CW All Time XI All Rounders

[Spark]

Cannot comprehend the logic behind batting Imran in the top 6 at all, especially if Adam Gilchrist is your 7, unless you want him up the order to provide some impetus and Gilchrist lower as shielding.

 

[Cevno]

Would you really want Imran above Gilly?

Nah! Made a error typing that there. Would go with Gilly above Imran but it's not like Imran would be a dud there either, especially going with his later years form.

Edit - Typing on the phone is such a mess!

 

[bagapath]

so far i have got

hobbs
hutton
bradman
richards
lara
sobers
gilchrist
imran

i cant imagine any better combo; several equally good ones for sure - but none better is possible imo

 

[Debris]

Sobers is the only one from this list I would pick if I was just able to pick a team. Don't really rate the value of all-rounders but Sobers makes it as a batsman.

 

[G.I.Joe]

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.

Was that out of choice/necessity or a limitation of his game? Genuine question.

 

[The Sean]

Was that out of choice/necessity or a limitation of his game? Genuine question.

Rhodes came into Test cricket as an outstanding bowler and a tail-end batsman, but his stated aim was "to go in first for England" so to his credit he worked himself up to becoming a top class opening bat, and formed a successful partnership with Jack Hobbs. As he did so though, he bowled considerably less - England helped by having plenty of other fine bowlers to call on.

It's worth noting that Rhodes' first 13 Tests yielded 66 wickets at 17. His other 45 (as he worked his way up the batting order) produced just 61 wickets at 37. Rhodes was a wonderful cricketer, and a God at FC level, but he was rarely - if ever - a genuine Test all rounder, despite what his final career numbers say.

 

[Howe_zat]

Nah! Made a error typing that there. Would go with Gilly above Imran but it's not like Imran would be a dud there either, especially going with his later years form.

Edit - Typing on the phone is such a mess!

If you're going with his later years form then he'll barely be bowling. If you pick Imran at all, I think you have to pick the early-to-mid 80s version that gets in as a bowler.

 

[Cevno]

If you're going with his later years form then he'll barely be bowling. If you pick Imran at all, I think you have to pick the early-to-mid 80s version that gets in as a bowler.

I'm picking on whole of the 80's combined as one version, treating his his batting career and bowling careers both separate and together simultaneously.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Also at the same time you have to take into account and not discount completely the aggregate of his whole career too, of which dropping of in bwoling and gaining in batting is still a part of. Though you can perhaps give that less weightage.


Edit - And in anycase, even if you take his 80's version upto 1989 he still was averaging 41 with the bat alongside a bowling average of 17 odd. It was after that when he became mostly a batsman.

 

[L Trumper]

Sobers is a given.

Its a choice between Imran and Miller for most I presume.

Edit: Miller is vastly underrated in these parts. Which is a surprise considering how much form members tend to rate all-rounders.

 

[Jager]

Cannot comprehend the logic behind batting Imran in the top 6 at all, especially if Adam Gilchrist is your 7, unless you want him up the order to provide some impetus and Gilchrist lower as shielding.

Interestingly enough, Imran averaged 61.86 from 23 innings batting at 6. This includes 8 not outs, mind you.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Rhodes came into Test cricket as an outstanding bowler and a tail-end batsman, but his stated aim was "to go in first for England" so to his credit he worked himself up to becoming a top class opening bat, and formed a successful partnership with Jack Hobbs. As he did so though, he bowled considerably less - England helped by having plenty of other fine bowlers to call on.

It's worth noting that Rhodes' first 13 Tests yielded 66 wickets at 17. His other 45 (as he worked his way up the batting order) produced just 61 wickets at 37. Rhodes was a wonderful cricketer, and a God at FC level, but he was rarely - if ever - a genuine Test all rounder, despite what his final career numbers say.

Thanks, mate. He seems to have been an Imran before Imran. I suppose he was a genuine all-rounder at FC level? It seems to me hard to have a two-phased career over that many games and still end up with the stats he did at the FC level?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Interestingly enough, Imran averaged 61.86 from 23 innings batting at 6. This includes 8 not outs, mind you.

IIRC, his bowling went to pot in the games that he batted 6. Someone worked out the stats earlier.

 

[Jager]

IIRC, his bowling went to pot in the games that he batted 6. Someone worked out the stats earlier.

So I've heard, but it still shows that it isn't entirely ridiculous to have Imran up there (although I wouldn't)

 

[G.I.Joe]

So I've heard, but it still shows that it isn't entirely ridiculous to have Imran up there (although I wouldn't)

But if his bowling suffers significantly when he's played at 6, what's the point of picking him? Kallis would be a better bet in that case.

Imran should, IMO, bat no higher than 8 in an all-time XI.

 

[Ikki]

Since you said all-rounders I picked Miller and Imran. Sobers doesn't get to bowl in my team so he is just a specialist bat.

 

[Jager]

But if his bowling suffers significantly when he's played at 6, what's the point of picking him? Kallis would be a better bet in that case.

Imran should, IMO, bat no higher than 8 in an all-time XI.

I know, I'm only referring to his batting though, just shedding some very dim light on the subject. I would also play him at 8.

 

[smash84]

I'm picking on whole of the 80's combined as one version, treating his his batting career and bowling careers both separate and together simultaneously.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Also at the same time you have to take into account and not discount completely the aggregate of his whole career too, of which dropping of in bwoling and gaining in batting is still a part of. Though you can perhaps give that less weightage.


Edit - And in anycase, even if you take his 80's version upto 1989 he still was averaging 41 with the bat alongside a bowling average of 17 odd. It was after that when he became mostly a batsman.

His stats of the 80s are just so so good

 

[Biryani Pillow]

I went for Sobes and Rhodes.

Sobers - great batsman and 3 bowlers in one.

Rhodes - arguably the best slow left arm bowler ever (certainly in the top 3) and a very good batsman.

I'd always pick Botham ahead of Imran because Botham is the best "when it matters"player I've seen. When the game was drifting so did he - when something was needed he was there so many times.

Almost all of his test 100s won or turned a match - and his bowling often did.

 

[Cabinet96]

I went for Sobers and Imran, but I easily could have gone for Kallis and Pollock. In fact I could have easily picked any of those players.

 

[Jacknife]

I went for Sobes and Rhodes.

Sobers - great batsman and 3 bowlers in one.

Rhodes - arguably the best slow left arm bowler ever (certainly in the top 3) and a very good batsman.

I'd always pick Botham ahead of Imran because Botham is the best "when it matters"player I've seen. When the game was drifting so did he - when something was needed he was there so many times.

Almost all of his test 100s won or turned a match - and his bowling often did.

Yes it's the reason I picked Botham over others and went with Sobers for obvious reasons.