• 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.

CW decides the greatest All-Rounder ever, 64 man knockout tournament: Voting Thread

G

Gowza

U19 12th Man
Most talented are Miller and Procter, the greatest is dependant on results and because pretty much every all rounder is different to the other (no all rounder offers the exact same thing as another) it's going to make comparisons even more subjective.

Purely on stats the top all rounders are sobers, Kallis, imran, Miller (in no order - extra weight given to tests). Sobers and Kallis are batting all rounders whereas the other two are bowling all rounders. None of them offer the same thing to any team so who is the greatest? It comes down to what we as individuals consider the more valuable skills and that's going to be different for all of us. That's what makes all rounder discussions so interesting.

Miller and sobers are possibly the truest all rounders of all. Miller because despite his test average he was as good a batsman as you could get and same as a bowler. Sobers because of his versatility.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
My choices:
Miller
Sobers

Still dont know why Miller was given the edge over Imran, there seems to be a perception that he performed both tasks at the same time better than Imran while Imran was more prolific in his bowling. In a way I feel strangely enough Imran was penalized for having been so ridiculously good in one discipline it made the other look ordinary, whereas Miller was more 'balanced'.

Just FYI, Gary Sobers averaged near 50 with the ball for his first 34 tests and only took 43 wickets, so like Imran he had a slow start in one discipline. Yet somehow it will be treated as if he was a frontline bowler throughout his career.
 
harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
subshakerz said:
My choices:
Miller
Sobers

Still dont know why Miller was given the edge over Imran, there seems to be a perception that he performed both tasks at the same time better than Imran while Imran was more prolific in his bowling. In a way I feel strangely enough Imran was penalized for having been so ridiculously good in one discipline it made the other look ordinary, whereas Miller was more 'balanced'.
Click to expand...
It's not strange wrt Imran. Miller was a better batsman than Imran. Imran was a better bowler than Miller. Imran is penalized not because his bowling made his batting look ordinary, but because when it comes down to the semis, these things are going to be scrutinized. Nothing between them either ways.
 
Lillian Thomson

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
My choices:
Miller
Sobers

Still dont know why Miller was given the edge over Imran, there seems to be a perception that he performed both tasks at the same time better than Imran while Imran was more prolific in his bowling. In a way I feel strangely enough Imran was penalized for having been so ridiculously good in one discipline it made the other look ordinary, whereas Miller was more 'balanced'.

Just FYI, Gary Sobers averaged near 50 with the ball for his first 34 tests and only took 43 wickets, so like Imran he had a slow start in one discipline. Yet somehow it will be treated as if he was a frontline bowler throughout his career.
Click to expand...
By that reckoning Miller will also beat Sobers - but I doubt that he will.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
I don't mind where we've ended up. Was always going to be Sobers.

The true all rounders were Sobers, Miller, Imran and Botham. All would have been regularly selected in their national XIs as either batsman or bowler without the other discipline. I've said this before, I know, but to me that makes a player truly exceptional. You could argue that Kallis might've been selected as a third seamer without his batting I guess. Then guys like Kapil and Hadlee and Pollock might've played a few tests based only on their batting displayed in tests, but probably not heaps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top