Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[Migara]

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

The golden question - Where would Miller bat in the Pakistani team which Imran played? They had some good batsmen so Imran had to bat 7/8 I think.

 

[bagapath]

The golden question - Where would Miller bat in the Pakistani team which Imran played? They had some good batsmen so Imran had to bat 7/8 I think.

he would still bat above imran, though

 

[Uppercut]

well, logging in after a gap of two days and baffled to see hadlee getting more votes than botham. on top of this we have to add one more vote to hadlee that has gone to kapil by mistake.

how is hadlee a better all-rounder than botham (or even kapil) ? can someone please explain to me..

For me, there's the reliable man, the guy who never lets you down and keeps raking in the runs and wickets throughout his career. The godfather of cricket in his country, the one all-time great cricketer New Zealand have ever had.

Then there's the talented Botham, who for a short period of time was arguably the greatest player who ever lived, but who pissed away his talent and played like **** for large parts of his career and left his side in a horrendously unprofessional state that took years to recover from.

Personal preference means I pick the former. I'm not someone who likes to pretend the crap parts of Botham's career didn't happen.

 

[bagapath]

Personal preference means I pick the former. I'm not someone who likes to pretend the crap parts of Botham's career didn't happen.

They did happen. but even in his worst phase, from 1985 onwards, he was a better batsman than hadlee's overall career.

the argument is not about who among the two is the superior cricketer. then botham and hadlee would have equal backers. this is about who is the better all rounder of the two. i dont think hadlee's batting mattered at all. it was just a bonus from a great bowling artist. sir beefy on the other hand gave bowlers all round the world enough sleepless nights with his batting. bad patches or not, scoring 14 test centuries is no joke. sir paddles would understand that. he managed only two.

 

[GIMH]

The thing for me is, if you're picking an all-time XI, do you pick based on overall careers or who was better at their peak? For me, if it's an all-time XI, then a sustained period of birlliance is more important than it lasting an entire career.

 

[Migara]

The thing for me is, if you're picking an all-time XI, do you pick based on overall careers or who was better at their peak? For me, if it's an all-time XI, then a sustained period of birlliance is more important than it lasting an entire career.

Good , then pick Mushtaq Mohammed. Botham, Imran, Hadlee or what ever guy you name, was not able to match this feat. 100 and 5 wickets an innings and win against 76/77 WIndies. He was not a one shot wonder either. Did it against formidable NZ and ENG as well. Double century and 5 wickets is a very rare feat I think.

 

[Ikki]

The golden question - Where would Miller bat in the Pakistani team which Imran played? They had some good batsmen so Imran had to bat 7/8 I think.

Probably in the same place. Do you think the Pakistani team of the 80s had a comparable batting line-up to the Invincibles (Barnes, Morris, Bradman, Harvey, Hasset and Brown)? I think not. Don't let his average fool you. Miller was one of the best batsmen in the team but through a variety of reasons (injury, war, etc) did not end up with a career average in the 40s as his talent would have demanded.

 

[kingkallis]

I'd love to hear your reasoning behind thinking this.

The true value of Jacques Kallis will only be truly appreciated when he retires IMO. He's the single reason why South Africa can field a 6 batsmen, 4 bowlers line up.

And dont forget his 18 man of the match awards - which proves how many matches he has won for the Proteas!

And some people say he is not a match winner - pathetic mindsets

 

[subshakerz]

More than 1/2 an inch IMHO

Career-wise, Hadlee was ahead of Imran, but they were both all-time greats and the difference between such bowlers is never that much.

At their best, I would take Imran over Hadlee, especially that period after WSC when he combined pace and mastery of conventional swing and reverse swing and was probably the best bowler in the world until he got injured in 1983.

 

[subshakerz]

And dont forget his 18 man of the match awards - which proves how many matches he has won for the Proteas!

And some people say he is not a match winner - pathetic mindsets

He has 19, I believe, more than any other cricketer. That is a pretty big achievement any way you look at it.

 

[subshakerz]

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)

Well, you are more likely to achieve 250 runs and 20 wickets if you play longer test series, are you not? Almost all instances of achieving such a feat by Kapil, Botham, Sobers, and Miller were in series of five test matches or more. Kapil played 9 series consisting of five or more test matches, Botham 9, Miller 9, and Sobers 13. Imran only played 5 such series in his entire test career, and in one he was 3 runs away from achieving this feat. So its really not fair to use this yardstick to judge Imran.

It's false to say that he didn't perform with both at the same time. There are plenty of examples, such as England in 82 and 87 and India in 82-83.

Isn't a better judge whether you can justify being in your side with both bat and ball? In that case, Imran qualifies pretty well. In 1983, he was injured at the height of his bowling career, yet was still selected as a batsman for 2 years despite being unable to bowl. He did quite well too, topscoring in the 1983 World Cup and doing well on a tour to Australia.

 

[weldone]

For me -

1. Sobers
2. Miller
3. Imran
4. Botham
5. Kapil / Clive Rice / Mike Procter / Kallis / Wilfred Rhodes / Aubrey Faulkner

 

[Migara]

Probably in the same place. Do you think the Pakistani team of the 80s had a comparable batting line-up to the Invincibles (Barnes, Morris, Bradman, Harvey, Hasset and Brown)? I think not. Don't let his average fool you. Miller was one of the best batsmen in the team but through a variety of reasons (injury, war, etc) did not end up with a career average in the 40s as his talent would have demanded.

I think it is as good as that barring Bradman. Because that batting line up never faced up to fury of West Indian fast bowling nor to the Indian spin quatret. I expect those averages to take a dip if they played above sides.

 

[Ikki]

I think it is as good as that barring Bradman. Because that batting line up never faced up to fury of West Indian fast bowling nor to the Indian spin quatret. I expect those averages to take a dip if they played above sides.

They also never got to slaughter Sri Lanka. The Pakistan line-up was pretty good towards mid-to-late 90s but not as good as one of the greatest batting line-ups of all time.

 

[asty80]

Its a tough call, but my call is for Sobers (only looking at his records) and Imran (only looking at his matches)

 

[kingkallis]

Its a tough call, but my call is for Sobers (only looking at his records) and Imran (only looking at his matches)

Did you manage to take a look @ the statistic page of Jacques Kallis?

 

[slippyslip]

I think it is as good as that barring Bradman. Because that batting line up never faced up to fury of West Indian fast bowling nor to the Indian spin quatret. I expect those averages to take a dip if they played above sides.

And if Bradman and the other quality batsmen Miller played with werent in the team he would have had more opportunity to score runs. Simply put his playing style was of more use than his average.

You can see by Miller's first class average he was an excellent batsman. Dont forgot back in those days first class cricket was a much bigger deal tahn it was now. When Miller was playing in the Sheffield Shield or County Championship he would have been a lot more responsibility and importance in the side than he did at test level.

Take out tests and Miller's first class batting average was well over 50.

People say that Sobers was one of the greatest batsmen and one of the greatest all rounders but I've never heard anyone rave on about his bowling.

235 wickets from 93 tests at 34 is respectable but hardly earth shattering. His strike rate was 91.9 . Thats extremely high for any era.

If Sobers was playing in the 80's how much of an opportunity would have had to bowl? Extremely little. Infact, he would have been used only as a part timer. I think a great all rounder's bowling ability should be good enough to get selected in any era. If Sobers was playing in, lets say 1984 he would have been selected for his batting only.

Sobers was a great great batsman who was a handy bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

People say that Sobers was one of the greatest batsmen and one of the greatest all rounders but I've never heard anyone rave on about his bowling.

235 wickets from 93 tests at 34 is respectable but hardly earth shattering. His strike rate was 91.9 . Thats extremely high for any era.

If Sobers was playing in the 80's how much of an opportunity would have had to bowl? Extremely little. Infact, he would have been used only as a part timer. I think a great all rounder's bowling ability should be good enough to get selected in any era. If Sobers was playing in, lets say 1984 he would have been selected for his batting only.

Sobers was a great great batsman who was a handy bowler.

Sobers perhaps wasn't the most balanced all-rounder, but he certainly was the most valuable all-rounder. He would have been an all-time great had he never bowled a delivery or caught a catch, yet he was decent in the former skill and outstanding in the latter. This is why I consider Imran a more valuable all-rounder than Miller.

 

[slippyslip]

Sobers perhaps wasn't the most balanced all-rounder, but he certainly was the most valuable all-rounder. He would have been an all-time great had he never bowled a delivery or catched a catch, yet he was decent in the former skill and outstanding in the latter. This is why I consider Imran a more valuable all-rounder than Miller.

But the topic is Greatest all-rounder. Not the most valuable .

No one is doubting Sobers greatness as a batsman. But if Bradman had decided he wanted to bowl more often, even if he only averaged 50 with the ball, would you say he was the greatest all rounder? When you factor in his brilliant batting with his mediocre bowling he would still qualify as the greatest all rounder by your standards.

Great batting does not make up for average bowling. Each facet has to be judged individually.

Imran Khan, Keith Miller and even fatso Botham would still have made the great West Indian teams of the 70's and 80's as bowlers. Sobers would not.

Herers a funny little stat. Allan Border took 10 wickets in a test more times than Sobers.

 

[subshakerz]

But the topic is Greatest all-rounder. Not the most valuable .

No one is doubting Sobers greatness as a batsman. But if Bradman had decided he wanted to bowl more often, even if he only averaged 50 with the ball, would you say he was the greatest all rounder? When you factor in his brilliant batting with his mediocre bowling he would still qualify as the greatest all rounder by your standards.

Great batting does not make up for average bowling. Each facet has to be judged individually.

Imran Khan, Keith Miller and even fatso Botham would still have made the great West Indian teams of the 70's and 80's as bowlers. Sobers would not.

Herers a funny little stat. Allan Border took 10 wickets in a test more times than Sobers.

I disagree.For me, greatness has to do with your value to the team and impact on the game. The problem with your yardstick is that an all-rounder who is more balanced between the two skills like Kapil Dev but probably has less impact on the actual game would be seen as a 'greater' all-rounder than one who has a wider gulf between his skills, such as Hadlee.

The issue with the example you gave is that if Bradman averaged 50 with the ball he wouldn't be considered to have the bowling performance enough to be an-allrounder. Shane Warne has some batting ability, but few would qualify him an all-rounder. An all-rounder by definition needs to display some basic level of performance in both batting and bowling to fit the tag. Once he fits the definition, he should be assessed on his bearing on the game.

This is just the way I see it. It avoids the confusion of having to rate inferior cricketers over better ones.