Best All-Rounder ever

[harsh.ag]

Harsh I would say

btw have you taken into account Botham's performance against the best team of that era? And that maybe it wasn't a coincidence that his best years were when all the teams had their best players in the Packer league?

Edit: Would you also consider Waqar as the greatest bowler ever due to his peak?

Smali, my first post on this thread said this about Botham:

Botham I rank third only because of his peak. That was something else. Running the show with both bat and ball is extremely difficult, and low-ranking somebody who actually achieved that on a consistent basis for a few seasons defeats the purpose of appreciating all-rounders, in my modest opinion. The number of 5-fers and centuries together is brilliant. His mediocrity against WI was a blemish on his record though, and the fact that many of the world's premier players were missing from action due to WSC during his peak years may have benefited him. Also that he became very mediocre later on doesn't help him. Hard not to make a good case for him though.

So, yes, I did consider those factors in. And you are arguing with a man whose opinion of English cricket is very low in general (my god, they have boring players, and when they do find a good player, they ban him from the squad )

Regarding Waqar, there is a difference. You are taking two completely different things and putting them together. I was talking about all-round performances as being the yardstick for all-rounders, and the fact that Botham had more of those in comparison to most. We have genuinely had very few all-round performances like that in history (discounting the very early era). Waqar is a different thing altogether. We have had bowlers like him who, at their peak, were unplayable, Imran himself being one of the examples. Lillee, Roberts, Holding, Ambrose, Marshall, Barnes are others who can lay claim to extraordinary peaks. Yes, Waqar's peak is right up there as the best (perhaps the best), but others with great peaks had better careers overall so they can lay claim to be greater bowlers overall as well. I would rank Waqar as the 3rd best Pakistani pacer after Wasim and Imran. What's your opinion on him?

 

[harsh.ag]

Well I consider him to be one, and a pretty good one. From accounts he was quite quick, ans Bradman had said that he would have been quite a good bowler if he had put some more effort into it and bowled more often

Yes, I remember being told about an instance in the Ashes when he bowled out the first three aussie batsmen. Must have been a handy bowler. What I was also told was that he was very reluctant to bowl. You can hardly consider someone an all-rounder if he doesn't want to bowl, can you now?

 

[smash84]

. I would rank Waqar as the 3rd best Pakistani pacer after Wasim and Imran. What's your opinion on him?

Yeah, I would agree with this assessment

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I am just saying what Kyear2 is basically. He was used to fulfill the team's requirements. If it was a pace friendly pitch, WI would take an additional pacer instead of the full time spinner and use Sobers as a spinner, and on spin friendly wickets, they would take an additional spinner and use him to fill in the pace vacuum. So, his record must have been adversely affected (it would seem so at least, not saying this is fact), not that he ever complained of course. It's not stupid, it's teamwork at it's best due to the only bowler who provided such variety perhaps in the history of the game.

On a pace friendly pitch, surely Sobers would be most valuable as a pacer? It sounds like very poor logic to me rather than good "teamwork". It's like giving credit to a fast bowler for bowling full tosses on a greentop and half trackers on a road just because they're making things as difficult as possible for themselves.

 

[Dan]

On a pace friendly pitch, surely Sobers would be most valuable as a pacer? It sounds like very poor logic to me rather than good "teamwork". It's like giving credit to a fast bowler for bowling full tosses on a greentop and half trackers on a road just because they're making things as difficult as possible for themselves.

I think what they're trying to say is that he bowled the opposite to the conditions to help team balance.

Think about it, if you have a greentop, would you rather have Sobers play as a spinner, with 4 full-time pace options, or use Sobers as the 4th pacer and pick a genuine spinner? TBH, the 4 full-time pacers would be of more benefit to the WI than Sobers bowling quick too.

Conversely, on a turning pitch, going in with 3 pacers and 2 spinners is ideal. Would you rather play 2 full-time quicks and Sobers alongside 2 spinners, or 3 quicks, one spinner and Sobers?

On helpful bowling tracks, it would benefit the side more to have Sobers bowl against the conditions - it lets you play an extra specialist. It's the economic concept of opportunity cost; by playing Sobers as a fourth pacer on a greentop, you lose the ability to play a 4th specialist pace bowler. If you play him as a spinner, you lose the ability to pick a spinner. The second option is probably the better, allowing you to play 4 genuine quicks in helpful conditions.

Again, converse is true on a bunsen.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

On a greentop I'd rather have four full-time pace options, with Sobers to fill in with a few overs of seam here and there. On a turner, three full time pace options with a spinner and sobers filling in with a few tweakers would make the most sense because WI haven't historically had two full time spinners worthy of their places. Team balance and variety for the sake of themselves are overrated imo.

 

[Red]

In any team, he is primarily picked as a top six batsman. Anything else he offers is an extra to the fact that he's probably the second best batsman of all time.

Sometimes I feel that it can be forgotten how good he was as a batsman, because he is classified as an AR. In my mind he is second to Bradman as the greatest batsman in history. Over Sachin and everyone else people want to mention.

What a champion.

 

[harsh.ag]

In any team, he is primarily picked as a top six batsman. Anything else he offers is an extra to the fact that he's probably the second best batsman of all time.

Sometimes I feel that it can be forgotten how good he was as a batsman, because he is classified as an AR. In my mind he is second to Bradman as the greatest batsman in history. Over Sachin and everyone else people want to mention.

What a champion.

Agreed. I can never chose between Sachin and Sobers as the best after Bradman.

EDIT: Jack Hobbs has a shout out as well though with the two above. But let's not derail the thread. Sobers, the greatest batting all rounder for sure, and the best all round player in the history of the game. That should get us back on track.

 

[Red]

Agreed. I can never chose between Sachin and Sobers as the best after Bradman.

EDIT: Jack Hobbs has a shout out as well though with the two above.

True about Hobbs, but I generally classify openers as separate to middle order players.

The greatest batsmen in cricket, in my mind are...

Bradman
=Sobers
=Hobbs
Hammond

Then a cluster of V.Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, G.Chappell, Gavaskar etc....

(Grace and Trumper are hard to categorise)

 

[harsh.ag]

I was just wondering about this fellow Brian McMillan, a South African all rounder in the 90s. I thought he was a wonderful talent, a slightly watered down version of Lance Klusener, one might say. So many wonderful ODI all rounders were just not good enough for test cricket though, and that was a real shame. How does SA come up with so many all-rounders? Any theories? Goddard, Faulkner, Rice, Procter, Kallis, Pollock, Klusener. Is there anybody to take up the mantle after Kallis though? (Not counting Albie Morkel)

 

[Red]

How does SA come up with so many all-rounders? Any theories? Goddard, Faulkner, Rice, Procter, Kallis, Pollock, Klusener. Is there anybody to take up the mantle after Kallis though? (Not counting Albie Morkel)

They all hunt big game in the wilds from the time they are toddlers. Tough bastards.

 

[kyear2]

True about Hobbs, but I generally classify openers as separate to middle order players.

The greatest batsmen in cricket, in my mind are...

Bradman
=Sobers
=Hobbs
Hammond

Then a cluster of V.Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, G.Chappell, Gavaskar etc....

(Grace and Trumper are hard to categorise)

Bradman
=Richards
=Hobbs
=Headley
=Sobers
=Tendulkar
=Lara
Pollock
Chappell
Hammond
Gavaskar
*B. Richards

 

[The Sean]

Not sure if I've posted this here before, but just for interests sake I had a look at the ICC peak ratings for allrounders to see what - if anything - of interest it revealed. As it turns out, only 10 men have ever achieved a peak allrounder rating of 500 or more in Test cricket:

Garry Sobers		669
Ian Botham		646
Jacques Kallis		616
Keith Miller		573
Richie Benaud		532
Imran Khan		518
Tony Greig		509
Aubrey Faulkner		501
Andrew Flintoff		501
Chris Cairns		500

By way of comparison, here are some other notable all-rounders (using the term quite broadly with a few of them) and their peak ratings:

Shaun Pollock		490
Richard Hadlee		483
Alan Davidson		474
Trevor Goddard		469
Monty Noble		451
Brian McMillan		449
Kapil Dev		433
George Giffen		418
Trevor Bailey		417
Vinoo Mankad		417
Daniel Vettori		412
Jack Gregory		399
Ted Dexter		391
Walter Hammond		386
Mushtaq Mohammad	386
John Reid		377
Bob Simpson		377
Warwick Armstrong	375
Ray Lindwall		374
Hugh Trumble		366
Wasim Akram		355
Steve Waugh		350
Frank Woolley		349
Malcolm Marshall	341
Eddie Barlow		319
Charlie Macartney	314
Wilfred Rhodes		309

Doesn't remotely settle any arguments, obviously, but worth a look IMO just for the funsies.

 

[harsh.ag]

Not sure if I've posted this here before, but just for interests sake I had a look at the ICC peak ratings for allrounders to see what - if anything - of interest it revealed. As it turns out, only 10 men have ever achieved a peak allrounder rating of 500 or more in Test cricket:

Garry Sobers		669
Ian Botham		646
Jacques Kallis		616
Keith Miller		573
Richie Benaud		532
Imran Khan		518
Tony Greig		509
Aubrey Faulkner		501
Andrew Flintoff		501
Chris Cairns		500

By way of comparison, here are some other notable all-rounders (using the term quite broadly with a few of them) and their peak ratings:

Shaun Pollock		490
Richard Hadlee		483
Alan Davidson		474
Trevor Goddard		469
Monty Noble		451
Brian McMillan		449
Kapil Dev		433
George Giffen		418
Trevor Bailey		417
Vinoo Mankad		417
Daniel Vettori		412
Jack Gregory		399
Ted Dexter		391
Walter Hammond		386
Mushtaq Mohammad	386
John Reid		377
Bob Simpson		377
Warwick Armstrong	375
Ray Lindwall		374
Hugh Trumble		366
Wasim Akram		355
Steve Waugh		350
Frank Woolley		349
Malcolm Marshall	341
Eddie Barlow		319
Charlie Macartney	314
Wilfred Rhodes		309

Doesn't remotely settle any arguments, obviously, but worth a look IMO just for the funsies.

Yeah, but how the hell did Lindwall make it up there ahead of Barlow, Macartney and Rhodes??! But really, what's interesting is that I was having a little chat with one of the older fans at the bar yesterday, and they remarked that Rhodes wasn't really an all-rounder per se, more like when he started batting well, his bowling was heading towards a major downhill. I also remember this point being made by somebody else on this forum a while ago. Anyways, that was the reason I had dropped him from my list. Seems to be like I owe an apology to someone on this thread earlier who suggested that Benaud should be up there, and I had kinda dismissed that.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, but how the hell did Lindwall make it up there ahead of Barlow, Macartney and Rhodes??! But really, what's interesting is that I was having a little chat with one of the older fans at the bar yesterday, and they remarked that Rhodes wasn't really an all-rounder per se, more like when he started batting well, his bowling was heading towards a major downhill. I also remember this point being made by somebody else on this forum a while ago. Anyways, that was the reason I had dropped him from my list. Seems to be like I owe an apology to someone on this thread earlier who suggested that Benaud should be up there, and I had kinda dismissed that.

That would be me. Several times.

 

[harsh.ag]

That would be me. Several times.

Good stuff. Please enlighten me on Noble and Benaud too then, if you can. All I know about Richie is that he was a very good leg spinner, a good captain, and a fantastic commentator.

 

[The Sean]

Good stuff. Please enlighten me on Noble and Benaud too then, if you can. All I know about Richie is that he was a very good leg spinner, a good captain, and a fantastic commentator.

Sure - will write about both in more detail when I'm off my phone and am back on a computer, though someone else may have already done so by then too.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sure - will write about both in more detail when I'm off my phone and am back on a computer, though someone else may have already done so by then too.

Looking forward to it. Thank you.

 

[Ikki]

What happened with.Sobers was that if it was a turning pitch they would play the extra spinner and Sober would have to open the bowling, some times with Worrell. Wasnt stupid, it was playing to the team's needs. They were times when he would open the innings bowling fast and come back later with spin, he did what he had to do for the team, especially with limited resourses.

The thing is that Sobers played with another specialist spinner throughout most of his career. His era was also one of plenty of all-rounders, and he wouldn't have needed to sacrifice himself if he was truly as good as people suggest. He simply would not have needed to do the above, which after a lot of research I consider a myth.

 

[kyear2]

So he never opened the bowling with Worrell? He did play with other spinners in his career, but only Gibbs was in his prime. There were also multiple series when he was our best bowler and even one or two when he was the best bowler period, especially in swinging conditions.
Also lets remember he started his career as a spinner and only switched to pave vs Australia in the 60's and also dabbled in chinamen when he though it was required until his shoulder couldn't bear it anymore.
He displayed ultimate versatility and selflessness.