10 best all rounders ever.

[sirjeremy11]

By that criteria, Tendulkar is a better allrounder than Kapil and Botham...

By my criteria, Sachin would need to take another 63 wickets before he retires.

 

[archie mac]

By that criteria, Tendulkar is a better allrounder than Kapil and Botham...

Well no system is perfect, also if Steve Waugh would have taken another 8 wickets (I think?) he would have a decent difference as well.

Tendulkar does not have a 100 Test wickets?

 

[C_C]

By my criteria, Sachin would need to take another 63 wickets before he retires.

I think your methodoloy is quite spurious simply because it will always favour a batsman who can bowl decently than a bowler who can bat decently.

 

[sirjeremy11]

Tendulkar does not have a 100 Test wickets?

No. He has 37.

 

[Pratters]

Tendulkar does not have a 100 Test wickets?

For ages he had only 4.

 

[Pratters]

6. Wasim Akram

Akram shouldn't be any where near a top 10 all rounder list.

 

[sirjeremy11]

I think your methodoloy is quite spurious simply because it will always favour a batsman who can bowl decently than a bowler who can bat decently.

In my terms, you would like an all rounder to average less than thirty with the ball, and over thirty with the bat. You would like them to be good at both disciplines, otherwise they are just a batsman who bowls, or a bowler who bats.

Going on my over 30, under 30 rule...

1. Garfield Sobers 23.7
2. Imran Khan 14.9
3. Keith Miller 14.0
4. Shaun Pollock 9.4
5. Trevor Goddard 8.2
6. Monty Noble 5.2
7. Ian Botham 5.1
8. Wilfred Rhodes 4.2
9. Chris Cairns 4.1
10. Kapil Dev 1.4

 

[Pratters]

One way to class all rounders is a positive difference between batting and bowling averages. Taking this into account, test records (sorry Proctor!) with people over 100 wickets and 1000 runs...

If some one gets 94 wickets or 950 runs he would be inelligible thus. That is a basic flaw right there. After creating a short list you could think of crossing x,y,z because they played very less ala Barry Richards but not before IMO.

 

[Pratters]

I think we can have a modern era and the pre that where bowlers were more dominant.

For the modern era a shortlist of players with a batting average above 30 and a bowling average below 35 can be prepared and we can see where we go from there.

 

[C_C]

In my terms, you would like an all rounder to average less than thirty with the ball, and over thirty with the bat. You would like them to be good at both disciplines, otherwise they are just a batsman who bowls, or a bowler who bats.

Going on my over 30, under 30 rule...

There is far more to it than that IMO- for example, Kallis's record is pathetic against strong bowling attacks and even then, he bowled only in the best of circumstances,often forgoing bowling duties when the going was tough. His batting is much the same- inflated against weaker opposition more than most.
In reality, a true allrounder is one who can command a place in his side just from his bowling or his batting.
This definition fits Mankad, Kapil,Sobers,Imran,Botham and Miller. Not Kallis.

 

[marc71178]

For ages he had only 4.

Actually he took his 5th 14 minutes after his 4th.

 

[sirjeremy11]

I think your methodoloy is quite spurious simply because it will always favour a batsman who can bowl decently than a bowler who can bat decently.

I would hope that a great all rounder would be able to bat well enough to have an average higher than his bowling average.

 

[C_C]

I would hope that a great all rounder would be able to bat well enough to have an average higher than his bowling average.

Perhaps, but it does favour a decent bowler and awesome batsman over an awesome bowler and a decent batsman.
For batting averages of international cricketers vary between 35 and 60 ( that is a 25 point differential) while most international bowlers who bowl regularly have at best a 15-16 pts differential ( 35-20/19). As such, your system inherently favours the batting allrounder over the bowling allrounder.

 

[Pratters]

Actually he took his 5th 14 minutes after his 4th.

okay.

I remember he was at very few wickets for a lot of time. Obviosuly I am mistaken regarding the number. Also really interesting how you can come up with 14 minutes and not 15 or 13.

 

[marc71178]

okay.

I remember he was at very few wickets for a lot of time. Obviosuly I am mistaken regarding the number. Also really interesting how you can come up with 14 minutes and not 15 or 13.

Searched his bowling performances - saw he took 4th and 5th in 1 match - checked time batted of 2nd man as he got the wickets as consecutive in the innings.

 

[Pratters]

Searched his bowling performances - saw he took 4th and 5th in 1 match - checked time batted of 2nd man as he got the wickets as consecutive in the innings.

Good one!

I find that Tendulkar was on 3 and not 4 wickets for a long time. He took his third in the 92/93 season and took the 4th in the 98/99 season.

 

[sirjeremy11]

There is far more to it than that IMO- for example, Kallis's record is pathetic against strong bowling attacks and even then, he bowled only in the best of circumstances,often forgoing bowling duties when the going was tough. His batting is much the same- inflated against weaker opposition more than most.
In reality, a true allrounder is one who can command a place in his side just from his bowling or his batting.
This definition fits Mankad, Kapil,Sobers,Imran,Botham and Miller. Not Kallis.

Well when you come up with the perfect system let me know.

One way to class all rounders is a positive difference between batting and bowling averages. Taking this into account, test records (sorry Proctor!) with people over 100 wickets and 1000 runs.

I simply said this was one (interesting) way to look at it. It brings into account facts and figures, not who was the best bowler, batsman, who looked the best etc etc, but a straight number to give ONE WAY of stating the value to their team. If cricket were played on paper - 11 of these players (higher batting than bowling average) would never lose a game.

If you want an opinion, here are a couple. Sobers was probably the best all rounder in terms of the fact he was a great batsman, and bowled so many different types of delivery. Imran Khan was a great all rounder, who batted very well and whose bowling was excellent. Kallis (when his bowling was more effective - and it was) is a fantastic batsman, whose bowling has filled in well on occasion. He is especially good at cleaning up the tale (or was anyway).

My favourite all rounder is Chris Cairns. A. I am from NZ. B. I love the way he could win a match with the bat or the ball in his prime. C. The way that he played the game was entertaining. He bowled fast (in his prime) and batted fast.

I think that Richie Benaud was a good all rounder but does not fit into the range of higher batting than bowling average. Doesn't mean that I don't think he was any good.

Yours faithfully,

Sir Jeremy

 

[archie mac]

Perhaps, but it does favour a decent bowler and awesome batsman over an awesome bowler and a decent batsman.
For batting averages of international cricketers vary between 35 and 60 ( that is a 25 point differential) while most international bowlers who bowl regularly have at best a 15-16 pts differential ( 35-20/19). As such, your system inherently favours the batting allrounder over the bowling allrounder.

I quite like the idea of comparing AR with their contemporaries. This is a bit unfair him you were around with Imran, Botham, Dev and Hadlee.

And even worse if you ran into Sobers.

But you could have periods say
1877-1920
1921-1945
1946-1970
1971-1990
1991-2006

The latter sections are closer together because of the number of Tests now played and players involved.

 

[C_C]

I simply said this was one (interesting) way to look at it. It brings into account facts and figures, not who was the best bowler, batsman, who looked the best etc etc, but a straight number to give ONE WAY of stating the value to their team. If cricket were played on paper - 11 of these players (higher batting than bowling average) would never lose a game.

Overall stats are far less informative than stats gainst the best oppositions and the kinda workload the players carried.
And a system with an obvious general flaw that favours one type of allrounder over another
is not very credible IMO.
Its like driving a car with a flat tire.

 

[sirjeremy11]

Perhaps, but it does favour a decent bowler and awesome batsman over an awesome bowler and a decent batsman.
For batting averages of international cricketers vary between 35 and 60 ( that is a 25 point differential) while most international bowlers who bowl regularly have at best a 15-16 pts differential ( 35-20/19). As such, your system inherently favours the batting allrounder over the bowling allrounder.

I would think it hard for a lot of batsmen who average around 60 to get a hundred test wickets, especially for a reasonable average.

Yes, I accept completely your theory though.