Playing Selector: All time great allrounders No.11 - No.15: FINAL POLL

[shortpitched713]

Looks like Hammond is tied with Ashwin for fifth spot in this poll (15th place all time). I find this lolworthy. Of course he's got excellent batting numbers, but consider that another ATG bat Kallis takes flack for not being a "real all-rounder" for not cracking 2 WPM.

Hammond falls shy of 1 WPM, and a less than inspiring 37.8 bowling average puts him more in line with Steve Waugh for "greatest part-timer of all time", rather than seriously meriting top 15 all-rounder consideration, imo.

 

[Qlder]

Hammond falls shy of 1 WPM, and a less than inspiring 37.8 bowling average puts him more in line with Steve Waugh for "greatest part-timer of all time", rather than seriously meriting top 15 all-rounder consideration, imo.

Anyone that doesn't get 2 WPM is not a real allrounder imo....everyone moved the goalposts to make sure Kallis was considered an allrounder instead of a batsman that's a handy bowler

 

[shortpitched713]

Anyone that doesn't get 2 WPM is not a real allrounder imo....everyone moved the goalposts to make sure Kallis was considered an allrounder instead of a batsman that's a handy bowler

Yeah, my whole argument is that if Kallis is an edge case, then surely Hammond falls far afoul of the dividing line between all-rounder and specialist bats who can turn their arm over, for the purpose of this ranking exercise.

 

[Qlder]

Looks like Hammond is tied with Ashwin for fifth spot in this poll (15th place all time). I find this lolworthy.

I changed my meaningless Watson vote to Ashwin just so Hammond is no longer = 5th

 

[howitzer]

I changed my meaningless Watson vote to Ashwin just so Hammond is no longer = 5th

I'm actually vaguely considering doing the same with my irrelevent Cairns vote, but don't want to engage in tactical voting.

 

[bagapath]

Was Goddard really not a bat as good as Imran? He averaged around 35 while opening the innings; calling him a batsman of Shaun Pollock's level seems a little unfair. Especially when Vettori is rated in a superior batting tier and everyone but he averages under 30 in his tier.

vettori scored six centuries. Goddard scored one.

 

[bagapath]

Mankad
Flintoff
Shakib
Greig
Stokes

Five seriously effective allrounders who could add a lot of weight to any teams they are part of...

 

[capt_Luffy]

vettori scored six centuries. Goddard scored one.

At some point, you have to think you're taking your century obsession too far..... Vettori also played almost thrice as many Test matches and scored only 5 half centuries more. He also has 26 FC centuries to Vettori's 9.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Where's Shane Watson? With a test century, 75 wkts and more than 0.75 WPM he meets the allrounder criteria set by Bagapath

JR Reid and Bruce Taylor likewise

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Obligatory Jake The Muss Oram > half these ****s. Woakes and Ashwin dream of the day they put Warne out of the Gabba.

There's some weird 75 wicket criteria rule to leave out the likes of Oram and De Grandhomme.

 

[kyear2]

Looks like Hammond is tied with Ashwin for fifth spot in this poll (15th place all time). I find this lolworthy. Of course he's got excellent batting numbers, but consider that another ATG bat Kallis takes flack for not being a "real all-rounder" for not cracking 2 WPM.

Hammond falls shy of 1 WPM, and a less than inspiring 37.8 bowling average puts him more in line with Steve Waugh for "greatest part-timer of all time", rather than seriously meriting top 15 all-rounder consideration, imo.

Gets flack from you, and he's still making the top 5.

He's the best batsman by far, and you want someone to spell the bowlers and take the occasional wicket. What more do you want? And this doesn't even take his all world catching into account. Way better cricketer and value than anyone on this list, you're getting a top 10 batting ATG

 

[bagapath]

P

There's some weird 75 wicket criteria rule to leave out the likes of Oram and De Grandhomme.

very good rule that filtered out many bits and pieces cricketers

 

[ataraxia]

Centuries and fivefers are the most overrated stats out there. Why should a rocks-and-diamonds player be considered better than a consistent scorer of 30s?

 

[bagapath]

Centuries and fivefers are the most overrated stats out there. Why should a rocks-and-diamonds player be considered better than a consistent scorer of 30s?

Sessions turning/ match winning performances separate the great from the good. There is no definitive way to numerically define them. But these milestone moments usually result in five fers and hundreds. So i do place high value on them over the consistent performers who make up the rest of the XI.

Anyways here we have filtered out the bits and pieces bowlers by setting an aggregate cut off of 75 wickets.

Dont want mark waugh and doug walters and sachin tendulkar to enter the discussion on allroynders.

The 75 wickets at at least 0.75 wkts/ test filter has worked beautifully.

 

[Qlder]

The 75 wickets at at least 0.75 wkts/ test filter has worked beautifully.

Except the 0.75 WPM is a handy part-time bowler rather than an allrounder. This criteria means you're happy with someone taking only 75 wkts in 100 Tests

 

[Line and Length]

Obviously Trevor Bailey doesn't rate highly on CW. I was the only one voting for him.

In 61 Tests he scored 2290 runs @ 29.74 and had a century and 10 fifties to his name. As a bowler, his 132 wickets came @ 29.21 and five times he took a five for and once had 10 in a match.

 

[bagapath]

Except the 0.75 WPM is a handy part-time bowler rather than an allrounder. This criteria means you're happy with someone taking only 75 wkts in 100 Tests

I don't have to be happy.
It is the line I have drawn and this filter has excluded the bits and pieces cricketers beautifully.

the one player who has managed to enter the polls because of the liberal WPM I have defined, was hammond. who was a great batsman and a part time bowler - and he didn't get many votes.

so I am quite pleased with the decision

 

[Fuller Pilch]

P

very good rule that filtered out many bits and pieces cricketers

No, it filtered out fine players with short careers. Bits and pieces players like Woakes are in due to England playing so many matches.

Oram took 60 wickets in 33 tests (almost 2 per test). Had he not had so many injuries he would reached your arbitrary figure easily.
He was a useful bowler in NZ conditions (feasted on John Wright's Indian side on green pitches) and a stock bowler overseas who could bowl economically. With the bat he averaged over 30 in every country in the world except for India where he played 1 test for 12 runs.

As well as a couple of 100s at home these are
are Oram's away test 100s:

133 at Centurion against Steyn, Pollock, Ntini, and Kallis

126* at the Gabba against McGrath, Gillespie, Kaspa, and Warne

101 at Lords against Anderson, Sidebottom, Broad, and Panesar

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Also why no JR Reid?

 

[bagapath]

No, it filtered out fine players with short careers. Bits and pieces players like Woakes are in due to England playing so many matches.

Oram took 60 wickets in 33 tests (almost 2 per test). Had he not had so many injuries he would reached your arbitrary figure easily.
He was a useful bowler in NZ conditions (feasted on John Wright's Indian side on greenish pitches) and a stock bowler overseas who could bowl economically. With the bat he averaged over 30 in every country in the world except for India where he played 1 test for 12 runs.

As well as a couple of 100s at home these are
are Oram's away test 100s:

133 at Centurion against Steyn, Pollock, Ntini, and Kallis

126* at the Gabba against McGrath, Gillespie, Kaspa, and Warne

101 at Lords against Anderson, Sidebottom, Broad, and Panesar

60 wickets is not good enough to be in this discussion anyways