Historical Discussion- Best batting all-rounders after Sobers and Kallis

[sledger]

Kallis is not an all-rounder.

 

[harsh.ag]

WG Grace at no. 3 behind Sobers and Kallis.

Aubrey Faulkner at no. 4.

Next would be Monty Noble.

Imran, Hadlee, Kapil, and Procter were bowling all-rounders imo. Flintoff and Cairns in the bowling all-rounder category too.

Botham, Miller, Rice pure all-rounders.

Hammond is not an all-rounder. Just because he was the fifth bowler doesn't mean he was an all-rounder.

 

[Jono]

Ashwin

 

[weldone]

Kallis is not an all-rounder.

Of course, he retired.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The thing that precludes Kallis from being an all-rounder is having the middle name Henry.

 

[Gowza]

charles macartney....probably the closest were guys like miller, procter and throw rice in there to, botham, tony greig, eddie barlow, hammond, don't think there are many who'll match sobers and kallis on stats.

 

[Red]

Kallis is not an all-rounder.

Is Watson then?

 

[fredfertang]

charles macartney....probably the closest were guys like miller, procter and throw rice in there to, botham, tony greig, eddie barlow, hammond, don't think there are many who'll match sobers and kallis on stats.

Depends on your definition of all-rounder - he looks like one of these from his overall stats but the reality is that the pre WWI Charlie was a very different cricketer to the one who emerged afterwards

 

[watson]

Plug the following parameters into Statsguru and only 6 batsman come out;

Batting Average greater than 40
Bowling Average less than 35
Wickets greater than 50

Sobers
Kallis
Dexter
Faulkner
Greig
Jayasuriya


IMO Only Dexter, Faulkner, and Greig come close-ish to Sobers and Kallis in terms of being able to hold their place in an ATG top 6, while at the same time be a creditable 5th bowler capable of dismissing good batsman regularly.

Although I could be easily persuaded to include the likes of Woolley, Hammond, or Mushtaq.

 

[Migara]

Harsh on Jayasuriya IMO. Averages 40 with bat and is as destructive as anything you could have in the field when on the mood. Having Murali, Herath, Dharmasena, Bandaratilleke and Chandana meant that he bowled very little in tests, but still did well when ever he did. If he was in a team like NZ / ENG / SAF at that time would have been regarded as the spinning all rounder easily. Much better bowler than likes of Haslem, Giles, Taylor, Hart, Eksteen etc. In ODIs he got enough chances with the ball and took over 300 wickets and massive hauls as well. IIRC he has more than 6-7 instances where he has taken more than 4 wickets. I am pretty sure that no one other than Murali and Saqlain has done it as spinners

Edit: Murali 25, Saqlain 17, Afridi & Warne 13, Jayasuriya 12, Kumble 10 and Mendis 9 among spinners

 

[marc71178]

I think that is the whole point of the thread - to show that those two are in a different class

I'd say there's a gulf in class between the 2 of them.

 

[cnerd123]

The term Allrounder in its purest sense is used to define a player who can make the side on either his batting or bowling alone.

Based on this, a 'Batting Allrounder' should be a player good enough to be selected for the side consistently on the strength of his batting alone, but not with the ball. However, OP has suggested that we are looking for a batting allrounder who could have had a career as a pure bowler as well, albeit a much less successful one. So right off the bat, we can eliminate names like Tony Grieg, Ted Dexter and Wally Hammond. They are all definitely better batsmen than bowlers, but would they, as bowlers alone, have broken into the England side?

Keith Miller and Botham have been mentioned quite a bit, but they should be excluded on two counts:
a) Both were proficient enough with the ball to have made the side on the strength of their bowling alone, and would have had pretty good careers.
b) As good as they were with the bat, would they have been selected consistently based on their batting alone? Probably not.

Then we have guys like Aubrey Faulkner, Vinoo Mankand, WG Grace and Imran Khan. They were all selected on the strength of their bowling at first, but their batting grew to a point where they could be selected on that alone. They evolved as cricketers along their career, and thus they lie somewhere between Bowling Allrounder and Pure Allrounder, depending on what phase of their career your evaluate them on.

Monty Noble and Clive Rice seem to be players who were Pure Allrounders through and through. It's worth wondering if they would have had a successful career on either skill alone. Maybe they would have. Still doesn't fit OP's requirements though.

Procter is an interesting one. What I read was that he was quite a force with the bat; it's just that he was a much better bowler. Often he wouldn't take his batting very seriously. It could be argued he could have made the South Africa side even if he couldn't bowl, and had focused on his batting alone. Then again, I suppose the same argument could be made for Keith Miller. Either way, he is much too good a bowler to fit OP's requirements.

I think the best call for a player that fits OP's requirements is Jayasuriya. After all, he broke into the SL ODI side as a bowler didn't he? I think its safe to say he might have had a few Tests alongside Murali even if he couldn't bat. And his batting was definitely much better than his bowling.

 

[ankitj]

Aubrey Faulkner.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Keith Miller and Botham have been mentioned quite a bit, but they should be excluded on two counts:
a) Both were proficient enough with the ball to have made the side on the strength of their bowling alone, and would have had pretty good careers.
b) As good as they were with the bat, would they have been selected consistently based on their batting alone? Probably not.

Botham walks straight into the England team as a batsman during his peak period. Given the number of Tests played by the likes of Derek Randall and Chris Tavare he'd probably have been one of the first names on the sheet.

 

[cnerd123]

Botham walks straight into the England team as a batsman during his peak period. Given the number of Tests played by the likes of Derek Randall and Chris Tavare he'd probably have been one of the first names on the sheet.

As would Imran, Mankad, Grace, Faulkner, Miller...

The OP specified consistently. Kallis and Sobers were, for large parts of their career, amongst the best batsmen in their country. Not just during a small window. They would have had long, fulfilling careers as batsmen alone.

If you consider Hammond, Dexter, Greig, Chappell, McCabe to all be less-than-Test standard bowlers...really only leave Jayasuriya. He would have been picked and would have had a decent career as a batsman alone, and was a good enough spinner to merit being initially selected as a youngster for his bowling.

 

[harsh.ag]

As would Imran, Mankad, Grace, Faulkner, Miller...

The OP specified consistently. Kallis and Sobers were, for large parts of their career, amongst the best batsmen in their country. Not just during a small window. They would have had long, fulfilling careers as batsmen alone.

If you consider Hammond, Dexter, Greig, Chappell, McCabe to all be less-than-Test standard bowlers...really only leave Jayasuriya. He would have been picked and would have had a decent career as a batsman alone, and was a good enough spinner to merit being initially selected as a youngster for his bowling.

Faulkner, Grace and Monty Noble all qualify under this criteria, and are better than Jayasuriya too, imo.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The kindest thing you could say about that nonsense is at least a Jayasuriya fanboy is a bit different from the norm.

 

[fredfertang]

If Sanath Jayasuriya qualifies for this, and his having played with some success for Lancashire makes him a player I have a good deal of time for, then you might as well include Chris Gayle, or even Vivian Richards as well

 

[zaremba]

If you consider Hammond, Dexter, Greig, Chappell, McCabe to all be less-than-Test standard bowlers...really only leave Jayasuriya.

If.

 

[zaremba]

Then we have guys like Aubrey Faulkner, Vinoo Mankand, WG Grace and Imran Khan. They were all selected on the strength of their bowling at first, but their batting grew to a point where they could be selected on that alone. They evolved as cricketers along their career, and thus they lie somewhere between Bowling Allrounder and Pure Allrounder, depending on what phase of their career your evaluate them on.

WG Grace - a bowler who learned to bat. You heard it here first.