20 Cwers ranked 18 all-rounders. Here is the countdown list!

[AndrewB]

Absolutely, immense cricketer.

Average of 40 in test cricket, with a bowling average of 26.

Could and would have played as either a frontline bowler or a top six batsman, and IMO the only others who were truly capable of that were Botham, Miller, Sobers, Imran (for parts of his career) and Faulkner.

Wilfred Rhodes played as a frontline bowler and as a top six batsman, but not (with much success) both at the same time.

 

[Howe_zat]

Absolutely, immense cricketer.

Average of 40 in test cricket, with a bowling average of 26.

Could and would have played as either a frontline bowler or a top six batsman, and IMO the only others who were truly capable of that were Botham, Miller, Sobers, Imran (for parts of his career) and Faulkner.

Shakib Al Hasan has long since done this, albeit under different circumstances

 

[watson]

Absolutely, immense cricketer.

Average of 40 in test cricket, with a bowling average of 26.

Could and would have played as either a frontline bowler or a top six batsman, and IMO the only others who were truly capable of that were Botham, Miller, Sobers, Imran (for parts of his career) and Faulkner.

Biggest innings was his 204 at the MCG in 1910 against an attack led by Albert Cotter. Probably would have gone down as an atg innings if South Africa hadn't folded chasing 170 in the fourth innings.

2nd Test, South Africa tour of Australia at Melbourne, Dec 31 1910 - Jan 4 1911 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

Aside from his double century his second innings ton at Adelaide in 1911 was probably his best as it set up a South African victory. Australia failed to chase their 378 target by 39 runs.

3rd Test, South Africa tour of Australia at Adelaide, Jan 7-13 1911 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo


Both those Faulkner innings were made at No.3. Quite some player and a shame that he didn't quite make 'Masterly Batting', although Dave does mention him in the intro.

 

[mr_mister]

6th. Richard Hadlee

405 points

Batting: 17th (48 points)
Bowling: 1st (357 points)

Considered quite unanimously the best bowler in this countdown. Also considered by many to be in the handful of players who can stake a claim to be called the best quick ever. So really any batting he brought to the table was a bonus to begin with. There's not much to analyse with his bowling, everyone knows he was a legend.

His batting was not regarded highly by voters in this exercise. He played nearly two thirds of his test innings from 8 and 9, but was successful at 7 when he was used there, scoring an unbeaten 150. His batting alone likely wouldn't have been enough to cement a spot in the team. Some consider him the least "all-round" of the big four all-rounders because of this. Just an ATG bowler who could tonk some useful runs, like Warne, Marshall, Akram or Lindwall. But Hadlee had more success with the bat than all of them. It should also be noted his average was in the same ballpark as many NZ specialist bats of the time.

 

[Starfighter]

It should also be noted his average was in the same ballpark as many NZ specialist bats of the time.

A fact which never ceases to amuse me.

 

[smash84]

that doesn't speak very highly for the NZ specialist bats of the time

 

[Engle]

The only cricketer to be knighted while still playing - Sir Richard Hadlee, arguably had the least support from his teammates than any other AR ( both batting and bowling )

 

[Howe_zat]

The only cricketer to be knighted while still playing - Sir Richard Hadlee, arguably had the least support from his teammates than any other AR ( both batting and bowling )

He actually shares this with former India captain and noted moneybags Maharajkumar of Vizianagram

In January 1937, the Beaumont Committee report described his captaincy as disastrous. It stated that "he did not understand field placings or bowling changes and never maintained any regular batting order." On team selection, the report stated that "the good players remained idle for weeks together."...While India lost the series easily, Vizzy was knighted by King Edward VIII in the King's Birthday Honours.

It's possible that he was the only cricketer to be knighted for services to the opposition.

 

[Red]

Shakib Al Hasan has long since done this, albeit under different circumstances

Yes true.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Has any bowler dominated in an overseas nation as much as Hadlee in Australia? 10 5fers in 14 tests is utterly insane.

 

[mr_mister]

5th. Gary Sobers

459 points

Batting: 1st (360 points)
Bowling: 16th (99 points)

Hoo-boy, Sobers is out earlier than expected. The inverse Hadlee. Placed 1st on every voter's batting list for the max total of 360 points. Shares the stage with many vying for the title of 'Second best after Bradman', including 3 other blokes from the Windies. Averaged a mammoth 57, turned his maiden ton into the highest test score ever for over 3 decades and was the first to smash 6 sixes in an over. We know he can bat.

However Sobers is often considered the greatest all-rounder ever by many pundits. Not so in this list. Was his bowling underappreciated? Or is it not a fair method for assessing all-rounders?

He only took 2.5 wickets a test at 34 a piece. Many have more impressive bowling records(including many of his bowling peers) and for this reason sometimes he was considered a mere support bowler. But he took the new ball sometimes and could generate decent speed, apparently he bowled a mean bouncer. He also bowled a variety of left handed wrist and finger spin. Based on versatility alone he would have still been a very good player even if he only was half as effective with the bat. He'd still be more valuable than say, Collin Miller in that scenario(who also had pace/spin versatility). But this exercise can't quantify that.

It seems like he was a total workhorse bowler and even though he wasn't that penetrative, he was economic. Like Hadlee, anything he brought to the table with his weaker discipline was a bonus anyway. He also bowled basically his entire career, never becoming a specialist bat in his later years like so many people who started as all-rounders. That says something about how his bowling was valued by his side.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Can't help but feel his bowling was massively underrated here.

 

[Starfighter]

I was thinking about this list a few days ago and did wonder whether ranking players separately on disciplines and combining the rankings might throw up some surprising results. I don't think there'd be many people who'd put Sobers lower than first or second if you were asked to rank allrounders, let alone have four above him, yet making people seriously consider a player's ability in each discipline separately has shown otherwise.

 

[mr_mister]

I feel like Sobers bowling is on the level of many, many all-rounders' batting ability. But his batting was well higher than nearly all their bowling ability, except Hadlee

 

[Red]

Was picked as a bowler in his initial test. Batted 9.

 

[ankitj]

Can't help but feel his bowling was massively underrated here.

I don't think so. Sobers was not a better bowler than Kallis in my opinion (never saw much of Sobers bowling of course so my opinion may not count much). This result is outcome of the fact that we had no way of stating how much better someone was compared to the next guy in batting or bowling ranks in this exercise. Nothing much else.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think both Sobers and Kallis have been a bit underrated by the format. It was a list of mostly bowling allrounders and so then being two of the lesser bowlers in the group counted for more than it might have done.

 

[AndrewB]

Has any bowler dominated in an overseas nation as much as Hadlee in Australia? 10 5fers in 14 tests is utterly insane.

10 in 12 Tests according to Statsguru. Terry Alderman similarly took 10 5fers in 12 Tests in England. Then there's Barnes's 7 5fers in 4 Tests in South Africa...

 

[The Sean]

Keep in mind here that we’re not rating players’ absolute quality in batting and bowling disciplines here, we’re ranking them against others. So – to choose an extreme example to illustrate the point – in this format if Sobers and McGrath went head-to-head as all-rounders they’d come out dead even because as batsmen we’d rank Sobers first and McGrath second, while as bowlers they’d be other way around. The gap between them in each discipline, when rating cricketers like this, isn’t taken into account.

This exercise favours the balanced and “rounded” all-rounders, and so it’s no surprise to see what we’re going to have the likes of Miller, Botham and Faulkner right near the top. Imran will be there too – while his bowling was certainly his strongest suit, the gap probably wasn’t as pronounced between stronger and weaker disciplines as it seems to be with Sobers, Kallis or Hadlee.

 

[weldone]

This is exactly where this methodology fails.