Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[weldone]

If Sobers is undisputed #1 in the eyes of many, you'd think Kallis would be touted as easy 2nd by the same people.

Yes, among pure 'batting all-rounders' (whatever that term means), he is...

 

[Ikki]

of course, the idea of a dream team is to have 11 players who would be the best at whatever they do. you dont select anyone who needs a cover. this is not a real situation where you have to compromise.

I am not sure I understand your point. By having Miller I can have the best 11 possible. I can pick an all-rounder without wasting a spot in the team for an all-rounder.

miller is not a top 5 batsman nor is he a top 5 bowler of all time. hence he wont make the cut. in fact, in such a team, sobers would have made it to the team as a batter anyway. so there is no need to justify his selection.

We are picking an all-rounder, so I pick the best all-rounder. Sobers making the cut as a specialist bat makes him a specialist bat. Not an all-rounder. If one does not want an all-rounder, fair enough. If you do, pick the best one that keeps a balance in the side.

and he need not be used as the fifth bowler at all. that is the point of selecting 4 bowlers who could take 20 wickets.

And that would mean picking him as purely a specialist bat, and not an all-rounder. That pretty much defeats the purpose of this exercise.

miller cannot lend that balance to a tight bowling attack. he is not among the 5 greatest fast bowlers of all time. there are superior bowlers for one to choose.

He doesn't have to be, he is being picked on the basis of an all-rounder. Miller's figures show a quality that the best have. I can name 10 bowlers better than Imran, it doesn't mean by picking him I am actually hindering the attack if I am picking him as an all-rounder, because his batting would cover whatever negligible difference he has with the other bowlers.

Miller's bowling is not going to be anymore costly than a Lillee or a Hadlee, really. So why should it matter that he was not a top 5 great bowler? His figures are as good as Imran's. The only downside to his bowling is him regularly bowling longer spells which in an all-time attack is not going to stick out - and if they ever need him to bowl long spells he can do it. In fact, he carried the Australian attack in his last Ashes when both Davidson and Lindwall were injured. Him averaging 3 wickets a test has nothing to do with ability, but his injury keeping him from bowling long enough to take more wickets.

It's like arguing that Murali takes more wickets per test than Warne, forgetting the fact that it's because Warne has support and Murali doesn't that he bowls so much getting more wickets per test. But in terms of averages, he is similar to Warne. Same logic applies here; less wickets per test, but the averages indicate his quality.

he is a great all rounder. i voted for miller in this thread, remember. he is, for my money, along with botham the best all rounder the game has ever seen. but that doesnt make him a more valuable cricketer than sobers.

anyway, ikki, i dont want to stray too far away from the thread anymore.

I actually think he is the more valuable cricketer as well. Take their per innings performance:

Per Inning Performance:

Batting
Sobers: 50 runs
Miller: 34 runs

Bowling
Sobers: 1.5 wickets for 51 runs and 138 balls
Miller: 1.8 wickets for 41 runs and 111 balls

Difference: Sobers scores 16 runs more whereas Miller takes 0.3 wickets more, conceding 10 less runs and bowling 27 less balls.

 

[Ikki]

Record against the Ws, Ambit and Walsh and McWarne perhaps? You need to perform against the best.. And Sobers only failed against NZ who were not really that much of a force at that point..[/quote
And if you add in the super tests, his stats are even better. And those matches were just as good, if not better, than any tests at that point.

I don't think anyone is just talking about his batting. I think Kallis is a bit better bowler and then the difference is not that much.

Again, people tend to rate like this:

Sobers
-
-
-2nd guy

So if Kallis' record is that good, almost identical to Sobers', why is he not better than all the other all-rounders?

 

[subshakerz]

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.

During his peak bowling period from 1980-88, he averaged over 40 with the bat during the same time. And yet you say he was not much better than Hadlee?

 

[Ikki]

They had there opportunities with India and New Zealand. 2 out of poor sides for the said team is no where a bigger deal than 1 out of 6 faced by Pakistan.

They barely played NZ or India and some of them not at all or one or the other. Their figures are hardly inflated by them. In fact, they have a much bigger proportion - like half - of their matches played against their toughest rivals than the Pakistani batsmen did. Anyway, this discussion is silly, the Invincibles batting > Pakistan in the 80s.

 

[subshakerz]

I am not sure I understand your point. By having Miller I can have the best 11 possible. I can pick an all-rounder without wasting a spot in the team for an all-rounder.

The point here is that in an all-time XI, the quality difference in his batting and bowling compared to the others is much wider as we are talking about an XI of the best ever in their disciplines. Miller is essentially reduced to a support player rather than a frontline performer. It's like having Chris Cairns in a normal team, sure he is valuable but you would rather have a Shane Bond who can bat or a Martin Crowe who can bowl.

Imran would fit in smoothly with the other bowlers without any real drop in quality the same way Sobers would fit in with the batsmen easily, all while accomadating two all-rounders.

He doesn't have to be, he is being picked on the basis of an all-rounder. Miller's figures show a quality that the best have. I can name 10 bowlers better than Imran, it doesn't mean by picking him I am actually hindering the attack if I am picking him as an all-rounder, because his batting would cover whatever negligible difference he has with the other bowlers.

You seem to maximize the differences in Imran and Miller's batting and reduce the difference in their bowling to make Miller seem a better cricketer. Imran is a lock in any top ten bowlers list (check Wisden's list or our own Cricketweb lists), whereas Miller would be hard-pressed to make the top 30 bowlers of all-time.

Miller's bowling is not going to be anymore costly than a Lillee or a Hadlee, really. So why should it matter that he was not a top 5 great bowler? His figures are as good as Imran's. The only downside to his bowling is him regularly bowling longer spells which in an all-time attack is not going to stick out - and if they ever need him to bowl long spells he can do it.

Regardless what you think Miller has never been considered an all-time great bowler by pundits and would be an odd fit as a fourth bowler with Marshall, Lillee, Warne, or whoever. You are basing this off purely off his bowling average. No fast bowler with 170 wickets in 55 tests would be considered as such. The fact alone that he wasn't used to bowling longer spells puts doubt over him being able to deliver as a frontline bowler.

 

[bagapath]

I am not sure I understand your point. By having Miller I can have the best 11 possible. I can pick an all-rounder without wasting a spot in the team for an all-rounder.

by having a superior fast bowler in place of miller, and there are many options, you can have a better 11. i dont believe miller belongs in any all-time xi and that too as the fourth bowler.

And that would mean picking him as purely a specialist bat, and not an all-rounder. That pretty much defeats the purpose of this exercise.

you are confusing this separate argument we are having with the current poll.

an all time xi needs bowlers who can take 20 wickets. if my four front line bowlers can achieve that i dont need an all rounder. and sobers would make it to the team on his batting strength alone.

if anyone from this bunch of all rounders makes it to the all time xi as one of the four front line bowlers it would be either imran or hadlee.

independent of this all time xi discussion, if i were to choose a great all rounder i would choose miller or botham either of them could cover the weaknesses in a team.

whereas in an all-time xi i would have four bowlers who would bowl tight, strike quickly and bowl long enough to get the opposition out twice. and all my batsmen would average above 50. a miller or a botham wont be able to fill in either of the requirements. so they wont be there.

hope that covers everything.

 

[bagapath]

subshakerz has made the same points in much smoother language than mine.

 

[subshakerz]

But people dont think that way. They only think great batting + average bowler = greatest all rounder. Show me one person ever, anywhere, making the argument that players like Hadlee or Imran's great bowling + handy batting make them the greatest all rounder.

Plenty of people use that argument to justify Imran as the greatest. I still feel Sobers is better though.

But in this thread are saying "Sobers is one of the greatest batsman ever and with his 235 wickets he is the greatest all rounder." They are using his batting credentials to strengthen his claim as an all-rounder

But the double standard is that people dont look at a bowler's record and say "Oh, he was great bowler and a handy batsmen therefore he is the greatest all rounder"

I don't have a problem with weighting an individual's skill in one discipline with the other to find his overall impact. For example, Imran was an all-time great bowler + a solid batsman, while Hadlee was a slightly better bowler but no more than a handy batsman. The difference in bowling is minimal, the difference in batting is stark, therefore Imran is a better all-rounder.

With Sobers and Imran/Hadlee, I feel Sobers was slightly better in both his first and secondary disciplines than they were, therefore he is a better all-rounder.

 

[Ikki]

by having a superior fast bowler in place of miller, and there are many options, you can have a better 11. i dont believe miller belongs in any all-time xi and that too as the fourth bowler.

There is no superior all-rounder who can bowl though. Picking a superior bowler is essentially not picking an all-rounder at all.

you are confusing this separate argument we are having with the current poll.

an all time xi needs bowlers who can take 20 wickets. if my four front line bowlers can achieve that i dont need an all rounder. and sobers would make it to the team on his batting strength alone.

Which means by picking Sobers, as you already have 4 bowlers to take 20 wickets, means you are not picking him as an all-rounder because you don't factor him in taking wickets - at least to the team's advantage - with the ball.

if anyone from this bunch of all rounders makes it to the all time xi as one of the four front line bowlers it would be either imran or hadlee.

That makes completely no sense. What does Miller not have that the others do as a 4th bowler? He is just as cheap and strikes, relatively, as fast. If he bowls as much as them, he'll take about as many wickets as them.

whereas in an all-time xi i would have four bowlers who would bowl tight, strike quickly and bowl long enough to get the opposition out twice. and all my batsmen would average above 50. a miller or a botham wont be able to fill in either of the requirements. so they wont be there.

hope that covers everything.

And you have that, even with Miller in the 4. The difference between a Miller and a Marshall or an Imran is 5 overs per match. So Miller bowls long enough, and for the rest of the attack to cover him they'd only need to bowl 1-2 more overs each per test. And if you have a spinner that difference won't ever be noticed.

We're simply not going to agree. Here are my points summed up: Miller's quality in bowling is the same as Imran's pretty much and the difference is his length of time at the crease, which is negligible and can be passed onto all 3 bowlers or just the spinner without it affecting them noticeably, if at all. If ever the situation arises where Miller has to carry the attack, he can also do that. But apart from that, he also gives you more with that bat and in the field too. So it makes 0 sense for me to say he can't be the 4th bowler when he was the 2nd in one of the greatest sides of all-time.

If an attack of Miller, Marshall, McGrath and Warne can't take 20 wickets then the same attack minus Miller, plus Imran, isn't going to either.

 

[bagapath]

If he bowls as much as them, he'll take about as many wickets as them.

No, he wont. miller's SR might have been good for his era. but it is no patch on imran or hadlee's, even relatively. so they would make far far superior bowling options. even from his own era, tyson and trueman struck much quicker than him. lindwall and, even a spinner like, laker had a similar strike rate. so assuming he would take as many wickets as a hadlee or imran is a mistake. it did not happen over 55 tests so it wont happen here. one cant waste the fourth bowling spot on him. he doesnt belong in an alltime xi.

If an attack of Miller, Marshall, McGrath and Warne can't take 20 wickets then the same attack minus Miller, plus Imran, isn't going to either.

the second one is a much better attack. no one needs any cover. all can bowl long spells. all four belong in the top 10 bowlers of all time. great attack actually. replacing imran with miller weakens it considerably.

 

[subshakerz]

We're simply not going to agree. Here's are my points summed up: Miller's quality in bowling is the same as Imran's pretty much and the difference is his length of time at the crease, which is negligible and can be passed onto all 3 bowlers or just the spinner without it affecting them noticeably, if at all. If ever the situation arises where Miller has to carry the attack, he can also do that. But apart from that, he also gives you more with that bat and in the field too. So it makes 0 sense for me to say he can't be the 4th bowler when he was the 2nd in one of the greatest sides of all-time.

If an attack of Miller, Marshall, McGrath and Warne can't take 20 wickets then the same attack minus Miller, plus Imran, isn't going to either.

Yes, we can agree to disagree. Here's my position summed up:

There is a gulf between Miller's bowling and Imran's bowling along with other all-time greats in the lineup already, similar to Miller's batting and the rest of the batsmen in an all-time XI. Given that Miller will be occupying a bowling position probably at no.8 after Gilchrist, his batting itself is simply useful, not essential. By occupying a bowling position, his bowling abilities are more necessary and he acutally hampers the attack slightly as he is not as capable of leading it as the other three main bowlers. Imran is logically a better choice for the balance of the team as he is as capable as Marshall, McGrath, Warne or whoever of leading the attack, while providing useful batting skill down the order which he is famous for. And that's not even taking his captaincy into account.

An attack of Miller, Marshall, McGrath and Warne can surely take 20 wickets, but replace Miller with Imran and the attack can take them even quicker and cheaper.

 

[Ikki]

The point here is that in an all-time XI, the quality difference in his batting and bowling compared to the others is much wider as we are talking about an XI of the best ever in their disciplines. Miller is essentially reduced to a support player rather than a frontline performer. It's like having Chris Cairns in a normal team, sure he is valuable but you would rather have a Shane Bond who can bat or a Martin Crowe who can bowl.

That's a poor example IMO. Miller was one of the best bowlers in the world and for half his career also one of the better bats.

Imran would fit in smoothly with the other bowlers without any real drop in quality the same way Sobers would fit in with the batsmen easily, all while accomadating two all-rounders.

There's also no drop in quality when Miller takes the ball. You do know how to differentiate between quality and quantity right? Miller took less wickets per match because he bowled less, not that he wasn't as good as those who took more.

You seem to maximize the differences in Imran and Miller's batting and reduce the difference in their bowling to make Miller seem a better cricketer. Imran is a lock in any top ten bowlers list (check Wisden's list or our own Cricketweb polls), whereas Miller would be hard-pressed to make the top 30 bowlers of all-time.

Sorry, you seem to be doing something similar. Maximising Imran's batting and then rate him one of the top 10 bowlers also. He's very good, but a closer glance at his record will show he is inferior to the likes of Hadlee, McGrath, Donald, Ambrose, etc. He has a great record against the WIndies, pummeled Sri Lanka but wasn't fantastic against the rest.

The reason Miller can't be and rightly isn't rated as high is because of his physical impediment. All those top bowlers could make a career out of being a lone-wolf and carry a side whereas Miller couldn't because of the amount he was restricted to bowling - but not the quality. Let me try to illustrate for you how good Miller was in his time:

[U]Bowling[/U]:
          [B]AVG    SR[/B]
[B]Miller[/B]:  22.97   61,5
[B]His Era[/B]: 30.80   80.5
------------------
[B]Imran[/B]:   22.81   53.7
[B]His Era[/B]: 31.92   71.9

Very few bowlers struck under 60 - I think like 2 - and Lindwall (59.8) was one of them.

Regardless what you think Miller has never been considered an all-time great bowler by pundits and would be an odd fit as a fourth bowler with Marshall, Lillee, Warne, or whoever. You are basing this off purely off his bowling average. No fast bowler with 170 wickets in 55 tests would be considered as such. The fact alone that he wasn't used to bowling longer spells puts doubt over him being able to deliver as a frontline bowler.

That's because being an all-time great is a bit more to than dollars and cents - essentially, runs and wickets. Take Lindwall, who is seen as an all-time great, regardless of era and look at mentionings of both and Miller was right with him. Of course, when you bowl 30 overs a match it will dent your chances of being rated with the top echelon so it's no wonder he isn't spoken in the same regard.

But he did bowl long spells, he even carried Australia as a lone-wolf in his last Ashes when Lindwall and Davidson were injured and opened the bowling many times during his career. You're taking wickets per test to mean much more than it actually is.

If Miller bowled his regularly amount he'd take less wickets than Lindwall for example when he bowled his regular amount. But if Miller bowled as much as Lindwall in the same match they'd take about as many wickets as each other.

 

[Ikki]

An attack of Miller, Marshall, McGrath and Warne can surely take 20 wickets, but replace Miller with Imran and the attack can take them even quicker and cheaper.

No, that's the point; they won't. Quickness and cheapness refers to averages and strike-rate. I've already exemplified; they are basically the same in this regard. Since there are only 20 wickets to take - a fixed number - all it essentially means is that Miller will take one wicket less while one of the other 3 (could be any of them) takes that wicket. It won't come at a greater cost. For when they bowl those extra overs for him, one of those bowlers will take that wicket. If it's Imran, then he will take that extra wicket more because he'd have bowled those overs.

And, TBH, this is purely going by their figures. In real life, the player that is in form that day in that 4 will take those wickets. Miller could be the leading bowler, just as Imran could be, just as the others could be. Their is only a slight probability that it'd be the others instead; but in real life it's not always going to work like that.

 

[Ikki]

No, he wont. miller's SR might have been good for his era. but it is no patch on imran or hadlee's, even relatively. so they would make far far superior bowling options. even from his own era, tyson and trueman struck much quicker than him. lindwall and, even a spinner like, laker had a similar strike rate. so assuming he would take as many wickets as a hadlee or imran is a mistake. it did not happen over 55 tests so it wont happen here. one cant waste the fourth bowling spot on him. he doesnt belong in an alltime xi.

It is, even relatively. It's no secret that it was more a batsman's game in that era and the many draws and timeless games illustrate the culture of batting at the time, showing they weren't averse to taking their time.

Miller is 19 points superior to the average bowler of his time; Imran is 17 points superior. Which is not to say Miller > Imran because of 2 points; but the fact that they are comparably above the curve.

FFS Lindwall had a SR of 59.8 and he is a legend and Miller is less than 2 points off him. Tyson bowled for too short of time; Trueman is from a different era and Laker was assisted a lot by pitches. So again, only 2 bowlers you could really claim: Lindwall and Trueman.

In fact there are more great bowlers with better SRs than Imran in his time; Garner, Holding, Marshall, Lillee and Hadlee to name 5.

EDIT/ADD: I found a post The Sean made on this, as I remembered him doing so, and it was you who brought it up there and seemed to accept it then. So why argue against it here?

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/41893-post-ww2-dream-xi-5.html#post1860448

the second one is a much better attack. no one needs any cover. all can bowl long spells. all four belong in the top 10 bowlers of all time. great attack actually. replacing imran with miller weakens it considerably.

I disagree that Imran deserves to be in the top 10 bowlers of all-time.

With all due respect, if you call 5 overs per match cover, then I really don't know what to think. To say that Miller weakens it considerably...I think it's best we not argue because for me that's ridiculous.

 

[subshakerz]

That's a poor example IMO. Miller was one of the best bowlers in the world and for half his career also one of the better bats.

Except that he's in a side where his peers will be notably ahead of him in either discipline.

There's also no drop in quality when Miller takes the ball. You do know how to differentiate between quality and quantity right? Miller took less wickets per match because he bowled less, not that he wasn't as good as those who took more.

Except that taking larger bowling loads is part of being a frontline bowler and a leader of an attack. You can speculate that he would have taken more, but that's just that, speculation.

Sorry, you seem to be doing something similar. Maximising Imran's batting and then rate him one of the top 10 bowlers also. He's very good, but a closer glance at his record will show he is inferior to the likes of Hadlee, McGrath, Donald, Ambrose, etc. He has a great record against the WIndies, pummeled Sri Lanka but wasn't fantastic against the rest.

Are you kidding me? Imran was much more than "very good." For much of the 80s he was the best fast bowler in the world. With the passable exception of New Zealand, he averages <25 against all opposition, and that's before you take into account that his average was bloated by acting as a support bowler in his last few years and he hardly was a bowler in the early 70s. His record against the West Indies is superior to any major bowler from his time. To suggest that he doesn't belong in the company with Ambrose, Donald, McGrath, Lillee and others is laughable.

The reason Miller can't be and rightly isn't rated as high is because of his physical impediment. All those top bowlers could make a career out of being a lone-wolf and carry a side whereas Miller couldn't because of the amount he was restricted to bowling - but not the quality.

I would rather pick a bowler capable of carrying a side over one who cannot. Just to clarify, do you think Miller is a better bowler than Imran?

 

[Ikki]

Except that he's in a side where his peers will be notably ahead of him in either discipline.

That's because they are all-time greats in either discipline. Until we find an all-rounder who is an all-time great in both we are stuck with Miller.

Except that taking larger bowling loads is part of being a frontline bowler and a leader of an attack. You can speculate that he would have taken more, but that's just that, speculation.

What is a frontline bowler? Opening pair? Then Miller was a front-line bowler. I don't understand your point at all.

Are you kidding me? Imran was much more than "very good." For much of the 80s he was the best fast bowler in the world.

Like which parts? Better than Hadlee, Marshall, Garner? I'd like to see that.

With the passable exception of New Zealand, he averages <25 against all opposition, and that's before you take into account that his average was bloated by acting as a support bowler in his last few years and he hardly was a bowler in the early 70s.

That deceptively dodges the point that he is usually in the mid-20s (24) and his SR is usually in the 60s.

His record against the West Indies is superior to any major bowler from his time. To suggest that he doesn't belong in the company with Ambrose, Donald, McGrath, Lillee and others is laughable.

He is great, and did awesomely against the WIndies. Then again he wasn't so awesome against England, Australia, New Zealand or India. He has one superlative record against the giant of the 80s and then against the rest he is very good but not touching all-time status. His record against Sri Lanka should not need a comment.

Take Sri Lanka out and he is averaging in the mid 20s and mid 50s in SR. Which is very very good, but doesn't touch the likes of Donald, Hadlee, Marshall, McGrath, etc.

IMO, he is probably as good as Wasim, maybe a touch inferior. And even though I rate Wasim very highly, I think most people would leave him out of a top 10.

Just thinking about it, at the top of my head, I'd consider these bowlers superior to Imran: Lillee, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Donald, Ambrose, Lindwall, Warne, Murali, Garner, Holding, Trueman even some earlier ones like Barnes or Tiger. You think any of those names are unfair?

I would rather pick a bowler capable of carrying a side over one who cannot.

If my side was reliant on that choice, then the choice of Imran is a no-brainer. We are talking about the 4th bowler in an all-time XI. So that's not an issue.

 

[Ikki]

Was going over the stats in the 80s, and I must say I stand corrected. Imran was pretty awesome in the 80s. Must retract my statement and say he was in the top 10. Very impressive stuff. Overall, probably not in the best handful (top 5) but certainly worthy in a top 10. I was thinking more top 15 before but you can't argue with his performances in the 80s.

 

[subshakerz]

Like which parts? Better than Hadlee, Marshall, Garner? I'd like to see that.

How about the part just after the WSC in 1980 until his shin injury in 1983 when combined extreme pace with complete mastery over conventional and reverse swing to become the best fast bowler in the world? Here's with record in that period:

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

By the way, the ICC recently declared that this bowling peak by Imran was the best by any bowler in the modern age. Try and dismiss this.

Reliance Mobile ICC Player Rankings

That dodges the point that he is usually in the mid-20s (24) and his SR is usually in the 60s.

Again, this is just a surface level glance at stats. Against England, this includes tests in 1971 and 1974 when he wasn't even a full-time bowler or batsman. Against Australia and India, this includes the test series in 1989/1990 when he was simply bowling support. When he was a full-time bowler, his stats against all were even more terrific.

By the way, since when is an average of 24 not impressive? You can nitpick any great's record and find even greater shortcomings. Lillee averaged 30 against Pakistan and 27 against the West Indies. Donald averaged 33 against Australia. Ambrose averaged 38 against India. Yet somehow averaging 24 against decent opposition means you are a lesser bowler.

IMO, he is probably as good as Wasim, maybe a touch inferior. And even though I rate Wasim very highly, I think most people would leave him out of a top 10.

Just thinking about it, at the top of my head, I'd consider these bowlers superior to Imran: Lillee, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Donald, Ambrose, Lindwall, Warne, Murali, Garner, Holding, Trueman even some earlier ones like Barnes or Tiger. You think any of those names are unfair?

You are either unfamiliar with Imran or follow stats too strictly. Rating Garner ahead of Imran tells me all I need to know. Garner ahead of Imran? Garner never took a 10-fer in his career and only has a handful of 5-fers.

By the way, McGrath, Donald, Ambrose, Garner, and Marshall all have better averages and SRs than Lillee, would you rate them better than Lillee?

If my side was reliant on that choice, then the choice of Imran is a no-brainer. We are talking about the 4th bowler in an all-time XI. So that's not an issue.

I'd rather go for the better bowling option then give the other three an extra load of work.

 

[subshakerz]

Was going over the stats in the 80s, and I must say I stand corrected. Imran was pretty awesome in the 80s. Must retract my statement and say he was in the top 10. Very impressive stuff. Overall, probably not in the best handful (top 5) but certainly worthy in a top 10. I was thinking more top 15 before but you can't argue with his performances in the 80s.

Ignore my post, posted after you.