Who is the best all-rounder in world cricket?

[marc71178]

We are currently looking at the best all rounder in the world atm. so we look at say, the past 2 seasons of cricket.

it is more than likely someone matches these standards..

I believe Flintoff does, but A McGrath is now time-barred

 

[deeps]

I'd say over 40 with the bat is a pretty stiff ask too, several decent specialist batters haven't managed that (Athers, Stewart & Hussain of recent vintage).

If one takes the great quartet of the 80s, none averaged over 40 with the bat (in fact only Imran Khan averaged over 35) & only Hadlee & Imran managed to average under 25 with the ball.

I'd be interested to know how many players have managed to average over 40 with the bat & under 30 with the ball whilst scoring, say, 1000 test runs & taking 50 test wickets. None immediately spring to mind.

i'm talking about a small period of time (about 2 years) not a career.

Also, we cannot compare players of past era's with current era's as it's painfully obvious that the bowling standards have dramatically dropped thus leading to inflated batting averages, and less than impressive bowling stats.

40 is attainable for an excellent all rounder, and i believe flintoff fits the criterea. He is therefore the only excellent all rounder in international cricket imo.

Then the rest are very good.

 

[Macka]

Vettori is starting to be considered as a world class allrounder.

Vettori's bowling isn't good enough, nor is his batting.

 

[Scallywag]

I'd be interested to know how many players have managed to average over 40 with the bat & under 30 with the ball whilst scoring, say, 1000 test runs & taking 50 test wickets. None immediately spring to mind.

Kallis

3rd Nov 2001 - 4th Sept 2003

16 tests
BATTING........................... runs 1233 average 58.71
BOWLING........................ wickets 51 average 28.78

 

[aussie]

Vettori is starting to be considered as a world class allrounder.

really?

 

[honestbharani]

i don't think keepers should be considered "all rounders" as such. Essentially, they are batting, and fielding. Any fielder on the field is also fielding, and hence every player bar nehra would be an all rounder.

Keeping is hard, but taht doesnt make him an all rounder. since when do wicket keepers do sit ups? i've never seen it. 30 yards of running? what about the fielders that field at deep mid wicket etc. everyone has to do alot of running...

it's comparing apples with oranges, and as SJS said, for this particular discussion it's better leaving the discussion amongst batting and bowling all rounders.

When we say"who is the best wicket keeper" it usually means "who is the best at keeping and batting".. a whole different topic

You got it all wrong. The keeper has to sit up every ball, that is how keeping is done. And they have to run the 30 yards compulsarily. No fielder will have to run more than say 100 yards in a day and that is the upper limit, I am talking about. A keeper has to do all that even though he may not have a ball come at him and of course, we all know that the keeper has to catch more balls than any fielder will have to. Add in the stumpings, the run outs and the being alert for every second of the match, it is a trying job and enough, IMO, to classify them as all rounders. After all, batting and bowling are specialist areas and so is keeping. So, why differentiate?

 

[honestbharani]

You're making this statement ?

Do you think a slipper can just switch off selectively for some balls ? No. Just like the keeper, he needs to concentrate each and every delivery because slip catches do not come announcing themselves beforehand.

Keepers need to bat at 6 or 7? Slippers bat within the top 5. Whats you point?

I actually meant that you don't need to have slips every ball. Obviously, every fielder has to concentrate, wherever they are, but the point is, the Keeper has to concentrate more. Whether you accept it or not, it is the truth. Any slip fielder can be thrown out to the deep at some point of a match and at times, he can switch off a little bit (although he really shouldn't, but sometimes it happens, and it happens to even the best fielders). The point is that keepers don't even have that little bit of luxury. Essentially, it is a specialist position (so are certain fielding positions, I know, but like I said, you won't have a shortleg or a slip during all points of a match, but you will always have a keeper) and therefore, it is deservedly considered a seperate skill apart from batting, bowling and fielding. That is why I think good keeper/batsmen are allrounders.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Kallis

3rd Nov 2001 - 4th Sept 2003

16 tests
BATTING........................... runs 1233 average 58.71
BOWLING........................ wickets 51 average 28.78

Yeah, if you pick sections of a career there are plenty of examples of great all-round stats. Here's some more from probably the four best all-rounders ever in test cricket.

Keith Miller 1946-1951
30 tests
45 innings, 6 NO, 8x50, 3x100, 1652 runs @ 42.36
692.1 overs, 3x5w, 0x10w, 87 wickets @ 21.49

Garry Sobers 1960-1968
40 tests
69 innings, 9 NO, 17x50, 13x100, 3970 runs @ 66.17
1390.3 overs, 5x5w, 0x10w, 137 wickets @ 29.78

Ian Botham 1977-1982
58 tests
90 innings, 3 NO, 13x50, 11x100, 3229 runs @ 37.11
2214 overs, 20x5w, 4x10w, 262 wickets @ 24.53

Imran Khan 1982-1990
49 tests
64 innings, 17 NO, 14x50, 5x100, 2401 runs @ 51.09
1695 overs, 15x5w, 5x10w, 210 wickets @ 19.81

 

[deeps]

After all, batting and bowling are specialist areas and so is keeping. So, why differentiate?

it's comparing apples with oranges, and as SJS said, for this particular discussion it's better leaving the discussion amongst batting and bowling all rounders.

When we say"who is the best wicket keeper" it usually means "who is the best at keeping and batting".. a whole different topic

basically, we cannot compare a wicketkeeper batsman "all rounder" with a batting/bowling all rounder... as i said this is like comparing apples and oranges and is a totally different question. We have had a million threads asking "who is the best wicket keeper batsman". gilchrist etc. can have their arguments put forward in those threads.

There is no way we can compare kallis,pollock,afridi,malik,flintoff etc. with gilly except on pure batting, where kallis and gilly are miles ahead of the rest.

 

[Deja moo]

I actually meant that you don't need to have slips every ball. Obviously, every fielder has to concentrate, wherever they are, but the point is, the Keeper has to concentrate more. Whether you accept it or not, it is the truth. Any slip fielder can be thrown out to the deep at some point of a match and at times, he can switch off a little bit (although he really shouldn't, but sometimes it happens, and it happens to even the best fielders). The point is that keepers don't even have that little bit of luxury. Essentially, it is a specialist position (so are certain fielding positions, I know, but like I said, you won't have a shortleg or a slip during all points of a match, but you will always have a keeper) and therefore, it is deservedly considered a seperate skill apart from batting, bowling and fielding. That is why I think good keeper/batsmen are allrounders.

Actually I feel slips is a tougher position sometimes.

The keeper gets many chances and he can always redeem himself sooner rather than later if he happens to drop one. Catches to the slips are rarer comparatively, and a spill there would be more of a loss to the slipper, not to speak of the more unpredictable angles he has to deal with.

Its simple for me, having watched the game, you can never convince me that Gilchrist is a better fielder than Mark Waugh ever was. And hence you cannot consider Gilly an all rounder without allowing Waugh or any good fielder-batsman/bowler that tag too.

Its not a case of simply saying " oh the keeper collects more balls, and hence has to be a better fielder than the slipper".

As for the sit ups and running, its a moot point. If we were to follow that principle, bowlers should be considered a greater breed than batsmen because they exert themselves a lot more.

 

[deeps]

squats, not sit ups.

 

[honestbharani]

They have to sit up, too.

 

[Deja moo]

squats, not sit ups.

 

[deeps]

They have to sit up, too.

sit-up n.

A physical exercise in which one uses the abdominal muscles to raise the torso from a supine to a sitting position and then lies back down again without moving the legs.

in some instances you've used it correctly, but you said

"they have to do 900 sit ups"

sit ups, are as outlined above

 

[honestbharani]

yeah, maybe 540 - 600 squats and then a few sit ups too.

 

[marc71178]

Kallis

3rd Nov 2001 - 4th Sept 2003

16 tests
BATTING........................... runs 1233 average 58.71
BOWLING........................ wickets 51 average 28.78

I'm not sure if he meant in one snippet (which I'm sure a fair few have done) or over his career.

 

[deeps]

yeah, maybe 540 - 600 squats and then a few sit ups too.

why a few sit ups?!?!?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm not sure if he meant in one snippet (which I'm sure a fair few have done) or over his career.

I meant over a career. I'm sure Fred averages over 40 with the bat & under 30 with the ball since, say 01/01/04.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I meant over a career. I'm sure Fred averages over 40 with the bat & under 30 with the ball since, say 01/01/04.

Here:


........ Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB .BowlAv 5w Ct St
filtered 17 1030 167 46.81 2 . 8 63 5/58 24.20 1 17 0

 

[SpeedKing]

They have to sit up, too.

Do you people know what sit-ups are

If they actually have to do sit ups, then i am a very blind man