Playing Selector: Top five test all rounders ever

[kyear2]

Here's my rough go at it looking at player value, only including post-war players and skewed towards more modern ones I know more about.

Imran
McGrath
S Pollock
Murali
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose
Marshall
Donald
Miller
Garner
Ashwin
Philander
Wasim
Warne

Top 5 very clearly separate themselves from the pack though, in my mind.

CW has for quite some time seriously over rated bowling allrounders, that's nothing new.
But to rank Pollock as the 3rd most valuable player of all time is ludicrous. I get it, bowler who can score some runs. But as a bowler does he even make top 15 or top 20 for most, and as with most bowling all rounder's, how impactful were these runs, how many led to victories. We just like to look at numbers. Yeah it's handy to have a number 8 who can score some runs, get you out of the occasional jam, add some partnerships at the back end, I get it. But to elevate a top 15 - 20 bowler to top 3 is a bit much.
As an aside if wickets are more important than runs, one would think that with at a least a third of wickets being taken behind the stumps, some that some credit be given to the specialists who take those catches. Hence I would imagine that for you slip catching as a secondary skill, should be at least just important as lower order batting if not more so?
And as I'm typing Wasim of all people literally is speaking about how slip fielding has always be a weakness for Pakistan cricket. The universe is backing me up here, lol.

But back to the primary point, for me bowling all-rounders are schematically and functionally less useful than bowling ones, primarily because at the end of the day, you still then need a batsman who can bowl if you're to have a 5th bowling option. Which is important if for nothing else, to assist with the rotation, keeping bowlers fresh and the occasional partnership breaking wicket. So when you have guys like Sobers, Kallis or Hammond who are atg bats, sublime elite slip fielders and excellent relief bowlers, it's hard to beat the value there.

A top 10 is tough though because I have 7 elite batsmen, 8 excellent bowlers and 2 superb all round cricketers who arguably deserve spots.

 

[OverratedSanity]

And as I'm typing Wasim of all people literally is speaking about how slip fielding has always be a weakness for Pakistan cricket. The universe is backing me up here, lol.

Wait what. What do you mean "of all people"? The guy who suffered the most out of any great bowler from poor slip catching talking about it being a weakness for pakistan is a surprise to you?

I'm so confused.

 

[shortpitched713]

CW has for quite some time seriously over rated bowling allrounders, that's nothing new.
But to rank Pollock as the 3rd most valuable player of all time is ludicrous. I get it, bowler who can score some runs. But as a bowler does he even make top 15 or top 20 for most, and as with most bowling all rounder's, how impactful were these runs, how many led to victories. We just like to look at numbers. Yeah it's handy to have a number 8 who can score some runs, get you out of the occasional jam, add some partnerships at the back end, I get it. But to elevate a top 15 - 20 bowler to top 3 is a bit much.
As an aside if wickets are more important than runs, one would think that with at a least a third of wickets being taken behind the stumps, some that some credit be given to the specialists who take those catches. Hence I would imagine that for you slip catching as a secondary skill, should be at least just important as lower order batting if not more so?
And as I'm typing Wasim of all people literally is speaking about how slip fielding has always be a weakness for Pakistan cricket. The universe is backing me up here, lol.

But back to the primary point, for me bowling all-rounders are schematically and functionally less useful than bowling ones, primarily because at the end of the day, you still then need a batsman who can bowl if you're to have a 5th bowling option. Which is important if for nothing else, to assist with the rotation, keeping bowlers fresh and the occasional partnership breaking wicket. So when you have guys like Sobers, Kallis or Hammond who are atg bats, sublime elite slip fielders and excellent relief bowlers, it's hard to beat the value there.

A top 10 is tough though because I have 7 elite batsmen, 8 excellent bowlers and 2 superb all round cricketers who arguably deserve spots.

He's a top 10 bowler for me (above even Imran), so bolded part doesn't really jive for me anyway. I think he's a player underrated in both disciplines because (much like Kallis, Donald, Steyn, Philander), he comes from a country that is under-supported on this forum, and so is an acceptable target.

As for the value of batting all-rounders, yes they are very nice to have, I wouldn't argue against that. And they are even more valuable in an ATG draft type scenario, as there are so few genuinely good ones ( the 2 Sobers and Kallis being far, far ahead of the pack in my mind ). But ultimately they are a bit of a luxury, as even some of the actual ATG sides simply haven't had one, and gotten away with a 4 man attack + part timers. So that kind of invalidates that point.

You need specialist batsmen, because simply put every batting contribution is welcome, and matters on a team ( to a point, 11 and probably 10 in practice tend to be a bit of tail-end fluff, not really substance). Bowling on the other hand, hits limited returns, as after 5 (maybe 6) bowlers you simply don't need any more bowling, barring some really weird scenarios, and using too many bowling options is counter-productive to just increasing utilization of your very best bowling resources. There's a reason that CW drafts tend to be a rush for all of the best bowlers ( and especially bowling all-rounders ), and then everyone else. That is simply where the conventional wisdom shows a disproportionate amount of the top end value is. Don't hate the players, hate the game (actually don't hate Test cricket, it is awesome).

 

[kyear2]

Wait what. What do you mean "of all people"? The guy who suffered the most out of any great bowler from poor slip catching talking about it being a weakness for pakistan is a surprise to you?

I'm so confused.

Meaning an authoritative / credible voice and one we've discussed specifically from this perspective previously. So hearing the great man himself discuss it while I was making said argument was useful.

 

[Coronis]

He's a top 10 bowler for me (above even Imran), so bolded part doesn't really jive for me anyway. I think he's a player underrated in both disciplines because (much like Kallis, Donald, Steyn, Philander), he comes from a country that is under-supported on this forum, and so is an acceptable target.

As for the value of batting all-rounders, yes they are very nice to have, I wouldn't argue against that. And they are even more valuable in an ATG draft type scenario, as there are so few genuinely good ones ( the 2 Sobers and Kallis being far, far ahead of the pack in my mind ). But ultimately they are a bit of a luxury, as even some of the actual ATG sides simply haven't had one, and gotten away with a 4 man attack + part timers. So that kind of invalidates that point.

You need specialist batsmen, because simply put every batting contribution is welcome, and matters on a team ( to a point, 11 and probably 10 in practice tend to be a bit of tail-end fluff, not really substance). Bowling on the other hand, hits limited returns, as after 5 (maybe 6) bowlers you simply don't need any more bowling, barring some really weird scenarios, and using too many bowling options is counter-productive to just increasing utilization of your very best bowling resources. There's a reason that CW drafts tend to be a rush for all of the best bowlers ( and especially bowling all-rounders ), and then everyone else. That is simply where the conventional wisdom shows a disproportionate amount of the top end value is. Don't hate the players, hate the game (actually don't hate Test cricket, it is awesome).

Just because some players are overrated/underrated doesn’t mean you have to go so far in the opposite direction.

I don’t have Barrington in my top 5 batsmen or Viv at like 25th.

 

[howitzer]

Just because some players are overrated/underrated doesn’t mean you have to go so far in the opposite direction.

I don’t have Barrington in my top 5 batsmen or Viv at like 25th.

Hoggard is definitely greater than Lillee though. @Prince EWS to confirm.

 

[Coronis]

Hoggard is definitely greater than Lillee though. @Prince EWS to confirm.

Yeah but he doesn’t just rate him top 10 of all time or whatever. Just above Lillee

 

[howitzer]

Yeah but he doesn’t just rate him top 10 of all time or whatever. Just above Lillee

Is that going in the opposite direction wrt Lillee though?

 

[Prince EWS]

Is that going in the opposite direction wrt Lillee though?

I don't even actually rate Hoggard better, and you'll only see me admit that once. I just leaned into the funnies of my algorithm spitting that out.

 

[Coronis]

I don't even actually rate Hoggard better, and you'll only see my admit that once. I just leaned into the funnies of my algorithm spitting that out.

I’m having trouble… my world is spinning…

 

[howitzer]

I don't even actually rate Hoggard better, and you'll only see me admit that once. I just leaned into the funnies of my algorithm spitting that out.

I didn't think you did; just makes a good meme.

 

[kyear2]

He's a top 10 bowler for me (above even Imran), so bolded part doesn't really jive for me anyway. I think he's a player underrated in both disciplines because (much like Kallis, Donald, Steyn, Philander), he comes from a country that is under-supported on this forum, and so is an acceptable target.

As for the value of batting all-rounders, yes they are very nice to have, I wouldn't argue against that. And they are even more valuable in an ATG draft type scenario, as there are so few genuinely good ones ( the 2 Sobers and Kallis being far, far ahead of the pack in my mind ). But ultimately they are a bit of a luxury, as even some of the actual ATG sides simply haven't had one, and gotten away with a 4 man attack + part timers. So that kind of invalidates that point.

You need specialist batsmen, because simply put every batting contribution is welcome, and matters on a team ( to a point, 11 and probably 10 in practice tend to be a bit of tail-end fluff, not really substance). Bowling on the other hand, hits limited returns, as after 5 (maybe 6) bowlers you simply don't need any more bowling, barring some really weird scenarios, and using too many bowling options is counter-productive to just increasing utilization of your very best bowling resources. There's a reason that CW drafts tend to be a rush for all of the best bowlers ( and especially bowling all-rounders ), and then everyone else. That is simply where the conventional wisdom shows a disproportionate amount of the top end value is. Don't hate the players, hate the game (actually don't hate Test cricket, it is awesome).

Yes there very few of them, similarly there are few bowling ones as well. Literally two of each with Hammond and Hadlee on the periphery of each category, though Greig gets over looked at times.

Plus to your second point that the ATG sides didn't have one, none of them had bowling allrounders either, getting by with Warne, Marshall and Lindwall respectively. So that invalidates that as well....

So yes, all all-rounders are luxuries and not required for greatness. But you want to know what all the great ATG teams did have? A great cordon, West Indies and Australia had two of the best 3 cordons I ever saw and the third was the excellent 10's SA team. And hey Kallis was there, though his catching was likely more important to the team than his bowling at that point. Even the great 70's Australia side had a magnificent cordon as well. It's hard to have a dominant team in a competitive era while dropping your catches, or as Ian Smith just succinctly said, catches win matches.


And finally, Pollock wasn't even the best bowler in his team and at best the 3 best SA bowler ever. And SA may be a sparsely represented as WI posters here, but Steyn and Donald are both highly regarded and Kallis may be disliked by some, but surely discussed. Let's not use that as an excuse. You're looking at stats and not impact.

 

[Coronis]

Yes there very few of them, similarly there are few bowling ones as well. Literally two of each with Hammond and Hadlee on the periphery of each category, though Greig gets over looked at times.

Plus to your second point that the ATG sides didn't have one, none of them had bowling allrounders either, getting by with Warne, Marshall and Lindwall respectively. So that invalidates that as well....

So yes, all all-rounders are luxuries and not required for greatness. But you want to know what all the great ATG teams did have? A great cordon, West Indies and Australia had two of the best 3 cordons I ever saw and the third was the excellent 10's SA team. And hey Kallis was there, though his catching was likely more important to the team than his bowling at that point. Even the great 70's Australia side had a magnificent cordon as well. It's hard to have a dominant team in a competitive era while dropping your catches, or as Ian Smith just succinctly said, catches win matches.


And finally, Pollock wasn't even the best bowler in his team and at best the 3 best SA bowler ever. And SA may be a sparsely represented as WI posters here, but Steyn and Donald are both highly regarded and Kallis may be disliked by some, but surely discussed. Let's not use that as an excuse. You're looking at stats and not impact.

I have not found this to be the case.

 

[Qlder]

I have not found this to be the case.

Kallis was a boring batsman who shouldn't even be considered an allrounder with only 1.75 WPM (so only 5 wkts in a 3 test series). Lowest of anyone not considered a batsman that was a handy bowler

 

[kyear2]

I have not found this to be the case.

He isn't the favorite of some and oft criticized for not adjusting his rate when required. But yes, disliked was a strong word.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Kallis was a boring batsman who shouldn't even be considered an allrounder with only 1.75 WPM (so only 5 wkts in a 3 test series). Lowest of anyone not considered a batsman that was a handy bowler

Might be; but considering he has almost 300 Test wickets at an average of around 32; I would say that makes up for him.

 

[Qlder]

Might be; but considering he has almost 300 Test wickets at an average of around 32; I would say that makes up for him.

Because he played 166 Tests for those 292 wkts. Even Ravi Shastri who's not in the poll could have had 313 wkts if he played 166 Tests (151 wkts from 80 tests)

 

[capt_Luffy]

Because he played 166 Tests for those 292 wkts. Even Ravi Shastri who's not in the poll could have had 313 wkts if he played 166 Tests (151 wkts from 80 tests)

He would had; but I think Kallis should get points for this longevity. He never was the gun bowler for South Africa but the best batsman of the team who could bowl as the second change.

 

[Qlder]

He would had; but I think Kallis should get points for this longevity. He never was the gun bowler for South Africa but the best batsman of the team who could bowl as the second change.

So like I said, great (boring) batsman who was a handy bowler

 

[capt_Luffy]

So like I said, great (boring) batsman who was a handy bowler

I mean, by that logic Shaun Pollock and Richard Hadlee were great bowlers who were just handy batsmen..... Even probably Imran Khan for a majority of his career