Well looking at Pollock's and Flintoff's batting statistics in 2006 and 2007, and it appears on form, that Pollock has a higher average over these years for both Tests and ODIs (similiar batting positions if I'm not mistaken?).

In test cricket both players share similiar averages 32.32 (Pollock) and 32.51 (Flintoff)

In ODIs, Flintoff has an average of 33.16 compared to Pollock's 24.95...but if you breakdown performances by year you can see that what distinguishes the two players is that Flintoff was on fire during 2003 and 2004.

However recently looking at performances in 2006 and 2007...Pollock does have a higher average in both tests and ODIs.

But now where Flintoff has the 'edge' with the bat...no pun intended ....Shaun Pollock is undeniably a MUCH superior bowler than Flintoff.

And I'm sure many bad batsmen have been selected for many teams (not neccessarily good teams) based on batting alone.

Thanks PH...

Only problem this is in the ODI forum, therefore, I am assuming that we are basing it purely on ODI's??

So what they look like in Tests, is irrelevant?

http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=c...ds=comparetype

Is the comparison, same number of runs, but half the number of ODI's. The reason Pollocks average is not half is probably down to number of Not Outs, which is, I suspect, due to him batting further down the batting order.

Pollock has never scored an ODI hundred, which again is probably due to his place in the order.

Thats true...but it does give further indication of one's competences with a bat.

But as stated Pollock's current form over 2005 and 2006 in ODIs is much stronger than the form of Flintoff.

But as you said 'Not Outs' could be a factor, though there is something to be said about seeing out the innings for your team.

The thread was posted in the ODI forum and with the World Cup as the clear focus: let's assume that a World Cup XI is to be assembled at the end of the competition... with the following balance...

5 Batsmen (including occasional bowling)
1 Keeper
1 All-Rounder
4 Bowlers (including a no 8 bat)

The all-rounder might bat above the 'keeper or below the 'keeper... but needs to be a credible 5th bowler and good for 10 overs every time he takes the field.

Now look at who is in form... and find me a player who is close to the following over his last 10 ODIs... I don't think you'll find anyone even VAGUELY close!

------------------------------- Edit-------------------------------

Flintoff and Oram's figures read as follows... I accept that Oram's no frontline bowler but in his last two matches with the ball he's been a passable enough 5th bowler...

I have to disagree here. Ern once again, you want to compare once off or inconsistent performances. If in your opinion an in form Flintoff, gets the nod, too bad he was only in form for 1 year. There is absolutely no way that Flintoff can get into a "decent" test side as a batsman alone. If he plays for England as a batsman, then that just reflects on how poor Englands batting is. Flintoff Bowling is not as great as you make it out to be. I think Kallis has more 10 wicket hauls than Flintoff. Flintoff might be economical but he rarely takes 5 wicket hauls. Ern, cricket was not only played during 2005. Please look at what Flintoff has done (or did not do) in the years.

As for the other point about Symonds making Australia as a bowler alone LOL. If Symonds was a front line bowler who could not bat, I would put my money on Bangladesh giving Australia a thumping with that sort of attack.

I have said before, IMO an all-rounder is a player who is a top performer with either bat or ball and is able to "consistently" perform in the other discipline. An all-rounder being able to make a side purely on either his batting or his bowling is just impossible. Only 1 man was able to do that (No Ern it was not Flintoff). and that man is Sir Garfield Sobers. Greats like this only come around every 100 years. Kallis, Pollock are much better all rounders than Flintoff.

In fact Ern, I even quesion Flintoff being called an allrouinder. With a bowling average as high as his batting average(which is too low for a specialist batsman) is he even a top bowler. Top bowlers usually average below 30. Flintoffs bowling cannot even be compared to Pollocks. Kallis is a part time bowler but even his average is as good as Flintoffs. Flintoff is a good cricketer but I feel the English once again overate their players (Rooney, Michael Owen, etc).

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

Would agree, and I wish Flintoff was able to finish more games, but it is much easier being there at the end when you come in at 8 or 9, then when you come in at 5 or 6...

Of Pollocks 63 not outs, over one third have been when he has scored less than 10

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?s...lds =viewtype

Indeed it is easier...Pollock's average batting position is 7.46 while Flintoff's is 5.28.

Though surely 'not out' that are less than 10 will have minimum effect on the average. I'm not sure about this though???

You are right. I think that this comparison is plain ridiculous. It is impossible to fairly compare 2 players batting in very different batting positions, playing for 2 totally different sides (England are a poor 1 day team, so Flintoff will get to bat every game and will get more than 30 overs to bat in most cases, whereas Pollock hardly gets to bat because SA's top order perform more often than not and if Pollock does get to bat it is usually for a handful of balls). It is not Pollocks fault that he does not play for a weak team that require all 11 of their players to bat every match. Flintoff gets much more opportunities to bat than Pollock, yet he rarely contributes.

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

Kallis as a batsman would have made any side anywhere in both forms of the game.

Kallis' bowling is a bonus - and a very good one at that - but it is fair to say that he would not have made it far on bowling alone, though he might have been a consideration for ODIs.

Flintoff as a batsman alone would not have made it to the test side. There are other specialist batsmen-in-waiting to be considered. But his big hitting capabilities might have got him a place in the ODI team provided he showed some consistency.

Flintoff as a bowler alone would struggle to be a regular in the test side. He is certainly not in Beefy's class and there would be other specialist English bowlers who might show better figures on paper. But Flintoff the bowler would certainly have been a regular in the ODI side.

Many of the pro-Flintoff posts suggest something which is natural because of the man's larger than life character and current stature in sport. People, in particular England supporters, will find it hard to make a mental picture of Flintoff as a pure batsman or pure bowler without the other discipline intervening. Please think hard about this and then you'll see what I mean.

Well said Nostromo, finally an unbiased post. I could not agree with you more. By the way, do you you consider Gayle and Jayasuriya as allrounders in the 1 day game. I think that they are both consistent batsman and they are more than useful 1 day bowlers.

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?