Who is the best all rounder

Flintoff easily.Kallis rarely bowls now and the others are bowlers who bat well.

Without out a doubt the last couple of years Flintoff.
But Pollock and Kallis are second and third. Both have had problems with their bowling.
Pollock's bowling has been going down hill. He has still been doing okay and his great overall bowling averages are a testament to to that.
Kallis batting has been prolific but his bowling has been poor ( it was never his strength). But maybe done just enough to be conisdered an allrounder over the last couple of years?
As for the rest either they don't come into contention with these three or it is much to early.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Gotta be Flintoff..

If you think it's someone other than Flintoff I would love to hear why. Statistics show that Kallis is better than Freddie but he hardly bowls now and his injury worries at the moment will limit him even further. Pollock's batting is a little hit or miss most of the time and his bowling is beginning to wane.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

It has to be Flintoff by a mile, if only because if he misses out on one disipline, he will come good in another - that to me is a true all rounder.

__________________
Ern

An all-rounder IS a bowler who bats well... there can be no other! An excellent bowler (think Pollock) is a useful addition to any team... and if he can bat passably (even at Brett Lee's level or Shane Warne's level) he's that much more useful. An ordinary bowler adds little (think Tresco, Bell, Vaughan)... and good batsmen are ten a penny... so that combination is worth diddly-squat.

In the days of uncovered wickets the batting all-rounder might have been useful... but any bowler who is not a frontline bowler is just going to get taken to the cleaners on today's **** pitches: excellent bowling is now the essential skill... to the point where I'd regard Hoggard as a more useful "all-rounder" than Kallis (Hoggard's batting might save a game... Kallis' bowling is unlikely to win one).

Of course... Kallis is a great batsman no matter what the pitch / conditions.. where Hoggard only shines on proper Test tracks... making Kallis the more valuable player - but that's as a specialist.

No.An all-rounder is a player capable of holding down a place in the team in either discipline.The point i made is that Flintoff is the only one of these who can.Pollock is a bowler who is a decent bat but if he was to not be a bowler would he get anywhere near his national team?
As for the Hoggard point.Hahahahahaha.

What about Brett Lee? Would you consider him an all rounder?

__________________
The Australian Cricket Team - The Greatest Cricket Team Ever

These polls are getting a bit tedious, but, I will answer it. It is Flintoff. Average of 40 and mid 20's with the ball in his last 25 tests is outstanding. Kallis is not a genuine allrounder, he couldn't get into SA's team as a bowler alone. Flintoff could and HAS got into Englands side as both a batsman or bowler.