Comparison of great specialist cricketers with great all-rounders

[Harsh Thakor]

In this note I wish to compare how the best all-rounders of their era compared with the best batting or bowling specialists.To me the only all-rounder who towered above other cricketers in his generation was Gary Sobers with his superlative skill in all departments of the game.He literally put every other great into oblivion.

 

Earlier the majestic Keith Miller was overshadowed by Bradman and may have ranked neck to neck with Len Hutton.Miller could champion the causes equally with bat and ball in important phases

 

In the 1970-2-80's we had 4 great all-rounders like never before in the history of Cricket.They were Ian Botham,Imran Khan,Kapil Dev and Richard Hadlee.All were true greats who did more to shape the fortunes of their nation's destiny than anyone.Botham and Kapil could do it with bat and ball simultaneously more often in games and series but Imran and Hadlee as fast-bowlers could me more consistent fast bowing all-rounders.At his peak arguably from 1977-81 Botham compared most favourably to Viv Richards but fell out because he failed against the best team of his day,West Indies Botham ,till then was closest to Sobers Still it was Viv who could turn the complexion of game more with supreme domination which argubaly nonoe ever exuded before,who could sit with the Gods of Olympus.Viv's achivements with the bat were consitenly more impactful than Botham's as a cricketer overall.Overall with his oustanding bolwing aginst West Indies and performances as a skiper Imran came within a whisker of equalling Viv .However he wa snot at his best with both bat and bal at the same time or as impactful as an all-rounder as Viv was with the bat.Viv was a more likely candidate for an al-time XI.As a pure cricketer Richard Hadlee would be by a very small margin be edged by Dennis Lillee and Malcolm Marshall while Kapil Dev may rank just below greats like Wasim Akram and Alan Border.If he had a proper career I may have backed Mike Procter to be better than all 4 of these greats.

 

In later years when comparison with Lara and Tendulkar or Warne was a yardstick the name of Jacques Kallis stood out who was statistically the best of all al-rounders.However he lacked the match-winning flair or charisma ,not turning games with the impetuosity of a Lara ,Warne or Sachin.He was also hardly contributing with the ball for a great part of his career.Neverthless at junctures almost as lethal  to Gary Sobers as a bowler.Inspite of staggering figures Kalis as an all-rounder was not as head and shoulders above others as Sachin and Lara were with the bat or even Ricky Ponting.Still I would class Kallis above Ricky Ponting,Adam Gilchrist,Inzamam Ul Haq,Curtly Ambrose ,Glen Mcgrath ,Steve Waugh or Wasim Akram.

 

I would not class the likes of Chris Cairns,Shaun Pollock,Abdur Razak,Azhar Mehmood or Ben Stokes of today with the greatest of batsmen and bowlers of their  generation.

 

I would have to make an apology for Mike Procter who only played 7 tests and thus even if morally supreme,not enough criteria at International level.

 

This is my brief comparison of great all-rounders with specialists. over different decades.

 

1940's

Keith Miller <Bradman ,Hammond,

 

Keith Miller >Dennis Compton,Len Hutton,Ray Lindwall,George Headley.

 

1950's

Vinoo Mankad>Vijay Hazare,,Vijay Merchant,Neil Harvey

 

Vinoo Mankad<Braman,Weekes,Hutton,Worrell.

 

1960-s to 70's

 

Gary Sobers daylight >Kanhai,Trueman,Barrington,Dexter,May Pollock.

 

1970-80's -

Imran and Botham <Viv Richards .

 

Hadlee <Marshal and Lillee 

 

Kapil<Gavaskar ,Greg Chappell ,

 

Imran and Botham >Lillee and Greg Chappell 

 

Kapil Dev >Graham Gooch,Alan Border,Javed Miandad ,David Gower,Martin Crowe,

 

Milke Procter hardly played at International level but adjusting stats including WSC  would still rank above the likes of

 

From 1995

Kallis <Tendulkar,Lara,Warne 

 

Kallis >Wasim Akram,Alan Donald,Curtly Ambrose.Ricky Ponting,Adam Gilchrist  ,Steve Waugh

 

Recent

 

Ben Stokes or Shakib <Virat Kohli,Steve Smith,Dale Steyn,Chris Gayle,A B Devillers

Edited October 25, 2019 by Harsh Thakor

[Ankit_sharma03]

All rounder dont exist  

[Forever Indian]

29 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

All rounder dont exist  

@Khota

[Khota]

Sorry but they don't. It is just not physically possible to be an allrounder.

I always give the exapmple of Baseball. Long time ago they had players who could pitch and bat but as the sport has evolved they have found out that one guy cannot perform two roles. It is just not possible to do it.

There would always be a statistical anamoly here and there but trend is not in their favor.

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Khota

[maniac]

Maybe I don't subscribe to @Khota 's  extreme sentiment that allrounders don't exist but I have said multiple times in my arguments with @sandeep and @Ankit_sharma03 that there is nothing called a specialist allrounder. The d commonly used term for a specialist allrounder is "bits and pieces"

 

However there have great batsmen who were very good with the ball Kallis,Sobers etc or to a lesser extent Jayasuriya,Yuvraj and co in the LOI format and great bowlers who were more than handy with the bat like Kapil,Imran,Botham etc..

 

Now this thread topic is not as cut and dry as it seems. If I have an option between  Sachin or Kallis to fill a batting slot I am always going to pick Sachin. A player who is blessed with the other facet of the game is a bonus not the requirement. 

[Vilander]

4 minutes ago, maniac said:

If I have an option between  Sachin or Kallis to fill a batting slot I am always going to pick Sachin. A player who is blessed with the other facet of the game is a bonus not the requirement. 

not always. Kallis specifically was a better batsman in certain conditions in certain periods and was always a decent proper pace bowler. In that sense you tend to look at it this way, if the primary skill is good enough to match or exceed what is needed to be selected in playing 11 and if there was always a second skill then that in itself entails higher value to the team. Ben stokes for instance if he is a better batsman than say Rahane most times ( which he is not imo and Rahane is no 5 none the less) then he will definitely have better value for the team as he bowls as well, if Rahane far exeeds him as a batsman

[diehardpacer]

Flintoff was a better and a proper all rounder compared to Kallis.

[maniac]

23 minutes ago, Vilander said:

not always. Kallis specifically was a better batsman in certain conditions in certain periods and was always a decent proper pace bowler. In that sense you tend to look at it this way, if the primary skill is good enough to match or exceed what is needed to be selected in playing 11 and if there was always a second skill then that in itself entails higher value to the team. Ben stokes for instance if he is a better batsman than say Rahane most times ( which he is not imo and Rahane is no 5 none the less) then he will definitely have better value for the team as he bowls as well, if Rahane far exeeds him as a batsman

Any examples? If it is a ODI game, I would pick Sachin hands down,  in tests too in most conditions I would pick Sachin, this is not a cherry picking comparison, it is overall if I have a batting slot vacant who would I pick and it is a no brainer it would be Sachin who is a bigger impact player than Kallis with the bat.

[maniac]

Also @Vilander the Ben Stokes comparison is not valid because Stokes is a better bat than Rahane and he can bowl. but would you pick Stokes over Kohli or Smith ?

Edited October 16, 2019 by maniac

[sarcastic]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

Any examples? If it is a ODI game, I would pick Sachin hands down,  in tests too in most conditions I would pick Sachin, this is not a cherry picking comparison, it is overall if I have a batting slot vacant who would I pick and it is a no brainer it would be Sachin who is a bigger impact player than Kallis with the bat.

Why can't both Sachin n Kallis play in XI?

[Ankit_sharma03]

6 minutes ago, diehardpacer said:

Flintoff was a better and a proper all rounder compared to Kallis.

flintoff was a better bowler

Kallis better batsman

[maniac]

Just now, sarcastic said:

Why can't both Sachin n Kallis play in XI?

Bhai it is just a one to one comparison. if there was one prime batting slot open, you already have all other slots filled who would you go for?

[Ankit_sharma03]

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

Also @Vilander the Ben Stokes comparison is not valid because Stokes is a better bat than Rahane and he can bowl. but would you pick Stokes over Kohli or Smith ?

Hows stokes a better bat then rahane ?? Stokes avg 35 and rahane 42

Apart from SA stokes doesnt avg anywhere above 40 and rahane avg is only less then 40 in 2 countries 

[putrevus]

Kallis would be my first pick if I am starting any test team.To me he started as an okay cricketer but blosommed into the greatest test cricketer.He would walk into any test eleven based on his batting alone.His bowling and outstanding catching was a bonus.He was technically correct batsman who could handle 10/2 and also 200/2 with same ease.

 

 

 

[Ankit_sharma03]

@Harsh Thakor- congrats this must be ur 1st thread where u got 10+ response without the mention of majid khan 

[maniac]

5 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Hows stokes a better bat then rahane ?? Stokes avg 35 and rahane 42

Apart from SA stokes doesnt avg anywhere above 40 and rahane avg is only less then 40 in 2 countries 

Stokes has a 100 in Australia against a prime Johnson and Harris. has a 100 in SC. Bigger impact player in LOI's. bigger impact player with the bat overall. I am not even counting his bowling and fielding. Bigger match winner with the bat hands down. I am not saying you but only an idiot will pick Rahane ahead of Stokes as a batsman based on average.

Edited October 16, 2019 by maniac

[Ankit_sharma03]

5 minutes ago, maniac said:

Stokes has a 100 in Australia against a prime Johnson and Harris. has a 100 in SC. Bigger impact player in LOI's. bigger impact player with the bat overall. I am not even counting his bowling and fielding. Bigger match winner with the bat hands down. I am not saying you but only an idiot will pick Rahane ahead of Stokes as a batsman based on average.

rahane had a 100 on a green track in england

Rahane has a 100 against johnson in Aus 

Rahane has  100 in NZ...not easy condition

Rahane has 2-100s in a game in delhi in 2015 famous Ind-SA series knwn for turners 

Rahane has a 100 pretty much everywhere ...just not in SA n Bang where also he got out on 98 n 96 ....stokes doesnt have a 100 in bang, uae, SL, WI, NZ 

 

 

Bowling, fielding not in discussion as it was just about batting 

LOI is not even a discussion since rahane doesnt own a place 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Ankit_sharma03

[maniac]

3 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

rahane had a 100 on a green track in england

Rahane has a 100 against johnson in Aus 

Rahane has 2-100s in a game in delhi in 2015 famous Ind-SA series knwn for turners 

Rahane has a 100 pretty much everywhere ...just not in SA n Bang where also he got out on 98 n 96 ....stokes doesnt have a 100 in bang, uae, SL, WI, NZ 

 

 

Bowling, fielding not in discussion as it was just about batting 

LOI is not even a discussion since rahane doesnt own a place 

Doesn't matter on pure batting alone Stokes is a bigger impact player. in 2 out of the 3 formats Stokes wins hands down as a batsman and you said yourself. May be in 1 format there is a contest but still I would pick Stokes for being a big match player over Rahane. I don't know why you are pulling numbers just for the sake of it. It is pretty much a no brainer who most people would have in the X1 if it comes down between those 2.

Edited October 16, 2019 by maniac

[Ankit_sharma03]

8 minutes ago, maniac said:

Doesn't matter on pure batting alone Stokes is a bigger impact player. in 2 out of the 3 formats Stokes wins hands down as a batsman and you said yourself. May be in 1 format there is a contest but still I would pick Stokes for being a big match player over Rahane. I don't know why you are pulling numbers just for the sake of it. It is pretty much a no brainer who most people would have in the X1 if it comes down between those 2.

In test their is no contest rahane is ahead as batsman and in LOI stokes 

Stokes will get in coz he is an all rounder , here we just talked about batting ...

26 minutes ago, maniac said:

Also @Vilander the Ben Stokes comparison is not valid because Stokes is a better bat than Rahane and he can bowl. but would you pick Stokes over Kohli or Smith ?

thats what u said.....

n we can only compare them in test since rahane cant even earn a place in other format

If it comes to choosing both of them only as batsman.....none will be choosen 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Ankit_sharma03

[maniac]

4 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Stokes will get in coz he is an all rounder , here we just talked about batting ...

thats what u said.....

n we can only compare them in test since rahane cant even earn a place in other format

If it comes to choosing both of them only as batsman.....none will be choosen 

If I had a team of X1, already have enough bowlers and I had to pick a batsman and the option is Sachin and Kallis, I would go with Sachin because he is a match winner with the bat, I won't need Kallis bowling and apples to apples for a batsman I would go with Sachin.

 

Same situation and now my only 2 options are Stokes and Rahane, I will go with Stokes even if there is a condition that Stokes cannot bowl because Stokes is a bigger impact player and match winner than Rahane.

 

Now if it comes down to Kallis vs Stokes, I would pick Kallis because he is a better batsman than Stokes and then maybe the fact that Kallis's bowling is better. That is just a bonus. The secondary skill is always a bonus

 

That is the point I was trying to make

 

 what is so confusing and complicated here?

 

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by maniac