Rank the Test Allrounders: Hadlee, Botham, Kallis

[Red_Ink_Squid]

As allrounders:

Kallis>Botham>Hadlee

Though Hadlee probably the best player of the lot due to how good he was in his primary discipline.

 

[trundler]

Hadlee the best player. Hadlee ≈ Kallis as an AR. Botham a better all rounder than both. Yet Kallis decisively better than Botham as a player too.

 

[howitzer]

Hadlee the best player. Hadlee ≈ Kallis as an AR. Botham a better all rounder than both. Yet Kallis decisively better than Botham as a player too.

Yeah, if you are asking who i'd actually want on my team it's pretty clearly Hadlee>Kallis>>Botham

 

[Bolo.]

I don't think it's quite as bad as you suggest here. He went very well in a losing cause against the 79-80 Aussies who were pretty much at full strength and the 81 side, despite the lack of the decent Chappells was still on paper a pretty reasonable side.

Despite it being played in England i'd suggest the 1979 Indians were, on paper pretty decent too, with Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Viswanath and Amarnath(two Tests) on the batting side and Kapil plus two quartet members on the bowling. Their bowling declined thereafter however, and barring the Jubilee Test where he was undeniably brilliant, he didn't bowl well against their quality batting thereafter.

Ya, fair.

I don't mean to exaggerate by saying he only smashed minnows. If you look at the way I worded it, there is room for him performing against quality teams... Just saying it very rarely happened for someone who played a ton of tests.

 

[shortpitched713]

Sobers
Miller
Imran
Botham
Kapil Dev
Hadlee
Kallis

Interesting list. Here's how I'd go for a top 12.

Top Allrounders

Imran Khan

Keith Miller

Garry Sobers

Shaun Pollock

Ian Botham

Richard Hadlee

Jacques Kallis

Ravichandran Ashwin

Tony Greig

Ravindra Jadeja

Kapil Dev

Vernon Philander

Top 2 are the immaculate tier, then the next 2 in a tier below, next 3 in a tier below them, then the rest. Top 7 are the true "ATG all-rounders", as the idea is commonly understood. It's not a player value thing though, as I'm still more likely to pick Hadlee over a Miller or Botham easily, or even an Akram or Lindwall over Dev. But yeah, I think this listing by proficiency of what we think of as "all-rounders". Imran and Miller I think are the "perfect" examples, even if one is a bit more bowling / batting proficient in actual practice, despite their averages making them look virtually the same.

 

[kyear2]

Interesting list. Here's how I'd go for a top 12.

Top Allrounders

Imran Khan

Keith Miller

Garry Sobers

Shaun Pollock

Ian Botham

Richard Hadlee

Jacques Kallis

Ravichandran Ashwin

Tony Greig

Ravindra Jadeja

Kapil Dev

Vernon Philander

Top 2 are the immaculate tier, then the next 2 in a tier below, next 3 in a tier below them, then the rest. Top 7 are the true "ATG all-rounders", as the idea is commonly understood. It's not a player value thing though, as I'm still more likely to pick Hadlee over a Miller or Botham easily, or even an Akram or Lindwall over Dev. But yeah, I think this listing by proficiency of what we think of as "all-rounders". Imran and Miller I think are the "perfect" examples, even if one is a bit more bowling / batting proficient in actual practice, despite their averages making them look virtually the same.

So I assume that Miller makes your all time XI over Sobers? If he's immaculate he's making it...

And I'm over the player value thing, if you have a greater player value you're the better cricketer. This, he's a better cricketer and has a greater player value but he's a worse all rounder is just over played at this point.

 

[shortpitched713]

So I assume that Miller makes your all time XI over Sobers? If he's immaculate he's making it...

And I'm over the player value thing, if you have a greater player value you're the better cricketer. This, he's a better cricketer and has a greater player value but he's a worse all rounder is just over played at this point.

Yeah, this is why I struggled rating all-rounders in the first place.

However, if we go with the most narrow possible definition. "I need a 4th bowler in a 4 man attack who has to bat at position 7" I can't think of any better options than Imran or Miller.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, this is why I struggled rating all-rounders in the first place.

However, if we go with the most narrow possible definition. "I need a 4th bowler in a 4 man attack who has to bat at position 7" I can't think of any better options than Imran or Miller.

Wasn't the initial of prevailing definition of an all rounder a batsman who could provide a 5th bowling option?

Hence why the bowlers who batted were later coined the bowling all rounder's? Which still leaves the open required slot of the 5th bowler. And batting any of the bowling allrounders at 7 still leaves quite the long tail.

 

[shortpitched713]

Wasn't the initial of prevailing definition of an all rounder a batsman who could provide a 5th bowling option?

Hence why the bowlers who batted were later coined the bowling all rounder's? Which still leaves the open required slot of the 5th bowler. And batting any of the bowling allrounders at 7 still leaves quite the long tail.

Everyone here likes 4 man bowling attacks though.

 

[shortpitched713]

So, this poll actually is diabolically close. If you go by 3, 2, 1 point system, it currently stands at:

Kallis - 62
Hadlee - 60
Botham - 58

Which is the exact opposite of how I'd have them, but hey it's both an incredibly close, and incredibly subjective comparison. Probably no definitively right answer here.

 

[kyear2]

Everyone here likes 4 man bowling attacks though.

4 man primary attacks, with a viable 5th bowling option to assist with rotations

 

[kyear2]

So, this poll actually is diabolically close. If you go by 3, 2, 1 point system, it currently stands at:

Kallis - 62
Hadlee - 60
Botham - 58

Which is the exact opposite of how I'd have them, but hey it's both an incredibly close, and incredibly subjective comparison. Probably no definitively right answer here.

Think we got it right.

 

[shortpitched713]

Reopening this, as we got rather vastly different results in the recent all-rounder poll as compared to in this poll:

Twenty voters this round (down a bit from the first round) and, once again, the leading two are well defined but only one vote splits the final two contenders.

J.Kallis 48
I.Botham 26
R.Hadlee 14
G.Faulkner 13
S.Pollock 6
K.Dev 3
W.Grace 3
P.Cummins 3
W.Hammond 2
A.Border 2

Voting is now open for positions 7-9.

	All Rounders Poll
									5 for	10 in
		Tests	Runs	Ave	100s	50s	Wickets	Ave	Inns	match	WPM
1	G.Sobers	93	8032	57.78	26	30	235	34.04	6	0	2.53
2	Imran Khan	88	3807	37.69	6	18	362	22.81	23	6	4.11
3	K.Miller	55	2958	36.98	7	13	170	22.98	7	1	3.09
4	J.Kallis	166	13289	55.37	45	58	292	32.65	5	0	1.76
5	I.Botham	102	5200	33.55	14	22	383	28.40	27	4	3.75
6	R.Hadlee	86	3124	27.17	2	15	431	22.30	36	9	5.01

So, this poll actually is diabolically close. If you go by 3, 2, 1 point system, it currently stands at:

Kallis - 62
Hadlee - 60
Botham - 58

Which is the exact opposite of how I'd have them, but hey it's both an incredibly close, and incredibly subjective comparison. Probably no definitively right answer here.

Kallis tops in both, but Hadlee ends up quite a bit below Botham in the recent polling.

Should we make a straight comparison poll between Hadlee and Botham as Test allrounders only?

 

[Qlder]

Reopening this, as we got rather vastly different results in the recent all-rounder poll as compared to in this poll:

Kallis tops in both, but Hadlee ends up quite a bit below Botham in the recent polling.

Should we make a straight comparison poll between Hadlee and Botham as Test allrounders only?

The difference is that the recent allrounder poll was done in the main forum which to me at least has far more credible voters.

Here in the player comparison forum you only have to look at the Hadllee vs Botham poll last month to see how Botham was treated like he was Mitch Marsh vs Sobers

Richard Hadlee vs Ian Botham

Two rivals

www.cricketweb.net

 

[shortpitched713]

The difference is that the recent allrounder poll was done in the main forum which to me at least has far more credible voters.

Here in the player comparison forum you only have to look at the Hadllee vs Botham poll last month to see how Botham was treated like he was Mitch Marsh vs Sobers

Richard Hadlee vs Ian Botham

Two rivals

www.cricketweb.net

I think the question is a bit more favored to Hadlee there. I also think he's the greater Test cricketer, and would find it hard to think of a team where I'd want Botham over Hadlee. But Botham's all-round capability is simply a bit better than Hadlee's, which is the question of this poll.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, Hadlee is easily the better cricketer and one that fits into any team and would be more valuable.

 

[Bolo.]

The difference is that the recent allrounder poll was done in the main forum which to me at least has far more credible voters.

Here in the player comparison forum you only have to look at the Hadllee vs Botham poll last month to see how Botham was treated like he was Mitch Marsh vs Sobers

Richard Hadlee vs Ian Botham

Two rivals

www.cricketweb.net

The questions in those 2 polls are not the same. One is better player, and one is better AR. The main forum poll had guys like Akram and Hammond getting very few votes on account of many people holding their AR credentials in dubious regard. They would crush a bunch of people above them if we were voting purely for best players. Vettori> Hammond>> Akram as players is not something most would agree with.

 

[Qlder]

Im confused, so let's see if I have this correct.

If asked "who is a better cricketer", wouldn't you assess their batting, bowling and fielding to make a choice?

If asked "who is a better allrounder", wouldn't you assess their batting, bowling and fielding to make a choice?

How are they different questions when assessing two allrounders? What am I missing?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Im confused, so let's see if I have this correct.

If asked "who is a better cricketer", wouldn't you assess their batting, bowling and fielding to make a choice?

If asked "who is a better allrounder", wouldn't you assess their batting, bowling and fielding to make a choice?

How are they different questions when assessing two allrounders? What am I missing?

Don is a better cricketer than Kallis

Kallis is a better allrounder than Don.

 

[Qlder]

Don is a better cricketer than Kallis

Kallis is a better allrounder than Don.

But you're now comparing a batsman to an allrounder, just like you could declare a bowler a better cricketer than a batsman or allrounder.

In Hadlee vs Botham you're comparing two allrounders so the unanswered question is what makes "who's a better cricketer" different to "who's a better allrounder" when assessing two allrounders? In both cases youre comparing their combined batting and bowling unlike your Bradman comparison.