Days of Grace
International Captain
I think Davo’s reputation as an allrounder is based almost solely on the tied test performance.
True, but there are mitigating factors at play. 100 comes in a single innings pretty frequently. Bat twice not needed. 6wpi is rare. Kallis managed a hundred three or four times more frequently than Steyn managed 6 WPI.Bear in mind, though, that if a batsman gets a big innings he may well not get to bat again, but if a bowler has a good first innings they can expect to bowl again.
Consequently there are more bowlers with 6+ wickets per match (Barnes, Richardson, Lohmann, Yasir Shah, Muralitharan) than batsmen with 100+ runs per match (Bradman).
Your new method seems to be moving away from the exceptional towards the balanced. There are plenty of okay at both on the list. Hadlee is fairly low down as the first guy I would call a bowling allrounder and he batted at 7 a fair bit- often a wk or true AR slot, probably a function of weakness of batting linenup. 75runs sounds like a pretty low amount to me, and 4wpm sounds a bit higher. But I'm seeing a problem here with bowling ars. Philander sits at the bottom of what I call a bowling ar, although many go lower.That might give another way to find equivalence: e.g. of people who've played 20 or more Tests, 60 have taken 4+ wickets per match and 59 have scored 75+ runs per match. If you look at the top 10 to achieve both in a match, you get:
15: Sobers
14: Shakib
11: Botham, Cairns
8: Greig, Vettori
7: Kallis, Miller
6: Flintoff, Hadlee, Mankad
which looks a reasonable mix of bating and bowling all-rounders.
(I'm not claiming this is a great way to rank the best all-rounders: Imran is in the group on 5, alongside Warwick Armstrong, Mitchell Johnson, Moeen Ali and Bob Simpson. But it does give some idea of who was most likely to be effective in both skills in the same match)
Looking at his entire career, Imran is elite in one discipline and more or less specialist quality in the other. He's unique in this regard. There's no argument for putting anyone but Sobers and Kallis on the same tier. For all the value their bowling brings though, their bowling stats are rubbish. I'd fancy a team with a batting lineup of Imrans ahead of one with a bowling lineup of Sobers, even though I pick Sobers first if constructing a team.Imran and Pollock being that high doesn't sit right with me.
Agree the list is incomplete. Where does he sit? With Botham Kapil and Miller? Or with S.Pollock and Hadlee?Vettori missing from that list
6 tons and 362 wickets certainly should win him points with your longevity criteria
You probably feel this way because he was such a giant of a bowler.I agree but he had 2 distinct phases as bowler and batsman though I don't question that there was a significant overlap between those 2 periods. Sobers and Miller had more bat/ball combined performances. I would still rate Imran the second best after Sobers would just as Sir Gary was a batting all rounder, Imran would be a bowling all rounder for me.
To say Imran couldn't do both at the same time is a bit of an overstatement, but he does pose tough questions. It's not an issue within the bounds of the rankings though- it's actually heavily rewarded. It would be problematic if transferred outside the rankings, but I'm assuming we are accepting the batting and bowling rankings to discuss the AR rankings.That makes him a bowling all rounder primarily IMO - not a balanced, free of problems one. I think there ought to be a middle ground between a list that has Dexter fairly high and one that has Pollock that high. Balanced all rounders are rarer and are getting undervalued on both types of measures. Between an average of 36 and 3 WPM, Miller's true value is lost - how he could combine both disciplines in one match. Imran gets a boost from his period as a specialist bat too.
It's based more on the fact he mainly batted in allrounders positions at 7 or 8 and averaged 33 in first class cricket. Of course he didn't really succeed as an allrounder at test level but allrounder-ness is based on the logic behind selection and team role not some arbitrary level of excellence. David Capel was as much an allrounder as anyone, he simply wasn't a very good one.I think Davo’s reputation as an allrounder is based almost solely on the tied test performance.
It's based more on the fact he mainly batted in allrounders positions at 7 or 8 and averaged 33 in first class cricket. Of course he didn't really succeed as an allrounder at test level but allrounder-ness is based on the logic behind selection and team role not some arbitrary level of excellence. David Capel was as much an allrounder as anyone, he simply wasn't a very good one.