Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

I see that everyone has a different definition for all rounder. However, for the team the runs and wickets are the things that matter. Kallis has done just that, time and again, and for more longevity than any other all rounder.

Hope he comes back soon, free from injury. Might be available in the ODIs I suppose.

IMO bresnan is a very good, very underrated all-rounder...he slotted into the side pretty much unnoticed, and has turned in some extremely good performances. Huge blow that he is injured.

sportbloggeradi wrote:I see that everyone has a different definition for all rounder. However, for the team the runs and wickets are the things that matter. Kallis has done just that, time and again, and for more longevity than any other all rounder.

Less than 3 wickets a match so not an all rounder by my strict definition.

Great batsman who is a useful contributer with the ball.

The best performances by an all-rounder in recent years came from Flintoff in 2005, about as close as you will get to one in the last 10-15 years or so. The key definition for me for an all-rounder is "could they be picked on one discipline alone", and Freddie was that (although his batting tailed off alarmingly afterwards). Kallis for me doesn't get in as a bowler on merit. Bresnan is not a good enough batsman to get a game on that basis alone (Broad could be if he put his mind to it a bit more). Probably the closest in world cricket at the moment is Shakib.

The point being of course that true all rounders at Test level are very rare. Even the best struggled to get both disciplines performing at once and often one went on the back burner.

Probably easier in ODIs. Freddie is an underrated great in ODIs. Look at his figures. But quite a lot of players tick both boxes in limited overs. Klusener, Kallis, Hafeez... Afridi is curious as once being first name on the sheet for batting and bowling, but never at the same time.

Englands loss, Yorkshires gain

Step up Tremlett/Finn/Onions

HarryPotter wrote:

sportbloggeradi wrote:I see that everyone has a different definition for all rounder. However, for the team the runs and wickets are the things that matter. Kallis has done just that, time and again, and for more longevity than any other all rounder.

Less than 3 wickets a match so not an all rounder by my strict definition.

Great batsman who is a useful contributer with the ball.

sorry but thats a perfect example of using one aspct of a statistic to support an incorrect opinion

anyone who has taken 274 wickets at an average of 32 and a strike rate of under 70 to go alongside his batting record MUST be considered an all-rounder. the only reason his wickets:matches ratio is low is due to the fact that he is not used a huge amount as a bowler due to his importance as a batsman. his average as a bowler is as good as some so-called specialist bowlers in test cricket atm.

HarryPotter wrote:

sportbloggeradi wrote:I see that everyone has a different definition for all rounder. However, for the team the runs and wickets are the things that matter. Kallis has done just that, time and again, and for more longevity than any other all rounder.

Less than 3 wickets a match so not an all rounder by my strict definition.

Great batsman who is a useful contributer with the ball.

I am okay if you don't consider him allrounder as i said everyone has a different view or statistics to fit a player into all rounder. I repeat, for me anyone who takes wickets, scores runs and fields well as good as Kallis has done is an allrounder. Sometimes such cricketers will only take wickets in a match, sometimes only score runs in match, sometimes take wickets and score runs in same match and sometimes contribute nothing in same match. He's done just that throughout his career and is one of the most successful all rounder IMO at least. Kallis has scored 12000+ runs and taken 274 wickets. Part time bowlers do not end up with 274 test wickets and part time batsmen do not end up scoring 12000 test runs.Since Kallis injured his shoulders two years back captain hasn't bowled him much but he's still their 4th pacer as well as specialist batsmen in the Saffers team. South African management, past cricketers, cricketers of opposition teams consider him as all rounder though. I am sure about it. That is more important to kallis.

Bresnan is a good enough bowler to command a test place. He is also, as his batting position would suggest, a better batsman than Broad, so he is probably the nearest thing to a genuine all-rounder that we have, if not quite there yet.

rich1uk wrote:anyone who has taken 274 wickets at an average of 32 and a strike rate of under 70 to go alongside his batting record MUST be considered an all-rounder. the only reason his wickets:matches ratio is low is due to the fact that he is not used a huge amount as a bowler due to his importance as a batsman. his average as a bowler is as good as some so-called specialist bowlers in test cricket atm.

Very comparable figures to Matthew Hoggard (albeit Hoggy had a superior strike rate), and he certainly couldn't bat to any great extent.

rich1uk wrote:

HarryPotter wrote:

sportbloggeradi wrote:I see that everyone has a different definition for all rounder. However, for the team the runs and wickets are the things that matter. Kallis has done just that, time and again, and for more longevity than any other all rounder.

Less than 3 wickets a match so not an all rounder by my strict definition.

Great batsman who is a useful contributer with the ball.

sorry but thats a perfect example of using one aspct of a statistic to support an incorrect opinion

anyone who has taken 274 wickets at an average of 32 and a strike rate of under 70 to go alongside his batting record MUST be considered an all-rounder. the only reason his wickets:matches ratio is low is due to the fact that he is not used a huge amount as a bowler due to his importance as a batsman. his average as a bowler is as good as some so-called specialist bowlers in test cricket atm.

I am afraid its actually you not understanding the background of the statistic and therefore drawing the incorrect conclusion because you believe that the figure itself cannot lie, when you actually need to consider how he came about it.

I would take the opposite view in that his figures have benefited hugely from being PT. He bowls when conditions suit and things are going his way. When things don't and are tough he is pulled out of the attack. Had he been a front line bowler he would have had to bowl much more and his figures would have suffered hugely.

His average and SR are misleading and cannot be projected across a front line bowlers career.

D/L wrote:Bresnan is a good enough bowler to command a test place. He is also, as his batting position would suggest, a better batsman than Broad, so he is probably the nearest thing to a genuine all-rounder that we have, if not quite there yet.

No he isnt. Broad is a good batsman who should develop into a number 7 in Tests. Bresnan is good, but not as good.

Neither are (yet?) all rounders.

HarryPotter wrote:

D/L wrote:Bresnan is a good enough bowler to command a test place. He is also, as his batting position would suggest, a better batsman than Broad, so he is probably the nearest thing to a genuine all-rounder that we have, if not quite there yet.

No he isnt. Broad is a good batsman who should develop into a number 7 in Tests. Bresnan is good, but not as good.

Neither are (yet?) all rounders.

Bresnan is a better batsman than Broad. England don't have an all-rounder but Bresnan is the nearest thing to it.