Greatest Limited Overs All-rounder of all time, tournament/voting thread

[viriya]

Which ones would you think are worthy of more consideration?

Shakib and to a lesser extent Afridi and Jayasuriya.

Kallis being underrated and 8000 + 400 and 13000 + 300+ being ignored show that this thread has generally not cared for longevity at all.

 

[watson]

Kapil Dev
Flintoff

 

[smash84]

Shakib and to a lesser extent Afridi and Jayasuriya.

Kallis being underrated and 8000 + 400 and 13000 + 300+ being ignored show that this thread has generally not cared for longevity at all.

Why do you rate Shakib better than Jayasuriya as an all rounder?

 

[viriya]

Why do you rate Shakib better than Jayasuriya as an all rounder?

Much better bowler, and unlike Sanath, Shakib has been an actual all-rounder throughout his career (best batsman and bowler in a good Bang ODI team). Sanath was a bad batsman when he was more of a bowler (early career) and a passable bowler when he became a match-winning batsman).

 

[smash84]

Much better bowler, and unlike Sanath, Shakib has been an actual all-rounder throughout his career (best batsman and bowler in a good Bang ODI team). Sanath was a bad batsman when he was more of a bowler (early career) and a passable bowler when he became a match-winning batsman).

He was definitely more than a passable bowler. Bowled a fair number of overs at the death too at certain times. Definitely the better batsman from 95 onward until the end of his career. He could take the game away from the opposition and was a key player for SL. And was a very very good fielder to boot. He was a match winner and has a good shout to open in an ATXI. When on song he could toy around with the best of bowlers. Also his SR is 92.5 which was wayyy higher than his contemporaries. I won't rate Shakib higher than him. You rate shakib much higher than he should be rated imo.

 

[viriya]

He was definitely more than a passable bowler. Bowled a fair number of overs at the death too at certain times. Definitely the better batsman from 95 onward until the end of his career. He could take the game away from the opposition and was a key player for SL. And was a very very good fielder to boot. He was a match winner and has a good shout to open in an ATXI. When on song he could toy around with the best of bowlers. Also his SR is 92.5 which was wayyy higher than his contemporaries. I won't rate Shakib higher than him. You rate shakib much higher than he should be rated imo.

I know what Jayasuriya was capable of. He was a great batsman who could bowl a bit, sometimes string together good spells. He was never the all-rounder that Shakib has been however.

 

[YorksLanka]

I know what Jayasuriya was capable of. He was a great batsman who could bowl a bit, sometimes string together good spells. He was never the all-rounder that Shakib has been however.

Jayasuriya was far better than Shakib in both aspects of the game..Shakib is a decent bowler but hasn't done much with the bat to warrant being considered as one of the best all rounders going...

 

[smash84]

Jayasuriya was far better than Shakib in both aspects of the game..Shakib is a decent bowler but hasn't done much with the bat to warrant being considered as one of the best all rounders going...

This

 

[smash84]

I know what Jayasuriya was capable of. He was a great batsman who could bowl a bit, sometimes string together good spells. He was never the all-rounder that Shakib has been however.

I am not sure what you mean by "he could be bowl a bit"? Qualitatively I don't see how he was significantly worse than Shakib. In fact both bowled left arm orthodox spin and yeah Jayasuriya had a lot more competition within his side for the bowling but I really don't find Shakib running through sides all the time for me to prefer him over Sanath. Not only that Jayasuriya was a very good fielder (not sure how good shakib is as a fielder) and he is one of the best in class ever to play ODIs (class being openers). Can't see Shakib edging him out in anything except (possibly marginally in bowling)

 

[viriya]

How is a 10 point bowling average difference marginal? I watched Jayasuriya throughout his career and he was never the bowler Shakib was. Can't believe I have to even bring this up.

 

[Red]

Think harsh and stphn have made the points I would. To me, Kallis is easily better as an ODI AR because he is a MUCH better bowler and a better all round batsman. Symonds is a great fielder and a better hitter but you guys are ridiculously under rating the difficulties that ODI cricket can throw up, esp. in the 90s, if you think being a #7 biffer is what it takes to qualify as an AR. And as others have pointed out, it seems a fairly futile exercise to keep discussing when both sides seem rather trenched in their views. Kallis won the poll, deal with it.

If you want to be amicable, don't be disingenuous wrapping up your conversation. Symonds batted at #5 the overwhelming majority of the time, he wasn't a "#7 biffer" as you put it.

 

[Red]

Kapil Dev vs Lance Klusener
Andrew Flintoff vs Shane Watson

No idea why people are picking Watson over Flintoff in droves.. Watson was the better bat but Flintoff was a much better bowler.

Maybe they rate Watson higher?

 

[Red]

Sanath was a bad batsman when he was more of a bowler (early career) and a passable bowler when he became a match-winning batsman).

The first part of this is moderately true. The second part is crap.

Just admit that he became a gun all rounder in 95 when he started opening the batting and he maintained that for over 15 years.

 

[smash84]

How is a 10 point bowling average difference marginal? I watched Jayasuriya throughout his career and he was never the bowler Shakib was. Can't believe I have to even bring this up.

well, maybe a bit of hyperbole but there's no way Shakib is a better all rounder than Sanath. Sanath was a matchwinner, he could single handedly take the match away from the opposition with the bat. I can't say the same about Shakib.

 

[YorksLanka]

well, maybe a bit of hyperbole but there's no way Shakib is a better all rounder than Sanath. Sanath was a matchwinner, he could single handedly take the match away from the opposition with the bat. I can't say the same about Shakib.

absolutely shmagree...

 

[ankitj]

Lance Klusener
Shane Watson

Close call between Freddie and Watto. Surprised how early Jayasuriya got knocked out and how far Kapil has made it.

 

[viriya]

The first part of this is moderately true. The second part is crap.

Just admit that he became a gun all rounder in 95 when he started opening the batting and he maintained that for over 15 years.

He had three phases as a bowler:
1989-1995: 32 average (good bowler, crap batsman)
1996-2001: 36 average (decent bowler, great batsman)
2002-2011: 40 average (crap bowler, great batsman)

^ So only a true all-rounder for the mid-phase of his career.

Shakib on the other hand has been a true all-rounder all his career.

 

[viriya]

well, maybe a bit of hyperbole but there's no way Shakib is a better all rounder than Sanath. Sanath was a matchwinner, he could single handedly take the match away from the opposition with the bat. I can't say the same about Shakib.

They have both won MoMs at about the same rate. This whole "match-winner" argument isn't relevant because Sanath almost never won a game with the ball (I think once early in his career). Shakib on the other hand has won MoMs for batting and bowling - a sign of a genuine all-rounder.

 

[smash84]

They have both won MoMs at about the same rate. This whole "match-winner" argument isn't relevant because Sanath almost never won a game with the ball (I think once early in his career). Shakib on the other hand has won MoMs for batting and bowling - a sign of a genuine all-rounder.

That might make Shakib a more "rounded" all rounder but not the greater all rounder. Sanath also the better fielder.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I can't comprehend anyone rating Shakib higher than Sanath, in ODIs especially