Classifying the all-rounders

[TheJediBrah]

I thought incrediballs were the soft bouncy ones

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I thought incrediballs were the soft bouncy ones

Same

 

[Flem274*]

Don't really agree that being really good at one thing excludes you from 'genuine' allrounder tbh when i give it thought.

sobers and kallis were considered regular batsmen and regular bowlers. they were picked to bowl serious overs for a long time, so they are genuine allrounders who happen to be atg at one part of cricket. they both have more wickets than flintoff, they're bowlers.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

When I was first getting interested in cricket the genuine all rounder was someone who would make the team solely as a batsman or a bowler. Essentially that meant no one, then Botham for a bit, then no one again.

 

[Coronis]

When I was first getting interested in cricket the genuine all rounder was someone who would make the team solely as a batsman or a bowler. Essentially that meant no one, then Botham for a bit, then no one again.

Just going from this definition, I’d go

Faulkner
Sobers
Imran

 

[Starfighter]

Faulkner
Sobers
Imran

Excludes the first half of Imran's career and possibly a good proportion of Sobers' career, depending on which bowlers WI had floating around.

I must say from the very first time I heard that definition I thought it was pure rubbish.

 

[Coronis]

Excludes the first half of Imran's career and possibly a good proportion of Sobers' career, depending on which bowlers WI had floating around.

I must say from the very first time I heard that definition I thought it was pure rubbish.

If that wasn’t clear that was me voting on best balanced best batting and best bowling under that balanced definition.

 

[Anil]

Manoj Prabhaker opened the batting and bowling at times for India.

yep, he was also great at fixing matches, a truly versatile cricketer...

 

[CricAddict]

I will give one more day for the votes and consolidate votes of the first round tomorrow.

 

[Starfighter]

If that wasn’t clear that was me voting on best balanced best batting and best bowling under that balanced definition.

But that's not the one LT was using.

 

[subshakerz]

Don't really agree that being really good at one thing excludes you from 'genuine' allrounder tbh when i give it thought.

sobers and kallis were considered regular batsmen and regular bowlers. they were picked to bowl serious overs for a long time, so they are genuine allrounders who happen to be atg at one part of cricket. they both have more wickets than flintoff, they're bowlers.

I think Sobers was more of a regular bowler than Kallis, both in terms of wickets and over bowled. I see a regular bowler as a fourth seamer/spinner which Kallis wasn't. He was above part timer but below that level.

 

[subshakerz]

When I was first getting interested in cricket the genuine all rounder was someone who would make the team solely as a batsman or a bowler. Essentially that meant no one, then Botham for a bit, then no one again.

Imran literally played as a batsman for Pakistan in the mid 80s when he was injured from bowling in his peak and did quite well. But he wouldn't for his early career so it's a bit hazy.

I think Miller would qualify though.

But I don't subscribe to this definition anyways.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Imran literally played as a batsman for Pakistan in the mid 80s when he was injured from bowling in his peak and did quite well. But he wouldn't for his early career so it's a bit hazy.

I think Miller would qualify though.

Shakib and Oram would too.

 

[Coronis]

But that's not the one LT was using.

Um yes it was? I used his definition of a genuine or balanced all rounder and voted Faulkner. Then I voted my greatest batting and bowling all rounders as asked in the OP..

 

[Burgey]

Raza

 

[ankitj]

Walter Hammond: balanced all rounder.

 

[_00_deathscar]

The problem with the “would make the team as solely a batsman or as a bowler” definition is problematic because it relies heavily on the makeup and quality of the side that player played for. Like Shakib could have been 50% as good and still made the Bangladesh side as either probably.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

The problem with the “would make the team as solely a batsman or as a bowler” definition is problematic because it relies heavily on the makeup and quality of the side that player played for. Like Shakib could have been 50% as good and still made the Bangladesh side as either probably.

Kapil Dev in ODIs
Best batsman, best bowler and best fielder of the team ?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Specialist league in either discipline
Sobers for 7 years.
No one else.

Procter, Imran, Kapil, Botham, Miller and Kallis very close.

Hadlee, Pollock - bowling allrounders

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It initially said "genuine" allrounder. It's not a great term and there's not going to be many of them based on having to be genuinely good enough in both disciplines to make the team as a specialist. It changed to "balanced" which is entirely different. It implies being of equal value in both disciplines, which could indicate not being quite good enough in either. There's not really many of those either. There was a period in the 60's when Sobers was a genuine third or fourth seamer and could have made the team in either discipline, but he certainly wasn't "balanced". His batting was always vastly superior to his bowling.