Two all-rounders

[Mr. Wicket]

All-rounder A Played over 75 tests over a period spanning a bit more than a decade. Averages 31.69 with the bat (over 3000 runs, 5 centuries) and 32.51 with the ball (over 200 wickets). 2 five-fors in his career. Strike rate 65.6. If you look at his bowling average from year to year, he's had only two years in his career where he averaged under 30 with the ball over the year in test cricket. In nine other years he averages over 30 with the ball, and in 6 of them his average was over 40. All-rounder B Played over 60 tests. Averages 33.53 with the bat (over 3000 runs, 5 centuries), but a much better bowling records - has exactly one less wicket than All-rounder A in many less tests, and an average of 29.40 with the ball with 13 five-fors and a strike rate of 53.6. More consistent than All-rounder A from year to year, as a bowler averaged under 30 with the ball in around half those years and only had a few bad periods; generally not a bowler who'd blow teams away but could take wickets (as 13 five-fors in a little over 60 tests shows), and was very steady and consistent. Any guesses on who A/R A and B are? Both normally played around the same position in their team. Who'd you rather have in an XI?

[Lord]

A is Flintoff i'm sure B might be Botham

[rainy day]

hmm, you are talking about Flintoff and Chris Crains. Both were great all rounders, but i'd pick a fit Flintoff over Crains.

[Mr. Wicket]

hmm' date=' you are talking about Flintoff and Chris Crains. Both were great all rounders, but i'd pick a fit Flintoff over Crains.[/quote'] Well done, although I disagree with your judgment. A fit Cairns was a sight to behold; let's not forget that he had the same injury plagues as Flintoff and was rarely able to play test cricket fully fit in his prime. One of my favourite players, a more consistent bowler than Flintoff (who often threatened but didn't often put numbers in the wickets column), and just as exhilarating a batsman. But not English, so not subjected to the massive media hype and the excessive praise and drooling hype.

[Fontaine]

The main reason Freddie is as hyped as he is was because of one glorious Ashes series. Yes he bowled superbly but a few series does not make a career. The English fans and media are hanging on to that for dear life, much like their soccer fans cling to the '66 World Cup victory. It's the only reason why I don't want England to win this Ashes. They go on to win it and we'll be hearing about Bopara, Broad for the next ten years as some of greatest champions of cricket.

[Bradman99]

Yeah they are similar type players, I find it hard to seperate them, both were a joy to watch when at their best. But I would go with Cairns.

[King]

Same here, I would go with Cairns. Sad stuff though both couldn't really play to their potential. Cairns had numerous injuries and has a few attitude problems to deal with. When he got his attitude right he was an out and out team man. He had the ability to take the game away from the opponent with bat, ball and with his fielding. Freddi a similar player and a copy of Cairns with regards to attitude, ability and the match winning ability. Cairns won more matches for NZ though in comparison with Freddi.

[Mr. Wicket]

The main reason Freddie is as hyped as he is was because of one glorious Ashes series. Yes he bowled superbly but a few series does not make a career. The English fans and media are hanging on to that for dear life, much like their soccer fans cling to the '66 World Cup victory. It's the only reason why I don't want England to win this Ashes. They go on to win it and we'll be hearing about Bopara, Broad for the next ten years as some of greatest champions of cricket.

You hit the nail on the head. Flintoff had one truly exceptional series that happened to be against a champion team in a historic contest. For that all his inconsistencies, professional issues, lack of reliability and technical flaws are brushed aside and he's placed on an immense pedestal.

Same here' date=' I would go with Cairns. Sad stuff though both couldn't really play to their potential. Cairns had numerous injuries and has a few attitude problems to deal with. When he got his attitude right he was an out and out team man. He had the ability to take the game away from the opponent with bat, ball and with his fielding. Freddi a similar player and a copy of Cairns with regards to attitude, ability and the match winning ability. Cairns won more matches for NZ though in comparison with Freddi.[/quote'] I expected to hear your views in this thread sooner rather than later Ravi, especially as you've seen a lot more of Cairns than pretty much anyone here. Cairns was a match winner with bat AND ball on a regular basis for NZ - remember him rattling out WI with a 7-for at Hamilton ten years back, or that explosive 158 vs. South Africa where Pollock and co. were sent on a massive leather hunt? He did have some attitude problems (and issues with some of the other NZ personnel at times), but it's not that Flintoff was whiter than white -remember the pedalo incident and his much publicized drinking problems? They're both similar players, hence why I made this thread to highlight just how their careers parallel each other with similar stats and too many injuries, but it's notable how Cairns stands above Flintoff in the batting and bowling departments in tests - yet Flintoff is the man hyped to the heavens as the great all rounder of this age, whereas Cairns is almost a forgotten name for many people. BTW, wonder what would have happened if Flintoff had played an ODI innings such as Cairns' hundred in the 2000 Champions Trophy final. England have NEVER won a significant ODI tournament; their only win in a major multi-national tourney of 4 or more teams was a 4 team series in Sharjah in the late 90s. If an Englishman had played such an innings, that too single handedly winning the match after it looked to be India's, it would be written up and talked about the same way as Tendulkar's Desert Storm knocks, or Richards' 189 or Flintoff's Ashes heroics. Instead that knock - one of the great ODI innings IMO - is forgotten by so many.

[Don Sharma]

I like both the players but Cairns was way better than A Flintoff in all the departments. I think Steve Rixon played a huge part in Cairns' career, so credit should go to him as well for shaping up a guy who had serious attitude problems. When you say Cairns all I could remember is the Trans-Tasman trophy in 2001. What a series it was! He scored a breath taking 40 odd runs in the second innings of the First test but still they end up some 10 runs short of the target. A great player who could have been one of the greatest all rounders barring injuries.

[Gambit]

How about All Rounder D - Average of 34 from 23 games with the bat which include a ton already. Bowling average is 27 with 2 5fers, 1 10fers with at S/R of 56. Regarding the OP, Cairns was so very very destructive with the bat but none of his bowling performances really stick to my mind apart from that epic ball to Chris Read. I would go with Freddie.

[Mr. Wicket]

How about All Rounder D - Average of 34 from 23 games with the bat which include a ton already. Bowling average is 27 with 2 5fers, 1 10fers with at S/R of 56. Regarding the OP, Cairns was so very very destructive with the bat but none of his bowling performances really stick to my mind apart from that epic ball to Chris Read. I would go with Freddie.

All-rounder D is right now getting thrashed all over Lord's! Re. Cairns, I'm surprised. Do you recall his superb 7-for against the Windies back in 99 (at Hamilton I think) where he ran through the WI batting with some classic swing bowling, rolled them for under 100? Or the lionhearted farewell performance in Trent Bridge? Vettori didn't play that match with injury, Chris Martin got injured within 2 overs, Kyle Mills broke down in 6 overs. Cairns was playing on painkillers, but with the two new ball bowlers both hurt and unable to bowl any further he took on the duties of both strike and stock bowler and took 9 wickets in a losing cause. Amazing effort that summed up why I'll have him in my side any day.

[Mr. Wicket]

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64088.html - this is the game. For a guy on the verge of retirement, playing with some injury issues that was a really amazing, lionhearted effort with the ball. Unfortunately between Bond's injury prone-ness and the lack of other solid bowlers he rarely had good support as a test bowler. BTW, this is the match against the Windies. Slaughtered em. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63868.html And if you remember the NZ in England series in 1999, he played a huge role in winning the series. Check these showings out: http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63842.html http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63844.html (that epic Read dismissal was of course part of the 6-for in the first game) Heck - Cairns has taken more five-fors against ENGLAND alone than Flintoff has taken in his entire career!

[Lurker]

Out of the two Freddie tends to be recognized more because of his exploits against Australia in Ashes 2005. And frankly his performance in that series was better than what many of the greatest all-rounders have done in 1 series. I doubt folks like Sobers and Kallis had that kind of series ever. I am not counting the famous four of 80s since, to me anyway, they were the most complete all-rounders I have seen who have performed most efficiently. When you think of Ashes 2005 and you think of the team Aussies put up - Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Warne, Gilly, Mcgrath, Gillespie - you have to admit it is one of the greatest teams ever assembled. And Freddie did perform gallantly against this quality side. Who can forget his famous over in the series? Or his 100 with the back against the wall. Cairns was a more complete all-rounder I think but two things go against him: a) He was more consistent and did not have many outstanding series. b) He lacked that extra pace that Freddie had. Whether one agrees or not but if you compare two all-rounders, one who bowls at 80-85 and another who bowls around 90 with a famous heavy ball, the 2nd would be more popular amongst most fans. Oddly enough Freddie thought of himself as a batter who could bowl, but I remember him more as a bowler. In the same breath Cairns thought of his as a bowler who could bat, but I remember him more as a batsman! On an aside note is it not spectacular how so many all-rounders have struggled to play more than 75 Tests?? What do you say about a player who played 131 of them? ...that too non-stop(albeit one in which he was dropped). xxx

[Cricketics]

Given the choice.. I would choose Chris Carins.. but again Salil, it's one of those very tight ones. It's like comparing Hayden/Gilly pair over Mark Waugh/Gilchrist pair.It's that difficult. Both these pairs and both these all rounders have been incredible. At times they have raised their game with bowl, then at times they have been destructive with the bat to lead their team to success.

[Mr. Wicket]

Out of the two Freddie tends to be recognized more because of his exploits against Australia in Ashes 2005. And frankly his performance in that series was better than what many of the greatest all-rounders have done in 1 series. I doubt folks like Sobers and Kallis had that kind of series ever. I am not counting the famous four of 80s since, to me anyway, they were the most complete all-rounders I have seen who have performed most efficiently. When you think of Ashes 2005 and you think of the team Aussies put up - Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Warne, Gilly, Mcgrath, Gillespie - you have to admit it is one of the greatest teams ever assembled. And Freddie did perform gallantly against this quality side. Who can forget his famous over in the series? Or his 100 with the back against the wall.

Very fair point Lurker. The '05 Ashes was an amazing series - but at the end of it Flintoff has had very few 'good' series aside from that, and generally been incredibly inconsistent as his overall record shows. I'll readily admit that was one of the great series performances - but do you give that much more praise to a player who had one such series and ten other series that were very forgettable over a guy who could do a solid, consistent job series to series? I don't deny Flintoff is one of the top all rounders of this generation, after Jacques Kallis. But it seems that Cairns doesn't get his due, when in fact he was a much more consistent player than Flintoff and as the numbers show outdid him over the course of their careers, even if he didn't have that one truly epic career-defining performance as Flintoff had in the 05 Ashes.

On an aside note is it not spectacular how so many all-rounders have struggled to play more than 75 Tests?? What do you say about a player who played 131 of them? ...that too non-stop(albeit one in which he was dropped).

Agree. The longevity of the great all rounders of the 80s - Botham, Kapil and Imran (I still consider Hadlee more of a bowler who could hit) - is something to be marvelled at. In those days it was unheard of for bowlers to reach 400 wickets, unlike now when even 500 and 600 are being touched by a few. Some of the very best bowlers of that era never made it that far, yet Botham and Kapil did it - and that too while also shouldering a batting load. Amazing.

[Dhondy]

Thal, if we are talking about all rounders, let's not talk about minnows like Cairns and Flintoff, who have played 60-70 odd Tests (OK, I didn't mean "minnows" as in "minnows", but you know what i mean). Let's talk about their daddy, who had longevity to beat them both and figures that would make most all rounders look anything but rounded. Gentlemen, I present to you All rounder E. Over a hundred Tests, Nearly 4000 runs @ a shade over 32. To go with over 400 hundred Test wickets @ 23. Beat that, Freddie and Chris.

[Lurker]

But it seems that Cairns doesn't get his due, when in fact he was a much more consistent player than Flintoff and as the numbers show outdid him over the course of their careers, even if he didn't have that one truly epic career-defining performance as Flintoff had in the 05 Ashes.

I do agree that Chris Cairns does not get his due. This is partly explained by the fact that he preceded Flintoff by about a decade(by and large). Cairns is more mid 90s player while Freddie is more early to mid 2000s. Now 90s generally had better bowling attack what with Walsh, Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Mcgrath still operating. So that kind of went against him as his bowling was often dominated by others. In fact I daresay even NZ had better operators at times (Nash being the one that comes to mind). Freddie was "lucky" in that sense that even though his records dont stand out he was still thought of as one of the leading bowlers. I dont quite see how Freddie would have enjoyed the same adulation(as a bowler) in 90s.

Some of the very best bowlers of that era never made it that far, yet Botham and Kapil did it - and that too while also shouldering a batting load. Amazing.

Not to mention these two are also one of the best fielders their countries ever fielded. Botham at slips and Kapil in outfield would make a case for one of the best in the area..not bad even after playing consistently for over 100 games. xx

[Mr. Wicket]

Gentlemen, I present to you All rounder E. Over a hundred Tests, Nearly 4000 runs @ a shade over 32. To go with over 400 hundred Test wickets @ 23. Beat that, Freddie and Chris.

I'd be a little loath to call Pollock a test allrounder, just because his batting very rarely stood out as something significant. He suffered from the strength of his teammates' batting, he only scored 2 centuries in that 100+ test career, and almost never had to do much with the bat, as evidenced by him generally coming in down the order around #8. The other thing about Cairns and Flintoff (and Botham and Kapil) that sets them apart is that if they were struggling to perform in one discipline, they could sometimes be picked for the other. Both men at certain periods could be picked as a pure batsman if their bowling was hampered. And of course both could be picked as pure bowlers as well. The same applied to even Kapil and Botham in their prime, their talent as batsmen when they didn't have to focus on their bowling was amazing. I can't say the same of Pollock or Hadlee; both were talented with the willow but you have to wonder, if Pollock couldn't bowl, would he even be near consideration in a South African squad? I highly doubt it - the same can't be said for Flintoff, Cairns or the other great true all rounders. At the end of it I have the highest regard for Pollock who was an amazing player - but I always think of him as a truly outstanding test bowler who could contribute with the willow down the order, like Hadlee - rather than a genuine all rounder.

[The Outsider]

Here would be my pick for genuine allrounders in the game's history from an earlier post : Australia : Keith Miller Benaud India : Mankad Kapil WI : Sobers Pakistan : Imran Khan England : Botham Tony Greig Flintoff NZ : Hadlee Cairns SA : Pollock Kallis based on my definition(does that sound narcissistic?) : 1. Batting Allrounders : Someone who earns his spot as a top 5 batsman and can be a 4th/5th bowler averaging mid 30s or below in bowling with 2+ wickets per match. 2. Bowling Allrounders : Someone who earns his spot as a front line bowler and can bat at number 7/8 or higher averaging 25+ with the bat.

[Lurker]

^^ Good list there Shwetabh. A few I would wanna add. South Africa: Mike Procter Aubrey Faulkner West Indies: Learie Constantine (forget the stats, one of the description for Kapil Dev was modern day Constantine, and thats enough for me) England: Monty Noble Probably the most underrated in that list is Vinoo Mankad, even by Indians. It is amazing how little he is credited with although his record is very stellar, specially if you consider India was way in its infancy at the time.