CW All Time XI All Rounders

[kyear2]

The multitaskers of any team. Kindly choose two of the following.
Eddie Barlow, Ian Botham, Alan Davidson, Kapil Dev, Aubrey Faulkner, Trevor Goddard, Richard Hadlee, Jacques Kallis, Imran Khan, Keith Miller, Shaun Pollock, Wilfred Rhodes, Garry Sobers, Frank Worrell.

 

[Fusion]

In my all-time XI, I can easily choose Sobers as a pure batsman and Imran as a pure bowler. Hence, I'll go with those 2 as my AR's.

 

[Mike5181]

I've gone with Sobers and Imran. If it were allowed I'd consider Hadlee solely for his bowling to form an attack of Marshall, Hadlee, Imran and Warne.

 

[Jager]

Miller because he is the X-Factor in any team and Davidson because I consider him as one of the finest bowlers in history. I probably should have voted for a spinner here, since I always like having two proper spinners, but I'm not denying my favourites votes.

 

[Prince EWS]

I've gone with Sobers and Imran. If it were allowed I'd consider Hadlee solely for his bowling to form an attack of Marshall, Hadlee, Imran and Warne.

Yep, I too would have liked the opportunity to vote for Hadlee on the strength of his bowling alone.

 

[Jager]

Yep, I too would have liked the opportunity to vote for Hadlee on the strength of his bowling alone.

Can I assume you too consider Hadlee a bowler who could bat and not a genuine all-rounder?

 

[Mike5181]

Can I assume you too consider Hadlee a bowler who could bat and not a genuine all-rounder?

It's not that we don't consider Hadlee a genuine all-rounder it's just that his bowling alone is arguably just as good as guys like Lillee, McGrath etc.

 

[ankitj]

Voted Imran and Hadlee. I prefer 5 front line bowlers if the wicket keeper is a solid batsman and 1-2 of bowlers can bat as well.

 

[Jager]

It's not that we don't consider Hadlee a genuine all-rounder it's just that his bowling alone is arguably just as good as guys like Lillee, McGrath etc.

My personal mistake here, I was under the illusion that Hadlee averaged 22 with the bat. Instead it's 27 which is more respectable, although he only scored 2 centuries.

 

[Dan]

Sir Frank Worrell (despite him mostly being a batsman in my books, I still want him in my side)
Keith Miller

Unlucky is Davidson, who is almost worth a 'wub' smiley too.

 

[morgieb]

Sobers and Imran. Hadlee should've gotten in as I would've picked him as a bowler alone.

 

[watson]

I don't think that we could class Alan Davidson as an allrounder on the basis of 5 innings over 50. It would be like calling Graeme Swann an allrounder. Brilliant bowler though.

Also, Wilfred Rhodes wasn't a true allrounder. He either batted and didn't bowl, or bowled and didn't bat. He rarely practiced both arts similtaneously. The only time you'd pick him in an ATG team would be as a spinner batting at 10 or 11.

 

[smash84]

Sobers and Imran. Hadlee should've gotten in as I would've picked him as a bowler alone.

This

 

[The Sean]

I don't think that we could class Alan Davidson as an allrounder on the basis of 5 innings over 50. It would be like calling Graeme Swann an allrounder. Brilliant bowler though.

Also, Wilfred Rhodes wasn't a true allrounder. He either batted and didn't bowl, or bowled and didn't bat. He rarely practiced both arts similtaneously. The only time you'd pick him in an ATG team would be as a spinner batting at 10 or 11.

Absolutely spot on.

Lack of Monty Noble and Tony Greig a travesty.

 

[Jager]

Davidson's got the same case as Hadlee, definitely one of the absolute best bowlers ever in my eyes.

 

[The Sean]

Davidson's got the same case as Hadlee, definitely one of the absolute best bowlers ever in my eyes.

I love the bloke, but IMO he didn't do enough with the bat at Test level to belong in this company as a genuine all rounder.

I don't think Worrell or Barlow belong anywhere near this list either.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't think that we could class Alan Davidson as an allrounder on the basis of 5 innings over 50. It would be like calling Graeme Swann an allrounder.

He played in a pretty bowler-friendly era though, and scored some tough runs against some good sides. His output in the era he played was akin to averaging just shy of 30 in today's game.

I put him more in the Hadlee class as a batsman; a very good number eight but not quite good enough to bat seven. Swann's a good number nine or a below par eight.

 

[Cevno]

Imran at 7, Hadlee at 8 with Gilchrist at 6 for me. Likely one of the other bowlers picked could be Warne/Akram/Pollock at 9 too.

5 bowlers and good batting depth.

 

[weeman27bob]

Would you really want Imran above Gilly?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Imran gets nosebleeds at 6 for mine.