Historical Discussion- Best batting all-rounders after Sobers and Kallis

[Red]

On average Sobers took over two wickets per test, while Kallis took an average of 1.75 wickets per test. Both were outstanding batsmen, and enough has been written about their similarities and also their differences, in style and output as all-rounders.

Both Sobers and Kallis would have played for their respective national XIs as pure batsmen without a doubt. I hold the opinion that if they weren't great batmen, both would have played a significant amount of tests as bowlers anyway.

So the discussion here is about the greatest batting all-rounders beside these two. By definition, a batting all-rounder should bat in the top six the majority of the time, and take 1.5 wickets or more per test.

 

[Goughy]

On average Sobers took over two wickets per test, while Kallis took an average of 1.75 wickets per test. Both were outstanding batsmen, and enough has been written about their similarities and also their differences, in style and output as all-rounders.

Both Sobers and Kallis would have played for their respective national XIs as pure batsmen without a doubt. I hold the opinion that if they weren't great batmen, both would have played a significant amount of tests as bowlers anyway.

So the discussion here is about the greatest batting all-rounders beside these two. By definition, a batting all-rounder should bat in the top six the majority of the time, and take 1.5 wickets or more per test.

Well if that is the definition, Ian Botham fits and he wouldnt be called a batting allrounder - a true allrounder also fits that definition so I would tinker with how a "batting allrounder" is defined.

Edit, a quick, interesting note on Botham. We all know he deteriorated the further his career went on but he had 14 Test centuries and at a better innings per 100 rate than guys (more than 10 Test tons) like
AJ Stewart (Eng)
ST Jayasuriya (SL)
CL Hooper (WI)
MA Atherton (Eng)
VVS Laxman (India)
NJ Astle (NZ)
JG Wright (NZ)
N Hussain (Eng)
CH Gayle (WI)
HP Tillakaratne (SL)
SC Ganguly (India)

 

[Goughy]

Outside of Botham you are in danger of Shastri, Hooper and Asif Iqbal territory and none of those qualify on the bowling criteria. Im only looking at those with a sackful of Test tons.

 

[zaremba]

Not sure if Hammond passes the wickets per match threshold but he obviously has to be right up there.

 

[watson]

Aubrey Faulkner is the only player with a plus 40 batting average and sub 30 bowling average that I can think of (40.8 & 26.6).

Greigy, Big Mac, and Mushy all come reasonably close but don't quite make it.

 

[kyear2]

Worrell and Hammond for me, not sure if either met the criteria though. Greg Chappell also would be in contention on ability if not numbers. Eddie Barlow also comes to mind.

Except for Worrell, all splendid slip fielders as well.

 

[zaremba]

To add to Goughy's point, a couple of other guys might risk being overlooked for this gig by virtue of the quality of their bowling. I'd imagine that both Keith Miller and Mike Procter were good enough to play as pure batsmen at least for parts of their careers (as was Botham).

Procter was such a loss to Test cricket. He would have been a superstar.

 

[Goughy]

Vinoo Mankad?
Monty Noble
Trevor Bailey

 

[zaremba]

Jayasuriya? Was a handy purveyor of left arm darts, if you like that kind of thing

Edit: Hmm, no, was around the one wicket per match mark, like Hammond.

Monty Noble a good call.

Rhodes?
Woolley?

 

[watson]

Vinoo Mankad?
Monty Noble
Trevor Bailey

I don't think that a batting average in the low 30s counts as it stretches the definition of a 'batting-allrounder' too far despite each of them being good batsman.

Woolley on-the-other-hand is a good call.

 

[Goughy]

I don't think that a batting average in the low 30s counts as it stretches the definition of a 'batting-allrounder' too far despite each of them being good batsman.

Woolley on-the-other-hand is a good call.

I didnt define batting allrounder. That was done in OP and average wasnt part of it. Also, harsh on Vinoo Mankad who spent half his career opening the batting, as Wilf Rhodes also almost did with a similar average.

Also if averaging low 30s takes the "batting" out of their skill set then how do we define what CW fav Mathew Sinclair did on a cricket field?

 

[watson]

I didnt define batting allrounder. That was done in OP and average wasnt part of it. Also, harsh on Vinoo Mankad who spent half his career opening the batting, as Wilf Rhodes also almost did with a similar average.

Also if averaging low 30s takes the "batting" out of their skill set then how do we define what CW fav Mathew Sinclair did on a cricket field?

Yeah all good points. However, I was more focused on the title of thread - 'Best batting all-rounder after Sobers and Kallis'.

This implies that Monk is after a batting allrounder with skills not greatly distant from Sobers and Kallis. A drop in batting average from 50 to 30 is very large and indicates a significantly inferior batsman relative to those two greats.

 

[Goughy]

Yeah all good points. However, I was more focused on the title of thread - 'Best batting all-rounder after Sobers and Kallis'.

This implies that Monk is after a batting allrounder with skills not greatly distant from Sobers and Kallis. A drop in batting average from 50 to 30 is very large and indicates a significantly inferior batsman relative to those two greats.

I think that is the whole point of the thread - to show that those two are in a different class

 

[smash84]

I think Keith Miller could fit in here. He was a very good batsman and his average of around 38 doesn't do him justice from what I have read.

 

[bagapath]

ted dexter deserves a mention

 

[Red]

This implies that Monk is after a batting allrounder with skills not greatly distant from Sobers and Kallis. A drop in batting average from 50 to 30 is very large and indicates a significantly inferior batsman relative to those two greats.

I think Sobers and Kallis are clearly a cut above. Interested in the next best. Botham was a very capable batsman, and batted top 6, but didn't average the same as those guys. I think Botham probably shouldered a lot more of the bowling workload though.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Stan McCabe opened the bowling a few times and ofcourse his batting ability rivals many.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hammond imo. From all accounts, he was a very useful bowler.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Well if that is the definition, Ian Botham fits and he wouldnt be called a batting allrounder - a true allrounder also fits that definition so I would tinker with how a "batting allrounder" is defined.

Edit, a quick, interesting note on Botham. We all know he deteriorated the further his career went on but he had 14 Test centuries and at a better innings per 100 rate than guys (more than 10 Test tons) like
AJ Stewart (Eng)
ST Jayasuriya (SL)
CL Hooper (WI)
MA Atherton (Eng)
VVS Laxman (India)
NJ Astle (NZ)
JG Wright (NZ)
N Hussain (Eng)
CH Gayle (WI)
HP Tillakaratne (SL)
SC Ganguly (India)

This is such an amazing stat. That's why Botham's peak was phenomenal. It wasn't just good averages, which can sometimes hide the actual contribution a player makes in each match... He was just so damn prolific in terms of both runs and wickets. 14 hundreds and 27 5fers is incredible.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I can't be arsed fannying around with stats, but Tony Greig was a genuine Test class number 5 or 6 batsman and a useful 4th seamer.