Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[bagapath]

Well there was Headley -

how did I forget him... I stand corrected...

Now, we have Hammond who averaged 58 and Headley who averaged 60. And then there is Bradman at 99. If we can prove that the best current players are of better class than Hammond and Headley then we can speculate whether Bradman would lead the currrent era also by 40 runs or whether he would be scoring less runs per innings. But I doubt whether Sachin, Lara, Ponting, G.Chappell, Border, Miandad, Gavaskar and Viv Richards were significantly superior to them. It is quite possible that Hammond and Headley would fit into that group very comfortably along with Hutton and Hobbs. All would average between 50 and 60 in any era and Bradman would still be averaging 100. Since more modern players average 50+ Bradman's scoring pattern would not drop for sure; it might actually improve.

 

[Migara]

The argument i feel Bradman critics tend to miss is. Ok they argue he didn't face 90mph bowlers like Marshall, Imran, Donald etc etc in an era of very flat pitches an average attacks. But he averaged almost 100 FFS againts those type of bowling - the zenith of averages for batsmen.

In this 2000s era on surfaces very similar to the 30s, none of the great batsmen of this era have come close to matching that. So really their should be no doubts about Bradman's ability.

I tend to differ. Marshall, Roberts, Ambrose and Hadlee are not just 90mph bowlers. They were very accurate bowlers, who mastered swing and seam as well. OK, now consider this.

Draw up a all time XI, then a 2nd XI, and a 3rd XI and see how many of bowlers Bradman faced would make that list. I can assure at top of my head, even Verity would struggle to make that third XI over Murali, Warne, O'Riely, Grimmet, Laker or Chandrashekar.

The variety of fast bowling in recent times is immense than when Bradman played. Bradman rarely faced 6' 4" - 6' 8" bowlers coming at 90+mph trying to knock your head off. He might have faced one from one end, but not 3-4 of them relentlessly. Never faced fast bowlers like Wasim and Waqar, who were distinctly different with their tactics. That's why I think that difference of average of 40+ does not reflect the true ability of current players.

 

[bagapath]

I tend to differ. Marshall, Roberts, Ambrose and Hadlee are not just 90mph bowlers. They were very accurate bowlers, who mastered swing and seam as well. OK, now consider this.

Draw up a all time XI, then a 2nd XI, and a 3rd XI and see how many of bowlers Bradman faced would make that list. I can assure at top of my head, even Verity would struggle to make that third XI over Murali, Warne, O'Riely, Grimmet, Laker or Chandrashekar.

The variety of fast bowling in recent times is immense than when Bradman played. Bradman rarely faced 6' 4" - 6' 8" bowlers coming at 90+mph trying to knock your head off. He might have faced one from one end, but not 3-4 of them relentlessly. Never faced fast bowlers like Wasim and Waqar, who were distinctly different with their tactics. That's why I think that difference of average of 40+ does not reflect the true ability of current players.

I do understand what you say and it is sounding sensible to me. But I am looking at this from another angle. While champions like Hammond and Headley managed to average 58 and 60, Bradman averaged 99. Hobbs and Sutcliffe with 56 and 60 met Bradman on their way out. Hutton and Compton who averaged 56 and 50 played against a very well established Bradman who had most of his career behind him. These guys did not average 70 or 80 cashing in on the "weak" attacks of the era. Since all these great players averaged the same as modern greats (mentioned in my earlier post), why would Bradman not have similar superior records in the modern era as well? In fact more players have averaged in excess of 50 in the last 30 years than in the 3 decades Bradman played test cricket.

 

[Migara]

I do understand what you say and it is sounding sensible to me. But I am looking at this from another angle. While champions like Hammond and Headley managed to average 58 and 60, Bradman averaged 99.

Compare what Hammond and Headly faced to that of Bradman. You'll easily find Grimmet and O'Riely missing in that list. They were probably the greatet bowlers of his era. I am struggling to reember who did Headly face top of my head, but you'll find a host of class bowlers did bowl to him.

Hobbs and Sutcliffe with 56 and 60 met Bradman on their way out. Hutton and Compton who averaged 56 and 50 played against a very well established Bradman who had most of his career behind him. These guys did not average 70 or 80 cashing in on the "weak" attacks of the era.

Get Australia out of their stats and see what happens. Only Sutcliff's average goes down. Hammond averages 63.7, and Hobbs averages 63.4, Hutton averages same as his career average, Headly averages 68.7. Now this is when best attacks of the era is not considered. And you can see that people are edging towards that 70 mark.

 

[bagapath]

Compare what Hammond and Headly faced to that of Bradman. You'll easily find Grimmet and O'Riely missing in that list. They were probably the greatet bowlers of his era. I am struggling to reember who did Headly face top of my head, but you'll find a host of class bowlers did bowl to him.


Get Australia out of their stats and see what happens. Only Sutcliff's average goes down. Hammond averages 63.7, and Hobbs averages 63.4, Hutton averages same as his career average, Headly averages 68.7. Now this is when best attacks of the era is not considered. And you can see that people are edging towards that 70 mark.

If you remove the best attacks of the recent eras from the equation then I am sure border, miandad, sachin, dravid, ponting etc would go up by 10 points easily and hit averages ranging from 60 to 65. (headley's average of 68 must be coming from a very small number of matches considering he played only 22 tests anyways and you are removing australia from the equation. in effect, you are talking about his averages in three full series!!

i think there is a limited range for quality batsmanship over a long career irrespective of the era. the best batsmen would average between 50 and 60, except the pre WW! players. No one other than bradman has even touched 61. in 130 years of test cricket this has been the norm. and bradman's average is a good 40 points above this range. it will be in any era.

 

[bagapath]

-Kallis hasn't scored a double century. I just don't see why it matters in the slightest.

but why has he not scored a double century? he has played 130 tests for heaven's sake. even gillespise has scored a double hundred. and this guy has not. how can you even compare him with the very batsmen in history if he could not score one double century in 13 years of international cricket? you tell me, whether it matters to you or not, why has he not scored even one?

 

[Uppercut]

but why has he not scored a double century? he has played 130 tests for heaven's sake. even gillespise has scored a double hundred. and this guy has not. how can you even compare him with the very batsmen in history if he could not score one double century in 13 years of international cricket? you tell me, whether it matters to you or not, why has he not scored even one?

Because Shaun Pollock declared.

I don't see why scoring 11 more runs against a crap Zimbabwe side when South Africa were already miles ahead would have made him any more worthy of any accolades. That's why I don't think it matters.

 

[honestbharani]

I tend to differ. Marshall, Roberts, Ambrose and Hadlee are not just 90mph bowlers. They were very accurate bowlers, who mastered swing and seam as well. OK, now consider this.

Draw up a all time XI, then a 2nd XI, and a 3rd XI and see how many of bowlers Bradman faced would make that list. I can assure at top of my head, even Verity would struggle to make that third XI over Murali, Warne, O'Riely, Grimmet, Laker or Chandrashekar.

The variety of fast bowling in recent times is immense than when Bradman played. Bradman rarely faced 6' 4" - 6' 8" bowlers coming at 90+mph trying to knock your head off. He might have faced one from one end, but not 3-4 of them relentlessly. Never faced fast bowlers like Wasim and Waqar, who were distinctly different with their tactics. That's why I think that difference of average of 40+ does not reflect the true ability of current players.

It cuts both ways though... There is no way to say he would have failed against them just as there is no way to he would have succeeded against them. You can play in the era you are born in and he dominated the era that he was in so clearly that he still continues to the GOAT... For that reason alone, the tag is justified IMHO.

 

[honestbharani]

Because Shaun Pollock declared.

I don't see why scoring 11 more runs against a crap Zimbabwe side when South Africa were already miles ahead would have made him any more worthy of any accolades. That's why I don't think it matters.

Shaun Pollock and his coach gave Kallis a time frame at which point they were gonna declare, no matter what the position was. This is done after a rough calcuation of the time left, the time they would need to bowl out the opposition and win the game, take weather risks into equation and also possibility of some good batting from oppostion. That is how cricket is played.


If Kallis could not score 11 more runs within a specified time frame against a Zimbabwe attack, what makes you think he can be any better against better attacks???


This is one of those instances that shows the guy's love for averages, for me.... And this facet of his has been commented upon by quite a few, IIRC.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, it's possible, but for what? Sobers' batting is all-time great status. Higher than the average and most probably SR for his time. I already showed his bowling in the post you quoted.

Kallis on the other hand is about as high as Sobers with relation to average but is a few points lower than the average SR of his time (~48).

Anyway, this is the batting, decade by decade (unfortunately, there is no SR):

This is the bowling:

Amazingly bad?

We know what he bowled pretty much and when. Until the 60s, he was a slow bowler. In the 60s, he started bowling medium pace and kept it up until the late 60s where he reverted again to bowling spin. So we have a fairly good idea of what he bowled and when.

Bad or Good depends on the role you take though... Imran, Hadlee, Kapil and Botham (?, not sure of him, would like to be corrected if wrong) were all bowling allrounders... They were amongst the main bowlers picked in the side who could also bat.. Sobers and Kallis are different in that they are batting all-rounders.. AFAIC, Kallis being marginally better in the SR stakes (or maybe I should put it as Sobers being marginally worse in SR stakes) doesn't tilt the balance at all... Sobers was still so much better as a batsman and also gives me a bit more variety as a bowler which is what I am looking for from the player at that position...


And when comparing to the bowling all rounders, the fact is maybe only Hadlee and Imran were as good with the ball as Sobers was with the bat... And Sobers I would still consider to be a better bowler than Hadlee as a batsman.. And with Imran, it is tricky but I still consider Sobers to be a better batsman by a slight bit than Imran as a bowler.. So I voted Sobers as the best all rounder... Keith Miller is someone I have read so much about and I do give a lot of weightage to peer opinions and ratings and hence I voted him #2 because it seems we never really got to se the best of him as a cricketer, juz like we perhaps never saw Sobers at his best as an attacking bowler because of the role he had to play in the side...

 

[aussie]

I tend to differ. Marshall, Roberts, Ambrose and Hadlee are not just 90mph bowlers. They were very accurate bowlers, who mastered swing and seam as well. OK, now consider this.

Well when i vaguely said 90 mph i did mean those great bowlers who bowled at that pace who mastered the seam, swing etc also..

Draw up a all time XI, then a 2nd XI, and a 3rd XI and see how many of bowlers Bradman faced would make that list. I can assure at top of my head, even Verity would struggle to make that third XI over Murali, Warne, O'Riely, Grimmet, Laker or Chandrashekar.

The variety of fast bowling in recent times is immense than when Bradman played. Bradman rarely faced 6' 4" - 6' 8" bowlers coming at 90+mph trying to knock your head off. He might have faced one from one end, but not 3-4 of them relentlessly. Never faced fast bowlers like Wasim and Waqar, who were distinctly different with their tactics. That's why I think that difference of average of 40+ does not reflect the true ability of current players.

Yes this makes sense. But as i said looking at runs in this 2000s era where the surfaces & quality of bowling was very similar to the 1930s. If averaging near 100 or the 90s was that easy some one of the great batsmen would have done it in this era.

No doubt if Bradman played in the 70s & 90s he wouldn't have averaged near a hundred i agree that far. But at the same time it wasn't impossible to conquer & score runs againts these great bowlers. If Mike Atherton could score hundreds againts great bowlers during the 90s, average AUS batsmen like Redpath, Dyson, Wood, Kim Hughes could manage to score hundreds vs the WI pace quartet. Allan Lamb etc etc. I dont see the issue with The Don.

 

[Ikki]

Bad or Good depends on the role you take though... Imran, Hadlee, Kapil and Botham (?, not sure of him, would like to be corrected if wrong) were all bowling allrounders... They were amongst the main bowlers picked in the side who could also bat.. Sobers and Kallis are different in that they are batting all-rounders.. AFAIC, Kallis being marginally better in the SR stakes (or maybe I should put it as Sobers being marginally worse in SR stakes) doesn't tilt the balance at all... Sobers was still so much better as a batsman and also gives me a bit more variety as a bowler which is what I am looking for from the player at that position...

That's kinda the point. If you argue Sobers was a half-way decent bowler - let alone a good one - you can't defend his stats and then say he had a limited role. For if he had a limited role, he should never be in the discussion anyway.

Furthermore, Kallis is more than marginally in front of Sobers in the SR stakes. He is quite a way ahead. Remember your own argument: relativity. Even relative to his era Sobers' SR is poor.

And when comparing to the bowling all rounders, the fact is maybe only Hadlee and Imran were as good with the ball as Sobers was with the bat... And Sobers I would still consider to be a better bowler than Hadlee as a batsman.. And with Imran, it is tricky but I still consider Sobers to be a better batsman by a slight bit than Imran as a bowler.. So I voted Sobers as the best all rounder... Keith Miller is someone I have read so much about and I do give a lot of weightage to peer opinions and ratings and hence I voted him #2 because it seems we never really got to se the best of him as a cricketer, juz like we perhaps never saw Sobers at his best as an attacking bowler because of the role he had to play in the side...

Someone said that Sobers was more a Hadlee all-rounder than an Imran or Miller kind and I kinda agree with that. It just shows how subjective the whole thing is. I would consider Hadlee equal if not a better bowler than Sobers a batsman.

I don't want to get into a whole argument about Sobers again but, simply, his numbers don't add up well. Not in the sense that they are a few runs, wickets or balls short...because it is simply much more than that. If his role was so limited, then he was really a part-time quality bowler who bowled full-time quality quotas for most of his career.

I am not as well-read as the likes of Archie or SJS, but from whatever I do read, SRs in bowling are almost hardly mentioned. People glaze over Sobers' bowling SR and rant about his versatility or his aggregate wicket count, as if that makes up for it. It really doesn't when you are bowling mediocre stuff.

 

[Prince EWS]

*the whole thread*

AW Uppercut. Every word.

 

[honestbharani]

That's kinda the point. If you argue Sobers was a half-way decent bowler - let alone a good one - you can't defend his stats and then say he had a limited role. For if he had a limited role, he should never be in the discussion anyway.

Furthermore, Kallis is more than marginally in front of Sobers in the SR stakes. He is quite a way ahead. Remember your own argument: relativity. Even relative to his era Sobers' SR is poor.



Someone said that Sobers was more a Hadlee all-rounder than an Imran or Miller kind and I kinda agree with that. It just shows how subjective the whole thing is. I would consider Hadlee equal if not a better bowler than Sobers a batsman.

I don't want to get into a whole argument about Sobers again but, simply, his numbers don't add up well. Not in the sense that they are a few runs, wickets or balls short...because it is simply much more than that. If his role was so limited, then he was really a part-time quality bowler who bowled full-time quality quotas for most of his career.

I am not as well-read as the likes of Archie or SJS, but from whatever I do read, SRs in bowling are almost hardly mentioned. People glaze over Sobers' bowling SR and rant about his versatility or his aggregate wicket count, as if that makes up for it. It really doesn't when you are bowling mediocre stuff.

I don't wanna start it again here either... But surely, Ikki, not EVERYONE is going to be fooled that way if he was indeed that bad as a bowler... I mean, it is almost an universal consensus among the pundits and greats that he was a good bowler.. Something really doesn't add up here, right?

 

[Ikki]

It's not that they were fooled, it's that the very criteria that we hold dear now, like SR, barely got a mention in all the literature I've read on Sobers.

I also remember a thread Sanz started posting articles and I even recall a Henry Blofield bit on Sobers' series describing his bowling as good and this is when he averaged in the 40s for the series IIRC.

People were marvelling at how he bowled so many types...but, so what? Who cares if he had decent pace or could swing the ball? Who cares if he could bowl chinaman or orthadox? Unless they yield the right results it's pretty meaningless in most situations.

Commentators can embelish, fans can be influenced but the stats don't lie. I am willing to believe the hype regarding players like Lillee or Richards because they are smack-bang in the ball-park. Sobers' case is not like theirs IMO. I remember we had this discussion and you said their word was good enough for you. For me, it isn't. That's akin to religion; asking me to believe something with little to no proof.

 

[The Sean]

Get Australia out of their stats and see what happens. Only Sutcliff's average goes down. Hammond averages 63.7, and Hobbs averages 63.4, Hutton averages same as his career average, Headly averages 68.7. Now this is when best attacks of the era is not considered. And you can see that people are edging towards that 70 mark.

Well if we're playing the "remove stats against the best attack they faced" game, get England out of Bradman's numbers (including of course the series where they decided they'd just as soon kill him as get him out) and he averages 140.

 

[The Sean]

I'm actually not sorry I missed this poll, because I'm still not sure how I would have voted.

 

[bagapath]

Because Shaun Pollock declared.

I don't see why scoring 11 more runs against a crap Zimbabwe side when South Africa were already miles ahead would have made him any more worthy of any accolades. That's why I don't think it matters.

it would not have mattered even if he had scored those 11 runs. why has he not scored a double hundred against a good test team?

 

[bagapath]

I'm actually not sorry I missed this poll, because I'm still not sure how I would have voted.

But I am, mate. Would love to hear your thoughts on this. I was aware of your absence. Matt 79 was missing too.

 

[zaremba]

I am ROFL.

Tate / Larwood / Bedser > Ambrose / Marshall / Roberts / Hadlee?

Sorry to interrupt your ROFLing, but you've failed to read my post. That's not what I said.

My post was saying that those 3 great quick bowlers were of a comparable quality to the modern quicks that you mentioned. Maybe they weren't quite as good, maybe they were. It's very hard to say. They certainly weren't that far off.