Playing Selector: All time great allrounders No.6 - No.10

[bagapath]

I'd pick Procter above all in this list if he was there.

This is for test cricket.
He will not feature in these discussions.

 

[Victor Ian]

This is for test cricket.
He will not feature in these discussions.

Yes. I fully accept your criteria and reasoning - just as I hope that you understand that as a Procter tragic, I have to bring him into this, regardless.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes. I fully accept your criteria and reasoning - just as I hope that you understand that as a Procter tragic, I have to bring him into this, regardless.

I'm more of a Ronnie Irani guy.

 

[Jarquis]

Tempted to just recreate this thread and include Davidson and Procter.

I just don’t understand why you’d exclude people based on arbitrary criteria. If the purpose of the exercise is to rank the top allrounders then do that, or rename the thread ‘rank bagapath’s chosen list of players as allrounders’

 

[Prince EWS]

Tempted to just recreate this thread and include Davidson and Procter.

I just don’t understand why you’d exclude people based on arbitrary criteria. If the purpose of the exercise is to rank the top allrounders then do that, or rename the thread ‘rank bagapath’s chosen list of players as allrounders’

Davidson was added to the poll early on (by me).

 

[howitzer]

Davidson was added to the poll early on (by me).

Make sure he's on there if Bags does an 11-15 please.

 

[Prince EWS]

Make sure he's on there if Bags does an 11-15 please.

I asked him for permission and he said yes. I actually thought he'd just missed him, but he had a cut off Davo didn't meet and allowed me to add him in anyway.

If he doesn't want to add him to the next one I won't push it. His poll his rules.

 

[howitzer]

I asked him for permission and he said yes. I actually thought he'd just missed him, but he had a cut off Davo didn't meet and allowed me to add him in anyway.

If he doesn't want to add him to the next one I won't push it. His poll his rules.

Fair enough. I might decide to just vote for four then.

 

[Qlder]

Fair enough. I might decide to just vote for four then.

Well you could vote for Davo as 5th

 

[trundler]

Procter looks like the dream all rounder because maintaining both disciplines to a high standard is much easier in FC and all rounders are forced to specialise when they step up to tests. This is reflected in his own record which is that of a frontline bowler who's a good #8. Davidson, Philander, Hammond (though not ARs at test level), Benaud, Miller, Hadlee (I could keep going) all suffer from this. No, it doesn't mean that those guys were better in their secondary discipline than the stats suggest because of their FC numbers. You're probably going to over rate someone massively if you only judge them on their FC numbers.

Also, yeah, Davidson isn't even an AR in tests.

 

[shortpitched713]

Davidson was added to the poll early on (by me).

If Philander is missing in the next one, I riot.

I've genuinely got him 12th all time among Test all-rounders. This needs a Test century criteria feels so bunk.

I guess Dickwella doesn't count as a WK batsman either, by this standard.

 

[bagapath]

Tempted to just recreate this thread and include Davidson and Procter.

I just don’t understand why you’d exclude people based on arbitrary criteria. If the purpose of the exercise is to rank the top allrounders then do that, or rename the thread ‘rank bagapath’s chosen list of players as allrounders’

Any criteria set by anybody in an internet discussion forum is going to be arbitrary. Your thread will be pretty much ‘rank Jarquis’s chosen list of players as allrounders' at best. it won't be marked in the history of mankind as the definitive discussion on this topic.

Procter took 41 test wickets and didn't even score 1000 runs. he doesn't belong in this discussion about test allrounders.

 

[bagapath]

Procter looks like the dream all rounder because maintaining both disciplines to a high standard is much easier in FC and all rounders are forced to specialise when they step up to tests. This is reflected in his own record which is that of a frontline bowler who's a good #8. Davidson, Philander, Hammond (though not ARs at test level), Benaud, Miller, Hadlee (I could keep going) all suffer from this. No, it doesn't mean that those guys were better in their secondary discipline than the stats suggest because of their FC numbers. You're probably going to over rate someone massively if you only judge them on their FC numbers.

Also, yeah, Davidson isn't even an AR in tests.

thank you!

 

[bagapath]

If Philander is missing in the next one, I riot.

Philander will be in the next poll for sure... if you are making the thread.
I don't consider him a test allrounder; so I won't add him in mine.

 

[bagapath]

Make sure he's on there if Bags does an 11-15 please.

Really? Is it not indecent to edit someone's polls/posts without their approval?
Prince EWS asked me if he could add Davidson, and I let him do it. If I hadn't agreed he wouldn't have.

 

[shortpitched713]

Philander will be in the next poll for sure... if you are making the thread.
I don't consider him a test allrounder; so I won't add him in mine.

I can if you'd like, but if you're making it, would you mind adding him, pretty please?

 

[honestbharani]

I actually think that really good bowlers who can also bat and really good batsmen who can also bowl are more important than actual bonafide allrounders for a team's success.

Especially with the way the game is evolving today.

 

[kyear2]

I actually think that really good bowlers who can also bat and really good batsmen who can also bowl are more important than actual bonafide allrounders for a team's success.

Especially with the way the game is evolving today.

Fully agree.

 

[ataraxia]

Procter looks like the dream all rounder because maintaining both disciplines to a high standard is much easier in FC and all rounders are forced to specialise when they step up to tests. This is reflected in his own record which is that of a frontline bowler who's a good #8. Davidson, Philander, Hammond (though not ARs at test level), Benaud, Miller, Hadlee (I could keep going) all suffer from this. No, it doesn't mean that those guys were better in their secondary discipline than the stats suggest because of their FC numbers. You're probably going to over rate someone massively if you only judge them on their FC numbers.

Also, yeah, Davidson isn't even an AR in tests.

Mate 10 innings batted.

In general, the thing about Procter is the degree to which he dominated FC, not simply that he did. Averaging 36 and 19.5 is Imran-level stuff, and Imran being the greatest cricketer of all time...

I try to make a reasoned, pessimistic guess as to what his test career might resolve as. Bowling then batting, it could be: 28–32; 25–30; 23–25. Any of these are IMO very plausible, given how the plaudits were rained on him for his FC success, and also put him squarely in the conversation for this thread.

 

[howitzer]

Really? Is it not indecent to edit someone's polls/posts without their approval?
Prince EWS asked me if he could add Davidson, and I let him do it. If I hadn't agreed he wouldn't have.

Fair enough.