[quote author=wifan link=topic=84955.msg530696#msg530696 date=1384093744]
I know the ICC rankings are based on recent form. I just have a different view on what constitutes a genuine all-rounder, it's subjective.
The likes of Broad are not genuine all-rounders. Broad is a bowler who bats a bit, as you said yourself.
[/quote]
I don't what exactly is your criteria of an allrounder then.
There are "true" allrounders, as in those who are good standalone as batsmen and bowlers. Those are rare. There are also batting and bowling allrounders. They excel in one of the areas and are OKAY in the other, I think they qualify to be all rounders. Philander is a very handy batsman, you'd know if you have followed his SA domestic/A team before. Same with Broad, he's rescued England with the bat at times and has emerged as a far better bowler recently.
Bits and pieces players, like Sammy for eg. - are neither good at batting or bowling.
I know the ICC rankings are based on recent form. I just have a different view on what constitutes a genuine all-rounder, it's subjective.
The likes of Broad are not genuine all-rounders. Broad is a bowler who bats a bit, as you said yourself.
[/quote]
I don't what exactly is your criteria of an allrounder then.
There are "true" allrounders, as in those who are good standalone as batsmen and bowlers. Those are rare. There are also batting and bowling allrounders. They excel in one of the areas and are OKAY in the other, I think they qualify to be all rounders. Philander is a very handy batsman, you'd know if you have followed his SA domestic/A team before. Same with Broad, he's rescued England with the bat at times and has emerged as a far better bowler recently.
Bits and pieces players, like Sammy for eg. - are neither good at batting or bowling.