ESPN's legends of cricket series

[royGilchrist]

Good points Marc...

-Imran and Botham, is better if its done fo the same tests, you have a good point there, and Botham did ruin his career later on. But then you have to compare averages for two reasons. In batting, Imran was at times in the 70s coming in at number 9 due to the strong batting line up that Pak had! So obviously he will have less runs and more not outs, thats why comapring averages is the best way to go.

In bowling also, Imran played a few series without bowling due to his injury in the mid 80s, and its really scary to think what he could have done had he not sustained the injury, as in the 1982-3 series he destroyed the mighty Indian line-up on pitches like Hyderabad, and failsalbad (also known in those days as bowlers' graveyard).

Sobers not the best all rounder!!! Are you kiding me. More than 8000 runs, more than 200 wkts and more than 100 catches. What else do you want?? And his batting average of 58!! Bowling average is not that great but if it was he might have surpassed Bradman as the best cricketer of all time. He fully deserves the number 2 spot on this list, and the top two have a large distance between them and the rest of the field.

 

[Gotchya]

After having seen the list Its close to what it is but, as already pointed out, theer is no Muralitharan. That is a shame, because he has been cleared by the ICC, if still these guyz cant accept him(that is clearly the implication) as a top performer then what can one say ?

I think that on account of his unusual style and all the controversy, he will still go down as a legend.

Waqar was an obvious inlcusion NOT in the top 50 but in the top 25. Give me the name of one other bowler who has managed to redefine what it means to be an aggressive bowler ?

Warne as said before is a bit too high. Though I would put him inside my top 10. Playing badly in India or the off field acrobatics dont get the luster off this dominant bowler. His inclusion though blares a lonely Murali !

Wasim is way too low. That is very surprising. He is one of the greatest fast bowlers ever to take field. Has about 900 wickets in both formats, still if he cant get to the top 10 then what else can be done ?

Also Malcom Marshall should be in the top 15.

Something to note is that Legends become more glaring with passing time. Some players such as Tendulkar may not seem very pretty at 7, but as soon as he's gone we'll be rating him pretty highly.

About Imran yes, perhaps because his role in the latter half of his career was dominantly that of a Captain, his credentials as a player get lost in the dust. But certainly his figures are immaculate and that 8 slot is just about right.

 

[marc71178]

Looking at raw statistics you'd have to doubt Sober's position as the number 1 all rounder of all time because of his bowling!

 

[Gotchya]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
Good points Marc...

-Imran and Botham, is better if its done fo the same tests, you have a good point there, and Botham did ruin his career later on. But then you have to compare averages for two reasons. In batting, Imran was at times in the 70s coming in at number 9 due to the strong batting line up that Pak had! So obviously he will have less runs and more not outs, thats why comapring averages is the best way to go.

In bowling also, Imran played a few series without bowling due to his injury in the mid 80s, and its really scary to think what he could have done had he not sustained the injury, as in the 1982-3 series he destroyed the mighty Indian line-up on pitches like Hyderabad, and failsalbad (also known in those days as bowlers' graveyard).

Sobers not the best all rounder!!! Are you kiding me. More than 8000 runs, more than 200 wkts and more than 100 catches. What else do you want?? And his batting average of 58!! Bowling average is not that great but if it was he might have surpassed Bradman as the best cricketer of all time. He fully deserves the number 2 spot on this list, and the top two have a large distance between them and the rest of the field.

Also what about the fact that Imran started off in 1971 while Botham did so in 1977 ? that would have balanced the offset ?

An interesting observation. Against the mighty at that time these two fared like :

Against the West Indies :

Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w

18 775 123 27.67 1 3 80 7/80 21.18 6

20 792 81 21.40 0 4 61 8/103 35.18 3


[Edited on 9/12/2002 by Gotchya]

 

[marc71178]

Also what about the fact that Imran started off in 1971 while Botham did so in 1977 ? that would have balanced the offset ?

I did it on matches played.

 

[royGilchrist]

Yeah matches played is a beeter and more accurate way of doing it. Year played dont mean naything as Imran played in 71 but after his deplorable bowling performance his next match was in '75 or something like that. In his first match I think the umpire said to the batsman, 'right arm medium fast anywhere', instead of round the wkt or over the wkt.

 

[aussie_beater]

I think Imran and Kapil Dev were almost at par as far as batting goes..... behind Botham and ahead of Hadlee for sure. Imran's average was better by around 6 runs then Kapil which was contributed by a lot of not outs. On pure bowling terms Imran had the edge over Kapil.

 

[suchchin]

Originally posted by hourn

Originally posted by suchchin
I disagree with TC on Kapil, i think he was the fourth best allrounder after Imran,Bothom and Hadlee and all four of them have been ranked accordingly.

Miller and Sobers?? undenieably number 1 and 2.

I was talking about a specific period, when the 4 great allrounder were in action.Sobers is ofcourse the best ever allrounder.

 

[royGilchrist]

I think Imran and Kapil Dev were almost at par as far as batting goes

AB, this is a wrong notion that not outs increase the average. Its complicated and cannot be made this simple.

First of all, if a player bats late in the order, he will get more not outs but at the same time he will never have time to build an innings and will have to slog most innings. So there is an advantage and disadvantage.

Now the innings when he got not outs, if he was given the chance he might have scored a big innings, who knows.

So there is no way you can just disregard not outs as they go both ways.

hence the best way to keep the stats is to remove the not out innings from the total of innings, as is done.

If you are just basing this statement on personal impression, then I think most poeple will agree that Imran was the better batsman, Ian Chappell regarded him as the best middle order batsman in the world, in 1992 I think. Kapil was never that good. The only guy who came close in my opinion was Botham. Although Kapil and Hadlee did play some extraordinary innings.

In bowling obviously there is no compariosn, although there is one category that Kapil is better in, which is sometimes ignored, and that is longevity.

 

[hourn]

My ratings of all rounders:

Batting allrounders have really only been Jacques Kallis and Tony Greig (who is debatable as a bowling all rounder because his records are very similar)

Bowling allrounders are a little more common, such as Imran Khan (37.69 and 22.81), Kapil Dev (31.05 and 29.64), Ian Botham (33.54 and 28.40), Chris Cairns (32.79 and 28.80) and Shaun Pollock (33.12 and 20.85) and Hadlee (27.16 and 22.29).

In the Bowling all rounder department Imran Khan is definetaly number 1. Botham was a better batsmen, despite having a lower average but Khan's is pushed up from all the not outs due to batting number 7 and 8, whereas as Botham was a number 6 batsmen. But Imran Khan is undeniably the second best bowler in that group, with really only Shaun Pollock throwing any challenge to Imran as the seoncd best bowler after Richard Hadlee.

Best Batsmen from that bowling allrounder group: Ian Botham with a little bit of a distance to Imran Khan, who is a fair way to Chris Cairns (who has very few not outs over his career), then Shaun Pollock (whose average is boosted from not outs batting at 7 and 8) then Kapil Dev (a fair few not outs batting 7 and 8), Richard Hadlee is the weakest batsmen from that group.

As for the bowling Richard Hadlee is definetaly 1, Imran Khan is number 2, just edging out Shaun Pollock. Despite Pollocks better record I know who i'd rather have bowl at a crucial stage of the match. Chris Cairns and Ian Botham are about equal quite a fair way back, than Kapil Dev is a little bit further back.

So Overall, I'd rate them:
1 - Imran Khan
bit of a gap
2 - Ian Botham
pretty big gap
3 - Richard Hadlee
4 - Shaun Pollock
5 - Chris Cairns (who is often overlooked for these type of things)
6 - Kapil Dev

than when you add Jacques Kallis in, whose also often overlooked for great all rounders despite the fact he averages 50 with the bat, batting at number 3 (can also bat anywhere in the middle order) and can bowl first change, and has taken just over 2 wickets a test at 28.24, so he is a more than useful bowler. He definetaly has his place in the great all rounders list.

Tony Greig is a fair bit behind Kallis IMO, bats number 6 and average around 40, so he is definetaly not the batsmen Kallis is, but despite having a worse bowling record (average 32.24) i think hes a more potent bowler than Kallis. He's taken about 2 and a half wickets a test, but Kallis' batting gives him the edge over Greig.

Put them into the Bowling all rounders list, and i would have Kallis and Greig in at 3 and 4 respectively.

Making my all rounders list of the last 30 years look like this:

1. Imran Khan
2. Ian Botham
3. Jacques Kallis
4. Richard Hadlee
5. Tony Greig
6. Shaun Pollock
7. Chris Cairns
8. Kapil Dev


Then you've got the greats Garry Sobers and Keith Miller.

Sobers is number 1 for sure for mine, while Miller and Imran fight it out for number 2. Both have very identical records, but i'm going for Miller due to the fact that Imrans batting average is pushed up from not outs whereas Miller could bat at number 5.

 

[marc71178]

Now the innings when he got not outs, if he was given the chance he might have scored a big innings, who knows.

I'm sure Phil Tufnell has used that excuse as well!

 

[marc71178]

Botham was a better batsmen, despite having a lower average but Khan's is pushed up from all the not outs due to batting number 7 and 8

<snip>

Shaun Pollock (whose average is boosted from not outs batting at 7 and 8) then Kapil Dev (a fair few not outs batting 7 and 8),

In my opinion, it's a good achievement for batsmen coming in at 7 or 8 to remain not out, and not a reason.

 

[Gotchya]

In his first match I think the umpire said to the batsman, 'right arm medium fast anywhere', instead of round the wkt or over the wkt.

hmmm I think you should go back to that autobiograbhy
it wan't his first match, it was a county game. And that phrase refers to the inconsistent line and length he bowled then.

 

[Bazza]

Hourn - you said Hadlee was the best bowler, followed by Imran and maybe Pollock, yet statistically, Pollock is the best bowler in this bunch. In fact statistically, he is one of the best bowlers for a long time. The fact that he has a batting average well over 30 and the ability to score test match hundreds must mark him down as one of the all time greats?

Personally I think the current two South African all rounders are seriously underrated by many people.

 

[hourn]

Originally posted by Bazzaroodoo
Hourn - you said Hadlee was the best bowler, followed by Imran and maybe Pollock, yet statistically, Pollock is the best bowler in this bunch. In fact statistically, he is one of the best bowlers for a long time. The fact that he has a batting average well over 30 and the ability to score test match hundreds must mark him down as one of the all time greats?

Personally I think the current two South African all rounders are seriously underrated by many people.

Statistics tell alot more in cricket than they do in other sports. Its just the nature of our game. But you can't base your whole entire opinion of who the best cricketers are purely based on stats.

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by Bazzaroodoo
Hourn - you said Hadlee was the best bowler, followed by Imran and maybe Pollock, yet statistically, Pollock is the best bowler in this bunch. In fact statistically, he is one of the best bowlers for a long time. The fact that he has a batting average well over 30 and the ability to score test match hundreds must mark him down as one of the all time greats?

Personally I think the current two South African all rounders are seriously underrated by many people.

It's odd, McGrath has been rated higher than Pollock for ages...and McGrath takes his Wickets at just under 22 runs a ball and Pollock...just under 21...

 

[Bazza]

Originally posted by hourn
Statistics tell alot more in cricket than they do in other sports. Its just the nature of our game. But you can't base your whole entire opinion of who the best cricketers are purely based on stats.

Agreed 100%.

I mean I can say Kallis is better than Lara because he has a higher average, and that is very vague. However, especially with regards to past players, the mark they leave on the game is their stats. Why does everyone say Bradman was the best? Because he averaged ~100 when most people consider 40-50 to be pretty special, and 50+ outstanding.

If you asked someone to name the best bowler ever, I don't think an overwhelming majority would pick Walsh, yet he dismissed 519 batsmen, so theoretically he was the most successful. Same with batsmen. Everyone would rate Bradman higher than Border, yet essentially Border did more damage to bowling attacks than anyone else, with over 11,000 runs.

It has been said statistics never lie, they just don't tell the whole story. Guess you can't argue with a statement like that.

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
If you are just basing this statement on personal impression, then I think most poeple will agree that Imran was the better batsman, Ian Chappell regarded him as the best middle order batsman in the world, in 1992 I think. Kapil was never that good. The only guy who came close in my opinion was Botham. Although Kapil and Hadlee did play some extraordinary innings.

Statistically there is not much to be proven there.With an average of around six runs better with 2 centuries and around dozen fifties less then Kapil doesn't prove a whole lot.

I base my judgement on what I have seen of the two batsman live in action.

Imran Khan's batting improved towards the later part of his career when his bowling went down.Initially he was quite poor on his batting actually.

As far as batting talent goes I would rate Kapil to be the one who had the better hand because he had a wider range of shots and was capable of destroying the bowling singlehandedly and was definitely the more aggressive of the two batsman.Towards the later part of his career, Imran concentrated more on batting and most of his good innings come in that part.

[Edited on 11/12/2002 by aussie_beater]

 

[suchchin]

Originally posted by aussie_beater
Statistically there is not much to be proven there.With an average of around six runs better with 2 centuries and around dozen fifties less then Kapil doesn't prove a whole lot.

I base my judgement on what I have seen of the two batsman live in action.

Imran Khan's batting improved towards the later part of his career when his bowling went down.Initially he was quite poor on his batting actually.

As far as batting talent goes I would rate Kapil to be the one who had the better hand because he had a wider range of shots and was capable of destroying the bowling singlehandedly and was definitely the more aggressive of the two batsman.Towards the later part of his career, Imran concentrated more on batting and most of his good innings come in that part.

[Edited on 11/12/2002 by aussie_beater]

IF a better batsman is one who is more aggresive than surely Srikant should be regarded as a better opener than Sunil Gavaskar!!
Kapil's did score 2 more ton and 9 more 50's than Imran, but it had lot to do with Kapil playing 43 more tests than Imran.Also i'm amazed to read people saying that Imran improved his batting after his bowling went down.Imran happened to averaged 50 with the bat and at the same time averaged just 19 with the ball in his last ten years of International cricket!
As far as bowling was concerned, there was no comparison, Imran way better than Kapil.

Although we have quite rightly compared all the allrounder on the basis of the test stats, but i came up with onedayer stats.Have a look at their batting record in onedayers

Kapil Dev ave:23.7 100:1 50:14
Botham ave:23.2 100:0 50:09
Imran ave:33.4 100:1 50:19

Botham though had few NO's as compared to Imran and Kapil but Imran just had one additional not out than Kapil!



[Edited on 11/12/2002 by suchchin]

 

[Rik]

Errrm...could you make those stats clearer please...I'm not sure what your trying to show.

[Edited on 11/12/2002 by Rik]