Top Five Cricketers from each country

[Malcolm]

How do we rate the worth an allrounder ? There are multiple factors like bowling average,batting average,runs per match, wickets per match,longevity etc.

If one would narrow the criteria to the below 3 (A+B+C), the rating would look like this for some of the greatest allrounders in history.

A- Batting average/bowling average

B- (No. of wickets per match * No. of runs per match)/100

C- no. of test matches played/500

1.Garry Sobers - 4.07
2.Imran Khan - 3.61
3.Jacques Kallis - 3.44
4.Keith Miller - 3.38
5.Ian Botham - 3.30
6.Richard Hadlee - 3.21
7.Chris Cairns - 3.15
8.Shaun Pollock - 2.98
9.Kapil Dev - 2.61

According to this methodology, Shakib's score 3.95 and he is the second best AR of all time.

 

[Bolo]

Why not use batting average?

Average is used elsewhere on the formula already. Runs per test is never a good idea, but it does make a little more sense in the context of allrounders than elsewhere, because workload concerns might make average an inadequate measure

 

[Dendarii]

Aubrey Faulkner ranked 4th in my CW ranking exercise for all rounders

When longevity holds any kind of importance he obviously disappears from contention though.

Faulkner is the only player to have topped both the batting and bowling rankings when applied historically, although with fewer players around and fewer matches being played it's difficult to assess how much of an achievement that is.

 

[h_hurricane]

According to this methodology, Shakib's score 3.95 and he is the second best AR of all time.

It does, there is a reason I kept him out of this exercise

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

By the formula Billy Bates 3.15, the same as Chris Cairns despite only playing 15 tests.

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

Being a bit silly to test the extremes of the formula.

Sachin Tendulkar 1.57 He did take 47 tests so not completely stupid.
Glen McGrath 0.82 Fair enough for someone who could hardly bat.

A more sensible consideration
Wally Hammond 2.55 Perhaps a little high as batting is over rated.

 

[h_hurricane]

Revised formula is as follows

A- Batting average/bowling average

B- (No. of wickets per innings * No. of runs per innings)/100

C- no. of test matches played/200 (I am giving a bit more importance to longevity and changed the denominator from 500 to 200 as that is the maximum anyone has played).

1.Jacques Kallis - 3.04
2.Garry Sobers - 2.90
3.Imran Khan - 2.86
4.Keith Miller - 2.51
5.Shaun Pollock - 2.44
6.Ian Botham - 2.43
7.Aubrey Faulkner - 2.37
8.Shakib Al Hassan - 2.36
9.Richard Hadlee - 2.32
10.Kapil Dev - 2.25
11.Tony Grieg - 2.13
12.Chris Cairns - 2.12

Kallis ahead of Sobers and Pollock ahead of Botham might ruffle a few feathers here. Courtesy Bolo

 

[mr_mister]

Pollock where he belongs

Wonder how close Trevor Goddard would be to cracking that list. Impressive set of averages certainly

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Revised formula is as follows

A- Batting average/bowling average

B- (No. of wickets per innings * No. of runs per innings)/100

C- no. of test matches played/200 (I am giving a bit more importance to longevity and changed the denominator from 500 to 200 as that is the maximum anyone has played).

1.Jacques Kallis - 3.04
2.Garry Sobers - 2.90
3.Imran Khan - 2.86
4.Keith Miller - 2.51
5.Shaun Pollock - 2.44
6.Ian Botham - 2.43
7.Aubrey Faulkner - 2.37
8.Shakib Al Hassan - 2.36
9.Richard Hadlee - 2.32
10.Kapil Dev - 2.25
11.Tony Grieg - 2.13
12.Chris Cairns - 2.12

Kallis ahead of Sobers and Pollock ahead of Botham might ruffle a few feathers here. Courtesy Bolo

Hadlee > Pollock in either discipline

 

[h_hurricane]

Pollock where he belongs

Wonder how close Trevor Goddard would be to cracking that list. Impressive set of averages certainly

2.05. Below Cairns

 

[h_hurricane]

Hadlee > Pollock in either discipline

Not in batting and longevity.

 

[h_hurricane]

Ravichandran Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja both at 2.18 (ashwin ahead by a wafer thin margin).

 

[mr_mister]

Let's remember Pollock's batting was probably more useful to South Africa then Kallis' bowling

South Africa, especially for the period their careers overlapped, had plenty of terrific quick bowlers. Decent batsmen were more scarce, considering two staple middle order bats averaged mid 30s (Cronje and Rhodes)

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

revised formula has
Billy Bates 2.29 - Of course it is hard to compare someone from before 1900 with the modern day cricketers.

 

[Malcolm]

Revised formula is as follows

A- Batting average/bowling average

B- (No. of wickets per innings * No. of runs per innings)/100

C- no. of test matches played/200 (I am giving a bit more importance to longevity and changed the denominator from 500 to 200 as that is the maximum anyone has played).

Longevity in terms of the number of tests played is not a good idea.
For example,
Kallis career spanned 18 years but he played 166 matches
Sobers career spanned 20 years but played just 93 matches

According to your formula, Kallis gets an unfair advantage.

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

Longevity in terms of the number of tests played is not a good idea.
For example,
Kallis career spanned 18 years but he played 166 matches
Sobers career spanned 20 years but played just 93 matches

According to your formula, Kallis gets an unfair advantage.

Fair point.
166/200 = .83
93/200 = .465
So Kallis gains .365 from this measure only.
Going to have to make the formula more complicated to fix that, and it highlights some of the difficulties of comparing players from different eras.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Not in batting and longevity.

Negligible difference in runs per innings.

Hadlee 15 X 50 , 2 X 100
Pollock 16 X 50 , 2 X 100
Pollock played 22 innings more.

Longevity ?
Hadlee played 17 years , Pollock only 14.

 

[h_hurricane]

Longevity in terms of the number of tests played is not a good idea.
For example,
Kallis career spanned 18 years but he played 166 matches
Sobers career spanned 20 years but played just 93 matches

According to your formula, Kallis gets an unfair advantage.

It is diffcult to sustain a particular level of high performance for a larger sample of tests. Kallis and Sobers both have their batting averages 70% above bowling average. That is **** awesome. To maintain that kind of performance for 73 more tests cannot be under-estimated. Kallis being 5% above Sobers in a statistical analysis is not an insanely inconceivable thought. We have not considered the strength of the opposition here,admittedly.

Not that I rate Kallis higher than Sobers. Garry remains the best cricketer ever to me.

 

[h_hurricane]

Negligible difference in runs per innings.

Hadlee 15 X 50 , 2 X 100
Pollock 16 X 50 , 2 X 100
Pollock played 22 innings more.

Longevity ?
Hadlee played 17 years , Pollock only 14.

Only considered matches here for longevity not years.

 

[Bolo]

Pollock deserves to come out ahead of botham. Stats aren't interested in the gushy feeling you got watching botham as a child.

Sobers deserves to come out ahead of kallis. That extra wicket per match is worth a lot on paper (although I reckon kallis was a better bowler). Years usually make more sense than matches, but with allmost all of these guys breaking down from workload rather than age at some point, it feels like both deserve a look.