The Best Allrounder All Time?

[marc71178]

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

Or might it be because Kallis' bowling is extremely over-rated?

 

[a massive zebra]

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

So Sobers was not a batting allrounder and Imran was not a bowling allrounder?

 

[tooextracool]

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

im guessing this is a joke?

 

[tooextracool]

So Sobers was not a batting allrounder and Imran was not a bowling allrounder?

no there is no such thing, sobers and imran were both all rounders, irrespective of which skill they were better at.

 

[SJS]

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.........

I could answer that too but I think I have said enough on the subject. more doesnt matter or help

 

[Swervy]

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

No, people who saw Botham in action when he was the best bowler in the world and with Richards the most destructive batsman in the world would not agree..kallis doesnt come close in terms of being an allrounder compared to Botham

 

[Anil]

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.

sobers was by far the best batsman among all the great all-rounders......but at least imran and hadlee were far, far better as bowlers.....i would consider botham and even kapil as better than him at bowling....don't know about keith miller.....while sobers might just sneak through as the best all-rounder mainly on the strength of his tremendous batting, it isn't as open-and-shut and as inarguable as you seem to think.....

 

[Swervy]

sobers was by far the best batsman among all the great all-rounders......but at least imran and hadlee were far, far better as bowlers.....i would consider botham and even kapil as better than him at bowling....don't know about keith miller.....while sobers might just sneak through as the best all-rounder mainly on the strength of his tremendous batting, it isn't as open-and-shut and as inarguable as you seem to think.....

wel the consensus from people who saw Sobers play is that no-one comes close

 

[twctopcat]

I would have to pluck for sobers purely on the fact that he didn't get to bowl as much as botham/imran/hadlee purely because they were basically all of their teams main strike bowlers. Sobers had enough bowlers in his team to do his job for him i.e wes hall, lance gibbs, sonny ramadhin. If you look at his FC record then he took 1000+ wickets like the best of them. Of course this is purely hypothetical but on this basis and the awesomeness of his batting you've got to hand it to sobers.

 

[Anil]

wel the consensus from people who saw Sobers play is that no-one comes close

in batting...definitely....close-in fielding....possibly....bowling....for all his variety, the others i mentioned have been considerably better and way more effective....

 

[a massive zebra]

wel the consensus from people who saw Sobers play is that no-one comes close

Well all the statistical analysis performed by SJS and others in this thread suggests that it is closer than most people think and that Sobers may be overrated. I'm not saying he is or is not but all the tables/graphs etc have been pretty close.

 

[Swervy]

Well all the statistical analysis performed by SJS and others in this thread suggests that it is closer than most people think and that Sobers may be overrated. I'm not saying he is or is not but all the tables/graphs etc have been pretty close.

sometimes things like this go beyond statistical analysis...and no matter how much one tries to be objective about knocking up some sort of formula to rank allrounders, the various components of the formula and how they are weighted are all down to what the 'inventor' of the formula deems as important..just because SJS's analysis suggests that it is close doesnt mean I couldnt come up with a analytical method to suggest otherwise (By the way SJS I am not dissing your work here,I am sure you know what I mean when i say the above)

 

[a massive zebra]

just because SJS's analysis suggests that it is close doesnt mean I couldnt come up with a analytical method to suggest otherwise (By the way SJS I am not dissing your work here,I am sure you know what I mean when i say the above)

Yes you could come up with a method to suggest otherwise if run scoring was given more weight than wicket taking. Conversely, if both skills were given equal importance it would be difficult to prove that Sobers was comprehensively better than Imran/Miller/Kallis/Botham/Hadlee etc.

 

[tooextracool]

Well all the statistical analysis performed by SJS and others in this thread suggests that it is closer than most people think and that Sobers may be overrated. I'm not saying he is or is not but all the tables/graphs etc have been pretty close.

since there arent too many people around here who have watched sobers play, its hard to do anything but go on about what the cricketing experts think about him. which is that he was the best all rounder to ever grace the game. of course he could well have been overrated just like several players are today, and the stats seem to show that he was an extremely inconsistent bowler but theres not much else that can be done.

 

[Swervy]

Yes you could come up with a method to suggest otherwise if run scoring was given more weight than wicket taking. Conversely, if both skills were given equal importance it would be difficult to prove that Sobers was comprehensively better than Imran/Miller/Kallis/Botham/Hadlee etc.

but it all depends on whether one puts more weighting on batting performances..if one thought that that was more important then one would be within there rights to throw together a ranking system that reflects this..any formula like this will always be subjective,because different people have differing opinions on what is more important..it is an OPINION that when ranking an allrounder that bowling is as important as batting or vice versa...the impact on the team the player is on is more important in my opinion...comparing allrounders from different eras statisically is full of potential nightmares..it is just as valid to take the opinions of people who saw someone like Sobers play and who have seen Botham,Imran etc play as well.

 

[Swervy]

since there arent too many people around here who have watched sobers play, its hard to do anything but go on about what the cricketing experts think about him. which is that he was the best all rounder to ever grace the game. of course he could well have been overrated just like several players are today, and the stats seem to show that he was an extremely inconsistent bowler but theres not much else that can be done.

this is right...and yeah he may well have been inconsistant as a bowler, but according to many who saw him, when he was at his best with the ball, he was as good as most in test cricket..and has there been anyone who has taken so many wickets whilst bowling so many differing styles..an allrounder in the truest sense of the word

 

[Shahid_Afridi_6]

Boom Boom Afridi.

 

[luckyeddie]

Boom Boom Afridi.

Shane Warne, surely?

 

[Shahid_Afridi_6]

Shane Warne, surely?

He's one of the best allrounders that aren't officially considered allrounders.

Like Vetorri.

 

[a massive zebra]

Anthony McGrath and Alfred Mynn.