TOP 5 all rounders of all time

[rtmohanlal]

15 minutes ago, gazza said:

Barry Richards, Ian Chappell, Allan donald, Geoff Lawson. All these guys and probably others suggest to legalise it, some even admit that it happened, they call it preparing the ball. I can present links if you'd like, all you need to do is type in "legalise ball tampering" into google and these articles will come up. 

Ofcourse there might be some players who suggests that to be legalsied(some might have actually involved in it & some might have witnessed 

other bowlers doing it)  & some other are there who strongly condems that too. Any way , using other tools to alter the shape of ball is unethical & unfair & cheating what ever way you look at it. it doesn't matter x, y and z  did it. Quite naturally some body who didn't resort to it have to get more credit. That is my point of view.

[gazza]

6 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

Ofcourse there might be some players who suggests that to be legalsied(some might have actually involved in it & some might have witnessed 

other bowlers doing it)  & some other are there who strongly condems that too. Any way , using other tools to alter the shape of ball is unethical & unfair & cheating what ever way you look at it. it doesn't matter x, y and z  did it. Quite naturally some body who didn't resort to it have to get more credit. That is my point of view.

I respect that point of view, only thing I'd say in response is that we will never know who did it, how badly they did it and how often. To me if so many are ok with legalising it then it suggests that it is relatively common practice and it also suggests that players don't necessarily consider it cheating, obviously within reason. 

[rtmohanlal]

9 minutes ago, gazza said:

I respect that point of view, only thing I'd say in response is that we will never know who did it, how badly they did it and how often. To me if so many are ok with legalising it then it suggests that it is relatively common practice and it also suggests that players don't necessarily consider it cheating, obviously within reason. 

Not sure about others , but there is nothing other than to suggest that  the players i specified in my  earlier  msg:s  who criticised Imran  were not for tampering .And for me players  who  didn't resort to it  like Kapil & Botham, how ever lesser be in number, deserves lot more credit. Any way each to their  own

Edited June 27, 2017 by rtmohanlal

[Vijy]

2 hours ago, cuttermaster said:

Outside of this forum and a few hypernationalist Indian fans, no one rates Kapil above Imran - not even in the same ballpark as him. 

 

These conditions and twists RTM Lal is trying to hide behind are pitiful. Imran's contemporaries uniformly rate him as the best. This is the reality. TBH Shakib is equal or better than Dev by RTM Lal's own criteria.

 

Sobers is alone. Then Imran, Botham and Miller. Then Kallis. Then the rest.   

If you are comparing across eras, you should include Faulkner in the 2nd tier instead of Botham. Botham was like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - in the first 1/3rd of his career, he was truly remarkable with bat and ball; then he faded away in both disciplines. Imran also had slow start, but made up for it for majority of career (and declined towards end again).

[bleaf27]

From the player's I'v seen myself - no point putting people before my time on the list

 

1. Kallis
2. Andrew Symonds
3. Sanath Jayasuria
4. Chris Cairns
5. Brian McMillan

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, bleaf27 said:

From the player's I'v seen myself - no point putting people before my time on the list

 

1. Kallis
2. Andrew Symonds
3. Sanath Jayasuria
4. Chris Cairns
5. Brian McMillan

I am assuming this is an ODI list since everyone except from Cairns are batting all-rounders (in ODIs).

[gazza]

Can i just say I think cairns underachieved, at least with the bat. Also think the likes of Eddie Barlow and JR Reid don't get enough coverage, quality all rounders even if not top tier.

[Vijy]

1 minute ago, gazza said:

Can i just say I think cairns underachieved, at least with the bat. Also think the likes of Eddie Barlow and JR Reid don't get enough coverage, quality all rounders even if not top tier.

Trevor Goddard was another fine all rounder, although not top tier. Cairns certainly underachieved with the bat since he tried to bat like his father (a slogger) although he had a pretty good technique.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Vijy

[gazza]

7 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Trevor Goddard was another fine all rounder, although not top tier. Cairns certainly underachieved with the bat since he tried to bat like his father (a slogger) although he had a pretty good technique.

Yeah Trevor Goddard was also a good one, also jack Gregory who I mentioned earlier, Shaun pollock not to bad either.

[Vk1]

Pak always escapes with these kind of things knowing that the punishment is minimal. Srilankans too exploited muralis defective arm too the fullest. How on earth can an off spinner be a wrist spinner otherwise. And saeed ajmal was called a magician. Lol. Coming to imran, our pundits and ex players have this fascination for him. Manjrekar and other media celebs never talk about tampering and only hail imran and his captaincy.

[Vk1]

Somebody should do a stat. How many wickets has Pak picked between overs 40 and 80 when reverse swing is done the most vs the stats of other teams between same overs. Especially in Pak. And even in sharjah.

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, gazza said:

Yeah Trevor Goddard was also a good one, also jack Gregory who I mentioned earlier, Shaun pollock not to bad either.

Pollock never took his batting seriously. Gregory had amazing stats for his time, and was seen as a high impact player. Faulkner was another from that era. During that period, perhaps because of lesser competition, more names come to mind - Monty Noble, Wilfred Rhodes, etc.

[Rightarmfast]

6 hours ago, Vk1 said:

Somebody should do a stat. How many wickets has Pak picked between overs 40 and 80 when reverse swing is done the most vs the stats of other teams between same overs. Especially in Pak. And even in sharjah.

One just needs to see Imran's stats post 80's. It is easy to see that something was not right.

[rtmohanlal]

9 hours ago, Vk1 said:

 Coming to imran, our pundits and ex players have this fascination for him. Manjrekar and other media celebs never talk about tampering and only hail imran and his captaincy.

It has a lot with the general  relationship between the two countries. On one side both nations are politically & historically bitter enemies of sort.But people share almost common cultural traits.Because of these cultural similarities,most  Indian  players who have played against  Imran share good relationships with him.And  these players are not sort of street rowdies either to go on public personnel mud sligging with Imran. 

And some Indian players  have severely criticised PAK in general w.r.t tampering too while others have expressed their serious doubts w.r.t this. In short not all are 'Manjrekar type'. They just don't go over the top

because of the above said facts.That's all.

Edited June 28, 2017 by rtmohanlal

[gazza]

On 27/06/2017 at 9:12 AM, Vijy said:

Keith Miller didn't bowl much because of injuries, etc. but his overall stats are hugely impressive - he was a genuine middle-order batsman throughout (unlike Imran whose batting evolved over time).

Yep this is true, if you read up on his career he had a lot of back isssues to the point where accounts say he used to push his disc back into place on his walk back to his run up, his best bowling performance came after a big back injury (couldn't bowl for a month) and both lindwall and Davidson couldn't play due to injury themselves so Miller ended up taking most of the bowling load. His last ashes series.

 

Botham also had back issues but I've always struggled to find sources that talked about it with much depth so it's hard to know how much his cricket was affected by his back and when it really started to affect him.

Edited June 29, 2017 by gazza

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, gazza said:

Yep this is true, if you read up on his career he had a lot of back isssues to the point where accounts say he used to push his disc back into place on his walk back to his run up, his best bowling performance he wasn't even going to bowl but lindwall got injured. He ended up bowling 70 overs in that match and took 10 wickets. 

 

Botham also had back issues but I've always struggled to find sources that talked about it with much depth so it's hard to know how much his cricket was affected by his back and when it really started to affect him.

started to affect him more in 2nd half, and from what I read, wasn't as major as that of Miller.

[gazza]

16 minutes ago, Vijy said:

started to affect him more in 2nd half, and from what I read, wasn't as major as that of Miller.

Yes that's what I've heard of Botham. Unfortunately I think botham's decline came mainly from his lifestyle, not looking after himself etc. though I have no doubt he was affected by the back.

 

I believe miller got injured after the first tour match, and couldn't bowl for a month, in the first test he bowled 52 overs. Before the 2nd test lindwall and Davidson got injured and Miller ended up bowling 70 overs in the 2nd test getting 10 wickets in the match. His knee was buggered from the 2nd test and he played only as a batsman for the 3rd test.

Edited June 29, 2017 by gazza

[Vijy]

3 hours ago, gazza said:

Yes that's what I've heard of Botham. Unfortunately I think botham's decline came mainly from his lifestyle, not looking after himself etc. though I have no doubt he was affected by the back.

 

I believe miller got injured after the first tour match, and couldn't bowl for a month, in the first test he bowled 52 overs. Before the 2nd test lindwall and Davidson got injured and Miller ended up bowling 70 overs in the 2nd test getting 10 wickets in the match. His knee was buggered from the 2nd test and he played only as a batsman for the 3rd test.

that's true. Beefy was very ill-disciplined in terms of his lifestyle and attitude (and his back). As for Miller, poor guy was injured and also lost some of his best years to WW 2

[gazza]

My opinion of Miller is that he was a genuine fast bowler, all time great level, he had the potential to become an all time great bat but didn't at test level. Bradman said if he was forced to pick he'd say Miller was a better bowler than batsman but I've also heard others say that they believe if he hadn't been a bowler then he'd have been an all time great batsman. 

[rtmohanlal]

2 hours ago, gazza said:

My opinion of Miller is that he was a genuine fast bowler, all time great level, he had the potential to become an all time great bat but didn't at test level. Bradman said if he was forced to pick he'd say Miller was a better bowler than batsman but I've also heard others say that they believe if he hadn't been a bowler then he'd have been an all time great batsman. 

when analysing players like Miller we should also take into account the other factors ( adversities & advantages) related with them.For instance 

he played only 55 tests in a period of almost 10.5  years.So he lacks longevity & had enough breathing space between matches(not much work density).More over the bowling support unit he belonged to was immensely strong.The bowlers who played along with him all thru his career had a combined bowling avg: of around 26. Keep in mind it was some 37.5 for a player like Kapil.And there were some  8 batsmen during his times who avg:ed over 48.That means batting was not generally difficult either.And to add to these Miller was virtually untested in subcontinent.

From the 'ball count' of list of   available test inns of Miller, he was not an aggressive batsman either.So can't be predicted as to how he could have adapted to 'one day format' where 'econ:'  & 'str: rate' are the keys.No doubting the fact that Miller was an ATG all rounder.

But in rating players these factors do count.Just my cents.

Edited June 29, 2017 by rtmohanlal