Best All-Rounder ever

[The Sean]

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.

But still no Noble?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

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.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. How on earth is it advantageous for a team to bowl against the conditions? Why should he get credit for doing that? Not denying his awesomeness mostly, but this point is just weird imo.

 

[smash84]

This makes absolutely no sense to me. How on earth is it advantageous for a team to bowl against the conditions? Why should he get credit for doing that? Not denying his awesomeness mostly, but this point is just weird imo.

Yeah. This makes him look more stupid IMO

 

[smash84]

No way Botham > Imran.

Pretty much

 

[NUFAN]

Smali, where do you rank Imran for his batsmanship? Is he one of the best 100 Test batsman of all time in your eyes?

 

[smash84]

Smali, where do you rank Imran for his batsmanship? Is he one of the best 100 Test batsman of all time in your eyes?

I think he should make the top 100. He was a pretty decent bat. A solid batsman to hold one end although i would never be able to use him to make quick runs

 

[marc71178]

I think he should make the top 100.

Really?! There's been almost 2700 Test cricketers, is he really that high up the list?!

 

[The Sean]

Classy bat though he was, I can't believe Imran would rank in the top 100 batsmen of all time. He wouldn't make Pakistan's all time top ten and I'd reckon there must be at least 25-30 (and possibly many more) from each of Australia and England alone ahead of him, plus the best of all the other countries.

 

[kyear2]

What happened with.Sobers was that if it was a turning pitch they would play the extra spinner and Sober would have to open the bowling, some times with Worrell. Wasnt stupid, it was playing to the team's needs. They were times when he would open the innings bowling fast and come back later with spin, he did what he had to do for the team, especially with limited resourses.

 

[smash84]

Classy bat though he was, I can't believe Imran would rank in the top 100 batsmen of all time. He wouldn't make Pakistan's all time top ten and I'd reckon there must be at least 25-30 (and possibly many more) from each of Australia and England alone ahead of him, plus the best of all the other countries.

The Imran of the 1987-92 will make the top 100 I believe (or maybe not). He will definitely make the top 200 I believe

 

[kyear2]

To me, to be seen as a true all rounder, one needs to be able to bat in the top six, or at a strech seven and be at least a viable fourth or fifth bowling option, preferably at the same time. In his prime, Botham is right there with Sobers, Miller and talent wise Procter. Imrans batting improved as his career progressed, but would it have if he was still working as hard on his bowling and bowling as many overs? Kallis is right there as well earlier in his career, but never got the impression that he enjoued or wanted to do it. Think Gilchrist and Knott can also be counted as All Rounders and as such should count in the top 10. As for number one, as with batsmen, there is no question that Sobers stands alone.

 

[smash84]

absolutely loved this series

Richie Benaud's Fantasy XI... All Rounders & Wicketkeeper - Part 3 - YouTube

 

[harsh.ag]

This makes absolutely no sense to me. How on earth is it advantageous for a team to bowl against the conditions? Why should he get credit for doing that? Not denying his awesomeness mostly, but this point is just weird imo.

I am just saying what Kyear2 is basically. He was used to fulfill the team's requirements. If it was a pace friendly pitch, WI would take an additional pacer instead of the full time spinner and use Sobers as a spinner, and on spin friendly wickets, they would take an additional spinner and use him to fill in the pace vacuum. So, his record must have been adversely affected (it would seem so at least, not saying this is fact), not that he ever complained of course. It's not stupid, it's teamwork at it's best due to the only bowler who provided such variety perhaps in the history of the game.

But still no Noble?

I really have no clue about him. Sorry. Including him in the Gregory-Mankad list of players I need to watch some footage of and read about.

No way Botham > Imran

It can be said quite naturally in fact. As I remarked before, I would place Imran as a test player overall slightly ahead of Botham due to his remarkable consistency, and the fact that he usually became better with age. But I think what I am saying is that there is a difference between being an all-round player and being an all-rounder. The true all-rounder, for me, are those players who perform with the bowl and bat in the same test on a regular basis. The team should look at them as an additional batsman and an additional bowler at the same time. If you were really good at bowling at one point of your career, and then at batting at another point without doing too much together, then I would call you a great all-round player, not a great all-rounder. Same reason why I rank Miller so high here.

Obviously, many will disagree with this view. Not saying this is the only correct way to look at it. Nor am I saying that Imran wasn't a true all-rounder. Just that he wasn't as good as Botham. Botham's decline was sad, yes, but his peak was the stuff all-rounders dream of. Before anybody else says that Imran averaged 50 with the bat for 10 years, at the same time averaging 20 with the ball, I would again ask them to look at individual tests and series' performances. Like a 5-fer and a century in the same test, or 250 runs and 20 wickets in the same series. Yes, Imran may have had fantastic averages with both bat and ball in the same series, but his batting scores were usually not too big. Good, but not Botham like.

 

[The Sean]

Classy bat though he was, I can't believe Imran would rank in the top 100 batsmen of all time. He wouldn't make Pakistan's all time top ten and I'd reckon there must be at least 25-30 (and possibly many more) from each of Australia and England alone ahead of him, plus the best of all the other countries.

The Imran of the 1987-92 will make the top 100 I believe (or maybe not). He will definitely make the top 200 I believe

Just thinking more deeply about this, and I'd say Imran might or might not scrape into the lower end of Australia's all time top 50. I can think of at least 40 Australian batsman I'd rank ahead of him, with cases to be made for another dozen or more (and there are possibly still a few others I've forgotten or overlooked). So top 200 surely the best Imran could hope for.

 

[fredfertang]

To me, to be seen as a true all rounder, one needs to be able to bat in the top six, or at a strech seven and be at least a viable fourth or fifth bowling option, preferably at the same time

On that basis Walter Hammond is well worth a shout, particularly taking into account his general reluctance to turn his arm over

 

[doesitmatter]

Asif Iqbal
Vettori.. best all-rounder now?
JR Reid

 

[smash84]

I really have no clue about him. Sorry. Including him in the Gregory-Mankad list of players I need to watch some footage of and read about.



It can be said quite naturally in fact. As I remarked before, I would place Imran as a test player overall slightly ahead of Botham due to his remarkable consistency, and the fact that he usually became better with age. But I think what I am saying is that there is a difference between being an all-round player and being an all-rounder. The true all-rounder, for me, are those players who perform with the bowl and bat in the same test on a regular basis. The team should look at them as an additional batsman and an additional bowler at the same time. If you were really good at bowling at one point of your career, and then at batting at another point without doing too much together, then I would call you a great all-round player, not a great all-rounder. Same reason why I rank Miller so high here.

Obviously, many will disagree with this view. Not saying this is the only correct way to look at it. Nor am I saying that Imran wasn't a true all-rounder. Just that he wasn't as good as Botham. Botham's decline was sad, yes, but his peak was the stuff all-rounders dream of. Before anybody else says that Imran averaged 50 with the bat for 10 years, at the same time averaging 20 with the ball, I would again ask them to look at individual tests and series' performances. Like a 5-fer and a century in the same test, or 250 runs and 20 wickets in the same series. Yes, Imran may have had fantastic averages with both bat and ball in the same series, but his batting scores were usually not too big. Good, but not Botham like.

Harsh I would say

btw have you taken into account Botham's performance against the best team of that era? And that maybe it wasn't a coincidence that his best years were when all the teams had their best players in the Packer league?

Edit: Would you also consider Waqar as the greatest bowler ever due to his peak?

 

[fredfertang]

btw have you taken into account Botham's performance against the best team of that era? And that maybe it wasn't a coincidence that his best years were when all the teams had their best players in the Packer league?

The only two occasions when Botham encountered the West Indies during his all too short peak he was unnecessarily burdened with the captaincy, and while he did benefit from the WSC schism, his greatest days were after that

 

[smash84]

The only two occasions when Botham encountered the West Indies during his all too short peak he was unnecessarily burdened with the captaincy, and while he did benefit from the WSC schism, his greatest days were after that

this is the point basically Fred...and even in that peak he got screwed by the WI

 

[kyear2]

On that basis Walter Hammond is well worth a shout, particularly taking into account his general reluctance to turn his arm over

Well I consider him to be one, and a pretty good one. From accounts he was quite quick, ans Bradman had said that he would have been quite a good bowler if he had put some more effort into it and bowled more often