Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[bagapath]

In victories

GS Sobers 	31 	3097 	365* 	77.42 	12 	104 	6/73 	24.04 	3 	58 	
JH Kallis	 53 	4292 	186 	58.79 	14 	123 	6/54 	25.91 	2 	79 	
KR Miller 	 31 	1779 	147 	43.39 	4 	113 	7/60 	19.60 	7 	23 	
IT Botham 	33 	1951 	149* 	43.35 	8 	172 	8/34 	20.09 	15 	47 	
Imran Khan  	26 	900 	117 	36.00 	1 	155 	8/58 	14.50 	11 	10
N Kapil Dev  	23 	888 	109 	34.15 	1 	89 	7/56 	18.04 	3 	18 	
Sir RJ Hadlee 	22 	790 	99 	30.38 	0 	173 	9/52 	13.06 	17 	8

miller and botham average 43 with the bat and 20 with the ball in matches won by their teams against major test nations. miller contributed in these games with 4 centuries and 7 five-fers whereas botham scored 8 centuries and got 15 five wicket hauls.

sobers and kallis took very few five wicket hauls in winning causes. imran and kapil scored only one century and hadlee none. guess miller and botham should be the top contenders for the greatest all rounder title if you use this stat to separate these champions.

 

[Ikki]

What's more impressive is that Miller's 31 matches come from only a total of 55 test matches played which is more than half his career whereas the corrosponding figure for Botham is 33 matches in a career that spanned 102 matches which is about a third of his career.

Miller didn't bowl as much per match so for him to get a 5fer meant he was on fire, so his SR must have been good. In fact, I checked; he averaged 19.60 and struck at 52 balls - which in his era is unbelievably good.

 

[marc71178]

And yet, in only 2 more games, Botham doubled Miller's output in terms of tons and 5fers.

Why should a team's ability impact on an individual's rating? Miller played in a more successful team, so the team won far more of their games then Botham's teams did - suggesting that there was more pressure on Botham to step up...

 

[Ikki]

And yet, in only 2 more games, Botham doubled Miller's output in terms of tons and 5fers.

Why should a team's ability impact on an individual's rating? Miller played in a more successful team, so the team won far more of their games then Botham's teams did - suggesting that there was more pressure on Botham to step up...

Well, considering Miller's team regularly won, it means his peak is far more spread out than Botham's. I mean, compare Warne's figures when Australia won and Murali's for example when his team won. It's more than likely the ratios will help the player who has less wins proportionately. If Miller had the same number of 100s and 5fers but it being in 17-18 tests (proportionately identical to Botham) they would more or less be the same - although I think Miller's averages would improve.

And your conclusion is one theory. How about that Botham succumbed to pressure too often and that had a big hand in his team winning only 1/3 of his games? IMO it just shows England was more reliant on Botham winning games for them.

 

[zaremba]

I never quite know what to make of these "averages when the team wins" type stats. It's logical that players will tend to do better when their team wins, for a number of obvious reasons. Very often it means cashing in against a demoralised opponent. Whereas performing well in defeats may well mean standing alone on the burning deck against a rampaging opponent that's too good for your peers. Allan Border in the 1980s springs to mind. Personally I wouldn't mark him down for performing whilst others failed, I would mark him up for it.

 

[zaremba]

Except that he did, over a sustained period.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

To average 40 with the bat and 17.5 with the ball over a 7 1/2 year period is pretty much as good as it gets for an all-rounder. I'd be interested to see if anyone can dig out an equivalent purple patch for any other all-rounder in history.

As for Ikki's attempt to write those stats off as the product of average-distorting "not outs", well, hats off for a predictably valiant attempt by the Keith Miller Appreciation Society, but I have to admit that I am unpersuaded by his analysis. Apart from anything else, a series of not outs is as likely to artificially deflate your average (because of the higher proportion of starts, when batting is at its most difficult, that you need to survive in order to maintain that average) as it is to artificially inflate it.

It would be fair to say that Imran's batting wasn't completely consistent through that period, but if you go through 44 Tests over a 7.5 year period and average 40 with the bat, whilst performing throughout as arguably the best fast bowler in the world, I think it's safe to say that you have "excelled" with the bat.

 

[subshakerz]

To average 40 with the bat and 17.5 with the ball over a 7 1/2 year period is pretty much as good as it gets for an all-rounder. I'd be interested to see if anyone can dig out an equivalent purple patch for any other all-rounder in history.

As for Ikki's attempt to write those stats off as the product of average-distorting "not outs", well, hats off for a predictably valiant attempt by the Keith Miller Appreciation Society, but I have to admit that I am unpersuaded by his analysis. Apart from anything else, a series of not outs is as likely to artificially deflate your average (because of the higher proportion of starts, when batting is at its most difficult, that you need to survive in order to maintain that average) as it is to artificially inflate it.

It would be fair to say that Imran's batting wasn't completely consistent through that period, but if you go through 44 Tests over a 7.5 year period and average 40 with the bat, whilst performing throughout as arguably the best fast bowler in the world, I think it's safe to say that you have "excelled" with the bat.

Spot on. I feel Imran's peak outshines even Botham's or any other all-rounder for that matter. What is more impressive is that he captained the side for much of this period as well.

As for Ikki's comments on his batting, of course he couldn't score as many runs as others given that he was batting lower down the order. But to suggest that his batting performance is largely due to not-outs is unfair, especially given the quality of the bowling that he faced.

 

[JBH001]

Well, no criteria is given by the OP.

So, ignoring Botham's last 30 or so tests where, iirc, he scored one hundred and took 3 5 - fers, I am looking instead at his first 73 tests from 1977 - 1984 where he scored 4200 runs or so with 13 hundreds at 36.5 with an SR of 61.5 (phenomenal!); and took 312 wickets at 26 at a SR of 54 with 24 5 fers - not to mention 84 catches in the slips. Botham, along with Imran is the only all-rounder to score a hundred and take a 10 fer in the same match; he is also the only all-rounder to score a 100 and take a 5 fer in the same match 4 times (Imran did it once, and Sobers twice); and is also, iirc, the only all-rounder to score a 50 and take a 5 fer in the same match 8 times.

My second pick is Imran. Over his career the better pick I think, but taken over peaks and sheer volume of tests played, runs scored, wickets taken, and catches held in that peak period, I think Botham pips him - perhaps just. But that is before bringing in Imran's leadership ability, if one is so inclined.

Think Miller is a little over-rated tbh. Hence I am not voting for him - think Sobers, Imran, Botham, and Kallis all superior.

Would vote for Sobers but think he is already well in front. Really want to vote for Kallis too, but dont think Miller should be second, so he is unlucky to miss out.

 

[Weezy]

Gary Sobers and Imran Khan for me.

 

[bagapath]

I never quite know what to make of these "averages when the team wins" type stats. It's logical that players will tend to do better when their team wins, for a number of obvious reasons. Very often it means cashing in against a demoralised opponent. Whereas performing well in defeats may well mean standing alone on the burning deck against a rampaging opponent that's too good for your peers. Allan Border in the 1980s springs to mind. Personally I wouldn't mark him down for performing whilst others failed, I would mark him up for it.

i dont really know how else to assess the contribution of a player in successful matches - afterall the sport is played to win so this should matter a lot. i know botham contributed towards a lot of victories the england teams he played achieved. he made significant contributions both as a batsman and a bowler in these games. around the same time imran was far far superior to him as a bowler and, towards the end of the career, was a more reliable bat too. but i dont think he set up victories for his team enough as a batsman to be considered above botham. his best batting efforts were, mostly, in boring draws. miller, like botham, seems to have had a significant hand in his teams' wins as an all-rounder most of the time. if i expect my all rounder to come good either way i think i have to turn to these guys more than a batting all-rounder like sobers or a predominantly bowling allrounder like imran.

 

[bagapath]

I consider Jacques Kallis one of the greatest modern cricketers tbh.

yes he is. but all the others in the list are also wonderful cricketers. and kallis was probably the least exciting of the lot. i know this is a very subjective and narrow definition. still i would pay to watch all of them on song except jacques. may be it is just me but he never gets my adrenaline flowing.

But the difference between a great bowler and a mediocre bowler is greater than the difference between a great batsman and a mediocre batsman.

So when you have the choice between a great bowler-good batsman combo like Imran and a great batsman-good bowler combo like Sobers, I'm inclined to go for the former.

mmm... you have to take 20 wickets to win test matches. it is possible to make a stronger case for an all rounder who can take 3 wickets and score 50+ runs in every test match you play than a batter who scores 70 runs and take 2 wickets.

 

[age_master]

Sobers and Miller for mine.

 

[marc71178]

Spot on. I feel Imran's peak outshines even Botham's or any other all-rounder for that matter.

Never did both at the same time enough for me. Not once did he score 250 runs and take 20 wickets in the same series.

Everyone else in the poll did it (and with the exception of Hadlee and Kallis, they all did it on muliple occasions)

 

[Ikki]

As for Ikki's comments on his batting, of course he couldn't score as many runs as others given that he was batting lower down the order. But to suggest that his batting performance is largely due to not-outs is unfair, especially given the quality of the bowling that he faced.

I've already been through this before. The reason he didn't score as many runs is because he batted as low, as you said, and the reason for that is because he wasn't as good with the bat until very late in his career. I did an analysis if you recall in another thread and even averaging out his not-out scores with Miller his record is inferior. When you're batting at 7 and lower most of the time then it's a completely different beast. You don't make many significant scores unless you're Adam Gilchrist. The fact that Imran batted almost 40 more innings yet had 1 century less and only 5 fifties more than Miller illustrate this clearly.

Miller was averaging 45 whilst batting in the middle order (3,4,5) so to imply that Imran was meeting or nearing that, when averaging 40, is out of whack with reality. Imran was a very good lower order bat whilst Miller was a world-class middle-order batsman. I feel the only truly rounded all-rounder that can be compared to Miller is Botham.

---

The average of their not-outs:
Imran: 45.48
Miller: 54.57

 

[Ikki]

Never did both at the same time enough for me. Not once did he score 250 runs and take 20 wickets in the same series.

Everyone else in the poll did it (and with the exception of Hadlee and Kallis, they all did it on muliple occasions)

That's being a bit harsh, he did get very close on a few occasions. He had a 6 test series against Pakistan where he scored 247 runs and took 40 wickets.

Although I understand and probably agree with your point.

 

[Zinzan]

In victories

GS Sobers 	31 	3097 	365* 	77.42 	12 	104 	6/73 	24.04 	3 	58 	
JH Kallis	 53 	4292 	186 	58.79 	14 	123 	6/54 	25.91 	2 	79 	
KR Miller 	 31 	1779 	147 	43.39 	4 	113 	7/60 	19.60 	7 	23 	
IT Botham 	33 	1951 	149* 	43.35 	8 	172 	8/34 	20.09 	15 	47 	
Imran Khan  	26 	900 	117 	36.00 	1 	155 	8/58 	14.50 	11 	10
N Kapil Dev  	23 	888 	109 	34.15 	1 	89 	7/56 	18.04 	3 	18 	
[B]Sir RJ Hadlee 	22 	790 	99 	30.38 	0 	173 	9/52 	13.06 	17 	8[/B]

Can't believe anyone selected Hadlee in their top 2 to be perfectly honest, and I say that as a New Zealander. He just wasn't quite good enough with the bat to compete with the likes of Botham & Imran for me when it comes to judging them as true All-rounders.

That said, I still think he was the best bowler out of all of them as that ridiculous average of 13 in team victories show

 

[Ikki]

Hadlee may have been just that level under those all-rounders as batsmen but probably the same distance over them as bowlers, if not more. I guess that doesn't make him very rounded though.

 

[Zinzan]

Hadlee may have been just that level under those all-rounders as batsmen but probably the same distance over them as bowlers, if not more. I guess that doesn't make him very rounded though.

Indeed, if he'd had averaged say 33 with the bat and 26 with the ball, instead of 27 & 22, he'd no doubt had been viewed as a much better all-rounder, but personally I'll take him the way he was any day of the week.

Still the 2nd best pace bowler I've seen in watching cricket since about '84 behind Malcolm Marshall

 

[bagapath]

Hadlee may have been just that level under those all-rounders as batsmen but probably the same distance over them as bowlers, if not more. I guess that doesn't make him very rounded though.

imran was probably half an inch behind him as a fast bowler, if at all

 

[Zinzan]

imran was probably half an inch behind him as a fast bowler, if at all

More than 1/2 an inch IMHO