Greatest All-rounder if captaincy were to be included

[smash84]

Dhoni's captaincy has moved from overrated to underrated on CW I reckon. A few odd field placements have made others forget his achievements over the last 24 months.

True. Dhoni is probably the best Indian captain I have seen over the years. He seems to have a Midas touch. Although I always get the feeling that he is just about to lose his golden touch. But it doesn't go away .........

But yeah of late his captaincy has been under fire somewhat unfairly I thought.

 

[Tom 1972]

sobers, then daylight, then the rest

You're kidding aren't you?
Sobers


daylight



the rest


If the poll is about the best allrounder when considering captaincy as a discipline, then it is Sobers by a country mile. He's probably in the top handful or batsmen of all time let alone taking loads of wickets with various bowling styles.

Sobers (Khan):
Test Batting average a shade under 58. (37)
Bowling average a shade over 34. (22)

Captaincy record:
Sobers: 39 Tests, 8 wins, 10 losses, 20 draws. (48 Tests, 14 wins, 8 losses, 26 draws.)

Bowled spin (orthadox and chinaman), medium-fast.
Great fielder anywhere.
Held batting record of 365.
6 6s in an over.
Voted by 90/100 selectors as a cricketer of the century. (Bradman recieved 100 votes, Jack Hobbs (30 votes), Shane Warne (27 votes) and Sir Vivian Richards (25 votes) were the others chosen.)

 

[smash84]

You're kidding aren't you?
Sobers


daylight



the rest


If the poll is about the best allrounder when considering captaincy as a discipline, then it is Sobers by a country mile. He's probably in the top handful or batsmen of all time let alone taking loads of wickets with various bowling styles.

Sobers (Khan):
Test Batting average a shade under 58. (37)
Bowling average a shade over 34. (22)

Captaincy record:
Sobers: 39 Tests, 8 wins, 10 losses, 20 draws. (48 Tests, 14 wins, 8 losses, 26 draws.)

Bowled spin (orthadox and chinaman), medium-fast.
Great fielder anywhere.
Held batting record of 365.
6 6s in an over.
Voted by 90/100 selectors as a cricketer of the century. (Bradman recieved 100 votes, Jack Hobbs (30 votes), Shane Warne (27 votes) and Sir Vivian Richards (25 votes) were the others chosen.)

I don't anybody is kidding here.

Sobers: 8 wins and 10 Losses????? How is this captaincy record good? He has lost more matches than he has won.

Are you sure that is not a typo?

 

[taipan1]

Nah, they're not.

All-rounders only being more than one discipline is something someone made up to include their favourite player in the category. An all-rounder is someone who performs the main disciplines of the game to a proficient level (ie: batting and bowling). Calling a keeper an 'all-rounder' sounds like something Mark Nicholas has done.

Um no. An allrounder is someone who would be picked regardless of his proficiency in the other discipline. IË he would be picked as a batsman if he didn't bowl, and vice versa.

 

[Jono]

Then Shaun Pollock, Andrew Flintoff and Shane Watson are not allrounders, because they would not be chosen for certain disciplines if they lost the other.

Pollock would never have been picked as a specialist bat, and for much of Freddy's career, neither would he.

Watson would most definitely not be picked as a specialist bowler.

That's an extreme definition of allrounder. It's more the definition of an all-time great allrounder.

 

[taipan1]

Then Shaun Pollock, Andrew Flintoff and Shane Watson are not allrounders, because they would not be chosen for certain disciplines if they lost the other.

Pollock would never have been picked as a specialist bat, and for much of Freddy's career, neither would he.

Watson would most definitely not be picked as a specialist bowler.

That's an extreme definition of allrounder. It's more the definition of an all-time great allrounder.

At one stage Pollock would have been picked as a specialist bat.

One might argue that given his woeful bowling average Freddie would not have been picked as a specialist bowler.

 

[Jono]

He would have been between 2004 and 2006 though, without a doubt. But either way, are you saying Freddy was not an allrounder?

Pollock in 2006 would not have been picked as a specialist batsman. He was still an allrounder in my book though. Wouldn't you agree?

Don't you agree that Watson is right now an allrounder?

 

[taipan1]

He would have been between 2004 and 2006 though, without a doubt. But either way, are you saying Freddy was not an allrounder?

Pollock in 2006 would not have been picked as a specialist batsman. He was still an allrounder in my book though. Wouldn't you agree?

Don't you agree that Watson is right now an allrounder?

I think that history will have it's say on Flintoff. Kallis a "batting" allrounder had a better bowling average and Pollock a "bowling"allrounder had a better batting average. Apart from Ashes 2005 Flintoff didn't have a great deal of impact.

If Pollock didn't have to bowl he has good enough to eatablished himself as a number six bat.

Watson? Doesn't he bowl occassionally?

 

[Jono]

I'm not really trying to argue the merits of Flintoff as a player overall. I'll let some other English poster debate that with you (which will no doubt occur if you continue saying that about Freddy ).

My main point is on defining an allrounder. Do you honestly believe Pollock was one of South Africa's 6 best batsman? He could have been if he didn't concentrate on his bowling. But he did, and he was an all-time great bowler. But that meant his batting wasn't that good. That doesn't mean he wasn't an allrounder.

Your definition of an allrounder means there are no allrounders in cricket anymore. Whereas there are. There are batting allrounders like Kallis and Watson, and bowling allrounders like Vettori and even perhaps Broad.

 

[taipan1]

I'm not really trying to argue the merits of Flintoff as a player overall. I'll let some other English poster debate that with you (which will no doubt occur if you continue saying that about Freddy ).

My main point is on defining an allrounder. Do you honestly believe Pollock was one of South Africa's 6 best batsman? He could have been if he didn't concentrate on his bowling. But he did, and he was an all-time great bowler. But that meant his batting wasn't that good. That doesn't mean he wasn't an allrounder.

Your definition of an allrounder means there are no allrounders in cricket anymore. Whereas there are. There are batting allrounders like Kallis and Watson, and bowling allrounders like Vettori and even perhaps Broad.

Imo Flintoff was ome of the most overhyped players of all time. Not a patch on Botham.

For a period of 2/3 years Pollock was good enough to be picked as a batman alone. I agree that he would have been better if he didn't have to bowl so many overs.

For the best part of his career Kallis was good enough to be picked as a bowler. The number of wickets he has attests to that.

Watson has picked as a bowler who could bat a bit. I forsee his bowling dropping off. Vettori has improved his batting over the past couple of years, but I still have question marks about his bowling ability. Lets see Broad move up the batting order first. He has the potential.

 

[marc71178]

At one stage Pollock would have been picked as a specialist bat.

No, at no point in his career would Pollock have been picked as a specialist batsman.

 

[marc71178]

For the best part of his career Kallis was good enough to be picked as a bowler. The number of wickets he has attests to that.

Likewise with Pollock, at no point could Kallis be seriously deemed a good enough bowler to be picked as a specialist. The number of wickets he has only shows how many games he's played (seeing as he takes less than 2 per game over his career)

 

[jeevan]

Beats me why Kapil Dev is not even in here. Is this tests only or what?

(Once you bring in ODIs, impossible to not think of WC 1983 - he did it all include captain a very unlikey team to a win. In that tournament he scored 175 in a must win match vs Zimbabwe, and took a great catch to dismiss Viv in the final that basically started a WI batting collapse).

 

[Migara]

Beats me why Kapil Dev is not even in here. Is this tests only or what?

(Once you bring in ODIs, impossible to not think of WC 1983 - he did it all include captain a very unlikey team to a win. In that tournament he scored 175 in a must win match vs Zimbabwe, and took a great catch to dismiss Viv in the final that basically started a WI batting collapse).

If only ODIs are thought of then Jaysuriya becomes a bigger match winner and "all" rounder than Kapil. Viv Richards, Imran Khan are other examples who have done so well in ODIs with thecaptaincy

 

[taipan1]

Likewise with Pollock, at no point could Kallis be seriously deemed a good enough bowler to be picked as a specialist. The number of wickets he has only shows how many games he's played (seeing as he takes less than 2 per game over his career)

250+ wickets puts the lie to that.

Remember Kallis doesn't bowl that many overs. The young Kallis, bowling at 150+ with swing, would have been picked by any team in the world as an opening bowler.

He was never given the chance to use the new ball because he had to be saved for his batting.

 

[blahblahblah]

waugh

havent heard much about others though

 

[marc71178]

250+ wickets puts the lie to that.

No, because 140 games only shows what I was saying to be the reason. Especially when you consider that since his debut 36 pace bowlers have taken 100 test wickets or more, and 33 of them take their wickets quicker than him, most of them a lot (as in 1-2 overs quicker)

Remember Kallis doesn't bowl that many overs. The young Kallis, bowling at 150+ with swing, would have been picked by any team in the world as an opening bowler.

No, he wouldn't because that Kallis didn't exist.

He was never given the chance to use the new ball because he had to be saved for his batting.

More like he never took the new ball because he was never one of the best 2 bowlers in the attack and if his batting average were in single figures he'd not even have played Tests.

 

[Tom 1972]

Based on the descripton of great allrounders,Khan would never have been picked as a batsmen only. Scrap him off the list.

Perhaps the criteria need to be clearer because if we're just lookig at "the best captains", someone like Stephen Fleming did well with ordinary talent. Vaughan may not have the best ever record, but he won a career defining series. Heck, Cronjie had a very good record and helped lead SA out of the wilderness...

You could argue that with Australia's talent from a few years ago and India now, that captains Ponting and Dhoni got a free ride.


PS: I've never known of a Kallis at interntional level who bowled much above 140kmph. Allan Donald another matter entirely.

 

[zaremba]

The young Kallis, bowling at 150+ with swing, would have been picked by any team in the world as an opening bowler.

Er no.

 

[smash84]

Based on the descripton of great allrounders,Khan would never have been picked as a batsmen only. Scrap him off the list.

.

I think that in the last 5 years of his career he would have made it into the Pakistan side as a 5th or 6th batsman. Should have been able to walk into New Zealand, Zimbabwe, and Sri Lankan batting orders of the era too. And uptil 1988-89 he was a fantastic bowler too.

He is probably the best contender for best all rounder after Gary Sobers. And as you mentioned earlier (only statistically though) his captaincy record >> Gary Sobers.