Best All-Rounder ever

[smash84]

How is Kallis much different? He is just a batsman who can bowl a bit

 

[benchmark00]

Luke Wright.

 

[fredfertang]

Luke Wright.

Post reported - trolling - serial offender

 

[harsh.ag]

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..

You are right that cricketers like Mankad, Mushtaq Mohammad haven't been written about as such. I do not much about Mankad either. So I guess I can't make a reasonable judgement about him. You don't have to thank me for Kapil, my good fellow. Let us both thank Kapil instead

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?

Don't you think you are reading into the circumstances of Imran's performances a little too much? And why are you so hung up on the stats, my good man? You are acting like you haven't seen Kallis bowl for yourself. He is a good bowler. He has taken 280 test wickets. Plus he regularly gets out top order batsmen. SA have used him both as a partnership-breaking bowler and in a containing role.

 

[smash84]

And why are you so hung up on the stats, my good man? You are acting like you haven't seen Kallis bowl for yourself. He is a good bowler. He has taken 280 test wickets. Plus he regularly gets out top order batsmen. SA have used him both as a partnership-breaking bowler and in a containing role.

I have been watching cricket since the 1980s and I have also seen Kallis bowl a fair bit. Which is why I am perplexed as to why you keep bringing up that he as 280 wickets? He is pretty much a partnership breaker as you say and unless you want to keep a partnership breaker as one of your top top 5 all rounders of all time your list can be improved a fair bit.

Argument gets even more solid with stats (since I can't claim to have watched Kallis bowl every time)

And you didn't answer my question regarding Kallis. How is he much different than Richard Hadlee (who was a bowler who could bat a bit?)

 

[kyear2]

Two of Hadlee's top three scores came againts Sri Lanka, a minnow at the which aided his overall average as well. He himself said that an All Rounder needs to able to bat in the top order, #7 at worst and he acknowledged he couln't do that.
He is top 5 for me as well.

 

[Stapel]

How is Kallis much different? He is just a batsman who can bowl a bit

Kallis is not just a batsman who can bowl a bit........ First of all, he is an all-time-great batsman, a great cricketer, even when leaving out the wickets and the catches.

But that's not the point here. Kallis, as a bowler, has a better bowling sheet than quite a few specialist bowlers. His average is roughly the same as Harbhajan's.

The real problem is that rating all-rounders is a tough thing to do. It's nearly impossible how to measure a lack of runs in wickets.....

Bowlers who can bat a bit...., batsmen who can bowl bit...... If we would define an all-rounder as a cricketer who would have a substantial test cricket career on either one of the departments...., how many all-rounders would there be?

Hardly a dozen......., perhaps none......

 

[Red]

Bowlers who can bat a bit...., batsmen who can bowl bit...... If we would define an all-rounder as a cricketer who would have a substantial test cricket career on either one of the departments...., how many all-rounders would there be?

Hardly a dozen......., perhaps none......

Keith Miller
Garry Sobers
Imran Khan
Ian Botham
Kapil Dev
Jack Gregory
Andrew Flintoff

Would have all played for their teams as either a batsman or a bowler, no problems. And all of them would have succeeded far more at either batting or bowling without the pressure of the other discipline, particularly in batting. Have no doubt Miller, Botham, Kapil and Imran were all batsmen capable of averaging 45-50 if they didn't also have the burden of pace bowling.

Kallis would go close to being selected as a bowler, but considering the strength of SA's pace attacks over the last 15 years it's hard to imagine him being selected on the basis of his med-fast bowling alone.

 

[GIMH]

People will debate that RE Freddie. In his peak years though, no doubt.

Of course, what you have to consider with every 'all-rounder' is how much better they could have been either either discipline if they had worked on it as a specialist.

 

[Red]

People will debate that RE Freddie. In his peak years though, no doubt.

Of course, what you have to consider with every 'all-rounder' is how much better they could have been either either discipline if they had worked on it as a specialist.

That's true. I believe Flintoff could have been the greatest of them all. He was a devastating quick, very difficult to face, and super quick. Also a very capable, hard hitting number 6 batsman.

Just didn't quite reach the potential that he had. 79 tests with a decent all rounder record (batting and bowling averages around 30) but you just wonder how good he could have been if his body and attitude had been better.

 

[Mike5181]

Cairns > Flintoff

 

[smash84]

yeah....Cairns was probably better than Flintoff

 

[MrPrez]

Keith Miller
Garry Sobers
Imran Khan
Ian Botham
Kapil Dev
Jack Gregory
Andrew Flintoff

Would have all played for their teams as either a batsman or a bowler, no problems. And all of them would have succeeded far more at either batting or bowling without the pressure of the other discipline, particularly in batting. Have no doubt Miller, Botham, Kapil and Imran were all batsmen capable of averaging 45-50 if they didn't also have the burden of pace bowling.

Kallis would go close to being selected as a bowler, but considering the strength of SA's pace attacks over the last 15 years it's hard to imagine him being selected on the basis of his med-fast bowling alone.

I'm obviously biased, but I seriously reckon Jacques Kallis had the potential to be at least equal with the ball to what Flintoff could have been with the bat. Kallis' bowling in its prime (ie when he wasn't used as a part-timer as he is today) would be opening the bowling for at least half of the current Test nations. He even opened the bowling for SA at one point iirc. I certainly disagree that Flintoff's batting > Kallis' bowling, or that Flintoff's batting potential > Kallis' bowling potential.

I do see that you compared them against their own teams at the time, but I feel that is unfair as you are looking at them from a global scale. I think it's safe to say that SA's bowling has been > England's batting for the majority of Kallis' career, so it's extremely unfair to use this comparison method.

 

[Red]

I'm obviously biased, but I seriously reckon Jacques Kallis had the potential to be at least equal with the ball to what Flintoff could have been with the bat. Kallis' bowling in its prime (ie when he wasn't used as a part-timer as he is today) would be opening the bowling for at least half of the current Test nations. He even opened the bowling for SA at one point iirc. I certainly disagree that Flintoff's batting > Kallis' bowling, or that Flintoff's batting potential > Kallis' bowling potential.

I do see that you compared them against their own teams at the time, but I feel that is unfair as you are looking at them from a global scale. I think it's safe to say that SA's bowling has been > England's batting for the majority of Kallis' career, so it's extremely unfair to use this comparison method.

Yeh, fair call. I do think that if Kallis had no batting ability, he wouldn't have been selected as a bowler over a trio such as Donald, Pollock and Ntini. I do take your point though, a Kallis in his prime would probably open the bowling for some test teams.

 

[MrPrez]

Yeah, I agree tha Donald, Pollock and Ntini would have all been ahead of him. That's irrelevant though as I'd still rate Kallis' bowling potential > Flintoff's batting potential.

Basically what I'm saying is that you have to look at it with broader criteria than "would he have made his own team based on his weaker ability" as, for example, it would be unfair on a hypothetical West Indian pace-bowling, batting allrounder of the 1980s as he could well have been one of the top 5 bowlers of the time yet still wouldn't have made his team on bowling alone.

 

[kingkallis]

I do rate Chris Cairns really high and I might have said that he is a better AR than Freddie but honestly, I dont think he was a better AR than Freddie at all. He bowled well in bowling friendly weather and pitches of New Zealand. Even the likes of Tuffey, Martin, Nash maintained a healthy average throughout their career proves it.

Andrew Flintoff surely may have an edge over Chris Cairns as an all-rounder, IMHO!

 

[The Sean]

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

Fair list mate, though I'd certainly have Monty Noble in that list and above quite a few of those guys - possibly even top 10. Cairns, Mankad, Gregory and Bailey could all consider themselves unlucky, and Richie Benaud's peak as an all rounder was also exceptional.

 

[Flametree]

Once you expand the debate to consider the likes of Flintoff and Cairns, then Eddie Barlow, Gerry Gomez, Mushtaq Mohammed, and Shakib al Hasan are all also worth at least a mention.

Also Stan Nichols, who was a true all-rounder - in addition to some respectable test figures of 29 & 28 with bat and ball, he did the double 8 times in county cricket, as well as playing goalkeeper for QPR. Those were the days....

 

[harsh.ag]

Fair list mate, though I'd certainly have Monty Noble in that list and above quite a few of those guys - possibly even top 10. Cairns, Mankad, Gregory and Bailey could all consider themselves unlucky, and Richie Benaud's peak as an all rounder was also exceptional.

I really don't know much about Gregory and Mankad. I will definitely watch their old footage, and read up more on them as more than 2 people have now brought up their names. Benaud, I am a bit iffy about. Might as well nominate Alan Davidson. Cairns never really impressed me. I completely forgot about Bailey. You are right, he deserves a place here. Also remembered that Charlie Macartney also misses out. Great batsman, but a not too much with the ball, although his one series against England is always talked about by the elders at my club. Will be amending it now.

1. Sobers 2. Miller 3. Botham 4. Kallis 5. Imran 6. Kapil 7. Procter 8. Rice 9. Faulkner 10. Hadlee 11. Greig 12. Goddard 13. Bailey

After Goddard, it's too iffy. Flintoff, Watson, Pollock, Rhodes, Mankad, Gregory, Macartney, Benaud all there and there abouts. Rhodes was weird though. Great spinner, but when his batting came into its own only he started declining as a bowler.

 

[MrPrez]

No way Botham > Imran.