CW's Ranking of All-Rounders (Tests)

[The Sean]

Beefy McGammon.

I mean Botham

That's Beefy, Lord McGammon to you.

 

[Migara]

Shakib Al Hasan

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Botham

 

[kyear2]

Hadlee

 

[Bolo.]

Hypothetical atg team selection concerns shouldn't matter in evaluating how good/valuable a player was imo.

Mostly agreed. But the example illuminates the problem a balanced AR can leave a side with in terms of being forced to choose between underfunding the batting and the bowling... four bowlers isnt really enough if one of them isnt there on bowling merit and 5 will leave you a little weak on the batting if you dont have some serious talent.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Kallis difference of runs and wicket is 22 after 168 test.Think it was more than 24 after over 150 tests.You can genuinely argue for Kallis to be no.1.The attack he played with is the reason his wpm is low.No.2 for me and a clear top 3 Imo.

The attack he played with is also why he averages 30 something instead of the 35-40+ he should have been averaging.

 

[Line and Length]

Botham

 

[CricAddict]

Botham

 

[morgieb]

Botham

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Hadlee

 

[Slifer]

Love Hadlee to bits but I just can't get over the sheer number of 100s and 5 fors Botham took in his career. Ok his final numbers aren't all that impressive ( bowling and batting average) but 27 5 fors and 14 100s is insane. So Botham for me.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee.

 

[steve132]

Ian Botham. He had a higher peak than any all-rounder other than Sobers. Hadlee was a very great fast bowler, but - despite one or two spectacular innings - not nearly as effective an all-rounder as Botham.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee is objectively a better cricketer than Botham. Hadlee is a cricketer you build your side around. Unless Imran is around, Hadlee is a lock for a no.7/8 spot.

Botham is essentially an X-factor cricketer who if you have the luxury of a great side, you can tolerate his inconsistency for his flashes of brilliance. It doesn't matter if he is more balanced if he doesn't merit selection of either his batting or bowling alone. Plus Hadlee was just plain better against the WI.

Both are allrounders, so go for the one who you will select in the side. Go for Hadlee.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hadlee is objectively a better cricketer than Botham. Hadlee is a cricketer you build your side around. Unless Imran is around, Hadlee is a lock for a no.7/8 spot.

Botham is essentially an X-factor cricketer who if you have the luxury of a great side, you can tolerate his inconsistency for his flashes of brilliance. It doesn't matter if he is more balanced if he doesn't merit selection of either his batting or bowling alone. Plus Hadlee was just plain better against the WI.

Both are allrounders, so go for the one who you will select in the side. Go for Hadlee.

Botham

 

[Bolo.]

Ian Botham. He had a higher peak than any all-rounder other than Sobers. Hadlee was a very great fast bowler, but - despite one or two spectacular innings - not nearly as effective an all-rounder as Botham.

This statement is probably true to fit a peak length matching Bothams specifically... the period where he was averaging 40/23. Not sure if this is better than Hadlee going at 32/20 for twice as long.

Hadlees career is certainly better though.

 

[harsh.ag]

Botham

 

[gftw]

Botham - 14
Hadlee - 4
Faulkner - 2
Shakib - 1

The List
1. Garry Sobers
2. Imran Khan
3. Jacques Kallis
4. Keith Miller
5. Ian Botham

The vote for the #6 test all-rounder of all-time begins now.

Reply

 

[ataraxia]

Hadlee

 

[trundler]

Shakib