The Best Allrounder All Time?

[Piper]

In my opinion Botham, but Freddy is catching up fast. Freddy has the ability to make things happen and so he is so valuable to the England side

 

[PAKMAN]

In my opinion Botham, but Freddy is catching up fast. Freddy has the ability to make things happen and so he is so valuable to the England side

freddie got way to go to be in that sobers imran botham league yet

 

[wpdavid]

yeah Imran was a very goo batsman,but the fact he batted so low down meant I think that he got a fair few not outs in there that will have bumped up his average quite a bit.

When Imran was in full flow with the ball,his batting wasnt as good as it should have been..when Imran didnt bowl through injury, his batting came on..Botham never had that luxury,he had to contribute with both...and be also one of the greatest slip fielders i have ever seen.

maybe Botham did throw his wicket away sometimes, but that was the type of player he was he won more games than lost games for England by playing that way...I do seem to remember Botham batting all day with gatting vs Pakistan (or maybe NZ cant remember ) for 50 not out to save the game for England..so he could do it

You're probably thinking of the 5th 1987 test against Pakistan. On of his last few test innings, as it turned out, although we didn't know that at the time.

 

[Swervy]

Would people agree that Jacques Kallis is/was better than IT Botham?

nope

 

[wpdavid]

Would people agree that Jacques Kallis is/was better than IT Botham?

Better batsman, but not as good a bowler.

 

[The Baconator]

kallis is better at batting but even with the bat botham was a better match winner on his day

 

[a massive zebra]

Kallis is reliable but unspectacular, Botham was an inconsistent matchwinner.

 

[Langeveldt]

I think Kallis is a bit unfairly rated as a dour and boring batsman, I agree that his bowling isnt the best now, but some of his 2003-2004 ODI knocks after his fathers death were absolutely spectacular..

 

[Langeveldt]

nope

care to say why?

 

[a massive zebra]

care to say why?

Because Swervy prefers box office players to dependable ones. Same with Richards vs Gavaskar.

 

[Swervy]

Because Swervy prefers box office players to dependable ones. Same with Richards vs Gavaskar.

the box office players tend to be box office because of the talent they have.IMO Botham was the most talented cricketer England has produced for 50 years and and Richards, well I havent seen a batsman since that had an eye for batting like he didand who could obliterate good bowling like he could

I guess I just prefer players who win matches singlehandedly as opposed to those who help teams get into winning positions...its a matter of preference.

But IMO Botham had more talent in his dubious looking moustache of old than Kallis could ever have

 

[SJS]

That's daft. There has been no bowler ever who has stood out as a class apart from the rest of the field in the way that Sobers and Bradman do. Besides, there are numerous West Indians who would have something to say about Lillee even being the best.

Its a matter of opinion of course. But I think Syd Barnes is such a bowler.

 

[C_C]

care to tell me why Sid Barnes would be comprehensively greater than George Lohmann or Charles Turner?

 

[Neil Pickup]

care to tell me why Sid Barnes would be comprehensively greater than George Lohmann or Charles Turner?

Exactly

 

[SJS]

care to tell me why Sid Barnes would be comprehensively greater than George Lohmann or Charles Turner?

Sure. With Pleasure.

Watch this space

 

[SJS]

Sure. With Pleasure.

Watch this space

At the outset let me clarify, that it is ridiculous to evaluate all time greats purely on the basis of figures. Thes bowlers bowled a century and more ago and one is better advised to read cricket history and what has been written about them by their contemporaries (preferably those who have seen all three and these are available) and form ones opinion.

But both because stats have become the modern cricket followers mantra and also for want of space (to quote from dozens of articles on these bowlers that I can put here) let me try and state the case for Barnes in the idiom you follow.

There are three basic stats that one can use to evaluate different bowlers. Basically to see how quickly they ensnared their victims (strike rate), how effective they were in the context of the game (wkts per match), how economical they were (runs per over or per 100 balls). The last named is not really very relevant in the test context so the average runs per wicket is a better measure. It , does incorporate the strike rate also in a way.

Here are the figures of the three bowlers in question.

Wickets per test :-

Barnes - 7
Lohmann - 6.2
Turner - 5.9

Strike Rate :-

Barnes - 41.6
Lohmann - 42.5
Turner - 62.8

Average per wkt :-

Barnes : 16.43
Lohmann : 10.76
Turner : 16.53

So. It appears that its on averages that Lohmann scores over Barnes. Turner doesnt in any of these criteria.

Now there is another difference between these bowlers. While Lohmann and Turner bowled in the last two decades of the 19th century, Barnes bowled in the first two of the 20th. This is extremely significant.

The scoring rates in the later period went up very considerably over the former period. While England's scoring rate went up by 38% from 2.0 to 2.8 runs per 6 balls, Australia's went up by 68% (1.9 to 3.2) and South Africa's by 66% (1.8 to 2.9). Clearly batting was coming into its own with much better wickets.

Before you start yelling that scoring rates are not the right criteria, here are the average runs score per wicket by the three test playing countries in the two periods in question viz 1886-1896 (the decade in which Lohmann and Turner played) and 1901-1914 (the 14 years during which Barnes played)

Country......Runs/wkt(1886-1896)....(1901-1914)

Australia........17.6.. ................26.38
S Africa..........8.85..................21.49
England.........22.7...................25.23

Clearly, Lohmann and Barnes bowled in two periods where the batting averages of their opponents (Australia and S Africa) had gone up by 9 and 13 runs respectively. Not a small difference you will agree.

For Turner only SAfrican figures are relevant since Barnes didnt bowl to England though England to scored more but not by much.

By the way, Barnes played in more tests and over a longer period (14 years) as compared to the other two who bowled for 10 and 8 years respectively. Further Barnes was not played for many matches in his prime since he was a very difficult fellow to handle and the amateur captains were not overly fond of him. He could easily have been the first bowler (and fifty years before Trueman) to get 300 wickets.

 

[wpdavid]

kallis is better at batting but even with the bat botham was a better match winner on his day

Doesn't that just reflect the fact that late 1970's-early 1980's England were weaker than SA have been until recently, so when Botham produced the goods it tended to significantly affect the match. Hardly Kallis' fault, and I couldn't hold it against him when evaluating the two.

If that sounds strange, look past the famous names and check the actual performances. More often than not, the top 5 or 6 did little so if Beefy did come off at 6 or 7 it had a clear effect on the outcome of the match. Kallis, OTOH, has generally been surrounded by a decent batting lineup, so his runs haven't always been so significant. Doesn't alter the fact he's a better batsman than ITB though.

 

[C_C]

Nice analysis SJS......however i would like to point out that an inflation in the average runs/innings in test cricket doesnt necessarily mean that 'batsmen were comming into their own' and thus Barnes had a tougher test than Lohmann....
For it could easily mean that apart from the mercurial Sid Barnes, there was a general drop in the bowling quality......

wpdavid, trouble with Kallis is that he feasts on the weaker opposition and fails against the good ones.........

 

[marc71178]

davison averaged 25 in test cricket, i think thats definently enough to be considered a bowling all-rounder at the very least. as well as averaging 20.53 with the ball

A proper All Rounder isn't classified as batting or bowling...

 

[marc71178]

Anyone who doesnt think Sobers was the best allrounder in test history should give up following the game now. Deadset anyone who dissagrees has no idea.

Personally I don't put him as far ahead of the field as a lot of people seem to.