• 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.

20 Cwers ranked 18 all-rounders. Here is the countdown list!

Howe_zat

Audio File
It keeps things interesting though. On a conventional list it would probably be a bit of a given that Sobers comes out on top, but we already have Sean's CW50 for what people thought of them overall.

This way I genuinely don't know who's going to be #1 which has piqued my interest. I also think this might highlight how good Botham really was - by forcing you to think about the quality of his strengths rather than his career average, he's moved a few places higher than people tend to put him.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Sobers bowling wasn't a "bonus". He had a 20 year Test career. For a period of around 7 years in the 60's he was one of the main bowlers. Anyone who can bat in the top 6 and be a third or fourth seamer is gold dust. He was also quite accurate as a spinner. On horrible matted wickets in Pakistan he once bowled about 40 overs at 1 run per over.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't think so. Sobers was not a better bowler than Kallis in my opinion (never saw much of Sobers bowling of course so my opinion may not count much). This result is outcome of the fact that we had no way of stating how much better someone was compared to the next guy in batting or bowling ranks in this exercise. Nothing much else.
Obviously I didn't watch Sobers either, but it's kind of like comparing Zaheer Khan and Kallis as bowlers... you could make an argument for Kallis being better than Zaheer, but the thing is, he didn't do it while bowling as the frontline bowler bowling tons of overs with the good and bad that comes with it.

This stat always blows my mind every time: Sobers bowled on average 2 overs more per match than Imran Khan.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Obviously I didn't watch Sobers either, but it's kind of like comparing Zaheer Khan and Kallis as bowlers... you could make an argument for Kallis being better than Zaheer, but the thing is, he didn't do it while bowling as the frontline bowler bowling tons of overs with the good and bad that comes with it.

This stat always blows my mind every time: Sobers bowled on average 2 overs more per match than Imran Khan.
That's because he bowled whole sessions as a spinner tying up an end. That's why his strike rate is so ordinary. But people who want to rubbish Sober's bowling just won't accept that it happened.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sobers bowling wasn't a "bonus". He had a 20 year Test career. For a period of around 7 years in the 60's he was one of the main bowlers. Anyone who can bat in the top 6 and be a third or fourth seamer is gold dust. He was also quite accurate as a spinner. On horrible matted wickets in Pakistan he once bowled about 40 overs at 1 run per over.

I mean it in the sense that he'd still be an ATG if he never bowled a ball. I dunno
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Maybe if people rated each player's batting and bowling out of 10 it'd be a better system. Then just tally those numbers.


The bowling one is straightforward, plenty of bowlers in history could be classified as a 10.

But batting is difficult. Nobody can say anybody was on Bradman's level with a straight face. So if he gets a 10, then Sobers-Sachin-Hobbs are all simply 9s. Unless you just considered Bradman an 11(or 15)
 
Last edited:

smash84

The Tiger King
Maybe if people rated each player's batting and bowling out of 10 it'd be a better system. Then just tally those numbers.


The bowling one is straightforward, plenty of bowlers in history could be classified as a 10.

But batting is difficult. Nobody can say anybody was on Bradman's level with a straight face. So if he gets a 10, then Sobers-Sachin-Hobbs are all simply 9s. Unless you just considered Bradman an 11(or 15)
You will be surprised
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
4th. Aubrey Faulkner

521 points

Batting: 3rd (313 points)
Bowling: 8th (208 points)




What a showing here from Aubrey Faulkner. Is it fuelled by the mystique surrounding all Golden Age players? There were plenty of all-rounders on the scene in the first 60 years of test cricket but few who had the test credentials of Faulkner. His record is interesting and brief, so let's look at it.

Aubrey Faulkner was very much a product of the golden age. His test career reads 1906-1924, but Faulkner played all but one of his 25 tests in a six year span before the war. He began his test career as a bowling all-rounder, mainly batting down at 7. He scored hardly any runs in his first two series, not reaching fifty once in 14 digs. His bowling was impressive during this initial period, and pretty much remained that way until he retired. He was often given the new ball or used first change. I dunno if it was the pitches or if leg-spinners had a different role back then in a side, but I found this fact interesting. Did he flight it or bowl O'Reilly-like fast spin? I'm not really sure what his leggies were like. He averaged a very healthy 26 across his test career. He was a wicket taker with a great strike rate.

Anyway, he had a 3 year gap in tests from 1907 to 1910 due to his country not playing any. He must have spent a lot of time working on his batting because in 1910 he came back with a bang. In his next 11 matches, played across 3 series against England and Australia, he scored 1389 runs @ 70, mainly batting at 3, 4 and 5. He also took 39 wickets during this period @ 30, so for a couple of years he was pretty much the best player in the world(a world featuring Hobbs, Trumper and Barnes) and the difference between South Africa threatening victory or folding in a heap. A crazy all-round peak. His only 4 test centuries(and a 99) came in this period. 2 of his 4 five-fers as well. His batting dropped off heavily after that(at least in tests) while his bowling remained steady.

In contrast with his reliable bowling, he experienced tremendous highs and lows with the bat. A graph of his test batting career resembles a total bell curve. After 8 tests he averaged a mere 20. After 19 he somehow got it up to 51. It then kept dropping and dropping down to 40 by the end. It could have dropped lower if he played in the 13/14 series where Barnes demolished his side, but he didn't. Lucky him. He possessed an ugly yet unique batting technique with an extremely unorthodox grip. He was was said to be very difficult to get out when on song. He's one of only four participants(the other 3 all still yet to appear in this countdown) to have finished in the top half of the field for both batting and bowling.
 
Last edited:

Engle

State Vice-Captain
During Sobers time, there were only 5 bowlers who aggregated more wickets than himself (Trueman, Gibbs, Statham, Benaud, McKenzie). So he was right up there with his peers on his weaker specialty (bowling).
How many batsmen performed better than Hadlee's weaker specialty (batting) during his time ? (Considering Hadlee is the inverse of Sobers )
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
During Sobers time, there were only 5 bowlers who aggregated more wickets than himself (Trueman, Gibbs, Statham, Benaud, McKenzie). So he was right up there with his peers on his weaker specialty (bowling).
How many batsmen performed better than Hadlee's weaker specialty (batting) during his time ? (Considering Hadlee is the inverse of Sobers )

Not Rutherford or Jeff Crowe. Greatbatch, Congdon and Howarth just barely. haha


but yeah i get your point and agree. Sobers was great.
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Everyone's mileage varies with regards to the ICC ratings, but it's worth mentioning that Aubrey Faulkner is the only man in Test history ever to be ranked (with the retrospective application of the formula) both the world's number one batsman and the world's number one bowler at some point in his career.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
A person who was average at three types of bowling vs one who was one of the best, if not the best of his type at the time? I think it makes sense.
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
A person who was average at three types of bowling vs one who was one of the best, if not the best of his type at the time? I think it makes sense.
Yeah, I will cop that this has nothing to do with Sobers.

Basically think Faulkner's bowling is too highly rated on the whole here. Cairns and Flintoff should definitely be ranked ahead of him.

Sobers at 16th is fine (although I think it should be 14th). Faulkner should be at 10th. Short career. Very helpful pitches at home. Bombed in Australia (which happens to all spinners tbf)
 

Top