My top 20 allrounders of all-time

[Engle]

Good thinking into this. There will always be detractors. My opinion is that no mathematical model will prove 100 % the better player.

One point I'd make is that a player who plays for his stats will feature higher.

FYI, there was another model used some time back by the Cricketer mag.
Here's how it goes.

1. Pick a list of top AR ( this is imp, if you pick Hammond or Akram, will affect results for all)

2. Add their batting avg and find the mean avg
3. Determine how far their avg is from the mean avg ( + or - ).
e.g. Sobers will have many + points, Hadlee will have - points.

4. For bowling, use (lets say)
Effective Bowling Avg = Square root of avg x strike rate
5. Add these numbers and find the mean.
6. Determine how far each AR is from the mean
e.g. Hadlee will have many + points, Sobers will have - points

7. Add each AR + and - points and rank them.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

His results would suggest otherwise.

He was a fine captain, of that there can be no doubt. But really, do you say that he dragged Pakistan to the top of the world test pecking order, or did something equally remarkable which stamps him as "the greatest" captain of all time?

Credit to him for being probably the only person in history to actually get the inmates to stop running thew asylum of Pakistan cricket - he was a great man manager, but to say he's the greatest captain of all time seems a bit of a stretch tbh.

In later stages of his career(when he was captain), he captained his side only against stronger sides like & let Javed Miandad captain the weaker sides such as Sri Lanka,New Zealand etc.This thing makes his captaincy record look poor.With an ordinary team,he almost won 3 series against West Indies,against whom everyone else was getting white washed.Its just because of him that Cricket became as popular in Pakistan as it is now.And how he captained the side in 1992 WC was just brilliant(but my opinion about him is not just based on that).And'I'm not the only one on this forum (and in this world as well) who believes that Imran is the best captain ever.

 

[Days of Grace]

He used to be an allrounder in 1990s but currently he is a batsman who can bowl a bit.He likes to bowl only when conditions are supportive or against minnows.For me,such players are not allrounders.Moreover,he has a very poor wkts/match ratio to be considered a regular bowler first.So for me,he's not an allrounder at all.

If you give me cold, hard evidence to support what you say, then I will listen. Until then, what you say is purely speculative.

 

[Sanz]

His results would suggest otherwise.

He was a fine captain, of that there can be no doubt. But really, do you say that he dragged Pakistan to the top of the world test pecking order, or did something equally remarkable which stamps him as "the greatest" captain of all time?

Credit to him for being probably the only person in history to actually get the inmates to stop running thew asylum of Pakistan cricket - he was a great man manager, but to say he's the greatest captain of all time seems a bit of a stretch tbh.

If we consider results Ricky Ponting is the greatest captain ever, but I doubt anyone would consider him that. It sure is one of the criteria but not the only criteria. Cricket is a team game and results depend on what kind of players you have got in the team and what kind of opposition you face.

And yes he did something very remarkable which no one else has done in the history of cricket. He built a Pakistan team that kept Pakistan among the top cricket nations for more than a decade after his retirement. It is remarkable in a sense No Cricket Captain in the history of cricket has done that and I doubt anyone will do that in the future.

As I said, it comes down to your personal preference of the criteria you want to use to pick the greatest captain.

 

[The Sean]

If we consider results Ricky Ponting is the greatest captain ever, but I doubt anyone would consider him that. It sure is one of the criteria but not the only criteria. Cricket is a team game and results depend on what kind of players you have got in the team and what kind of opposition you face.

And yes he did something very remarkable which no one else has done in the history of cricket. He built a Pakistan team that kept Pakistan among the top cricket nations for more than a decade after his retirement. It is remarkable in a sense No Cricket Captain in the history of cricket has done that and I doubt anyone will do that in the future.

As I said, it comes down to your personal preference of the criteria you want to use to pick the greatest captain.

If we're going with man-management, pulling a group of talented but disparate individuals together to form a powerful team, and leaving a legacy which was built on in with even greater success in future generations as a criteria for captaincy (and there's no reason why it shouldn't be) then Sir Frank Worrell has very few equals and arguably no superiors.

Though we're probably getting a bit off topic here, going from all rounders to captains...

 

[roseboy64]

Taking into account the situation he was in having been appointed captain as well.

 

[Fusion]

If we're going with man-management, pulling a group of talented but disparate individuals together to form a powerful team, and leaving a legacy which was built on in with even greater success in future generations as a criteria for captaincy (and there's no reason why it shouldn't be) then Sir Frank Worrell has very few equals and arguably no superiors.

Though we're probably getting a bit off topic here, going from all rounders to captains...

Sorry to continue dragging this OT, but I would ask people who don't rate Imran that highly as Captain what their criteria is. What makes a good Captain? To me, he is first and foremost supposed to get the best out of his team. He should be able to produce the maximum number of wins he can from the team, depending on their talent. He should be a great leader that should inspire and the team needs to follow his example. Imran did all of this. He unified a fractured team and had Pakistan right behind the all-mighty WI teams of the 80's. As has been pointed out often, his teams were drawing with the Windies while the rest were getting thrashed. He won against India in India, which is a major feat in the subcontinent. Just look at how long it took the modern Australia dynasty to accomplish the same. He discovered and nurtured talent, which is something a leader should do. I'm not saying he is the greatest captain of all time, but that argument is not as preposterous as some are making it out to be.

 

[The Sean]

Sorry to continue dragging this OT, but I would ask people who don't rate Imran that highly as Captain what their criteria is. What makes a good Captain? To me, he is first and foremost supposed to get the best out of his team. He should be able to produce the maximum number of wins he can from the team, depending on their talent. He should be a great leader that should inspire and the team needs to follow his example. Imran did all of this. He unified a fractured team and had Pakistan right behind the all-mighty WI teams of the 80's. As has been pointed out often, his teams were drawing with the Windies while the rest were getting thrashed. He won against India in India, which is a major feat in the subcontinent. Just look at how long it took the modern Australia dynasty to accomplish the same. He discovered and nurtured talent, which is something a leader should do. I'm not saying he is the greatest captain of all time, but that argument is not as preposterous as some are making it out to be.

Agree with most of that, fine post.

 

[Engle]

Imran sought out the toughest challenges and attempted to conquer them. He raised his game accordingly and expected others to follow suit by leading from the front.

Anyone pursuing personal stats felt the wrath of Khan.

Challenging selectorial foibles to halt any notion of favouritism.

Fought for neutral umpiring so as to have no post-match excuses.

Hardest working cricketer. Pace AR's have failed with burden of captaincy, viz SPollock, Flintoff.

But mainly for the 1st point, would I rate Imran highly.
In a speech he emphasized this point, IIRC:

" Oh hawk, fear not these gusts of winds, for it is these which will lift thee higher "

 

[Swervy]

Sorry to continue dragging this OT, but I would ask people who don't rate Imran that highly as Captain what their criteria is. What makes a good Captain? To me, he is first and foremost supposed to get the best out of his team. He should be able to produce the maximum number of wins he can from the team, depending on their talent. He should be a great leader that should inspire and the team needs to follow his example. Imran did all of this. He unified a fractured team and had Pakistan right behind the all-mighty WI teams of the 80's. As has been pointed out often, his teams were drawing with the Windies while the rest were getting thrashed. He won against India in India, which is a major feat in the subcontinent. Just look at how long it took the modern Australia dynasty to accomplish the same. He discovered and nurtured talent, which is something a leader should do. I'm not saying he is the greatest captain of all time, but that argument is not as preposterous as some are making it out to be.

and yet you have temper that with the notion of Imran not being as wonderous a tactition as many other captains.

My feeling on Imran is that considering the enormous talent he had at his disposal (for me, the late 80s and early 90s Pakistan team was as talented a bunch as Pakistan has ever produced), they didnt actually acheive as much as they probably should have done.

I would actually class someone like Nasser Hussain as being right up there with Imran, given he actually had to captain as less talented bunch, and proportionally probably acheived as much as skipper, and that is without really having the ability to captain by example of his own performance.

 

[Sanz]

and yet you have temper that with the notion of Imran not being as wonderous a tactition as many other captains.

My feeling on Imran is that considering the enormous talent he had at his disposal (for me, the late 80s and early 90s Pakistan team was as talented a bunch as Pakistan has ever produced), they didnt actually acheive as much as they probably should have done.

Dont forget that Imran hand picked most of those talents himself and nutured them and by the time majority of them were ready for International level, Imran himself was ready for retirement and he still won the world Cup.

I would actually class someone like Nasser Hussain as being right up there with Imran, given he actually had to captain as less talented bunch, and proportionally probably acheived as much as skipper, and that is without really having the ability to captain by example of his own performance.

This is just so laughable and ridiculous that I dont even want to respond to this sort of Bull****.

 

[Swervy]

Dont forget that Imran hand picked most of those talents himself and nutured them and by the time majority of them were ready for International level, Imran himself was ready for retirement and he still won the world Cup.

Ok, he was a great talent scout!!!!

This is just so laughable and ridiculous that I dont even want to respond to this sort of Bull****.

Haha, but you have responded.

Why can Nasser Hussain, who I consider to have been a very fine captain not be up there with Imran?

 

[Sanz]

Ok, he was a great talent scout!!!!

It's like saying Ok Einstine was a great student of nuclear physics !!!!

Haha, but you have responded.

Yes but I didn't want to. I responded only becuase I didn't want you to get away with making that kind of statement.

Why can Nasser Hussain, who I consider to have been a very fine captain not be up there with Imran?

Nasser may be a fine or very fine captain but my main gripe was when you said he achieved 'As much as' Imran which is worse than Richard's Hussain >>> Hayden statement. Nasser's achievements are ZERO compared to Imran's as a cricketer and/or as a captain. Nasser's captaincy can be compared to Ganguly at best.

 

[Swervy]

It's like saying Ok Einstine was a great student of nuclear physics !!!!



Yes but I didn't want to. I responded only becuase I didn't want you to get away with making that kind of statement.



Nasser may be a fine or very fine captain but my main gripe was when you said he achieved 'As much as' Imran which is worse than Richard's Hussain >>> Hayden statement. Nasser's achievements are ZERO compared to Imran's as a cricketer and/or as a captain. Nasser's captaincy can be compared to Ganguly at best.

if you read again what I said:
....given (Hussain) actually had to captain as less talented bunch, and proportionally probably acheived as much as skipper (as Imran)

What I mean is that Hussain had a lot less to work with , and yet achieved more success than was expected given that talent. Imran had a vastly talented team of players around him, and yes there was success, in the test arena the pinnacle of that was the drawn series vs WI in WI (which was a huge acheivement), and of course in WC92. Now in tests, he captained almost 50 of them and won 14, away from home he won 5 out of 26.

Hussain, with a pretty average set of players in the main (admittedly they got stronger as time went on) won 17 out of 45 tests, and 6 of 22 away (series wins in Pakistan and Sri Lanka)

Hussain started his reign as captain with England being as bad as they have ever been (in 1999) and ended up 5 years later on the verge of being maybe the second best in the world the world.

I think Hussains record as a captain stands just as well as Imrans, considering the talent involved.

Imrans rep as a captain shot up so much with the World Cup win. Before then I certainly don't remember that much talk of how great he was as a skipper.

 

[Fusion]

Imrans rep as a captain shot up so much with the World Cup win. Before then I certainly don't remember that much talk of how great he was as a skipper.

Then you have a short memory. He was always recognized as a great captain. That reputation was sealed in the '80's with his battles against the Windies and success against India. The WC win in '92 merely solidified that reputation.

 

[Sanz]

if you read again what I said:
....given (Hussain) actually had to captain as less talented bunch, and proportionally probably acheived as much as skipper (as Imran)

What I mean is that Hussain had a lot less to work with , and yet achieved more success than was expected given that talent. Imran had a vastly talented team of players around him, and yes there was success, in the test arena the pinnacle of that was the drawn series vs WI in WI (which was a huge acheivement), and of course in WC92. Now in tests, he captained almost 50 of them and won 14, away from home he won 5 out of 26.

Hussain, with a pretty average set of players in the main (admittedly they got stronger as time went on) won 17 out of 45 tests, and 6 of 22 away (series wins in Pakistan and Sri Lanka)

Hussain started his reign as captain with England being as bad as they have ever been (in 1999) and ended up 5 years later on the verge of being maybe the second best in the world the world.

I think Hussains record as a captain stands just as well as Imrans, considering the talent involved.

Imrans rep as a captain shot up so much with the World Cup win. Before then I certainly don't remember that much talk of how great he was as a skipper.

England were second best during Nasser's retirement ? Sure sure.

http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/test/archive/2003.html

As good as Hussain was, you are seriously exaggerating his performance as a captain.
He win 17 tests, also lost 15 tests too as opposed to Imran's 5 or so. It looks worse if you remove his 2 wins vs. Zimbos. Check out his win/loss ratio and compare it to Imran despite the fact that Imran played in the era of Draws.

And why restrict yourself to test cricket only ? Imran's record between 1989-1992 when he had the most of these talents avaiable is 65 % compared to Nasser's 51 % and that includes 12 wins (out of 28) against BD, Zim & Holland. We all know about England's showing in the World cup under Nasser.

Agree, Imran's stock obviously rose after WC 92, whose didn't and why not. Imran's stock kept on rising through out the 90s because of the amazing talents discovered and nurtured by him kept mesmerizing the cricket world with their performance.

 

[Sanz]

Got to go. Laterz.

 

[Swervy]

Then you have a short memory. He was always recognized as a great captain. That reputation was sealed in the '80's with his battles against the Windies and success against India. The WC win in '92 merely solidified that reputation.

no he wasnt...the acheivement of what Pakistan did in WI was great...but Imran didnt have the rep as a great captain

 

[Swervy]

England were second best during Nasser's retirement ? Sure sure.

http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/test/archive/2003.html

As good as Hussain was, you are seriously exaggerating his performance as a captain.
He win 17 tests, also lost 15 tests too as opposed to Imran's 5 or so. It looks worse if you remove his 2 wins vs. Zimbos. Check out his win/loss ratio and compare it to Imran despite the fact that Imran played in the era of Draws.

And why restrict yourself to test cricket only ? Imran's record between 1989-1992 when he had the most of these talents avaiable is 65 % compared to Nasser's 51 % and that includes 12 wins (out of 28) against BD, Zim & Holland. We all know about England's showing in the World cup under Nasser.

Agree, Imran's stock obviously rose after WC 92, whose didn't and why not. Imran's stock kept on rising through out the 90s because of the amazing talents discovered and nurtured by him kept mesmerizing the cricket world with their performance.

I said England were on the verge of being number two

 

[Engle]

no he wasnt...the acheivement of what Pakistan did in WI was great...but Imran didnt have the rep as a great captain

Imran was recognized as a very good captain after his first captaincy series vs England.

At the time he was promoted there was trepidation as to whether he would come good, considering he was a star bowler and useful bat. ( akin to the Flintoff captaincy).
Wud Pak be ruining an all-star performer ?

Turned out his performances got better with the leadership mantle. He won the Man of the Series against Eng and put in some notable performances with bat and ball. After losing the 1st match, they won the 2nd and fought hard the 3rd, tho losing it narrowly.
(IIRC it was the only see-saw 3 match series of the century)

Then came (INPO) home series win vs Ind, whitewash vs Aus, away series win in India, away win in Eng..and the 3 draws vs WIndies. His place in history was secure.

When he played WC '92, he was but a relic of his past self. Yet he pulled it off thru sheer belief and determination.

Can Nasser be compared against Imran, after having so much support systems in place, a generally professional team to deal with and unable to lead from the front ?
Nossir