TOP 5 all rounders of all time

[cricketfan28]

Shakib should be in there.

[Vijy]

1 minute ago, cricketfan28 said:

Shakib should be in there.

Hasn't played Oz at all and his record against the other major teams is quite poor. Bat avg of 20 against SA, 25 against Eng and 26 against Ind. Similarly in bowling, he did very poorly against good players of spin - 64 vs Pak, 41 vs SL and 43 vs Ind.

 

For me, an all-rounder is defined by how he has performed against the top-tier teams of his time in the respective discipline

[SUMO]

37 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Faulkner was much better than Hadlee and Kapil since an avg of 40+ in those time was rare. Moreover, if you look at his avg, and esp SR they are very impressive (and also number of wkts per match). Proctor would have been better than almost everyone listed here had he played more.

Yeah and clive rice too could have been better than any of the famous quartet in that era...in first class record he outclass them.
Anyways ifs and buts has no place in cricket
 

[Vijy]

7 minutes ago, SUMO said:

Yeah and clive rice too could have been better than any of the famous quartet in that era...in first class record he outclass them.
Anyways ifs and buts has no place in cricket
 

Comparison with Rice and quartet is not appropriate since the quarter were bowling all-rounders while Rice was a batting all-rounder. More accurate to compare with Proctor who, IMO, was better than the quartet.

[SUMO]

1 minute ago, Vijy said:

Comparison with Rice and quartet is not appropriate since the quarter were bowling all-rounders while Rice was a batting all-rounder. More accurate to compare with Proctor who, IMO, was better than the quartet.

He was top order batsman so it was humanely impossible to ball also as frontline pacer.
But he has 930 wickets at 22 and strike rate of 52 which is better than botham

[Vijy]

51 minutes ago, SUMO said:

He was top order batsman so it was humanely impossible to ball also as frontline pacer.
But he has 930 wickets at 22 and strike rate of 52 which is better than botham

exactly. he was a top order batsman and hence batting all-rounder - kind of like Jacques Kallis (lesser batsman, better bowler).

[gazza]

Miller I find is very underrated in these discussions. Procter imo would've been the best had he played more, rice probably would've been after Imran or possibly equal to him so rating those guys I'd put it as 1. Procter 2. Imran 3. Rice 4. Botham 5. Kapil 6. Hadlee 

 

hadles just didn't have the batting pedigree to compete with the others as all rounders though he was as good as Procter and Imran with the ball.

 

miller rates up there with Procter and Imran. Miller and Procter are probably the two most naturally gifted people ever to grace the cricket field (as far as the all round sense).

 

sobers is the best. Kallis probably fits in just above Kapil and possibly Botham. 

 

An eddie Barlow type is also underrated, very very good cricketer. And ashwin may end up right up there, I mean a spinner averaging 25 or under but able to average around mid 30s with the bat is incredible. Shakib, Faulkner, pollock, cairns, JR reid not too bad either.  Jack Gregory was pretty good but didn't do justice to his talents at the highest level.

Edited June 25, 2017 by gazza

[rtmohanlal]

8 hours ago, Vijy said:

Faulkner was much better than Hadlee and Kapil since an avg of 40+ in those time was rare. Moreover, if you look at his avg, and esp SR they are very impressive (and also number of wkts per match). Proctor would have been better than almost everyone listed here had he played more.

Just by going thru avg:s is as senseless as it can get. Faulkner lacks longevity, he played only in 3 countries(never played in subcontinent) and only played in one format. So finds it a bit senseless to place  him along the likes of Kapil 

[rtmohanlal]

55 minutes ago, gazza said:

Miller I find is very underrated in these discussions. Procter imo would've been the best had he played more, rice probably would've been after Imran or possibly equal to him so rating those guys I'd put it as 1. Procter 2. Imran 3. Rice 4. Botham 5. Kapil 6. Hadlee 

 

hadles just didn't have the batting pedigree to compete with the others as all rounders though he was as good as Procter and Imran with the ball.

 

miller rates up there with Procter and Imran. Miller and Procter are probably the two most naturally gifted people ever to grace the cricket field (as far as the all round sense).

 

sobers is the best. Kallis probably fits in just above Kapil and possibly Botham. 

 

An eddie Barlow type is also underrated, very very good cricketer. And ashwin may end up right up there, I mean a spinner averaging 25 or under but able to average around mid 30s with the bat is incredible. Shakib, Faulkner, pollock, cairns, JR reid not too bad either.  Jack Gregory was pretty good but didn't do justice to his talents at the highest level.

Finds it really strange to place Rice ,Procter etc  etc over proven allrounders .Apartheid isolation or what ever it be , just first class record is not enough to evaluate Procter,Rice etc etc .There are so many examples of  proven gaints like Sehwag,Hick ,Jayawardene,W.V.Raman, Mark Ramprakash ,David Warner etc etc who just  didn't have the calibre to take it to test level or if they did, were found wanting in completely foreign conditions.

 

[rtmohanlal]

Once again my top 5 are

1.Sobers

2.Kallis

3.Kapil

4.Botham

5.Imran

 

reasons .... i have detailed in OP itself.

[gazza]

Procter imo if you add the supertests to his test record, consider his domestic record, watch footage and do a lot of listening and reading about him he is considered very very highly so for me that's enough to rate him. Rice I believe would be where I ranked him again based on stats, and accounts. 

 

If the question is who was the best statistically at the test level then sure it's pretty much completely unfair to rate procter and especially rice (didn't even play a test though did play 3 supertests) with these guys but if I'm rating them as who I think was the best then it is what it is regardless of test match statistics.

 

County cricket in that era in particular was of exceptionally high quality and that's where these guys played, and they played against guys like viv Richards, Gordon greenidge, Barry richards, Hadlee, Imran, Botham etc so their domestic stats when looked upon need to take into account that they played against this high quality opposition.

Edited June 25, 2017 by gazza

[gazza]

My top few are sobers, Miller, Imran, Procter. After that I find it hard to rank them. Kallis has beastly stats but he didn't have that X factor, his bowling was solid but maybe not threatening enough. Hadlee was a notch too low with the bat, Botham had a tremendous first 5 years but it was against weaker opposition (though he's the best ever as far as putting it although at the same time but wasn't for long enough and his bowling wasn't quite where I rate others, he did injure his back which affected his bowling from mid career onwards). Kapil was inconsistent with the bat and his bowling wasn't quite as good as Imran/Hadlee/Miller/Procter. 

[rtmohanlal]

1 hour ago, gazza said:

Procter imo if you add the supertests to his test record, consider his domestic record, watch footage and do a lot of listening and reading about him he is considered very very highly so for me that's enough to rate him. Rice I believe would be where I ranked him again based on stats, and accounts. 

 

If the question is who was the best statistically at the test level then sure it's pretty much completely unfair to rate procter and especially rice (didn't even play a test though did play 3 supertests) with these guys but if I'm rating them as who I think was the best then it is what it is regardless of test match statistics.

 

County cricket in that era in particular was of exceptionally high quality and that's where these guys played, and they played against guys like viv Richards, Gordon greenidge, Barry richards, Hadlee, Imran, Botham etc so their domestic stats when looked upon need to take into account that they played against this high quality opposition.

Playing quality spin in subcontinental conditions  is  completely different & exacly opposite beast altogether from playing in swing/seam conditions.So i have a big if w.r.t unproven  players like Rice.Procter etc etc.Even with Miller that is the case.Any way each to their own.

[bones]

I think based on the stats in the only form of the game that matters, from the big 4 all rounders. Imran Khan is ahead of the other 3. In fact if you put aside any bias you might have for someone from your country, it's not even close. Imran's bowling is almost as good as Hadlee's and his batting is way better. His bowling is far superior to Kapil and Botham.

 

Sobers is top of the pile of course, but I would put Miller, Khan and Kallis at 2,3 and 4. Any of them could be interchanged. I would pick Gilchrist as no 5. Not sure why he isn't in the category as an all-rounder.

 

Kapil might make a top 10, but no way is he above the guys mentioned above.

 

So I would have it as follows.

 

1. Sobers.

2= Miller

2= Khan

2= Kallis

5= Gilchrist

[gazza]

13 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

Playing quality spin in subcontinental conditions  is  completely different & exacly opposite beast altogether from playing in swing/seam conditions.So i have a big if w.r.t unproven  players like Rice.Procter etc etc.Even with Miller that is the case.Any way each to their own.

which is fine if that's how you think but imo if you think that way about guys like procter and rice then you have to think that way about players like Dennis Lillee and even don Bradman, we wouldn't be able to rate or compare any of these players if that's how we compared players. Imo the best way to rate players is by watching them, reading and listening to accounts of them, viewing all of their statistics and, comparing them to the best of their own era and then comparing them to everyone in any era.

 

i think there is a point where you have to say this player was the best in his era therefore there is reasonable reason to think he would be a great in any era, otherwise you can only rate players within the same era and also players can then only truly be greats if they played all over he world but that means disregarding players like Bradman and Lillee who either didn't play at all outside of a couple of countries or played very little outside of a couple of countries. Basically a player can only be great if he played from about the 60s/70s onwards because they are the only ones who played a lot in various different countries/conditions. 

Edited June 26, 2017 by gazza

[Rightarmfast]

12 hours ago, bones said:

I think based on the stats in the only form of the game that matters, from the big 4 all rounders. Imran Khan is ahead of the other 3. In fact if you put aside any bias you might have for someone from your country, it's not even close. Imran's bowling is almost as good as Hadlee's and his batting is way better. His bowling is far superior to Kapil and Botham.

 

Sobers is top of the pile of course, but I would put Miller, Khan and Kallis at 2,3 and 4. Any of them could be interchanged. I would pick Gilchrist as no 5. Not sure why he isn't in the category as an all-rounder.

 

Kapil might make a top 10, but no way is he above the guys mentioned above.

 

So I would have it as follows.

 

1. Sobers.

2= Miller

2= Khan

2= Kallis

5= Gilchrist

As a matter of fact, Imran is still featuring in the top 5 of the @rtmohanlal 's list is because he is still being nice. Imran Khan's name cannot be counted in the same list as other greats because of his history of cheating, ball tampering. It's not even clear how much he benefited because of his cheating. He shouldnt be counted amongst the best at all!

[gazza]

If imran's tampering was so bad why is he still rated so highly by those who played against him and who are in their circle? Either what he did wasn't that bad or the others were doing it to...otherwise surely he'd get more ridicule from those who played with him, against him and those who associated with those people...

[Rightarmfast]

10 minutes ago, gazza said:

If imran's tampering was so bad why is he still rated so highly by those who played against him and who are in their circle? Either what he did wasn't that bad or the others were doing it to...otherwise surely he'd get more ridicule from those who played with him, against him and those who associated with those people...

Thats very cute! Perhaps you are ignorant of all the interviews and videos of various cricketers branding the whole Pakistani brigade as cheaters! They can't be talking about it all the time because there's something called 'courtesy'. Do try to read a little 

[gazza]

1 hour ago, Rightarmfast said:

Thats very cute! Perhaps you are ignorant of all the interviews and videos of various cricketers branding the whole Pakistani brigade as cheaters! They can't be talking about it all the time because there's something called 'courtesy'. Do try to read a little 

I suggest you don't accuse people of being ignorant of specific knowledge, I've read plenty on ball tampering in regards to Imran. Please if you will give a reasonable reason why Imran would be rated so highly if he was such a big cheat, it just doesn't add up.

[Rightarmfast]

13 minutes ago, gazza said:

I suggest you don't accuse people of being ignorant of specific knowledge, I've read plenty on ball tampering in regards to Imran. Please if you will give a reasonable reason why Imran would be rated so highly if he was such a big cheat, it just doesn't add up.

The reasons and videos have been posted extensively on the forum. Please do a thorough check and I reiterate again, study the topic a tad better!