Who has been the most complete all rounder of all times?
And who has been the best batsmen among the genuinly fast bowlers? Was it Imran Khan?
Re: All Rounder
Best batting all-rounder - Sobers and Kallis
Best bowling all-rounder - Imran Khan
Re: All Rounder
Who has been the most complete all rounder of all times?
Kallis
And who has been the best batsmen among the genuinly fast bowlers? Was it Imran Khan?
Probably Imran. Although Wasim Akram was pretty good too.
Re: All Rounder
Wasim wasnt much of a batsman.
Re: All Rounder
Imran Khan was not much of a batsmen till towards the end of his career. I think Botham and Kapil were better batsmen than him even though he was a better bowler than either of them.
Re: All Rounder
As for batsmen all rounder I will go with Sobers. There were two SA players during the 70's and 80's who were awesome batting all rounders but unfortunately SA was banned form playing so the world never saw their full potential. One played for Gloucester and the other for Notts county. They were heads and shoulders above Kallis, their names escape me, burhappay ka asar hai. :)
PS: Mike Procter and Clive Rice.
Re: All Rounder
I started watching cricket around the 96 WC... since then Kallis has been the man. Noone can touch him.
Watson is becoming a good all rounder too. Not a great bowler but is handy for sure.
Re: All Rounder
One of my favorite all rounder was Mudassir Nazar ..
I loved his bowling style, plus his 6 wickets in Lords or Leeds (dont remember exactly) were just breath takingly beautiful;
Re: All Rounder
Wasim wasnt much of a batsman.
Imran Khan was not much of a batsmen till towards the end of his career. I think Botham and Kapil were better batsmen than him even though he was a better bowler than either of them.
I am speaking relatively for genuinely fast bowlers. Kapil and Botham though better batsmen than Imran/Wasim couldn't really be called "genuinely fast".
Re: All Rounder
Imran Khan was not much of a batsmen till towards the end of his career. I think Botham and Kapil were better batsmen than him even though he was a better bowler than either of them.
Botham might have been a better batsman than Imran or comparable but i dont think Kapil was that good.
Re: All Rounder
One of my favorite all rounder was Mudassir Nazar ..
I loved his bowling style, plus his 6 wickets in Lords or Leeds (dont remember exactly) were just breath takingly beautiful;
I didnt watch Mudassar much but he was perhaps the only player who opened both batting and bowling for Pakistan.
Re: All Rounder
One of my favorite all rounder was Mudassir Nazar ..
I loved his bowling style, plus his 6 wickets in Lords or Leeds (dont remember exactly) were just breath takingly beautiful;
Lords 1982. :D
Re: All Rounder
I didnt watch Mudassar much but he was perhaps the only player who opened both batting and bowling for Pakistan.
I dont think he ever opened bowling for Pakistan. his golden arm was discovered by fluke when Imran asked him to bowl an over at Lords in 1982 in order that he and Sarfraz could switch ends and the rest is history.
Re: All Rounder
I started watching cricket around the 96 WC... since then Kallis has been the man. Noone can touch him.
Watson is becoming a good all rounder too. Not a great bowler but is handy for sure.
Look at the record of Mike procter and clive Rice.
Re: All Rounder
I dont think he ever opened bowling for Pakistan. his golden arm was discovered by fluke when Imran asked him to bowl an over at Lords in 1982 in order that he and Sarfraz could switch ends and the rest is history.
yes he never opened in bowling as he was a medium pace bowler anyways and needed an old ball to do his magic.
Re: All Rounder
Botham might have been a better batsman than Imran or comparable but i dont think Kapil was that good.
Most of Botham's 14 test hundreds were against Packer-depleted sides. He was more of a hitter whereas Imran could both defend and attack esp. in the latter part of his career. He improved his batting later on so much that he averaged 50+ with the bat (and 19 with the ball) in 48 tests as captain during his many captaincy stints between 1982 and 1992. He could also hit big sixes.
Imran: Test 37.69 and ODI 33.41
Botham: 33.54 and 23.21
Shaun Pollock: 32.31 and 26.45
Kapil: 31.05 and 23.79
Re: All Rounder
Most of Botham's 14 test hundreds were against Packer-depleted sides. He was more of a hitter whereas Imran could both defend and attack esp. in the latter part of his career. He improved his batting later on so much that he averaged 50+ with the bat (and 19 with the ball) in 48 tests as captain during his many captaincy stints between 1982 and 1992. He could also hit big sixes.
Imran: Test 37.69 and ODI 33.41 Botham: 33.54 and 23.21 Shaun Pollock: 32.31 and 26.45 Kapil: 31.05 and 23.79
Kapil played a lot more Tests & ODIs than either Imran or Botham, which explains the lower average.
Re: All Rounder
I would also go with Imran Khan but Gary sobers is the all time great for sure.
interesting point of view here with some clever calculation methodology:
It is almost unanimously acknowledged that Sir Garry Sobers was the greatest all-rounder in cricket history. He was voted one of the five greatest cricketers of the century and the only all-rounder among the five. It is also generally acknowledged that before the advent of Sobers, Keith Miller was the
greatest all-rounder. Since the time of these two cricketing stalwarts, other great all-rounders like Sir Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan, Ian Botham and Kapil Dev have followed (Trevor Bailey, 1989). In this article, we shall attempt to rank the great all-rounders in accordance with mathematical formulae derived
from their batting and bowling records.
Trevor Bailey (1989) defines an all-rounder as a player who is able to command a place in his side for either his batting or his bowling. Batsmen and bowlers are most frequently judged by their batting and bowling averages, respectively, even though there are other statistics (such as the aggregate runs
and centuries for batsmen, and total haul of wicket for bowlers) which should be taken into consideration. However, to simplify things, we shall consider the batting and bowling averages only, subject to minimum qualification criteria. We shall construct several mathematical formulae by which the allrounders will be judged.
First, we recognise the fact that the batting and the bowling averages are quantities of opposite nature. The batting average (BA) is a direct quantity: the greater the BA, the better the batsman is thought to be. The bowling average (bA), on the other hand, is an inverse quantity: the smaller the bA, the better
the bowler is. Thus, we cannot add BA and bA to measure an all-rounder. One way to resolve this problem is to convert bA into a direct quantity which can then be amenable to addition to BA. First, the reciprocal of bA is indeed a direct quantity. But then we need to normalise this reciprocal to render it
additive to BA. Data analysed by the authors (unpublished) have shown that both the mean batting and the mean bowling averages of all players in Test cricket have remained nearly constant at 30 since the post-World War I period. Hence, during this period, the batting equivalent of bA is 302/bA, or
900/bA. We can now add this quantity directly to BA to obtain a quantitative measure for the all-rounder in Test cricket: BA + 900/bA (Scheme I).
Alternatively, one can also convert BA into an inverse quantity. The bowling equivalent of BA is similarly 900/BA. This quantity is now amenable to addition to bA, giving us a second measure for the all-rounder in Test cricket: 900/BA + bA (Scheme II). However, one should bear in mind that this measure is now an inverse quantity: the smaller the quantity, the greater the all-rounder is. We shall soon find out that Scheme I slightly favours allrounders who are batsmen first, while Scheme II gives a slight edge to the all-rounders who are bowlers first.
Thirdly, we can also devise a subtractive scheme to obtain a third measure for the all-rounders, which is simply BA - bA (Scheme III). This measure, like the first, also favours slightly the all-rounders who are batsmen first. Finally, we can construct a multiplicative scheme which takes the product of BA and 1/bA which is simply the quotient BA/bA (Scheme IV).
Mathematically, this is the soundest of the four measures, where the batsmen and bowlers have an equal chance of being regarded as all-rounders. Unlike the first two, this is also independent of the mean batting and bowling averages of the era and is applicable for all times.
We can now get down to the business of ranking the greatest all-rounders in Test cricket. The qualifications used are: 2000 runs; 100 wickets; BA > 25.00;
and bA < 35.00. (The data are gathered via the Internet at http://www.cricket.org.) Among the retired players, only 11 met all four criteria. Table I shows their batting and bowling averages in Test cricket. Also shown in Table I are the derived quantities to be used for ranking the all-rounders according to the
four different schemes discussed above. Table II summarises the results of the rankings and the overall ranks of the 11 greatest all-rounders in Test cricket.
Table II further shows that out of the 11, four were from England, two from India and one each from West Indies, Pakistan, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand.
A glance at Table I shows that Garry Sobers was, by a wide margin, the best batsman among the all-rounders. His BA of 57.78 places him between Hammond (58.45) and Hutton (56.67) and between Weekes (58.61) and Walcott (56.68) and ranks him among the greatest batsmen of all times. However,
his bA of 34.03 was also the worst among the 11 all-rounders. If Sobers is considered to be the greatest all-rounder, then that is largely due to his batting.
Table I also shows that three all-rounders Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan and Keith Miller were outstanding bowlers. Their respective bowling averages of 22.29, 22.81 and 22.97 would place them among the greatest bowlers of the game. Imran Khan and Keith Miller also had decent batting averages (third and
fourth in the list), even though they were more than 20 below Sobers. By all accounts, the contest for the greatest all-rounder narrows down to that between
Garry Sobers, Imran Khan and Keith Miller.
Table II shows that according to the batting-based formulae (Schemes I and III), Sobers topped the rankings with Imran second and Miller third.
According to the bowling-based formula (Scheme II), Imran was adjudged first, Miller second and Sobers third. According to the neutral formula (Scheme IV), it was again: Sobers first, Imran second and Miller third. The overall ranking for the greatest all-rounder is Gary Sobers followed by Imran Khan and
Keith Miller in that order. Whereas Gary Sobers attained his place largely because of his batting prowess, Imran Khan and Keith Miller did so mainly by their bowling figures.
Is Garry Sobers also the greatest all-rounder in all first-class cricket? Here, he faces serious challenge from Keith Miller. Miller’s first class averages (BA 48.90, bA 22.30) improve significantly in batting and marginally in bowling. Sobers BA (54.87) diminishes slightly while his bA (27.74) improves
considerably. In first-class cricket, Keith Miller leads Garry Sobers in Schemes I, II and IV while trailing Sobers in Scheme III only. Overall, Keith Miller has to be considered the greatest all-rounder in all first-class cricket.
Is Garry Sobers’ status as the greatest all-rounder in Test cricket safe, or are there any challengers to his title on the horizon? Among the active players, Jacques Kallis of South Africa is a serious challenger. He is an all-rounder in the Sobers-mold and his batting and bowling averages in Test cricket stood at
53.06 and 30.23 respectively at the end of 2003. With these numbers, Kallis leads Sobers in Schemes II, III and IV and trails Sobers in Scheme I only. As of now, Jacques Kallis has a chance to dethrone Sobers from the title of the greatest all-rounder in Test cricket.
Reference
Trevor Bailey, The Greatest Since My Time, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1989.
Table I. Batting and Bowling Averages of the Greatest All-rounders
Restored attachments:
Re: All Rounder
Not arguing that Sobers is the best but the comparison (i.e. batting all-rounder vs bowling all-rounder) is flawed in a way
Let’s just consider for a moment that Sobers’ 6 x5wI (5 wickets in an innings) = Imran’s 6 test centuries
Sobers’ batting average of 57.78 is among the best in the world. He was a great batsman who rarely won matches with his bowling
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/52946.html
Imran’s bowling average of 22.81 is among the best in the world. He was a great fast bowler who rarely won matches with his batting
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/40560.html
The only edge Sobers then has over Imran is in fielding..
but then if you add in Imran’s superior leadership skills, something cricket pundits and statisticians don’t really take into account, then not much to choose between the two IMO
Re: All Rounder
Kallis to me is a complete allrounder im just talking from my era