by the English press to the extent that he cannot possibly match expectations.

 

[luckyeddie]

Unfortunately, he will be hyped up by the English press to the extent that he cannot possibly match expectations.

British tabloid newspapers are for the benefit of the intellectually sub-normal and Australian cricket fans.

(not necessarily two distinct populations statistically-speaking)

 

[Swervy]

Why?

Afridi averages more with the bat (despite throwing his wicket away almost every innings), less with the ball, is every bit as good a fielder, recently won a test for Pakistan in their equivalent of the Ashes against India, and has barely scratched his potential.

I'll accept that Flintoff is the best of the traditional all-rounders (although Gilly and Sangakarra are miles ahead if they're included), but the marrgin between Flintoff and Afridi is narrow. In fact, I'd go as far to say that should Afridi continue his current rate of improvement, he'll be the best and by some distance.

Afridi is a slogger ..simple as..a very talented slogger, but still a slogger. If Flintoff is inconsistant, Afridi is more so, and the difference is,Flintoff, because he is a 'proper' batsman, will always be more consistant...Afridi, by the very nature of his play, will always be inconsistant,and so will not be a reliable test batsman.

On the bowler side of things, Flintoff is a much bigger threat than Afridi could ever dream of being.

There is no improvement by Afridi, he either comes off or he doesnt.

 

[social]

British tabloid newspapers are for the benefit of the intellectually sub-normal and Australian cricket fans.

(not necessarily two distinct populations statistically-speaking)

British newspapers

Paid for by brits

Produced by a migrant workforce

OWNED by Australians

Sound familiar