Cricket's great all-rounders

[Marius]

There were big questions why Barry Richards didn't play in the 66/67 series. Barlow and Goddard formed a reliable opening pair and Barry was surprisingly snubbed there.

In the 69/70 series when Goddard was over the hill, in the couple of games he played he first of all batted 9 but then out of nowhere opened with Barry next game and Barlow decided to drop to bat number 5 and scored a 100.

I think Richards didn't play because there were disciplinary questions about him, and the South African selectors were a conservative bunch (as they by and large still are).

 

[SeamUp]

I think Richards didn't play because there were disciplinary questions about him, and the South African selectors were a conservative bunch (as they by and large still are).

Supposedly there was. But so ciminal that Barry only got his test debut at around 24 years of age.

 

[harsh.ag]

To give my two cents here, I think that there have only ever been three complete all rounders in test history - Keith Ross Miller, Ian Terence Botham and (slightly controversial) George Aubrey Faulkner. Miller the most consistent of the lot, and Botham perhaps had the best peak.

Had they played enough tests, Clive Rice and Mike Procter had the potential to join the above three.

I rank them above anybody else. Next come Imran Khan, Trevor Goddard, Garry Sobers, Jacques Kallis, Vinoo Mankad and Kapil Dev.

Lastly, none of Steve Waugh, Wasim Akram, Richard Hadlee, Wilfred Rhodes, Ritchie Benaud and Shaun Pollock were all-rounders, so there is no need to hype them up as being one. Does one really need to look at the stats to know that Pollock, Richards and Akram couldn't win tests with the bat (apart from that freakish 257 by Akram once)

I hope I didn't offend anyone with the above.

 

[BackFootPunch]

Lastly, none of Steve Waugh, Wasim Akram, Richard Hadlee, Wilfred Rhodes, Ritchie Benaud and Shaun Pollock were all-rounders, so there is no need to hype them up as being one. Does one really need to look at the stats to know that Pollock, Richards and Akram couldn't win tests with the bat (apart from that freakish 257 by Akram once)

Can only be bothered looking at Hadlee but he was certainly capable of winning Tests with the bat.

New Zealand v England at Christchurch, Feb 3-5, 1984

He scored more runs by himself in one innings than England managed as a team in either of theirs. He also took 8-44 off 35 overs. That seems like a fairly decent all-round effort.

 

[kyear2]

Both Sobers and Imran have both won multiple matches for their countries with both bat and ball as well and Kallis also would have made some more than handy contributions.

 

[Dazinho]

If I'm not mistaken Hadlee's batting average was 27 which falls a fraction short of genuine all-rounder status.

f you're looking for bona fide all-rounder are we saying >= 30 with the bat and <=30 with the ball?

Then we're into degrees of brilliance.

I'd give Hadlee a pass on his batting to some extent though - he had the pressure of carrying his team and often a weak tail around him. Wouldn't mind knowing how many of his dismissals were with 8 or 9 wickets down and making the most of limited time.

That he achieved what he did minus real pressure at the other end with the ball makes those stats even more incredible.

So to answer the original question, Imran in absolute terms, Hadlee for what he achieved within the context he found himself in.

 

[weeman27bob]

I think genuine allrounder status, at least in my eyes is batting average > bowling average. Obviously that needs some qualification, but you'd obviously rate someone who averages 23 with the ball and 27 with the bat as a better allrounder than someone who averages 30 with ball and bat.

 

[kyear2]

To me a genuine all rounder is someone who can legitimately bat in the top order (top 6) and offer at worse a good fourth or fifth option as a bowler.

 

[BackFootPunch]

To me a genuine all rounder is someone who can legitimately bat in the top order (top 6) and offer at worse a good fourth or fifth option as a bowler.

So effectively a genuine batsman and a better than average bowler right?

Couldn't a genuine all rounder therefore also be a genuine bowler and a better than average batsman?

 

[Debris]

It is really hard to quantify statistically what is an all-rounder. Batting average greater than bowling average gives you players like Allan Border as an all-rounder. I always consider there to be four standards of all-rounder.

There is the player who would be picked on both batting or bowling alone. These players are exceeding rare and there could be some argument there has not been one. This would be the genuine all-rounder.

There are the players who are good enough in one discipline and almost up to standard in the other. This is what most people mean when they say all-rounder.

Then you have players who are picked for one discipline but can contribute with the other occasionally.

And lastly, there is wicket-keepers.....

The stronger the side is, the harder it is to be considered an all-rounder.

 

[Jacknife]

It is really hard to quantify statistically what is an all-rounder. Batting average greater than bowling average gives you players like Allan Border as an all-rounder. I always consider there to be four standards of all-rounder.

There is the player who would be picked on both batting or bowling alone. These players are exceeding rare and there could be some argument there has not been one. This would be the genuine all-rounder.

There are the players who are good enough in one discipline and almost up to standard in the other. This is what most people mean when they say all-rounder.

Then you have players who are picked for one discipline but can contribute with the other occasionally.

And lastly, there is wicket-keepers.....

The stronger the side is, the harder it is to be considered an all-rounder.

Agree with all this, as you say there have been very few genuine all-rounders in world cricket but there are quite a few guys around who can be considered all-rounders of sorts.

 

[watson]

If I'm not mistaken Hadlee's batting average was 27 which falls a fraction short of genuine all-rounder status.

f you're looking for bona fide all-rounder are we saying >= 30 with the bat and <=30 with the ball?

'Dazinho'

Depends on the context.

Hadlee's Batting Average against the Windies at the height of their powers was 32.41. Pretty damned good for a world-class bowler! Hadlee also hit a fabulous century (92 balls) against Lloyd's team;

2nd Test: New Zealand v West Indies at Christchurch, Feb 22-27, 1980 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

So, if your opponent is the West Indies then you would prefer Hadlee over Botham despite Botham's pedigree against other nations and his reputation as a batsman.

Incidently, Botham's Batting Average against the Windies was 21.40 with no centuries. A gap of 11 runs is significant.

 

[watson]

To me a genuine all rounder is someone who can legitimately bat in the top order (top 6) and offer at worse a good fourth or fifth option as a bowler.

OR consistently rescue his team with a solid 50 and the occasional 100 while batting at 7-8 AND consistently knock over the top order of the opposition when bowling.

 

[harsh.ag]

I didn't say that Imran, Sobers and Kallis are not genuine all rounders, but to be fair, Imran's batting and bowling peaks were in different times. When he was a match winning bowler, he wasn't a match winning batsman, and vice versa. Now, please don't go find 2-3 tests where the above statement is found wanting and then act as though you have won the argument. Of course he was capable of doing it occasionally, else why would we be having this discussion in the first place? With Sobers, the thing is that he used to bowl so many overs, it was daft. A strike rate of 92 is not good enough to be ranked as a bowling match winner. Only one year in his entire 20-year career was a great all-rounder year - 1962. Then he averaged 70 with the bat and 20 with the ball in 5 tests (wow!!), but other than that, he was just the best batsman, and not a match winning bowler. Again, please don't nit-pick on 2-3 test matches.

Kallis is a bit more of a puzzle. Yes, you could rank his early years as being in the league of the best all rounders and in fact, you probably should. For Kallis, seasons 1998/99, 1999/00, 2000/01 and 2002/03 were particularly very good. So for that, I could be convinced to rank him up there with Miller and Botham. Miller and Botham performed well with both the bat and the ball at the same time on a much more consistent basis than Imran and Sobers at least (obviously this doesn't include post 1984-Botham). It's my approach that I only consider excellent batting and bowling performance in the same match as the yardstick. So, if you scored a century but failed with the ball, then it's not an all-round performance and doesn't count in my book. I would be glad if anyone points out the flaws with this approach.

Similarly, giving one great all round performance by Hadlee won't convince me either. Not much consistency. Same for Akram.

 

[Jager]

To me a genuine all rounder is someone who can legitimately bat in the top order (top 6) and offer at worse a good fourth or fifth option as a bowler.

Agreed with kyear for the most part. I think the best all-rounders in that sense are Miller and Sobers, depending on whether you value an all-rounder for their batting or bowling more.

 

[smash84]

Miller's bowling wasn't that great was it?

From what I have read he was really a much better batsman

 

[harsh.ag]

Miller's bowling was quite good dude. Of course not as good as Imran and Hadlee, but nearly there. In his first six years from 1946-52, he picked up 102 wickets @ 20.70 in 33 tests with an SR of 57. Not bad eh?

 

[Debris]

Miller's bowling wasn't that great was it?

From what I have read he was really a much better batsman

If anything, his bowling was better than his batting. His career was delayed by the end of the war and he did not debut until 26-27 and this probably affected his bowling career. The tendency with all-rounders is for their batting to get better and bowling worse as career progresses.

 

[harsh.ag]

If I had to pick an All Time All-Rounders XI, it would go like:

Openers
Eddie Barlow
Trevor Goddard

Middle Order
Jacques Kallis
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist (w)
Aubrey Faulkner
Keith Miller (c)

''Tail End''
Ian Botham
Imran Khan
Mike Procter
Richard Hadlee

Just missed out: Kapil Dev, Clive Rice, Wilfred Rhodes, Tony Greig, Shaun Pollock, Andrew Flintoff, Shane Watson

Maybe Shane Watson or Rhodes should replace Barlow, perhaps. Leaving Kapil Dev out was really hard, but if you had to include him, who would you leave out? smalishah84, opinions?

 

[Dan]

Miller's bowling wasn't that great was it?

From what I have read he was really a much better batsman

Was good enough to open the bowling ahead of a young Alan Davidson, when they played together with Lindwall.

My impression has always been that his batting never quite lived up to what it should have been, given he tended not to try when his side was a long way ahead (a rather common occurrence in his era).

Keith Miller was deeply affected by the Second World War. It changed him ... In the first post-war Ashes Test ... England were caught on a sticky ... [and] Bill Edrich came in. He'd had a serious war and he survived and Miller thought, 'He's my old Services mate. The last thing he wants after five years' war is to be flattened by a cricket ball, so I eased up. Bradman came up to me and said, 'Don't slow down, Keith. Bowl quicker.' That remark put me off Test cricket. Never felt the same way about it after that.

On the second morning of a match against South Australia in Sydney in 1955 New South Wales captain Keith Miller, at the end of his first over, said to team mate Alan Davidson: “There’s nothing in this wicket for me. I’ll have just one more over, then you can take over.” Miller, who had closed the NSW innings late the previous afternoon at 8/215, captured three wickets in his “last over” and changed his mind. Not that Miller had a long spell of bowling. He was in his eighth over when the South Australian innings ended, having taken 7/12 off 59 balls with five of his victims being bowled.

Miller’s selection in any team was still essentially for his batting, but his ability to bowl fast was such that no captain was willing to ignore this aspect of his game. So emerged an all-rounder of the finest quality. Short but explosive spells of bowling were more to his style than the long workload of a stock bowler. Captains needed to keep him reasonably fresh as he could have had a long stay at the crease ahead of him as a batsman.

Statistically, Miller never did himself justice. The record books do not remotely reflect the marvellous talent of a strokemaking, fast bowling all-rounder who might have earned his place in any team of any period for batting or bowling alone.

Miller was an elegant batsman, with tremendous driving power and equal efficiency off the back foot. It is certain that his deployment as a bowler affected his admittedly good batting average, but what a bowler!

As a bowler, Miller had a classically high arm action, moving the ball sharply either way and able to make the ball rise from a good length. His action caused opposition batsmen to perceive that his deliveries were gaining pace after pitching. He was often able to generate more pace than his new ball partner, Lindwall. He was always willing to try something new if the batsman were set, varying his approach from fifteen paces to five and vice-versa. A round arm delivery often managed to capture a wicket, surprising the batsman. Compton said that Miller "often had no preconceived idea what he intended to bowl even as he turned to start his run". Miller often mixed slow leg breaks when he was bowling off a run. He once bowled English opening batsman David Sheppard with a googly during a Test. Hutton opined that Miller was the bowler who was least concerned with the position of his bowling mark, and said that he "never felt physically safe against him". His use of bouncers at Trent Bridge during the 1948 tour was seen by the English crowd as excessive, who booed him. Miller simply sat down until the barracking had subsided. He was often required to bowl through pain, pressing a disk into place at the base of his spine before sending down the next delivery.

He was the perfect foil to the smooth, skiddy Lindwall: Miller would trundle in off a shortish run, but could send down a thunderbolt himself if he felt like it. Or a legspinner. Or a yorker. Or a bouncer, an overdose of which led to his being booed during the 1948 Trent Bridge Test: Miller simply sat down until the barracking had subsided. What few people realised was that he had trouble with his back throughout that tour - he often pressed an errant disc back into place at the base of his spine before somehow sending down another screamer.

He averaged in the high 40s on the Invincibles tour with the bat and 17 with the ball. He performed in both disciplines simultaneously.