Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[zaremba]

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.

This has been done. Plenty of raving here - and a fair bit of ranting as well.

 

[Ikki]

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.
.

That's where I think you miss slippy's point. Most people wouldn't consider a bowler who averages in the 30s and strikes in the 90s a very good bowler either.

 

[subshakerz]

That's where I think you miss slippy's point. Most people wouldn't consider a bowler who averages in the 30s and strikes in the 90s a very good bowler either.

Never thought that Sobers was a "very good bowler", but he was decent enough to qualify Sobers as an all-rounder. He took over 200 wickets and bowled over 30 overs a game, he was much much more than a part-timer. And his bowling impact, combined with tremendous batting and fielding, had more bearing on the field than any other all-rounder in history.

 

[Ikki]

Never thought that Sobers was a "very good bowler", but he was decent enough to qualify Sobers as an all-rounder. He took over 200 wickets and bowled over 30 overs a game, he was much much more than a part-timer. And his bowling impact, combined with tremendous batting and fielding, had more bearing on the field than any other all-rounder in history.

I think you're including other facets of being an all-rounder to make-up for his lack of bowling talent again. For great periods in his career Sobers was averaging 40 and above with the ball. Him taking 200 wickets was more a matter of time than anything else. He is by a distance the worst bowler to have taken 200 wickets or more; he has the worst SR and the worst average IIRC.

I think it's arguable how much benefit he actually gave his side for most of his career, with the ball.

LOL, in fact, in saying that I am disappointed with myself for voting Sobers. Sad sight to see him so far ahead, and have Kallis so far behind - even behind Hadlee. I will never get how people give Sobers such a free-ride to rate him so comfortably ahead.

 

[JBH001]

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.

Think you are a little off base here, Uppercut.

The problem with Botham, and with other players of his kind, is that it is often the last parts of their careers that are remembered - when they are shadows of their former selves. As opposed to players like Hadlee who got better as time went on - and that is the last one remembers of them. Every analysis of all-rounders thus far in this thread involves some notion of peak performance over an extended period of time, be it in years or in tests played or both. This applies to Imran, Botham, Miller, and Sobers. As Ikki has rightly pointed out before, Sobers was not all that flash with the ball for large periods of time - but there was a period iirc, 1962 - 1968, where he most certainly was (average of 27 with the ball and 50+ with the bat, I think). Given the demands of the craft, it would be surprising if peaks did not come into it.

Selecting 73 tests from Botham over a 7 year period is a pretty good sample, and compares well with Hadlee's 86 tests from 17 years of cricket. Fair enough that Botham had a crap end to his career as an all-rounder. IIRC in his last 29 tests from 1985 - 1992 he averaged 25 with the bat and 37 with the ball, with one century and 3 5 - fers. But if I take a similiar percentage sample from Hadlee's early years, say his first 23 tests, he averages 31.5 with the ball, and 19 with the bat, with no centuries and 4 5 fers. While in his following 63 tests he averages 31 with the bat and 20 with the ball.

Its a fair point looking at peaks, as long as they cover enough ground in terms of tests and years or both, because, at bottom, polls like these are exercises in the imagination. We choose based on a minds eye view, drawn from stats, accounts, memories, of the collective power (if you will) of these cricketers at their extended best. Seems a fair enough and valid mode of judgement to me.

 

[subshakerz]

Selecting 73 tests from Botham over a 7 year period is a pretty good sample, and compares well with Hadlee's 86 tests from 17 years of cricket. Fair enough that Botham had a crap end to his career as an all-rounder. IIRC in his last 29 tests from 1985 - 1992 he averaged 25 with the bat and 37 with the ball, with one century and 3 5 - fers. But if I take a similiar percentage sample from Hadlee's early years, say his first 23 tests, he averages 31.5 with the ball, and 19 with the bat, with no centuries and 4 5 fers. While in his following 63 tests he averages 31 with the bat and 20 with the ball.

Its a fair point looking at peaks, as long as they cover enough ground in terms of tests and years or both, because, at bottom, polls like these are exercises in the imagination. We choose based on a minds eye view, drawn from stats, accounts, memories, of the collective power (if you will) of these cricketers at their extended best. Seems a fair enough and valid mode of judgement to me.

I'm not sure why you take Botham's peak as from 77-84, his peak actually ended around his famous Ashes in 81/82,. After that, his performances ranged from inconsistent to finally mediocre, especially with the ball.

But it does tell something about a cricketer who starts with a bang and follows this with a decade of second-class performances. The ultimate test for any cricketer is to perform over a lengthy period, and Botham's career graph is pretty much a blast followed by a long downward slide. That doesn't speak well to his temperament.

But IMO a huge reason that Botham is not remembered that fondly is that he failed against the best team of all-time, the West Indies, with both bat and ball despite given ample opportunities. He didn't even score a century against them. Dev, Hadlee and Imran fared much better.

 

[Burgey]

I think you're including other facets of being an all-rounder to make-up for his lack of bowling talent again. For great periods in his career Sobers was averaging 40 and above with the ball. Him taking 200 wickets was more a matter of time than anything else. He is by a distance the worst bowler to have taken 200 wickets or more; he has the worst SR and the worst average IIRC.

I think it's arguable how much benefit he actually gave his side for most of his career, with the ball.

LOL, in fact, in saying that I am disappointed with myself for voting Sobers. Sad sight to see him so far ahead, and have Kallis so far behind - even behind Hadlee. I will never get how people give Sobers such a free-ride to rate him so comfortably ahead.

Man averages nigh on 60 with the bat, as well as taking 200 plus wickets, and is regarded as one of the greatest fielders of all time. And one of the greatest batsmen too.

Colour me stupid, but I have a pretty ****ing high opinion of him as a player.

 

[JBH001]

I'm not sure why you take Botham's peak as from 77-84, his peak actually ended around his famous Ashes in 81/82,. After that, his performances ranged from inconsistent to finally mediocre, especially with the ball.

This is a fair point, perhaps not so much with the bat, but certainly with the ball. Inconsistent, from 82 - 84, and mediocre (at best) after 85.

However I take 1984 as such a statisical marker because, from recollection, in 1984 Botham had the second of his injuries. 1982 saw the first incidence of back trouble. After 1982, even though not as great as he had been, he was still a good/decent all-rounder. I agree though that his first peak was 1977 - 1982, while the second phase was a gradual descent, while after 1985 it became a steep slide. Either way, the total statistics rack up for that 1977 - 1984 period.

Its a fair point regarding the WI, but as I have argued before, I dont think that conclusive. Although I can see the counter-argument. In any case, Imran only did well against the WI with the ball, while Hadlee did better against WI with the bat and is equivalent with the ball. But that hardly establishes Hadlee as being the better all-rounder than Imran, does it? Its the same with Kapil, better than both Imran and Botham with the bat against the WI, and thereabouts or slightly behind with the ball than Hadlee or Imran, but again, it would be hard to argue that he is a better all-rounder than either of Imran or Botham.

My point was more about the validity of peaks in determining players, especially all-rounders. Certainly you could look at Botham's first peak from 1977 - 1982 where he played around 50 tests, iirc, and that would be enough, I think, as a statistical sample to judge him by. I chose the 73 test marker because he was still good upto then, it tracks to an important event in his career (his major back injury which kept him out of cricket until 1985), and it seemed a more fair and reasonable marker to set.

 

[bagapath]

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

he might have seen kallis actually play and then made up his mind. bats like ken barrington and bowls like roger binny. mighty valuable cricketer and an absolute bore

 

[bagapath]

taking SJS' vote for miller into account, he trails sobers at second place and leads imran by one vote as of now

 

[slippyslip]

The issue I have with Imran as a great all rounder was that early on his bowling was outstanding but his batting was not much better than Hadlee's and only slightly better than Kapil Dev's and inferior to Botham's.

By the end of Imran's career his batting was top class but he his bowling was taking a back seat. Not to say he wasnt a good bowler up until his last match. But he didnt bowl as often and wasnt quite as dynamic. Wasim was the match winner and Imran very good support.

So at the end of his career his stats are unbelievable but he wasnt the same bowler and batter from day 1 to his last day. Though that is not to discredit his greatness as a player.

 

[Ikki]

Man averages nigh on 60 with the bat, as well as taking 200 plus wickets, and is regarded as one of the greatest fielders of all time. And one of the greatest batsmen too.

Colour me stupid, but I have a pretty ****ing high opinion of him as a player.

Again, we're missing out strike-rates and averages. The other players also scored many runs and took many wickets - i.e. Dev scored 5248 runs and took 434 wickets. We're not comparing Sobers to Cameron White here.

 

[slippyslip]

This has been done. Plenty of raving here - and a fair bit of ranting as well.

Theres plenty of ranting and raving in mental hospitals.

If Sobers was such a great bowler why did he only have an average of 34, and more important a strike rate of 92?

Yeah, yeah. I know what you're saying to say "stats dont tell everything". And that is true ... to a degree.

No one doubts Sobers was a handy bowler. But he never took 10 wickets in a match at test level. People are pointing out that Flintoff only took 3 wickets in a innings 5 times to discredit him as a great all rounder. Sobers only took 5 wickets in an innings 6 times during 93 tests. But wait, does that discredit his all rounder greatness? Nope.

Double standards and mythological revisionism while wearing rose coloured glasses. Thats what "celebrating" is.

Richard Hadlee took 5 wickets in an innings 36 times and 10 wickets in a match 9 times. He took 196 more wickets in 7 less tests. . Why cant Hadlee's absolute greatness with the ball boost his batting the way people use Sobers' batting to raise his bowling greatness?

And one of the reasons Sobers did so much bowling was because during his time West Indies didnt have that many great bowlers. Sure they had Gibbs and Hall but even with those 2 sobers would still have plenty of opportunities to bowl.

 

[Ikki]

Sobers was a spinner primarily uptil the 60s where he started bowling pace and was very effective until the latter parts of the decade where it became more occasional as he reverted back to spinning the ball - 20 years in the game will do that to you.

 

[slippyslip]

Man averages nigh on 60 with the bat, as well as taking 200 plus wickets, and is regarded as one of the greatest fielders of all time. And one of the greatest batsmen too.

Colour me stupid, but I have a pretty ****ing high opinion of him as a player.

Good point. His stats are similar to Sobers but Kallis doesnt get 0.00000001% of the adulation Sobers get.

Maybe when we are very old and sitting in our rocking chairs we can go on about Kallis to our grand kids and they will grew up thinking he was the best thing on the planet.

 

[bagapath]

I voted for Miller and Botham on the basis that both could win matches with either batting or bowling. I dont see Sobers doing it often with the ball or Imran with the bat. And Hadlee could probably never achieve it as a batsman.

But, if one were to choose a dream team Sobers would definitely be in as a middle order batsman and Imran and Hadlee would be strong contenders as fast bowlers. On account of the class of four main bowlers one can choose in such exercises, it will be more than sufficient to have Sobers as the fifth bowler, totally leave out Miller and Botham and even choose equivalent or marginally superior alternatives for Imran and Hadlee to take the new ball.

I am trying to say Sobers is possibly the first and the best choice as an all-rounder in a dream team. And the six others featured here may not even get a look in. But that alone shouldn't necessarily shut out these other great names from this competion for the greatest all-rounder title.

 

[bagapath]

Good point. His stats are similar to Sobers but Kallis doesnt get 0.00000001% of the Sobers get.

Maybe when we are very old and sitting in our rocking chairs we can go on about Kallis to our grand kids and they will grew up thinking he was the best thing on the planet.

I will show my grand kids video recordings of Kallis' knocks and watch them go to sleep.

 

[JBH001]

I voted for Miller and Botham on the basis that both could win matches with either batting or bowling. I dont see Sobers doing it often with the ball or Imran with the bat. And Hadlee could probably never achieve it as a batsman.

Thats a fair point, bagapath. Especially regarding Miller. Hmmmm.

 

[slippyslip]

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.

Again you dont understand the topic at hand. Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time. Not the most valuable nor the Greatest Player of All Time.

I would rate Sobers a greater player than Miller but Miller the better all rounder. Just as I rate Bradman a better player than Sobers even though Bradman only took two wickets in his whole test career.

Again with the double standards. You, and others, are saying that Sobers' greatness with the bat lifts up his bowling. But why cant you do that with someone like Hadlee whose batting was only handy but an absolute brillitant bowler?

People say that Sobers could walk into any team in any era as a batsman alone. Factor in his bowling and that makes him the greatest all rounder of all time

Ok, lets flip this

Hadlee would walk into any team in any era as a bowler. Factor in his batting and that makes him the greatest all rounder of all time.

Wait, what? No? Again, double standards. But I'm not going to change hundreds of years of bias towards batting over bowling in cricket.

 

[Ikki]

I am trying to say Sobers is possibly the first and the best choice as an all-rounder in a dream team. And the six others featured here may not even get a look in. But that alone shouldn't necessarily shut out these other great names from this competion for the greatest all-rounder title.

I disagree, as I've mentioned here before: giving Sobers the ball in a dream team is a complete waste of overs and runs. In an all-time Aussie XI (could be the world XI TBH ) I would have Miller, Warne, Lillee and McGrath. Miller bowls absolute high quality stuff and only his quota lets him down somewhat in this company, but having Warne negates that. These 4 can easily handle the load and there is no need to give Sobers a bowl. And if we are talking a few overs only, then that is a part-timer not an all-rounder.

I will show my grand kids video recordings of Kallis' knocks and watch them go to sleep.

True, but isn't that part of the problem? Kallis does so much, as much as Sobers even, and yet because of aesthetic reasons he'll not be mentioned in the same breath.