All Rounders Poll - Discussion

[Qlder]

Other than Bailey, I think we're getting into Chaminda Vaas territory now.
3089 runs @ 24.32 and 355 wkts @ 29.58

 

[Line and Length]

While picking Davidson on the basis of performance in one test is irredeemably stupid and discredits the list, I just noticed that Procter in the top 25 with his sub 20 batting average is even worse. Jesus.

I agree with you on both counts. In Davo's defence, he is rated lower than Benaud in this poll despite their batting averages being similar and he has a much better bowling average.
Procter in a list of top TEST All-rounders is ridiculous. 7 Tests, 10 visits to the crease with a HS of 48.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Other than Bailey, I think we're getting into Chaminda Vaas territory now.
3089 runs @ 24.32 and 355 wkts @ 29.58

Surely Akram should be ahead of Vaas???

 

[trundler]

Surely Akram should be ahead of Davidson and Hammond??

Definitely.

 

[AndrewB]

While picking Davidson on the basis of performance in one test is irredeemably stupid and discredits the list, I just noticed that Procter in the top 25 with his sub 20 batting average is even worse. Jesus.

25 > 20

 

[kyear2]

Thanks for admitting your were wrong but please don't derail this thread further.

What?

 

[subshakerz]

What?

We don't need to debate it here.

 

[kyear2]

Watling way overrated. Although Flower is underrated imo, that might be explainable.

Godfrey Evans criminally underrated, might be the GoATKeeper of all time.

Flower a little high if you ask me.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, go by the 60-40 law, he should be way ahead of a lot of names there.

Now, don't even dare to impose modern standards on him.

60 - 40 wicket-keeping makes so much more sense than 40 - 60, your first and main job is to capably hold the gloves.

 

[Qlder]

Flower a little high if you ask me.

60 - 40 wicket-keeping makes so much more sense than 40 - 60, your first and main job is to capably hold the gloves.

Why are you talking keepers in an allrounder poll that specified no keepers?

 

[kyear2]

1000 runs and 100 wickets aren't really equivalent cut off points. Waqar Younis, James Anderson, Curtly Ambrose, Kemar Roach and Murali all have 1000 runs, while the second worst bowler to ever take 100 wickets was probably Nicky Boje and he played his entire Test career as a frontline spin bowler.

Someone also just pointed out in another thread that Hammond spent a long part of his career at #1 on the ICC allrounders ranking list.

If a batsman bowls anywhere close to a consistent basis, he's an all rounder. Up to us then to decide how good of one he really was.

 

[kyear2]

This is why I love polls like this, it makes you research. So Hammond pretty much rarely bowled after his 1936/37 tour of Australia. At that point he had 62 tests with 76 wkts @ 36.92 at 1.23 wpm. That's not far off Mustaq (1.39 wpm) and Barlow (1.33) already voted in.

Given his ATG batting I could vote for that but hadn't as thought he was at best a part-timer with < 1 wpm. Turns out he only took 7 wkts in his last 24 tests after not bowling at all in his last 11 tests.

What a magnificent cricketer.

By the start of the war he was arguably the 3rd greatest batsman ever, arguably the best all rounder and unquestionably the greatest slip of all time. That's special.

 

[capt_Luffy]

What a magnificent cricketer.

By the start of the war he was arguably the 3rd greatest batsman ever, arguably the best all rounder and unquestionably the greatest slip of all time. That's special.

Love Hammond, he was a Great player. But he had no arguments to be the "Best all-rounder" when he retired.

 

[kyear2]

Why are you talking keepers in an allrounder poll that specified no keepers?

I was responding to a post about same. I know it's your job to be the resident dick, but did you also reprimand the posters to whom I was responding?

 

[Qlder]

I was responding to a post about same. I know it's your job to be the resident dick, but did you also reprimand the posters to whom I was responding?

Your posts were more boring...

 

[sayon basak]

Your posts were more boring...

Nobody forced you to read them ig.

 

[subshakerz]

I was responding to a post about same. I know it's your job to be the resident dick, but did you also reprimand the posters to whom I was responding?

Stick to the rules.

 

[Prince EWS]

If a batsman bowls anywhere close to a consistent basis, he's an all rounder. Up to us then to decide how good of one he really was.

I don't really think anyone is "an allrounder."

If McGrath played a low enough level he'd bat 4 and play an allrounder role.

So I think it's a role. I don't think it's a designation or a category. I've voted for people in order of how I think they'd perform an allrounder role in a Test side over a long career. That's why I'm voting for Tendulkar now. If he had to perform the Kallis role he'd do a far better job than Razzaq.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't really think anyone is "an allrounder."

If McGrath played a low enough level he'd bat 4 and play an allrounder role.

So I think it's a role. I don't think it's a designation or a category. I've voted for people in order of how I think they'd perform an allrounder role in a Test side over a long career. That's why I'm voting for Tendulkar now. If he had to perform the Kallis role he'd do a far better job than Razzaq.

I think you need a minimum threshold of ability to qualify for that role.

It's like calling Brearely a test bat, technically he is but he clearly was below test class.