Best All-Rounder ever

[Zinzan]

Would also add Aubrey Faulkner to that list, and possibly Wilfred Rhodes. Additionally, I never undrerstood why All Rounders are always limited to batsman/bowlers. Possibly the second greatest All Rounder of All Time could very well be Adam Gilchrist, and if we are admitting the glovemen who bat, then Matt Prior is the best all rounder right now in cricket and Kumar Sangakkara and Clyde Walcott deserve some consideration for the short time they held both duties.

Faulkner's often overlooked probably due to the fact he only played 20-odd tests. Then again, his FC record is pretty damn impressive averaging 36 with the bat & 17 with the ball.

With regards to Gilchrist, I personally always place keeping all-rounders in a category of their own.

 

[miscer]

ravichandran ashwin

 

[The Sean]

Would also add Aubrey Faulkner to that list, and possibly Wilfred Rhodes.

Rhodes was a wonderful cricketer, but at Test level - while having the numbers of a great all rounder - he never really a top batsman and bowler at the same time. He was a great bowler during his first 13 Tests, taking 66 wickets at 17, but in that time he averaged just 19 with the bat with a top score of 40. His next 26 Tests produced 1,635 runs at 36 as he developed into a top class, top-order batsman but his bowling fell away with just 34 wickets at 39. And then his last 14 Tests saw him excel at neither discipline, averaging 22 with the bat and 34 with the ball.

If you're looking for a more "genuine" all-rounder from that era to go with Faulkner, I reckon you're better off with Monty Noble - even though his bowling did fall away late in his career.

 

[kingkallis]

In test cricket,

Garry Sobers ( batting all rounder )
Jacques Kallis ( batting all rounder )
Imran Khan ( bowling all rounder )
Keith Miller ( bowling all rounder )
Aubrey Faulkner ( bowling all rounder?? )
Richard Hadlee ( bowling all rounder )
Ian Botham ( bowling all rounder )
Kapil Dev ( bowling all rounder )

So batting all rounders have dominated our minds?

My father still believes that Aubrey Faulkner and Keith Miller are the REAL deals!

 

[Debris]

If you're talking Test cricket (which is generally taken as a given on this forum unless stated otherwise) then you really need to look at batting & bowling all-rounders separately based on the fact there's yet to be a test allrounder who's world-class with both bat & ball throughout their entire test careers i.e >40 batting average & <25 bowling average.

For me, there's only four in the debate; the top 2 batting allrounders; Sobers & Kallis & the 2 best bowling allrounders; Miller & Imran

If you are looking at the shorter term however, Botham was genuinely world-class with both bat & ball early in his career. After his first 25 tests was averaging 40.48 & 18.52 respectively

*ahem*

John Benaud

 

[ankitj]

Considering the batting and bowling averages in his era, I will call Faulkner a batting all-rounder. Bowling average of ~26 then might be equivalent of ~32 today, while batting average of ~40 then might be equivalent of 50+ today.

 

[Howe_zat]

on the fact there's yet to be a test allrounder who's world-class with both bat & ball throughout their entire test careers i.e >40 batting average & <25 bowling average.

 

[ankitj]

there's yet to be a test allrounder who's world-class with both bat & ball throughout their entire test careers i.e >40 batting average & <25 bowling average

Think those thresholds are skewed. batting avg of 40 ~ bowling avg of 30. batting avg of 50 ~ bowling avg of 25

Ravichandran Ashwin was averaging remarkable >50 and <25 but then played on for far too long which affected his overall averages

 

[smash84]

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I never undrerstood why All Rounders are always limited to batsman/bowlers.

I think the reason might be that keepers are really just another kind of fielder. Which asks the question, Why not include fielding in general as an allround category?

If we did that, then there would be no discussion re: greatest allrounder (Sobers would be even further ahead than he already is), and Martin Guptill would have to be recognised as one of the world's leading allrounders. And we can't have that.

 

[turnstyle]

Considering the batting and bowling averages in his era, I will call Faulkner a batting all-rounder. Bowling average of ~26 then might be equivalent of ~32 today, while batting average of ~40 then might be equivalent of 50+ today.

What happened to the theory that all the bowlers back in that era were pie chuckers and the batsmen were hacks when this was discussed in another thread? Not pointing the finger at you btw.

 

[Stapel]

Today Cricinfo showed another Ask Steven. It has a list of cricketers taking 5-ers and batting centuries in one Test. That list is limited and clearly there is one leader of the pack in Sir Ian. Obviously it is not the only way to judge an all-rounder, but it does feel us something, I guess

Interesting. Yet Flintoff made it to the CW50 above likes of Donald and Garner. Some CWers must indeed rate him very highly

Flintoff was by no means the best, but he is most definitely my favourite cricketer.

 

[harsh.ag]

Here's my ranking list for all it's worth:

1. Garfield Sobers
2. Keith Miller
3. Ian Botham
4. Jacques Kallis
5. Imran Khan
6. Kapil Dev
7. Mike Procter
8. Clive Rice
9. Richard Hadlee
10. Aubrey Faulkner
11. Tony Greig
12. Trevor Goddard
13. Andrew Flintoff
14. Shane Watson
15. Shaun Pollock
= Wilfred Rhodes

Sobers as number one without too much doubt. He didn't have great bowling stats, but could bowl pace and spin. A characteristic which may go unnoticed is that WI made him play as a pacer on spin friendly pitches, and as a spinner on pace friendly pitches, and that must have had at least some impact on his performances.

Miller for me is easily the second best ever. He showed sustained excellence with both the ball and the bat. A gifted batsman who didn't like piling on runs unnecessarily (according to his definition of necessity). Very good bowler indeed, smooth run-up, simple action, and a flair for taking wickets.

Botham I rank third only because of his peak. That was something else. Running the show with both bat and ball is extremely difficult, and low-ranking somebody who actually achieved that on a consistent basis for a few seasons defeats the purpose of appreciating all-rounders, in my modest opinion. The number of 5-fers and centuries together is brilliant. His mediocrity against WI was a blemish on his record though, and the fact that many of the world's premier players were missing from action due to WSC during his peak years may have benefited him. Also that he became very mediocre later on doesn't help him. Hard not to make a good case for him though.

Kallis is another in the Sobers mould. Similar batting record, though Kallis lacks some of the flamboyance of Sobers' batting. Good bowler, does get a lot of key wickets at crucial times, and is not at all easy to play. He was especially good as an all-rounder during the early 2000s, but generally has always been really good. His ODI record is quite fantastic too, and so is his T20 record. Not counting them here per se, but it shows his abilities and versatality.

Many would be aghast at Imran being ranked at number 5 here I guess. He was definitely an amazing all-round player, but my only issue with him as an all-rounder was that he very rarely delivered both with the ball and the bat at the same time (even while talking about a whole series, not just a test). The others above him have done so more often than him. He is easily the best bowler out of the lot, and I think Botham, Kallis and Imran are really close. Very little to separate them.

Kapil and Procter are the next two. Shouldn't be too controversial.

Clive Rice I have ranked here at number 8, ahead of Hadlee even though he never played test cricket. I just think he was a really talented cricketer, both with the bat and ball, and I rank him up there with the best.

Hadlee is the best bowler of the list, but was very average with the bat. Faulkner was a very good batsman, but his record with the ball is very average given that he played in a very bowler-friendly era. That reaffirms his batting strength though. Could be ranked higher than Hadlee to be honest.

The rest again I don't think should be too controversial.

 

[smash84]

Botham I rank third only because of his peak. That was something else. Running the show with both bat and ball is extremely difficult, and low-ranking somebody who actually achieved that on a consistent basis for a few seasons defeats the purpose of appreciating all-rounders, in my modest opinion. The number of 5-fers and centuries together is brilliant. His mediocrity against WI was a blemish on his record though, and the fact that many of the world's premier players were missing from action due to WSC during his peak years may have benefited him. Also that he became very mediocre later on doesn't help him. Hard not to make a good case for him though.

Kallis is another in the Sobers mould. Similar batting record, though Kallis lacks some of the flamboyance of Sobers' batting. Good bowler, does get a lot of key wickets at crucial times, and is not at all easy to play. He was especially good as an all-rounder during the early 2000s, but generally has always been really good. His ODI record is quite fantastic too, and so is his T20 record. Not counting them here per se, but it shows his abilities and versatality.

Many would be aghast at Imran being ranked at number 5 here I guess. He was definitely an amazing all-round player, but my only issue with him as an all-rounder was that he very rarely delivered both with the ball and the bat at the same time (even while talking about a whole series, not just a test). The others above him have done so more often than him. He is easily the best bowler out of the lot, and I think Botham, Kallis and Imran are really close. Very little to separate them.
l.

Taking test matches.

A pretty good post. Although I find it difficult to rate Ian Botham as the 3rd best all rounder of all time based just on his peak. His peak lasted less than 5 years IIRC and in that too he mainly played the weak Packer era test sides. Whenever the test against the WI came up he flopped.

Secondly I find it unfair that Hadlee is at number 9 because he was an average batsman and Kallis (whose wpm is less than 2) is far ahead of him. Kallis's bowlilng is average at best if you take his career.

Thirdly, in response to the part in bold regarding Imran I always quote 3 series where Imran topped the bowling charts and was near the top in the batting charts

Vs England 1981-82 (
Vs India 1982-83 ([)
Vs West Indies 1988

 

[doesitmatter]

no Vinooooooooooo ..he has to be there Vinoo Mankad

 

[harsh.ag]

Taking test matches.

A pretty good post. Although I find it difficult to rate Ian Botham as the 3rd best all rounder of all time based just on his peak. His peak lasted less than 5 years IIRC and in that too he mainly played the weak Packer era test sides. Whenever the test against the WI came up he flopped.

Secondly I find it unfair that Hadlee is at number 9 because he was an average batsman and Kallis (whose wpm is less than 2) is far ahead of him. Kallis's bowlilng is average at best if you take his career.

Thirdly, in response to the part in bold regarding Imran I always quote 3 series where Imran topped the bowling charts and was near the top in the batting charts

Vs England 1981-82
Vs India 1982-83
Vs West Indies 1988

You bring up some good points. Botham I rank as I said because to me he defines the epitome of all round performances. As an overall cricketer, I would have Imran and Kallis above him.

Your point about Kallis and Hadlee actually just makes me want to rank Hadlee lower Faulkner was a better all rounder than Hadlee for sure. Hadlee at #10 for me now. I think you are underrating Kallis' bowling. The man has a curious knack of getting important wickets, and can be a real handful.

Regarding Imran, vs England 81-82 - His highest score in 3 tests was 67. Do you really want to take this into account of a great all-round performance? Average is high, but not much substance, won't you agree?

India 82-83 - Yes, some good performances here. But just one niggle. Leaving aside that 117, he scored 130 runs in the rest of the 5 matches. Again, seems very average, no?

WI 88 - Don't get it. Scored 90 runs in 3 tests with high score of 43.

 

[harsh.ag]

no Vinooooooooooo ..he has to be there Vinoo Mankad

Where would you rank him, and above which players in my list?
I personally would have Mankad and Mushtaq Mohammad after Pollock and Rhodes.

 

[doesitmatter]

Rice and Goddard can easily be replaced with Mankad..

Rice might have been a great allrounder but he played 0 test matches and FC matches are not a good judge of a players true ability even if a player is as great as Rice..Goddard is another player in the list who Mankad can match talent wise equally or better..Mankad is a opener as well and has performed credibly plus as a bowler Vinoo is right up there when compared with Goddard

I even question the presence of Flintoff..What has he done ? won few matches with his bowling ? which Mankad has done as well even outside India and Flintoff played some great innings which again Mankad has done..

You know the problem with some of the old Asian players ..no one has eloquently written about them to remember them..that is the problem..

Edit : Thank you for having Kapil Dev though..in one of the other thread where allrounder X1 was discussed his name wasn't even there..I know that was more of top to bottom exercise but Kapil can bat from 2-7 and at his peak take the bowlers on like no other..

 

[smash84]

You bring up some good points. Botham I rank as I said because to me he defines the epitome of all round performances. As an overall cricketer, I would have Imran and Kallis above him.

Your point about Kallis and Hadlee actually just makes me want to rank Hadlee lower Faulkner was a better all rounder than Hadlee for sure. Hadlee at #10 for me now. I think you are underrating Kallis' bowling. The man has a curious knack of getting important wickets, and can be a real handful.

Regarding Imran, vs England 81-82 - His highest score in 3 tests was 67. Do you really want to take this into account of a great all-round performance? Average is high, but not much substance, won't you agree?

India 82-83 - Yes, some good performances here. But just one niggle. Leaving aside that 117, he scored 130 runs in the rest of the 5 matches. Again, seems very average, no?

WI 88 - Don't get it. Scored 90 runs in 3 tests with high score of 43.

You have to see those performances in the context of those series'

Except for the India series both the other 2 did not have very high scores IIRC. In the India series Imran scored when he got the chance and likewise in other series'. One other series I forgot to mention was England 1987, where he did well with both bat and ball.

Secondly, I find it curious that you have downgraded Hadlee even further and Kallis even further up

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

the only noteworthy bowling record that Kallis has is against the bangers and Zimbabwe.

Against none of the other teams does he even average below 30. I really don't see how he then becomes such an awesome bowler?

 

[kyear2]

Yea even Hadlee acknowledged that he was a bowler who could bat a bit.