Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[Fusion]

That's exactly the order in my book. Great job CW!

Thanks for running the polls Bagapath. Great job as usual.

 

[subshakerz]

Sanity prevails.

 

[Ikki]

Thanks for running the polls Bagapath.

 

[bagapath]

this also explains the composition of any all time xi we choose in CW. we are happy to use sobers as the designated all-rounder who can bowl a few overs if necessary and then we go for four of the best bowlers available. imran, possibly among the top 5 cricketers of the last quater century, always misses out on selection because we prefer three out of marshall, hadlee, lillee and mcgrath to take the new ball above him and then break our heads over warne and murali for the other bowling spot never considering imran as a pure fast bowler alone. even if we were to choose five pacers i assume ambrose or akram would vie for the last spot before imran which is kind of funny because imran in his playing days was considered the greatest fast bowler in the world. strange how one versatile cricketer, sobers, can indirectly affect the legacy of another great. richie benaud is the only exception among cricket fans in this aspect. he selected imran as the new ball partner to lillee in his dream team despite already having sobers at no.6.

 

[subshakerz]

this also explains the composition of any all time xi we choose in CW. we are happy to use sobers as the designated all-rounder who can bowl a few overs if necessary and then we go for four of the best bowlers available. imran, possibly among the top 5 cricketers of the last quater century, always misses out on selection because we prefer three out of marshall, hadlee, lillee and mcgrath to take the new ball above him and then break our heads over warne and murali for the other bowling spot never considering imran as a pure fast bowler alone. even if we were to choose five pacers i assume ambrose or akram would vie for the last spot before imran which is kind of funny because imran in his playing days was considered the greatest fast bowler in the world. strange how one versatile cricketer, sobers, can indirectly affect the legacy of another great. richie benaud is the only exception among cricket fans in this aspect. he selected imran as the new ball partner to lillee in his dream team despite already having sobers at no.6.

I always thought Benaud selecting Imran over Miller was a huge compliment considering he was such a big fan of Miller and Miller is an Aussie cricket hero.

Yes, it is strange that as famous a cricketer as Imran is, he is somewhat underrated in the bowling stakes. I have no doubt that had he decided to retire in 1988 and not function as a batsman and occasional bowler in his last few years, he would be every bit a top contender of best fast bowler ever as Marshall, Hadlee and Lillee (I actually consider him perhaps better than Lillee regardless). At his best, from 1980 to 83, he was perhaps better than any of them.

Imran to me has a bigger claim to be best after Bradman and Sobers than anyone else. He was an all-time great in three disciplines (as a bowler, all-rounder, and captain), and his actual influence on the game is greater than most people suppose.

 

[Migara]

Imran would have a huge call, when you regrad he is one of the best captains ever in test cricket. No other all time XI player probably matches him with captaincy.

A bowling line up of Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath / Lillee is fine, but Imran with reverse swing (which has not been prefected by other four) definietly ends up in my world XI, because he offers something unique, unlike others.

 

[honestbharani]

But the batting partner is scoring runs too, at his own rate, so that's an unreasonable doubling of the actual figure. And Kallis's team mates generally scored much quicker than Sobers's, so his slower strike rate was easily covered and became pretty much irrelevant, particularly on the pitches in South Africa which are notorious for bringing results. In Kallis's fourteen year career there's been thirteen draws in test matches in South Africa, out of 75 games.

Not many drawn games would have been results but for Kallis's strike rate. There were games South Africa might have won had Kallis scored a little quicker, but equally there were games South Africa would probably have lost had Kallis not taken time out of the game. Fast scoring rates (slightly) increase the probability of a result, they don't necessarily increase the probability of your team winning. It's a double-edged sword.

In an all time XI, the chances of other guys not doing well is pretty remote.. So I would take Sobers every time, thank you very much........



And reg. your point, the RSA guys scored quicker than Sobers' contemporaries only because the relative scoring rates of that era was much quicker than the one in Sobers'. You continue to ignore relativity because it doesn't suit your point. But the fact is, when comparing eras, relativity IS the most important factor.....

 

[honestbharani]

Generally it's accepted that there was a decent period of six or seven years when he really was an excellent bowler. The flip-side being that, evidently, for the rest of his career he was a very poor bowler.

That's it, really. When you spend six years being a world-class batsman and very good bowler, it's enough for most people. Sobers has a lot of fans though, so you'll find any number of extra excuses for his poor overall figures.

yes... Fans because he was such a poor allrounder..


Dude, try reading WHO these fans are and how much they know and have watched of the game... Maybe you will understand something that you didn't know earlier..

 

[honestbharani]

Good to see people cant read topics. Illiterate much?

The topic is greatest all rounder.

34 average and strike rate of 92.

Please explain.

Ever tried to understand cricket beyond statsgur??????????????????????????????????

 

[archie mac]

Imran would have a huge call, when you regrad he is one of the best captains ever in test cricket. No other all time XI player probably matches him with captaincy.

A bowling line up of Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath / Lillee is fine, but Imran with reverse swing (which has not been prefected by other four) definietly ends up in my world XI, because he offers something unique, unlike others.

By all reports IK was a fine captain, but one of the best captains ever? Not sure about that, I think Mike B. and Ian C. were better for instance imo

Still I would not say no to having Imran in my all time team

 

[archie mac]

Good to see people cant read topics. Illiterate much?

The topic is greatest all rounder.

34 average and strike rate of 92.

Please explain.

Ever tried to understand cricket beyond statsgur??????????????????????????????????

Everytime we have one of these silly calls, it should be linked to 'Hear hear led me your ear'

 

[bagapath]

Imran would have a huge call, when you regrad he is one of the best captains ever in test cricket. No other all time XI player probably matches him with captaincy.

No Migara, Don Bradman was a superior captain. Just check out how he reversed the batting order once, for instance, to turn the game around completely in his favor. He would be the no.3 in every dream team anyone can conceive and he will also skipper all of them.

Imran was a very good captain. But he is not one of the best. 14 wins out of 48 tests is closer to Ganguly's record than Benaud's or Ian Chappell's. Sub continent fans used to hero worship him to the point of making him superhuman. The fact that Imran could tower above the petty politics of Pakistan cricket and lead his teams to series wins in India and England (and later win the world cup) made him look like he was an all time great skipper. He was not. These were worthy achievements but not comparable to Lloyd and Steve Waugh's teams' relentless victories around the globe. Since they were blessed with great teams I am quoting Benaud and Ian Chappell's names as they led solid teams to great wins.

 

[Zinzan]

My top 2 were Botham & Imran, with Miller 3rd.

I can't help but think Sobers' faces the same problem as Hadlee, only reversed, when it comes to competing for a claim to the top 2 allrounder spots.

I know Sobers is almost universally regarded as the 'greatest all-rounder', but for me 235 wickets at 93 matches (just 2.5 per match) doesn't suggest he was a top (or overall threatening) bowler by any stretch, even if he did bowl, medium-fast, slow left-arm orthodox & slow left-arm chinaman, along with fielding that was out of this world.

As Hadlee was amongst of the top 5 or so bowlers of all-time (only behind Marshall IMHO), Sober could certainly lay claim as one of the top 5 or so batsmen.
But the reality is that both Hadlee & Sober's were nothing more than handy at their alternative craft.

That's why for me, in judging the "True test allrounder's" I'd rather select players that on any day could genuinely win a game (or change it) with bat or ball. Neither Hadlee or Sobers won matches consistently enough with bat (in Hadlee's case) & with ball (in Sobers'.) to compete with Botham or Imran in this true all-round respect. Could throw Kallis into the same category while we're at it.

Am aware I'm clearly in a minority with this view on Sobers, so anticipate some heated replies.

 

[Migara]

By all reports IK was a fine captain, but one of the best captains ever? Not sure about that, I think Mike B. and Ian C. were better for instance imo

Still I would not say no to having Imran in my all time team

Imran would have a huge call, when you regrad he is one of the best captains ever in test cricket. No other all time XI player probably matches him with captaincy.

A bowling line up of Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath / Lillee is fine, but Imran with reverse swing (which has not been prefected by other four) definietly ends up in my world XI, because he offers something unique, unlike others.

Mike Bearly, Ritchie Benaud and Ian Chappel had to do much better than what they did to enter a World XI.

For ex. in my own All time XI, I find Imran is the best captain.
Sutcliffe, Hammond, Bradman, Tendulkar, Lara, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Murali

People who select Warne over Murali might say SKW is better. But IK is far better leader than any player in that list.

 

[Migara]

No Migara, Don Bradman was a superior captain. Just check out how he reversed the batting order once, for instance, to turn the game around completely in his favor. He would be the no.3 in every dream team anyone can conceive and he will also skipper all of them.

Imran was a very good captain. But he is not one of the best. 14 wins out of 48 tests is closer to Ganguly's record than Benaud's or Ian Chappell's. Sub continent fans used to hero worship him to the point of making him superhuman. The fact that Imran could tower above the petty politics of Pakistan cricket and lead his teams to series wins in India and England (and later win the world cup) made him look like he was an all time great skipper. He was not. These were worthy achievements but not comparable to Lloyd and Steve Waugh's teams' relentless victories around the globe. Since they were blessed with great teams I am quoting Benaud and Ian Chappell's names as they led solid teams to great wins.

Bradman may have a better record. But Bradman had the best team of the era, and so was Lloyd and Waugh. No captain in the above era's could defend them selves against the best team. And Imran did just that. He drew with West Indies. And it was not due to single ingenious decision like reversing order, but cascade of good decisions. The way he picked the right part timer for the right WI batsman is fascinating. If Bradman, Lloyd or Waugh had the 3rd or 4th best team of their era, they would not have been successful as what they were leading the top team of the era

 

[archie mac]

Bradman may have a better record. But Bradman had the best team of the era, and so was Lloyd and Waugh. No captain in the above era's could defend them selves against the best team. And Imran did just that. He drew with West Indies. And it was not due to single ingenious decision like reversing order, but cascade of good decisions. The way he picked the right part timer for the right WI batsman is fascinating. If Bradman, Lloyd or Waugh had the 3rd or 4th best team of their era, they would not have been successful as Imran.

How do you know they would not have done better? it should be remembered that Bradman had Bradman no matter what the team he captained

 

[archie mac]

Mike Bearly, Ritchie Benaud and Ian Chappel had to do much better than what they did to enter a World XI.

For ex. in my own All time XI, I find Imran is the best captain.
Sutcliffe, Hammond, Bradman, Tendulkar, Lara, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Hadlee, Marshall, Murali

People who select Warne over Murali might say SKW is better. But IK is far better leader than any player in that list.

I think the one player your all time team would be happy to play under would be Bradman, except maybe Hammond.

I don't think i have ever heard of an all time team that has Sutcliffe and no Hobbs???

 

[bagapath]

Bradman may have a better record. But Bradman had the best team of the era, and so was Lloyd and Waugh. No captain in the above era's could defend them selves against the best team. And Imran did just that. He drew with West Indies. And it was not due to single ingenious decision like reversing order, but cascade of good decisions. The way he picked the right part timer for the right WI batsman is fascinating. If Bradman, Lloyd or Waugh had the 3rd or 4th best team of their era, they would not have been successful as Imran.

whatever it is, 14 wins in 48 tests is not good enough to be get him the title of a great captain. good, yes. but not great. and definitely not among the best ever.

 

[Uppercut]

In an all time XI, the chances of other guys not doing well is pretty remote.. So I would take Sobers every time, thank you very much........



And reg. your point, the RSA guys scored quicker than Sobers' contemporaries only because the relative scoring rates of that era was much quicker than the one in Sobers'. You continue to ignore relativity because it doesn't suit your point. But the fact is, when comparing eras, relativity IS the most important factor.....

I don't think it is. Time was an issue in Sobers's era, he had to score quickly because with everyone else going at a snail's pace the chances of running out of time were pretty high. Time was no issue at all for Kallis most of the time, very few of the tests he played in were draws, relatively speaking. So he could score at whatever rate he wanted and it made no difference.

Relativity might matter to you, but it doesn't to me in this particular case. Scoring at a strike rate of 53 is scoring at a strike rate of 53, whether everyone else is scoring at a strike rate of 20 or a strike rate of 80. It's still the same achievement. It's everyone is averaging 40 and one player is averaging 60, then I'll take relativity into account, because it implies to me that scoring runs was exceptionally difficult in that era. I don't think the low strike rates in Sobers's era were because scoring quickly was especially more difficult. I think it was just how things were done.

 

[Migara]

How do you know they would not have done better? it should be remembered that Bradman had Bradman no matter what the team he captained

The last word of as Imran is a mistake. Now edited.