Pollock is the best allrounder in the world

[The Great DonTalon]

In fact he is the only classical all rounder the game has seen since Ian botham. I personally don't consider batsmen who can bowl to be allrounders; I have always had the visions of the True allrounder getting 5 wickets and then making a 50 , instead of the batsman getting 80 and then taking 3 wickets.

This theory which I have will put paid to many a modern allrounder theory- I do consider the batsman /bowler to be an allrounder of sorts but not as much of an allrounder as a bowler who can bat.

[Maranello]

LOL.. good one Don! Your opinion definitely does not "put paid to many a modern allrounder theory", since you have advanced no logical reasons or proof to back it up :-)

That's just your opinion, that an all-rounder has to take a five-for and get a 50. Why not score 80 and get 3-for? Why bowl first? Just your preference, no rational reason for it really so nothing in here for people who prefer logic over sentiment and emotion.

So interesting theory as always from The Great Don, but other theories are equally, if not more valid.

[The Great DonTalon]

well I never aid it was the greatness theory..I think it is different though. But I really mean to say that an allrounder more or less should do more with ball than bat but that would relegate Sir Garry to the cricket pits and make Glenn McGrath the best allrounder in the world at the moment..rediculous I know.

[Ernest]

Hmmm, If I had to stake money on Andrew Flintoff making a 50+ 9 times out of ten, or reurning wickets of 3 or something economical, I would go or the bowling.

I have said this to Rachael over and over again, I think Flintoff like Botham is a bowling all-rounder.

Ern

[Maranello]

Sir Gary Sobers was definitely one of the most versatile players of all time, and one of the greatest ever. Whether he was an all-ruonder or not is an entirely different debate, and one which does not in any way detract from his greatness.

For me an all-ronder is someone who can play in a team in more than one role. So Imran Khan was an all-rounder for Pakistan, since apart from being the best bowler in Pakistan for 15 years, and the best in the world for some of that time, he was also one of the most technically sound middle order bats in the country. Hence he merited his place in the side either as a bowler alone or as a bat alone, or in his case, even as a Captain alone since he made the team in his image.

By the same definition, Richard Hadlee was definitely not an all-rounder. Botham and Rice were. Kapil Dev... I am not so sure about, India had many other talented batsmen so its not clear whether he could have played only as a Bat. He was certainly competent enough to, in my view.

Of the current crickterers, Flintoff fulfils that role - he has played ODIs for England only as a bat, and of course, can play as bowler alone too. Gilchrist is another interesting case - he will walk into any other Test team as a top 6 batsman, even if he never went near wicketkeeping. However, I am not sure if he would qualify for the current Aussie top 6 as a batsman alone - I mean, who do they leave out? Lehmann? Langer? Maybe..

Pollock, great bowler though he is, would not play just as a batsman. However, he is a more than competent lower middle order bat. Kallis on the other hand, might just be good enough as a seamer to play as a bowler alone... only on certain tracks though. Hence my rating Kallis as a better all-rounder than Flintoff or Pollock, and the ratings back this view. However, others often disagree with me on this. :-)

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Hmmm, If I had to stake money on Andrew Flintoff making a 50+ 9 times out of ten, or reurning wickets of 3 or something economical, I would go or the bowling.

I have said this to Rachael over and over again, I think Flintoff like Botham is a bowling all-rounder.

Ern

I agree Ern, but the difference between Freddie's batting and bowling is narrower than the liked of Pollock (obviously a bowling all rounder) or Kallis (obviously a batting all rounder). Flintoff is one of England's better bowlers, and on his day, probably one of their best batsmen too.

[Zainub]

An all roudner for me is some one capable of getting selected as either a genuine batsman, or a genuine bowler alone, people have their own reasons, and preferencees, but right now I think my favorite all rounder is Freddie Flintoff, for sheer entertaintment value. I think he is the best in the world right now, but I'm not going to say why. I just think he is.

Pollock, Kallis, Oram are all world class, Razzaq is still developing, and so is Malik. Bravo is one to watch out for as well. And Giles () is also nice. Nice, is the most appropriate word I can think of right now.

[The Great DonTalon]

Originally Posted by Maranello

I agree Ern, but the difference between Freddie's batting and bowling is narrower than the liked of Pollock (obviously a bowling all rounder) or Kallis (obviously a batting all rounder). Flintoff is one of England's better bowlers, and on his day, probably one of their best batsmen too.

jeez..This is certainly not so. Andrew is nowhere near a test class bowler..in fact I dont think he's quite up to scratch in the FC arena as a bowler either..YES on his day he is one of their batter batsmen but on their day and anyone will be one of any teams' best batsmen.


Andrew can play the game but he certainly is not Sir Garry nor imran khan.

[Trigger]

Worth remembering Don, that Flintoff is number 14 in the world as a specialist bowler, so he is not mug, and getting better.

[The Great DonTalon]

Originally Posted by Trigger

Worth remembering Don, that Flintoff is number 14 in the world as a specialist bowler, so he is not mug, and getting better.

Number 14 in the world of bowlers is like being number 14 ranked team in world soccer or in tennis...despite how high you are ranked you'll never win a Grand Slam nor the fifa world cup no manner what your ranking says. That ranking is a joke..especially for bowlers.