Who is the best all-rounder in world cricket?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, I think Vettori has certainly moved up from the "handy with the bat" category to the "bowling all-rounder" category, closer to Boje now than Giles or Gillespie. Still, he's not in the Pollock or Flintoff class as an all-rounder.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah, I think Vettori has certainly moved up from the "handy with the bat" category to the "bowling all-rounder" category, closer to Boje now than Giles or Gillespie. Still, he's not in the Pollock or Flintoff class as an all-rounder.

No disrespect to Dizzy, but Ash Giles is a fair bit better with the bat. He isn't quite in the bowling all-rounder class for me, but an average of nearly 21 is pretty decent for a number 8.

Gillespie has worked on his batting & improved a heck of a lot, but I'd say Ash was closer to Vettori talent-wise than Dizzy is to Ash.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No disrespect to Dizzy, but Ash Giles is a fair bit better with the bat. He isn't quite in the bowling all-rounder class for me, but an average of nearly 21 is pretty decent for a number 8.

Gillespie has worked on his batting & improved a heck of a lot, but I'd say Ash was closer to Vettori talent-wise than Dizzy is to Ash.

Giles is a better with the bat than Gillespie yes, but I wouldn't say the gap is that big really. Giles certainly scores more runs, but Gillespie is harder to remove, and deciding which is better for a tail-ender isn't that clear cut. I'd certainly say though that Giles is better at scoring runs with lower tail-enders, but if I wanted someone to bat with a top order batsman with runs desperately needed I'd pick Gillespie first.

Either way, Vettori is better than both of them by a fair margin, and has averaged 38 with the bat in tests since the start of 2003, which is better than some batsmen I could name, while Giles in the same period has averaged 25.7 and Gillespie 20.8. Vettori has one century and five 50s since then, Giles has three 50s and Gillespie two. Gillespie has formed hugely important partnerships of over 100 runs with Katich and twice with Martyn in that period thought, which can't really be covered by his personal average.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm really surprised Vettori has done so well over such a long period; he looked no better than ok over here in 2004. He did score a few runs in the 2nd test before he was crocked, but I am surprised he averages quite so many.

 

[marc71178]

I would class Daniel Vettori as a great allrounder as his batting has been great lately and also his bowling

His batting has actually been more impressive than his bowling of late, but that's not saying a great deal about his batting.

 

[marc71178]

Giles is a better with the bat than Gillespie yes, but I wouldn't say the gap is that big really. Giles certainly scores more runs, but Gillespie is harder to remove, and deciding which is better for a tail-ender isn't that clear cut. I'd certainly say though that Giles is better at scoring runs with lower tail-enders, but if I wanted someone to bat with a top order batsman with runs desperately needed I'd pick Gillespie first.

Right, even though Giles is quite clearly a far superior batsman who batted at 6 or 7 in CC when he last played it as a regular player?

Not to mention his centuries in both FC and List A games.

 

[marc71178]

I'm really surprised Vettori has done so well over such a long period; he looked no better than ok over here in 2004. He did score a few runs in the 2nd test before he was crocked, but I am surprised he averages quite so many.

Yes, but unfortunately for him, it's still countered by his bowling average!

 

[social]

Right, even though Giles is quite clearly a far superior batsman who batted at 6 or 7 in CC when he last played it as a regular player?

Not to mention his centuries in both FC and List A games.

Giles has until recently been regarded as an absolute bunny at test level. And Shane Wane, amongst others, has a century in CC, so dont read too much into that statistic.

Vettori is quite clearly the best batsmen of the three.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yes, but unfortunately for him, it's still countered by his bowling average!

Funny how Vettori's test average of 35 is a massive indictment on his abilities as a bowler, but Giles average of 37 is not. Both are quite good but not brilliant bowlers, who nevertheless play a valuable role in their team.

And yes, Giles scores more runs than Gillespie, which is why he averages a good 4 runs or so higher in test cricket, but as I said Gillespie is harder to dismiss, and his value as a batsman is not entirely reflected in his average, as innings like his 26 off 165 balls in quite difficult conditions at Chennai show, where he added 139 runs with Martyn and in the process brought Australia back into the match, or his 47 in a stand of 117 with Katich in Sydney, to help Australia close in on the follow-on target.

Anyway, Giles is clearly a bigger run scorer, but I don't think the gap between them as batsman is all that big, whereas Vettori is clearly significantly more productive than Giles is, particularly in the last couple of years.

 

[social]

This thread should be entitled "Who is the best all-rounder bar Gilchrist" because if we are talking about someone that is proficient in 2 disciplines then it's him first, daylight second, and irrelevelant third.

 

[JBH001]

Funny how Vettori's test average of 35 is a massive indictment on his abilities as a bowler, but Giles average of 37 is not. Both are quite good but not brilliant bowlers, who nevertheless play a valuable role in their team.

You really cant seriously be comparing them as bowlers?
Giles is a good bowler (but imo a little overrated) though his negative tactics are sometimes annoying, but Vettori is a very good bowler and is quite a bit superior to Giles.

 

[marc71178]

Giles has until recently been regarded as an absolute bunny at test level. And Shane Wane, amongst others, has a century in CC, so dont read too much into that statistic.

Warne has just got one - Giles has 3 I believe as well as one in a List A game...

Besides, this is comparing Giles with Gillespie.

 

[marc71178]

This thread should be entitled "Who is the best all-rounder bar Gilchrist" because if we are talking about someone that is proficient in 2 disciplines then it's him first, daylight second, and irrelevelant third.

So he'd make the Aussie team if he averaged, say 19 or 20 with the bat then?

 

[Blaze]

His batting has actually been more impressive than his bowling of late, but that's not saying a great deal about his batting.

? He was NZ's player of the year for the year ending in March 05

 

[social]

So he'd make the Aussie team if he averaged, say 19 or 20 with the bat then?

No, but if his keeping went off, he'd make the team as a batsman.

If Flintoff was a poor batsman or bowler, would he ever have been selected in the first place?

Anyway, that's all hypothetical. As it stands, Gilchrist is one of the world's leading batsmen and, conservatively, one of the 2 or 3 best keepers whilst Flintoff is the best of the rest.

 

[deeps]

Clarke? If you said Watson, fine, but CLARKE? I'm a big fan of his, but he's not anywhere near good enough as a bowler to take regular test wickets. At most he could do a Lehmann type role in ODIs in the future.

pfft, watson? hack of a player...plz don't say he has the potential to be the best all rounder in the world. he is an ok bowler, and an ok batsman. nothing special in either discipline. would not even get a look in, if he couldn't do one or the other.

the good all rounders make teams by one skill alone

cairns makes the team when he can't bowl.
kallis ditto
flintoff ditto
afridi ditto (when he was bowling poorly, he made it as a batsman, and vice versa)
shoaib malik ditto


watson would never get close to the australian team as a pure batsman, nor a pure bowler.


shoaib malik has been cleared completely by the icc, so his bowling is no longer under a cloud.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

pfft, watson? hack of a player...plz don't say he has the potential to be the best all rounder in the world. he is an ok bowler, and an ok batsman. nothing special in either discipline. would not even get a look in, if he couldn't do one or the other

I certainly wouldn't say that I think he WILL be the best all-rounder in the world, but he absolutely has the potential. Find me another player in the world who averages in the 40s with the bat and in the 20s with the ball in first class cricket. One, please. Jacob Oram goes close, but both his batting and bowling averages are worse than Watson's, and Flintoff doesn't manage this either. Watson is a hugely talented player, it's just a matter of discovering whether he can transfer this to the international stage or not.

watson would never get close to the australian team as a pure batsman, nor a pure bowler.

Err, why wouldn't he make the side as a pure batsman? Watson's first class record: 2657 runs @ 45.03 with 8 centuries, as well as 72 wickets @ 28.73. He's probably not right in line for a batting spot just yet, but with a FC average of 45 he's certainly not that far off, and his bowling adds to his appeal as well, which is why he's going on the Ashes tour.

Keep in mind that he is also only 23, and therefore still well short of his peak as a player. And sorry, but if you're going to suggest to me in any serious fashion that Afridi is a) a good all-rounder or b) a better player than Shane Watson, you are nuts. Afridi is neither a good batsman or a good bowler, he is passable at both and has moments of sheer brilliance with the bat followed by long periods of mediocrity, while with the ball he is a handy part-timer at best. He's a very good ODI player, but a poor choice in tests, and would NEVER make a test side as a batsman alone.

 

[SJS]

Imran Khan

 

[honestbharani]

Gilchrist
Flintoff
Kallis
Sangakkara
others.

 

[SJS]

With no offence to anyone. When people ask who is the best all rounder, they invariably refer to bowling and batting. Keeping all rounders are in a different category in a way and are best compared with other keeping all rounders in my humble opinion.