Which cricketer has the most complete record?

[JBH001]

This thread really has nothing to do with Ponting and Tendulkar.

There is legitimate question of what the OP defines as a "complete" record, and that is one that is consistent, home and away, against allcomers. Ponting's record in India excludes him from this, and we don't now need another 30 posts debating this.

Yes.

 

[JBH001]

Given the criteria of a good record, home and away, against all (decent?) opposition, I dont think many players would make the cut.

 

[zaremba]

I know that this isn't quite what the OP had in mind, and I'm not trying to say he was equally good against all opposition, but Ian Botham's Test record is pretty complete in its own way:

• 14 centuries
• 27 5-wicket hauls
• 120 catches

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Guys for the last time : Just because a player has a more complete record it does NOT mean that he is a better player.For the sake of the argument if Davidson has a more complete record then Mcgrath (which he does) then it does not mean that Davidson is a better bowler than Mcgrath. He might be but that is another debate.

The criteria I had in mind was for a batsman to average 40+ overall and away against every opposion. Overall and away is slightly different from home and away - you could totally flop at home against someone and yet do enough away to cross that barrier.

For a batsman : 40+ overall and away against every opposition minnow or non-minnow. Please do not start analysing if it was the batsman's first series or last series or if the batsman had piles or whatever. If batsman A averaged 39 against the greatest attack ever then he wont make the cut for this excercise. Conversely if someone else filled his boots and averaged more against a weaker attack, that batsman will still make the cut.This is a statistical exercise only so please dont start arguing who scored against better atatcks or the number of matches or whatever.

For a bowler : Average 25 or less overall and away against every oppostion. - Davidson

 

[The Sean]

I'd like to hear a bit more about Alan Davidson - I've never seen the guy bowl, but the record is outstanding. What was it that made him so effective? Swing, seam position, control? How quick did he bowl, and how did he take his wickets? Are there any left handers bowling today that could compare to him, style wise?

well... from what I have read he was only as fast as bedser/barnes/ or mcgrath in his last legs. but bobby simpson, when he selected the best postwar aussie xi (lawary/simpson/bradman/chappell/harvey/border/gilchrist/ davidson/ warne/ lillee/ thompson) had davo in the team for his accurate swing bowling and ability to bowl on and on until the skipper told him to stop. guess he was right because davidson's low average and low ER combined with a high SR show that he was a very disciplined work horse. from what i remember he had a very good record in the subcontinent as well. but for the large number of amazing cricketers australia has produced over the years, he would make it to every dream aussi xi.

Pretty much what Bagapath said here is spot on, though from what I can tell he was certainly quicker than Bedser/Barnes et al, and could be genuinely fast (if not quite Lindwall-fast) when he wanted to be. And I would say that his S/R, relative to the era in which he played, wasn't too bad at all.

He was an extraordinarily accurate bowler, as seen in his ridiculous E/R, something he developed when he was just getting into the game. As a young kid he would practice his bowling out the back of his house with the stumps set up just before a hill, so if Davo missed the stumps he's have to then chase the ball down the hill to fetch it. Safe to say that he learned the value of accuracy pretty quickly. On top of that, as Bagapath said, he would bowl all day and there are great stories and footage of Benaud cajoling Davo into bowling one more over, and then one more, and then just one more.

It's also worth noting that his record, while already exceptional in its entirety, was truly remarkable once he'd become a fixture in the Australian side. As a reserve to Lindwall/Miller etc he took 16 wickets in his first 12 Tests at an average of 33. Once given the new ball in 1957 his remaining 32 Tests yielded 170 wickets at 19. A superb bowler, who tends to get ranked generally a level or two below what he actually deserves IMO.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I know that this isn't quite what the OP had in mind, and I'm not trying to say he was equally good against all opposition, but Ian Botham's Test record is pretty complete in its own way:

• 14 centuries
• 27 5-wicket hauls
• 120 catches

That is another way of looking at it - I suppose Kallis with 250+ wickets, 10k runs and 150+ catches will give him a run for his money.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Are there any left handers bowling today that could compare to him, style wise?

From what I have read and heard about him,he was a lot like Akram.

 

[Ikki]

McGrath's 31 (Striking @ 63.4) in Pakistan is not as **** as Ponting's 20odd against India.

McGrath toured Pakistan... twice?

First time was when he was just a young upstart... took 7 wickets in 2 matches @ 35 (SR 68.7)

By the time he was recognised as a excellent fast bowler... 12 wickets in 3 matches @ 28.66 (SR 60.4).

That is all. It's "intellectual dishonesty" if you try and try and tell me that McGrath failed in Pakistan.

Pretty sure no one said McGrath failed in Pakistan. But he did overall against NZ and S.Africa at home.

TBF, Donald is about as complete as McGrath. Marshall, moreso. If one poor record can cut you out the race, then McGrath was never in it, and neither are 99% of cricket players - that includes pretty much everyone mentioned in this thread bar Hobbs and Bradman.

 

[Faisal1985]

If you talk record wise, i don't anyone's record is more "complete" then Tendulkar's.

 

[Pothas]

It's also worth noting that his record, while already exceptional in its entirety, was truly remarkable once he'd become a fixture in the Australian side. As a reserve to Lindwall/Miller etc he took 16 wickets in his first 12 Tests at an average of 33. Once given the new ball in 1957 his remaining 32 Tests yielded 170 wickets at 19. A superb bowler, who tends to get ranked generally a level or two below what he actually deserves IMO.

Yep while not on expert on his career for obvious reasons everything I have read about him suggests all time great, is why I voted for him on the top 50 cricketers thing you ran.

Read the other day an argument (may have been by you actually) regarding Ken Barrington that his reputation is a victim of the era he played in, you rekon same thing could be said for Davidson? especially living in the shadow and then following on from Lindwall/Miller?

 

[The Sean]

Yep while not on expert on his career for obvious reasons everything I have read about him suggests all time great, is why I voted for him on the top 50 cricketers thing you ran.

Read the other day an argument (may have been by you actually) regarding Ken Barrington that his reputation is a victim of the era he played in, you rekon same thing could be said for Davidson? especially living in the shadow and then following on from Lindwall/Miller?

Yeah it's definitely possible. While I think the 1960s are possibly remembered with a little more fondness in Australia than they are in England, its true that it does tend to suffer by comparison with the Bradman (and Miller/Lindwall/Harvey/Morris) legacy of the immediate post-war years which preceded it, and then the in-living-colour sensations of the 1970s which came after.

Richie is obviously still a huge name, but as much for his renowned captaincy and remaining in the public eye as the doyen of commentators. Davidson hasn't ever held the same level of public recognition, but as a shy and modest bloke I imagine he's pretty content with that. Certainly the blokes who played with Davo - the likes of Benaud, Simpson and O'Neill - can't speak highly enough of him. And for a few years there in the late '50s and early '60s Benaud and Davidson were a bowling combination arguably fit to be spoken of in the same breath as McWarne.

 

[Slifer]

Ansa to this question IMO:

Batsmen: G Chappell
Bowler: Marshall

And for those questioning Marshall's greatness the guy averages under 25 home and away vs everyone (i seriously dont count 3 tests vs NZ in 1987 when Garner/Holding retired in the middle of the series and MM had a back strain)Results | West Indies | Cricinfo.com

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Bradman.

 

[slippyslip]

Marshall bowled to two guys who averaged over 50 for their test careers. Border and Miandad.

How many batsmen did McGrath bowl to that averaged over 50?

 

[zaremba]

Marshall bowled to two guys who averaged over 50 for their test careers. Border and Miandad.

Plus Sunny Gavaskar and Steve Waugh.

 

[zaremba]

How many batsmen did McGrath bowl to that averaged over 50?

6, excluding those he only played against in 1 or 2 Tests.

Those 6 are:
Lara
Kallis
Tendulkar
Dravid
Mo Yo
Jayawardene

(The other 4 are Sangakkara and Samaraweera (2 Tests) and Gambhir and Flower (1 Test)).

And of course McGrath bowled against a lot more sub-50 batsmen than Marshall did.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

6, excluding those he only played against in 1 or 2 Tests.

Those 6 are:
Lara
Kallis
Tendulkar
Dravid
Mo Yo
Jayawardene

(The other 4 are Sangakkara and Samaraweera (2 Tests) and Gambhir and Flower (1 Test)).

And of course McGrath bowled against a lot more sub-50 batsmen than Marshall did.

Just out of curiosity - if a batsman averaged 50+ at the time Mcgrath was playing but then slipped to sub 50,does he count ? I am talking about Pietersen. Conversely, I am reasonably sure that Samraweera and Gambhir averaged 50+ well after Mcgrath retired only. Sehwag is also missing from your list as is Smith.

 

[slowfinger]

6, excluding those he only played against in 1 or 2 Tests.

Those 6 are:
Lara
Kallis
Tendulkar
Dravid
Mo Yo
Jayawardene

(The other 4 are Sangakkara and Samaraweera (2 Tests) and Gambhir and Flower (1 Test)).

And of course McGrath bowled against a lot more sub-50 batsmen than Marshall did.

Im sure Mcgrath bowled Pieterson...

 

[zaremba]

Just out of curiosity - if a batsman averaged 50+ at the time Mcgrath was playing but then slipped to sub 50,does he count ? I am talking about Pietersen. Conversely, I am reasonably sure that Samraweera and Gambhir averaged 50+ well after Mcgrath retired only. Sehwag is also missing from your list as is Smith.

Yeah I missed Sehwag. Smith averages under 50.

As for what counts etc, I'm going by overall career average as did Slippyslip.

I have to say, "how many 50+ average batsmen did X bowl to" is one of the more meaningless and arbitrary measures of a bowler's record I've come across.

 

[stephen]

I have to say, "how many 50+ average batsmen did X bowl to" is one of the more meaningless and arbitrary measures of a bowler's record I've come across.

This.

However I will say that McGrath did very well against most or all of that list.