Playing Selector: All time great allrounders No.6 - No.10

[Coronis]

Dave but either.

No, obviously.

I don’t fixate on centuries alone, they’re a good indicator but of course need to be taken in context with everything else when you rate a player. For example re Warner/Richards, despite playing less tests Warner has already batted 20+ innings more due to being an opening batsman. Viv also has many more 50’s, i.e tends to still put in a decent contribution in innings where he doesn’t have a dominant performance. Warner I’d argue is more rocks and diamonds.

Thats before we get into the other more obvious reasons Viv is far ahead of course.

 

[howitzer]

No, obviously.

I don’t fixate on centuries alone, they’re a good indicator but of course need to be taken in context with everything else when you rate a player. For example re Warner/Richards, despite playing less tests Warner has already batted 20+ innings more due to being an opening batsman. Viv also has many more 50’s, i.e tends to still put in a decent contribution in innings where he doesn’t have a dominant performance. Warner I’d argue is more rocks and diamonds.

Thats before we get into the other more obvious reasons Viv is far ahead of course.

I disagree. Relative lack of them just means greater consistency.

 

[Coronis]

I disagree. Relative lack of them just means greater consistency.

I think they’re a good indicator when it comes to quality batsmen or measuring the amount of impact an allrounder has.

 

[howitzer]

I think they’re a good indicator when it comes to quality batsmen or measuring the amount of impact an allrounder has.

I still disagree. The ability to produce the odd big score while offering little otherwise and the ability to more consistently build smaller partnerships are of equal importance imo.

 

[howitzer]

I still disagree. The ability to produce the odd big score while offering little otherwise and the ability to more consistently build smaller partnerships are of equal importance imo.

This is basically Lindwall v Davo isn't it.

 

[kyear2]

I think they’re a good indicator when it comes to quality batsmen or measuring the amount of impact an allrounder has.

Most hundreds by (bowling) all rounders didn't have the level of impact you would imagine. Sometimes just piling up scores in drawn games.

 

[howitzer]

Most hundreds by (bowling) all rounders didn't have the level of impact you would imagine. Sometimes just piling up scores in drawn games.

This is where Botham comes in. Usually very impactful when he got a score. Just a shame he consistently ****ed up against the best team of his generation.

 

[bagapath]

It is pointless arguing criteria in this thread - Oram (36.3 & 33) and De Grandhomme (38.7 & 33) both averaged more with bat than ball as well and they weren't included either.

they didn't take enough wickets to be considered in this poll
didn't include Walters for the same reason.

 

[bagapath]

Davidson averaging more with bat than ball qualifies him as an all rounder.

And Don Bradman as well