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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests