Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nah, overrated at both.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
20 Cwers ranked 18 all-rounders. Here is the countdown list!
- Thread starter mr_mister
- Start date
watson
Banned
Vinoo opened the batting 40 times between 1946 and 1956 and averaged just over 40 doing so. Not bad at all for an allrounder.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Got runs against the great Australian attack of that era as well. No mean feat.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
11. Shakib Al-Hasan
347 points
Batting: 7th (240 points)
Bowling: 15th (107 points)
Shakib is a star. He's in the top 2 for both his country's all time batting averages and overall runs, as well as being the owner of the most wickets and the lowest bowling average of anyone who's played a decent amount. Players have hardly ever stood so far above the pack as Shakib. So obviously his nation's best ever player. He's one of their only world class batsmen and usually bowls a huge chunk of overs. His bowling IMO doesn't look anything special to the naked eye, but he has clearly been very serviceable for his nation with the ball.
Double tons, tenfers, Shakhib has done it all.
347 points
Batting: 7th (240 points)
Bowling: 15th (107 points)
Shakib is a star. He's in the top 2 for both his country's all time batting averages and overall runs, as well as being the owner of the most wickets and the lowest bowling average of anyone who's played a decent amount. Players have hardly ever stood so far above the pack as Shakib. So obviously his nation's best ever player. He's one of their only world class batsmen and usually bowls a huge chunk of overs. His bowling IMO doesn't look anything special to the naked eye, but he has clearly been very serviceable for his nation with the ball.
Double tons, tenfers, Shakhib has done it all.
Last edited:
Howe_zat
Audio File
I think an interesting player to compare Shakib to is probably Tony Greig, who is one of the best players not on the list alongside Davidson.
For me Shakib is ranked pretty fairly, but has under-achieved with the bat so far given his ability. I'd want him to start putting together more hundreds as time goes on while bowling less, as guys like Mehedi Hasan come through, and Bangladesh are pretty much guaranteed to play two other spinners.
For me Shakib is ranked pretty fairly, but has under-achieved with the bat so far given his ability. I'd want him to start putting together more hundreds as time goes on while bowling less, as guys like Mehedi Hasan come through, and Bangladesh are pretty much guaranteed to play two other spinners.
smash84
The Tiger King
The image conclusively proves that Shakib is chucking11. Shakib Al-Hasan
347 points
Batting: 7th (240 points)
Bowling: 15th (107 points)
Shakib is a star. He's in the top 2 for both his country's all time batting averages and overall runs, as well as being the owner of the most wickets and the lowest bowling average of anyone who's played a decent amount. Players have hardly ever stood so far above the pack as Shakib. So obviously his nation's best ever player. He's one of their only world class batsmen and usually bowls a huge chunk of overs. His bowling IMO doesn't look anything special to the naked eye, but he has clearly been very serviceable for his nation with the ball.
Double tons, tenfers, Shakhib has done it all.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
especially if you have a good protractorThe image conclusively proves that Shakib is chucking
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I agree with this but you voted Flintoff 14th in the bowling list, which is even lower than where the combined list has him(13th)
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Only player EVER to score 2 double hundreds and take 2 ten-fers.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
10th. Trevor Goddard
360 points
Batting: 6th (249 points)
Bowling: 14th (111 points)
When tallying the points I was at first a little taken aback by Goddard's high ranking. But then after thinking about it for a while, I wondered why he wasn't even higher. The rest of the list are all very famous all rounders I suppose.
Goddard was in an insanely economical first change swing bowler with what was said to be a smooth action. Being left handed he brought natural value through variation, and though he only took 3 wickets a match in tests, he did them at 26 runs a piece. Not super penetrative, but definitely could have played just as a bowler.
He apparently had a classical batting technique. Averaging similar to Mankad yet with far less test centuries under his belt, Goddard's strength seemed to be seeing off the new ball consistently. He averaged a 50+ score every second match. But only converted 1 out of 19 into a hundred. I guess this means his average wasn't padded out by big daddy hundreds. Goddard hardly ever flat out failed, but didn't have anything like Mankad's twin double tons to add to his resume. His highest test score a decade into his career was 99, but he finally broke through to claim a century unlike someone we all know. Going by his FC batting stats, there should have been a lot more.
Clearly he could have been picked just for his batting too, solid openers aren't easy to find. CW thinks his batting was worth a lot more than his bowling, but it's quite hard to break into the top 10 for either within this 18.
360 points
Batting: 6th (249 points)
Bowling: 14th (111 points)
When tallying the points I was at first a little taken aback by Goddard's high ranking. But then after thinking about it for a while, I wondered why he wasn't even higher. The rest of the list are all very famous all rounders I suppose.
Goddard was in an insanely economical first change swing bowler with what was said to be a smooth action. Being left handed he brought natural value through variation, and though he only took 3 wickets a match in tests, he did them at 26 runs a piece. Not super penetrative, but definitely could have played just as a bowler.
He apparently had a classical batting technique. Averaging similar to Mankad yet with far less test centuries under his belt, Goddard's strength seemed to be seeing off the new ball consistently. He averaged a 50+ score every second match. But only converted 1 out of 19 into a hundred. I guess this means his average wasn't padded out by big daddy hundreds. Goddard hardly ever flat out failed, but didn't have anything like Mankad's twin double tons to add to his resume. His highest test score a decade into his career was 99, but he finally broke through to claim a century unlike someone we all know. Going by his FC batting stats, there should have been a lot more.
Clearly he could have been picked just for his batting too, solid openers aren't easy to find. CW thinks his batting was worth a lot more than his bowling, but it's quite hard to break into the top 10 for either within this 18.
Last edited:
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
9th. Jacques Kallis
375 points
Batting: 2nd (340 points)
Bowling: 18th (35 points)
Kallis has the second largest gap in points between his batting and bowling in this entire exercise. Despite 292 test wickets, Kallis' status as a bowler will never come close to his status as a batsman. Like so many of his 90s/00s peers he racked up an enormous amount of test runs and tons. He was the glue that held his team's batting together through 2 different generations of South African cricket. In 1999 he averaged 69 with the bat. A lifetime later in 2012 he went along at 67. Reliable, robust, he wasn't always exciting, but Kallis was a beast with the bat.
His bowling was always serviceable but he bowled alongside so many ATG quicks like Donald, Pollock and Steyn that it kinda dented his legacy as a wicket taker. His bowling partners naturally made him look a less scary prospect for the opposing batsmen. He was still considered a nailed-on member of the pace attack though, and sent more overs down for his country than both Donald and Steyn over his 18 year test career. His longevity can't be ignored when assessing him, but the man did only take five 5 fers
375 points
Batting: 2nd (340 points)
Bowling: 18th (35 points)
Kallis has the second largest gap in points between his batting and bowling in this entire exercise. Despite 292 test wickets, Kallis' status as a bowler will never come close to his status as a batsman. Like so many of his 90s/00s peers he racked up an enormous amount of test runs and tons. He was the glue that held his team's batting together through 2 different generations of South African cricket. In 1999 he averaged 69 with the bat. A lifetime later in 2012 he went along at 67. Reliable, robust, he wasn't always exciting, but Kallis was a beast with the bat.
His bowling was always serviceable but he bowled alongside so many ATG quicks like Donald, Pollock and Steyn that it kinda dented his legacy as a wicket taker. His bowling partners naturally made him look a less scary prospect for the opposing batsmen. He was still considered a nailed-on member of the pace attack though, and sent more overs down for his country than both Donald and Steyn over his 18 year test career. His longevity can't be ignored when assessing him, but the man did only take five 5 fers
Last edited:
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
If Kallis had been around in the 60's they would have written songs about him.
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
The difference between Kallis' batting and bowling ranking suggests he does not belong to this poll.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Not sure where Hadlee is going to rate. But I would say the difference between his batting and bowling is far greater.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
8th. Kapil Dev
394 points
Batting: 10th (174 points)
Bowling: 7th (220 points)
Kapil is one of only 5 players in this exercise to place in the top 10 for both batting and bowling. His batting points nearly equals his most famous innings, heh. The first of the big four 80s all-rounders to appear on this list, Kapil was an Indian legend. A walk-up start to his country's all-time best XI, he was one of their best ever pacemen.
In tests he scored 8 tons and took 434 wickets. Neither were produced at an earth-shattering average. But he was a high pedigree all-rounder. A specialist number 7 who always opened the bowling, his aggressive batting helped create the blueprint for the modern all-rounder. He carried a pace attack on his shoulders for over a decade, and helped the Indian batting line-up wag its tail many times.
Dev scored the most test runs ever batting at number 7 if you exclude wicket keepers. And even if you do include them, it's only Gilchrist who is a great distance ahead. Point is, Kapil was a reliable bat.
394 points
Batting: 10th (174 points)
Bowling: 7th (220 points)
Kapil is one of only 5 players in this exercise to place in the top 10 for both batting and bowling. His batting points nearly equals his most famous innings, heh. The first of the big four 80s all-rounders to appear on this list, Kapil was an Indian legend. A walk-up start to his country's all-time best XI, he was one of their best ever pacemen.
In tests he scored 8 tons and took 434 wickets. Neither were produced at an earth-shattering average. But he was a high pedigree all-rounder. A specialist number 7 who always opened the bowling, his aggressive batting helped create the blueprint for the modern all-rounder. He carried a pace attack on his shoulders for over a decade, and helped the Indian batting line-up wag its tail many times.
Dev scored the most test runs ever batting at number 7 if you exclude wicket keepers. And even if you do include them, it's only Gilchrist who is a great distance ahead. Point is, Kapil was a reliable bat.
Last edited: