• 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.

All Rounders Poll - Discussion

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
It always puzzles me why certain members post in these threads designed to discuss polls yet they seldom actually cast votes. To make matters worse, they often go right off topic (eg discussing wicket keepers in this thread).
 

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
I'm note sure how Grace qualifies as a Test all rounder. His FC record definitely makes him an AR, however, at Test level, only 9 wickets in 22 games is minimal.
 

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
We are down to the last 3 slots for our poll and, although there have been plenty of nominations, from my perspective there are just 5 or 6 valid contenders for those spots. Having said that, there are already 3 or 4 names established in our list that I wouldn't have voted for.
I won't mention who I see as the candidates other than to say one has a great all round record in just 14 Tests.
When the 40 names are finalised it might be interesting to discuss who we consider unlucky to be overlooked as well as mentioning those who we might consider overrated.
 

Qlder

International Regular
Interesting that Frank Woolley had an overwhelming win to be voted in #35, but Shane Watson has a very similar record yet only received 1 vote

Woolley 64 Tests
3283 runs @ 36.07, 5 hundreds, 23 fifties
83 wkts @ 33.91, 4 5fers (1.30 WPM)

Watson 59 Tests
3731 runs @ 35.19, 4 hundreds, 23 fifties
75 wkts @ 33.68, 3 5fers (1.27 WPM)
 

sayon basak

International Captain
Interesting that Frank Woolley had an overwhelming win to be voted in #35, but Shane Watson has a very similar record yet only received 1 vote

Woolley 64 Tests
3283 runs @ 36.07, 5 hundreds, 23 fifties
83 wkts @ 33.91, 4 5fers (1.30 WPM)

Watson 59 Tests
3731 runs @ 35.19, 4 hundreds, 23 fifties
75 wkts @ 33.68, 3 5fers (1.27 WPM)
That's why only judging players by test stats sucks.
 

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
I find it incredible that voters consider Tendulka to be a TEST all rounder. In 200 Test matches he averages a shade over 3.5 overs per match and has just 46 wickets @ 54.17 with a WPM figure of 0.23
Perhaps members are swayed by his ODI figures but he certainly doesn't warrant even a mention at Test level.
 

Qlder

International Regular
That's why only judging players by test stats sucks.
So what else are you judging Wooley on as no-one here seen him play in the 1920's. At least we know Watson could have been a much better bowler if not for constant injury and his time as opener was much better than his overall career average.
 
Last edited:

ataraxia

International Coach
Interesting that Frank Woolley had an overwhelming win to be voted in #35, but Shane Watson has a very similar record yet only received 1 vote

Woolley 64 Tests
3283 runs @ 36.07, 5 hundreds, 23 fifties
83 wkts @ 33.91, 4 5fers (1.30 WPM)

Watson 59 Tests
3731 runs @ 35.19, 4 hundreds, 23 fifties
75 wkts @ 33.68, 3 5fers (1.27 WPM)
In addition to his FC record, Woolley had a long test career which nerfs his averages and was a good slip too.
 

sayon basak

International Captain
But when the poll is about Test all rounders then test stats are the only figures that matter.
Yeah this is a test only list, and definitely agree there are players in the list already who shouldn't have been there (I myself voted for Procter, and I apologize for that)

But don't think only judging by "figures" is not a very good thing to do. Definitely we are not gonna say Woolley and Watson are in the same tier. Woolley took 36 wickets in 19 matches @20.52 before 1914, and had a much, much longer career span in comparison to Watson.
 

Qlder

International Regular
Since this 'may' be the last vote I had to go for Gus Gilmour. Very underrated allrounder imo and can only wonder what could have been if he didn't go to WSC (should have been one of 1st picked in the 24 Tests during WSC)
 

sayon basak

International Captain
So what else are you judging Wooley on as no-one here seen him play in the 1920's. At least we know Watson could of been a much better bowler if not for constant injury and his time as opener was much better than his overall career average.
Nobody here saw Don Bradman, that is not stopping anyone from rating him.

And in those times, FC was pretty important as well, as important as tests. That's why I reuested @Line and Length to do test+FC the next time he does a poll.
 

Qlder

International Regular
Just a couple of questions for @Line and Length (I appreciate your time is also a factor)

(1) Is this really the last round with 13 voters so far?

(2) If this is the last round, if 3rd place is tied (like it is now) can we have a vote off instead of including all tied players? (So keeps it at top 40)

I'm torn because I think there's still some good allrounders out there, but if batsman that bowl a little bit like 0.23 WPM Tendulker make it then it's probably time to stop 😀

Having said that, if Tendulker is in the mix then so is Bob Simpson easily, as well as Greg Chappell and Doug Walters with a similar number of wkts to Tendulker in way less than half the games. That would be interesting in itself.
 
Last edited:

Top