Who is the best all-rounder in world cricket?

[SpeedKing]

Frankly, I think the best definition of an all-rounder is someone whos bowling average is close to or better than their batting average, and who both bats and bowls in every game (or at least very close to every game). Saying someone who is equally good at both sort of excludes people like Pollock, who is certainly an all-rounder. An all-rounder should also average at least say 15 overs a match, which is what differentiates a handy part-timer like say Jayasuria (12.62 overs per match) or Gayle (5.92) from the likes of Kallis (21.75) or Flintoff (28.98).

i agree with just about everything in this post.

 

[SpeedKing]

Interesting discussion on Aus TV yesterday.

Kerry O'Keefe and Geoff Lawson both rated KP far higher as a batsman than Flintoff.

Whilst admitting that KP is unproven at test level, they claimed that Flintoff still had the same technical deficiences evident early in his career.

what technical deficiencies did they come up with for Flintoff. The only problem with Flintoff's batting is his temperament. I remember that hundred against the Windies last year. and it just shows that if freddie is patient, he can play a nice innings. he might have a problem with spin but that also comes down to temperament. remember him smashing omari banks for 6 first ball and then trying the same shot and getting bowled. I remember his innings against India in the Challenge tournament where he dealt with the spinners quite nicely and after the match he had an interview and he said he had figured out a way of playing spin and at the same time striking fear into the spinners mind so i dont know what those same technical deficiencies are.

I do agree that Pietersen is a better batsman than Flintoff. He might have a glaring fault in his technique but he looks like a special kind of batsman. The way he dealt with the pressure from the Saffie public, at the same time seeing out the safie bowlers who were determined not to let him succeed in SA, and that dodgy technique he has, was amazing. The constant collapses around him all through the series show that he is cut from a different cloth from the rest of us [and Flintoff in particular who is not quite of the same mental mettle].

 

[marc71178]

he might have a problem with spin but that also comes down to temperament. remember him smashing omari banks for 6 first ball and then trying the same shot and getting bowled.

IIRC that was when we were looking for quick runs and a declaration though, so the approach was correct.

 

[Scaly piscine]

IIRC that was when we were looking for quick runs and a declaration though, so the approach was correct.

Yea England were looking for quick runs - score was 534-5 when he was out, but it was the last over before lunch as well.

 

[deeps]

Do you people know what sit-ups are

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

yeh that's what i thought :S

 

[SpeedKing]

Yea England were looking for quick runs - score was 534-5 when he was out, but it was the last over before lunch as well.

Last over before lunch, exactly, he could have waited after lunch before butchering them

 

[Langeveldt]

Interesting discussion on Aus TV yesterday.

Kerry O'Keefe and Geoff Lawson both rated KP far higher as a batsman than Flintoff.

Whilst admitting that KP is unproven at test level, they claimed that Flintoff still had the same technical deficiences evident early in his career.

I'm inclined to agree

 

[a massive zebra]

I'm inclined to agree

Indeed, I'm surprised that there was even a debate about it, you cannot compare the two purely as batsmen.

 

[a massive zebra]

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

Those figures are startling, almost beyond belief.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Those figures are startling, almost beyond belief.

Yes, they certainly speak very highly of him as a player. It is however worth remembering that he batted low in the order and specialised far more in not outs than in large scores, as you can see if you compare his runs scored (and centuries) in the period to Botham.

His bowling in that period however was unquestionably brilliant, and that area of his game alone places him among the all-time greats. Being a handy batsman simply adds to his appeal.

 

[Swervy]

Those figures are startling, almost beyond belief.

indeed..however they do flatter the man as a batsman ...but probably do him a disservice as a bowler

 

[sledger]

hows these for flattering figures

take a look at the test match columns

http://content.cricinfo.com/england/content/player/16975.html

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Another pair who can't go unmentioned when discussing all-time great all-rounders are Mike Proctor and Eddie Barlow.

They stand alongside Graeme Pollock and Barry Richards as great players who never got a chance to play test cricket extensively because of apatheid, but their test and first class records are astonishingly good, particularly Proctor who stands out as one of the best bowlers in FC cricket in the post-war era, with a batting average in the mid 30s to go with it. Not to mention an astonishing test record for his short career.

Mike Procter
7 Tests
226 runs @ 25.11
41 wickets @ 15.02
401 FC matches
21936 runs @ 36.01
1417 wickets @ 19.53

Eddie Barlow
30 tests
2516 runs @ 45.74
40 wickets @ 34.04
283 FC matches
18212 runs @ 39.16
571 wickets @ 24.14

 

[C_C]

It is however worth remembering that he batted low in the order and specialised far more in not outs than in large scores, as you can see if you compare his runs scored (and centuries) in the period to Botham.

I fail to see the logic in treating not outs as a negetive aspect. I dont see why not outs are seen as 'fattening one's average' because that simply isnt true.

Imran at his peak was a far superior batsman than Botham at his peak.
Imran scored a ton against one of the best bowling attacks of alltime. Botham was pathetic against the same opposition(WI). He also averages better than botham at #5 and #6 position i believe and those are specialist positions.

Saying Botham is superior to imran Khan is akin to saying Azharuddin is better than Steve Waugh, since Tugga was the numero uno 'not out specialist'

 

[C_C]

Barlow was highly touted but was nothing extra special.
He was very much in the Tony Greig mould- doughty batsman who bowled decently.
He created some massive hype when he debuted because some commentators in England remarked that this guy is gonna teach Sobers how to bat and bowl.

Procter could've been a great player.
His first class record is outstanding along with Van der Bijl's and several other South Africans.
I personally think that he might've given Imran Khan a run for his money in 'best allrounder since Sobers' category but one simply cannot claim with absolute certainty that he would've been great.
Simply because he didnt play, we don't know. There are several FC prodigies who disappoint in Test cricket, so there is no way of saying that Procter wouldnt have turned out that way.

 

[marc71178]

Another pair who can't go unmentioned when discussing all-time great all-rounders are Mike Proctor and Eddie Barlow.

To be fair though 40 wickets in 30 games does not an all-rounder make.

 

[marc71178]

He also averages better than botham at #5 and #6 position i believe and those are specialist positions.

Yes he does, but then again he played a grand total of 4 innings at 5 and about 23 (8 not outs- at least 5 of which came when there was absolutely no pressure) at 6 - hardly a great statistical sample there!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I fail to see the logic in treating not outs as a negetive aspect. I dont see why not outs are seen as 'fattening one's average' because that simply isnt true.

Here's an example, albeit an extreme one:

In the 2001 Australian tour of India, Glenn McGrath averaged 47 with the bat and 15.35 with the ball. He didn't do this through not batting, as he played 5 innings in 3 tests, he was simply not out on four occasions. He is about as far from an all-rounder as you can get, and yet his average in that series was superior to Slater, Langer, M. Waugh, Gilchrist and Ponting, and if you took that as his "all-rounder's peak", he is unquestionably better than even Sobers.

It's not that not outs are always a negative point, but in test cricket (ODI cricket is different, obviously), scoring far less runs than another batsman but averaging more because you are often not dismissed does not mean you are a better batsman. There is a REASON Botham scored more than twice as many hundreds as Imran, and there is a reason he scored more than 1000 extra runs in the same number of tests, and there is a reason why at the time he was considered a serious batting threat while Imran was considered a danger after you had dismissed the real batsmen. Steve Waugh doesn't have any of these issues, as he scored more runs than Azharuddin, more hundreds than Azharuddin, was rated higher as a batsman... and so on, not outs are irrelevant. Imran's batting improved throughout his career and when he reached his peak, he was good enough to play as a specialist, but when he was at his bowling peak he was handy, and that was all. Botham was a match-winner with both bat and ball at the same time, and was a far better batsman than Imran ever was, as his many remarkable innings show, compared to Imran who only played one, whatever Imran's ability to not get out might say. Greg Blewett scored a double ton against a great South African bowling attack once too, it doesn't mean he was a great batsman.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Barlow was highly touted but was nothing extra special.
He was very much in the Tony Greig mould- doughty batsman who bowled decently.
He created some massive hype when he debuted because some commentators in England remarked that this guy is gonna teach Sobers how to bat and bowl.

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.

Procter could've been a great player.
His first class record is outstanding along with Van der Bijl's and several other South Africans.
I personally think that he might've given Imran Khan a run for his money in 'best allrounder since Sobers' category but one simply cannot claim with absolute certainty that he would've been great.
Simply because he didnt play, we don't know. There are several FC prodigies who disappoint in Test cricket, so there is no way of saying that Procter wouldnt have turned out that way.

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.

 

[Swervy]

yeah Tony Greig was a top player...a player who could change games equally with bat and ball...and also with his catching as well.

I think all the Packer things just ruined his reputation, it was almost as though Tony Greigs name was mud in the UK when all that started to happen