Rank the Test Allrounders: Hadlee, Botham, Kallis

[shortpitched713]

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.

Who's more similar, Hadlee and McGrath, or Hadlee and Botham?

I'd argue the former.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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.

I think most of us looks for a sort of balance in an all-rounder. All-rounders are very much a spectrum. You have people like Faulkner and Shakib for whom you could hardly tell what their primary discipline is. Then you have Imran, Kapil, Pollock, Ashwin, Davidson, Lindwall, Johnson, Marshall..... And like, where you exactly stop being an all-rounder? Hammond vs Kallis as players is very close, it wouldn't had been without Hammond's bowling, but is Hammond an all-rounder??

 

[kyear2]

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?

Ranking all rounders have a lot to do with balance of the two skills. For instance Imran would be a better all rounder than Hadlee, but for me Hadlee is the better cricketer. He's just the better bowler, and that's his main job. Same with Kapil and and Hadlee.

Persons also really don't factor in fielding when rating all rounders, but would when rating cricketers. So even if someone would say that Kapil, Pollock and so many others are better all rounders than Hammond, between his top end batting and catching and supported by his bowling, Hammond is the wayyy better cricketer.

 

[Johan]

Everyone hates Beefy

 

[sayon basak]

As all rounders:-
Kallis>Botham≥Hadlee

As cricketers:-
Hadlee>Kallis>Botham

 

[DrWolverine]

You have people like Faulkner and Shakib for whom you could hardly tell what their primary discipline is.

Bowling

 

[DrWolverine]

Kallis.

The only great batting all rounder in the last 50 years

 

[Johan]

Faulkner in tests was a batting AR and in FC a bowling AR, kinda like Miller who was a great bowler in tests but mainly a batter in FCs

 

[capt_Luffy]

Faulkner in tests was a batting AR and in FC a bowling AR, kinda like Miller who was a great bowler in tests but mainly a batter in FCs

Like the anti - Miller. Though the discrepancy is largely due to his solitary Australia tour where he ruled with the bat and was **** with the ball.

 

[DrWolverine]

Keith Miller

7 centuries in 87 innings
7 5-Fer in 95 innings

If he played more he could have joined Botham as the only player to score 10+ centuries and take 10+ 5-Fers

 

[capt_Luffy]

Keith Miller

7 centuries in 87 innings
7 5-Fer in 95 innings

If he played more he could have joined Botham as the only player to score 10+ centuries and take 10+ 5-Fers

Scoring a century and taking a 5-fer aren't exactly equivalent to me honestly.

 

[DrWolverine]

Scoring a century and taking a 5-fer aren't exactly equivalent to me honestly.

Obviously the circumstances and the way it was done mean a lot but Which do you think is more impressive?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Obviously the circumstances and the way it was done mean a lot but Which do you think is more impressive?

A 5-fer is definitely tougher to get and more importantly, very much more circumstantial. There are, afterall only 10 wickets to share among bowlers. Don't think anyone rates Kumble's 10-74 equivalent to a double ton.....

 

[Coronis]

A 5-fer is definitely tougher to get and more importantly, very much more circumstantial. There are, afterall only 10 wickets to share among bowlers. Don't think anyone rates Kumble's 10-74 equivalent to a double ton.....

Depends on the double ton tbh.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Depends on the double ton tbh.

I think you got what I meant really.