• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

Choose five all time great allrounders from No. 11 to No.15

  • Total voters
    22
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
bagapath said:
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.
Click to expand...
I might be the worst person for these arguments because I see the entire all rounder issue differently from the CW consensus. Firstly I prefer the notion of all round crickets, rather than the strict definition of all rounders.

I also way prefer (as I believe HB said) to have a really good to ATG batsman who can bowl a bit or alternatively a great bowler who can handle a bat, to the true "all rounders"

Finally, as I sacrilegiously said in another forum, we stress about hundreds from bowling allrounders, but of all the hundreds from Imran, Hadlee and Pollock combined, from memory I believe either 1 or 2 resulted in victories and don't recall if either were pivotal towards them.

And as much flack as Kallis gets for his wpm, I believe he was much better utilized that Sobers, who was run into the ground, potentially at the detriment of his batting. He and the team would have been much better served by him bowling less, batting higher in the order and spending more time at 2nd slip where he was among the best ever. So yes, even Hammond production is more than good enough for me, give me a few overs to rotate the other guys and don't get carted around the park.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
kyear2 said:
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
Click to expand...
The "every slip fielding Specialist bat is actually an all-rounder" gambit. As a fellow heterodox opinion holder, I appreciate the moxy.

Also, never used the hard cutoff of 2 WPM for Kallis, myself, and have him ranked 7th all time among all-rounders, just after Hadlee.

Still, I can acknowledge why it lowers his standing in comparison to Sobers, (an arguably slightly less effective bowler, but one with a much, much greater workload and output).
 
Last edited:
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
shortpitched713 said:
The "every slip fielding Specialist bat is actually an all-rounder" gambit. As a fellow heterodox opinion holder, I appreciate the moxy.

Also, never used the hard cutoff of 2 WPM for Kallis, myself, and have him ranked 7th all time among all-rounders, just after Hadlee.

Still, I can acknowledge why it lowers his standing in comparison to Sobers, (an arguably slightly less effective bowler, but one with a much, much greater workload and output).
Click to expand...
Shouldn't be an outlier position. But still I toil, I will get there.

And Sobers wasn't left effective, just used poorly. Can't turn your best batsman into a stock bowler. But yeah, he won more matches with the ball that most other all rounder win with their secondary skills.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
kyear2 said:
Shouldn't be an outlier position. But still I toil, I will get there.

And Sobers wasn't left effective, just used poorly. Can't turn your best batsman into a stock bowler. But yeah, he won more matches with the ball that most other all rounder win with their secondary skills.
Click to expand...
His left arm orthodox spin bowling was certainly much less effective than Kallis's pace bowling. Sobers' pace and wrist spin were probably more comparable, but he was definitely a stock bowler throughout, as he has a very high strike rate, not explainable only through occasionally bowling spin.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
shortpitched713 said:
His left arm orthodox spin bowling was certainly much less effective than Kallis's pace bowling. Sobers' pace and wrist spin were probably more comparable, but he was definitely a stock bowler throughout, as he has a very high strike rate, not explainable only through occasionally bowling spin.
Click to expand...
When he bowled first up or first change he would attack, but often on unresponsive pitches they would set a defensive field and he would bowl to contain. And yes, his least effective bowling was the orthodox LHS, which was his he started out.
When he did have Hall, and Gibbs he was more effective, but more often than it should have been the case he and Worrell had to carry some weak ass attacks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top