Who is the best all-rounder in world cricket?

[Swervy]

Fair call, but I think Tony Greig was a pretty good player. He was a good captain (even if he was a jerk and put his foot in his mouth a hell of a lot), and he pulled out some incredible performances when it was most needed, like his astonishing bowling effort against the West Indies. Barlow was in a similar vein, I think, and his FC average suggests 40 wickets @ 34 probably isn't that flattering.



Yeah. Personally, I think if Proctor played a full career he would be in the same group as Sobers, Miller, Imran and Botham as the best all-rounders ever. He was an astonishingly brilliant bowler and a very handy batsman who got better as time went on without his bowling slacking off. I'd love to pick up some tapes of his destruction of Australia in 69/70, but I don't believe any exist.

I saw quite a lot of footage of Proctor when I was younger..with his odd action (always said to bowl off the wrong foot, which of course wasnt the case), he could generate incredible swing at great pace...I think he is the only player ever to have gotten a hattrick of LBWs bowling around the wicket

 

[King_Ponting]

I certainly wouldn't say that I think he WILL be the best all-rounder in the world, but he absolutely has the potential. Find me another player in the world who averages in the 40s with the bat and in the 20s with the ball in first class cricket.

I'll go one better mate a test player who has an average in the 40s and a bowling average in single figures. Micheal clarke test batting average 41.03 and bowling avergae of 7.83.....

Err, why wouldn't he make the side as a pure batsman? Watson's first class record: 2657 runs @ 45.03 with 8 centuries, as well as 72 wickets @ 28.73. He's probably not right in line for a batting spot just yet, but with a FC average of 45 he's certainly not that far off, and his bowling adds to his appeal as well, which is why he's going on the Ashes tour.

Keep in mind that he is also only 23, and therefore still well short of his peak as a player. And sorry, but if you're going to suggest to me in any serious fashion that Afridi is a) a good all-rounder or b) a better player than Shane Watson, you are nuts. Afridi is neither a good batsman or a good bowler, he is passable at both and has moments of sheer brilliance with the bat followed by long periods of mediocrity, while with the ball he is a handy part-timer at best. He's a very good ODI player, but a poor choice in tests, and would NEVER make a test side as a batsman alone.

Sorry mate but whats watsons test record?????? thats rite its very crap and he hasnt done S*it to prove he is a good one day player either. Seriously Watson has no potential and will be no where near the best all rounder in the world ever............... IMO Shaun tait or even jason gillespie has more potential as an allrounder than watson.

 

[King_Ponting]

Watsons ODI record is also poor/ to mediocre

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'll go one better mate a test player who has an average in the 40s and a bowling average in single figures. Micheal clarke test batting average 41.03 and bowling avergae of 7.83.....

Err... I don't even know where to start with that. I assume you're probably kidding, but if you aren't, Clarke has bowled only a handful of overs in test cricket, and if he keeps bowling he won't average 7.83 for long. Watson averages over 45 with the bat and under 30 with the ball in FC cricket over a fair few seasons now.

Sorry mate but whats watsons test record??????

Err, he's played ONE test! And he did fairly decently in it as well.

Seriously Watson has no potential and will be no where near the best all rounder in the world ever............... IMO Shaun tait or even jason gillespie has more potential as an allrounder than watson.

He might well never be the best all-rounder in the world, and I never said he would be. But he certainly does have the potential, as his first class record which is virtually unparalleled in the world suggests. Jason Gillespie will never be anything more than handy with the bat, and Shaun Tait is a tail-end slogger who would never even be that. Watson is an excellent batsman and quite a useful bowler, and has the potential to be Australia's best all-rounder in some time if he can transfer some of his first class success into the international arena. I'm not exactly sure what you have against him, but a quick look at his record will show you how much ability he has.

 

[Dasa]

Do you really think Watson has that much potential as an all-rounder? Looking at his record, he's only taken 72 wickets in 38 first class matches. His average is OK, but he seems to be a batsman who bowls a bit (like a Gayle, although not the same type of bowling obviously) rather than a pure all-rounder.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Do you really think Watson has that much potential as an all-rounder? Looking at his record, he's only taken 72 wickets in 38 first class matches. His average is OK, but he seems to be a batsman who bowls a bit (like a Gayle, although not the same type of bowling obviously) rather than a pure all-rounder.

It's worth noting that Watson has not bowled in quite a number of those games (at least 10 to 15) due to injury. His wicket-to-match radio would look better if you removed those. Personally, I think his batting has more potential than his bowling, but the fact that he has the ability to bowl in the 140s and move the ball around a bit off the seam (he's a bit skiddy unfortunately, and I've never seen him swing it much), means that he is quite capable of taking wickets. As time goes on though he will become much more batting oriented, like Kallis. Still, he's only 23 and injuries have held him back quite a lot, and I think he's a better bowler than someone like Kallis.

 

[marc71178]

That's often been my thought about Watson.

I appreciate he had a bad injury though - that stopped him bowling for a while, but his record is still not a lot of bowling to be an all-rounder.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If you look at his FC record, in the games where he bowls (non-injured ones), he puts in the standard all-rounder allotment of about half to two-thirds as much as the other seamers. Maybe 10-12 overs in a 90 over day... that sort of thing. Including all his matches he averages 15.07 overs per match, which is 3 times as much as Gayle does in tests, a few more than someone like Jayasuria, less than Flintoff and about the same as Kallis, and his strike rate is a quite excellent 47 in the process, so I don't think there's much wrong with the amount he bowls. There might be some questionmarks about his ability to be penetrative at test level of course, and he'll need to do a bit of work to reach his potential as a bowler, but if nothing else his pace counts in his favour in that regard, given that he's quicker than anyone else in the Ashes touring party aside from Lee and Tait.

 

[marc71178]

10-12 overs a day is not a standard all-rounder's workload in a 90 over day, it's about half of it.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

10-12 overs a day is not a standard all-rounder's workload in a 90 over day, it's about half of it.

Standard all-rounder would be the fifth bowler. You would expect the other four to bowl roughly 20 each, and the 5th to bowl 10 to 12 - in other words the all-rounder would have about half to two-thirds the workload of the other seamers, unless they were taking a pile of wickets in which case obviously they bowl more. You expect an all-rounder to bowl 20 to 24 overs in a day? Does Flintoff bowl that much? Hell, McGrath rarely bowls that much.

 

[superkingdave]

yeah i'd say it'd be about 15 overs a day, 30-35 in a match

 

[aussie]

Sorry mate but whats watsons test record?????? thats rite its very crap and he hasnt done S*it to prove he is a good one day player either. Seriously Watson has no potential and will be no where near the best all rounder in the world ever............... IMO Shaun tait or even jason gillespie has more potential as an allrounder than watson.

you must be a joker, you really dont know what your saying

 

[aussie]

Do you really think Watson has that much potential as an all-rounder? Looking at his record, he's only taken 72 wickets in 38 first class matches. His average is OK, but he seems to be a batsman who bowls a bit (like a Gayle, although not the same type of bowling obviously) rather than a pure all-rounder.

he ddefinately has potential has an all-rounder whats the matter with you, when Freddie came on to the scene his first class record wasn't special with bat either ball but he had the potential that could be nurtured to do well at this level in both forms of the game.

It nonsense to compare him to someone like gayle for tasmania he was used extensively has as an all-rounder in the team, same thing continued with queensland this season

 

[aussie]

normally an all-rounder would bowl about 15 overs per day, if on the day that all-rounder has bowled better than some other bowler he would bowl at bit more overs

 

[King_Ponting]

alrite aussie mate im not joking.... just have a look at watsons one day record..... Doesnt seem like anything special to me.
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

32 341 77* 31.00 0 1 21 3/27 45.66 0 10 0

Thats pretty crap for someone to be called an allrounder.. Mate even have a look a micheal clarkes one day figures and what do u know they're better than watsons better batting and bowling record

Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

49 1500 105* 45.45 2 8 18 5/35 30.94 1 21 0


Clarke is far superior to watson as an allrounder in both forms of the game.

 

[marc71178]

Apart from the actually being an all-rounder thing.

 

[King_Ponting]

sorry micheal clarke has far more potential to be an allrounder, if given the chance, than watson

 

[aussie]

alrite aussie mate im not joking.... just have a look at watsons one day record..... Doesnt seem like anything special to me.
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

32 341 77* 31.00 0 1 21 3/27 45.66 0 10 0

Thats pretty crap for someone to be called an allrounder.. Mate even have a look a micheal clarkes one day figures and what do u know they're better than watsons better batting and bowling record

Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

49 1500 105* 45.45 2 8 18 5/35 30.94 1 21 0


Clarke is far superior to watson as an allrounder in both forms of the game.

so what if Watson figures to date hasn't been that superb in ODI cricket, with the bat he hasn't got a chance to really make runs againts any major side other than that 77 he made againts Kenya 3 years ago.

His bowling on the other had has looked good, i cant remember too many occasions when Watson has been wacked around other than that SCG ODI againts SRI in 2003.

on his test debut he looked good in his little innings of 31 while his bowling with more improvement has what it takes to be successful in test cricket.

I have said it time & again when Flintoff came on to the scene he didn't start off with a bang but he had the potential, but with more experience at the international level, look at Freddie now, their is no reason why once Watson gets that same international exposure why he cant be successful at this level.

Comparing him to Clarke doesn't make much sense since pup wont have a future has as a geniune all-rounder in both for forms of the game, he will be off a Lehmann role

 

[King_Ponting]

geez watsons been give 32 games to prove himself thats almost 1 and a half years woth of one day internationals. surely if he did have some talent he would have proved himself by now. 77 against kenya ...... hmm well thats amazing, he scored his only 50 against a non test playing nation.. Great stuff.

 

[King_Ponting]

and lehmann was a far greater allrounder than watson will ever be