Who is currently best all-rounder in world?

[jusarrived]

On 29/08/2017 at 9:09 AM, SK_IH said:

even on potential ,why are you underrating sakib and overrating jaddu

i agree stokes is best of the lot but sakib is up there too 

 

I admit thats a marginal call , but Jadeja is a very underrated bowler . Sakhib may do both the role of a batsmen and bowler decently , I tend to favour players who are specialists in at least one facet of the game . 

[jusarrived]

5 hours ago, Zero_Unit said:

No offense but what kind of DumbA$$ logic is this man? Playing for a weaker team means you have LESS OPPORTUNITIES (less matches) and more PRESSURE on your shoulder. In reality, Stokes will play more matches than Shakib will ever dream of by the end of his career which will give him more chances and opportunities aswell. As for stokes, I have no clue why people likes to butter this boy up so much. Is it because he is from ENGLAND? He is a good player but seriously now ... the best in business atm? If you ask me, with all the allrounders going around these days, I would feel much safer to hand over the bowl to Jadeja than stokes, bat over to Shakib than stokes.

Not really . Stronger teams you have to be in top from most part of your career right from the word go , few bad matches there is a threat of being dropped . You need a very good start to your career . So need a bit of luck as well . its easier when you are the only world class player in the team , everything you do is heroic . 

For eg its a lot more difficult to stand out as a batsmen in Indian team compared to a Pak team , so a half decent batsmen can get a long run in Pak side . Manish Pandey and Manoj Thiwary are two examples , Pandey inspite of having some great performnaces has been on and off from the side , Thiwary I think scored a 100 and took a 5-fer in his last 2-3 matches and has never played since then 

 

[Executioner]

10 minutes ago, jusarrived said:

Not really . Stronger teams you have to be in top from most part of your career right from the word go , few bad matches there is a threat of being dropped . You need a very good start to your career . So need a bit of luck as well . its easier when you are the only world class player in the team , everything you do is heroic . 

For eg its a lot more difficult to stand out as a batsmen in Indian team compared to a Pak team , so a half decent batsmen can get a long run in Pak side . Manish Pandey and Manoj Thiwary are two examples , Pandey inspite of having some great performnaces has been on and off from the side , Thiwary I think scored a 100 and took a 5-fer in his last 2-3 matches and has never played since then 

 

In that sense I can say that Khawaja is better than Andy flower because Andy flower had no pressure

 

Remember we are talking about world class performers, them having the pressure of being replaced Should be non existent. Kohli has zero pressure of being dropped because he is damn Good. 

 

If you are going to compare contemporary allrounders, you have to realize that they have no pressure on them because they are performers. Allrounders are a valuable part of any Team.

 

Like some posters mentioned before playing for a top team means you do not have extreme pressure on your shoulders to perform. When it comes to Shakib he has to do bulk of the batting and bulk of the bowling. If he doesn't perform, we don't win. Simple. If stokes don't perform England can still win

 

What your point is that in stronger teams it's difficult for newcomers. Yes that's absolutely correct. Pandey got dropped soon even though he did well. A lot of pressure but when it comes to settled players there is no pressure. Kohli Rahane Pujara feel no pressure. 

 

 

 

[Gollum]

In tests Ashwin easily, how many MOS has he got till now, 6? 7? Pretty sure at least thrice more than the rest combined. A genuine matchwinner and a beast in half the globe. 

 

Shakib's stats are boosted by his performance against minnows, he is good but not as good because he hasn't played the big boys enough. 

 

ATM Stoke's ain't a batsman and his stats are mediocre. He has more potential than anyone one that last bar Ashwin but that's it.

 

Jaddu, Moeen have some way to go before they are in the discussion. Moeen is over rated with both bat and ball and Jaddu the batsman doesn't convince me. 

 

Right now it is Ash>Shakib>Stokes>Jaddu>Moeen

Edited August 30, 2017 by Gollum

[SK_IH]

10 hours ago, jusarrived said:

I admit thats a marginal call , but Jadeja is a very underrated bowler . Sakhib may do both the role of a batsmen and bowler decently , I tend to favour players who are specialists in at least one facet of the game . 

agree even I am not fan of bits n pieces players masquerading as all rounders but if I ask you which out of jaddu n sakib has the ability to play for his both as a batsman or bowler ,you ll get your answer about their all round ability.

Jaddu can't play only as a batsman ,he is primarily a bowler (am sure you know that too) but Sakib surely can play for any team either as bowler or batsman,ffs he has a 200 in NZ ,jaddu can only dream of that ATM

[Trichromatic]

Shakib is a specialist batsman now. He averages 41 with bat and can easily most of the teams as batsman. He has scored 2000 runs in his last 25 tests with avg of 49. Those are numbers of a top class batsman. He is unlucky to play just those 25 matches in last 5-6 years.

 

Currently he is ranked 16th as batsman above likes of Faf and Dhawan. His career ratings are higher than what Dhawan has ever achieved. At this rate he can break into top 10 as batsman.

 

He has taken 17 5-fer in 50 tests at avg of 32. He won't get into Indian team as spinner, but we have played worse spinners for long time. He will easily get into Aus, NZ, SA, WI, Pak, SL and Eng as spinner either first or second spinner.

 

He is probably becoming first AR who looks like can maintain a spot in many teams on either skills.

 

Sobers was great batsman, but 235 wickets in 93 tests with 6 5-fer means he was good as support bowler. 

Imran, Kapil won't get into teams as specialist batsmen.

Botham was among top bats and bowler in Englad for first 4 years but later he was just stretching it.

Kallis could get into some teams as bowler, but his numbers are of 5th bowler only.

 

Shakib is probably only AR in history of game for whose numbers you can take separately and compare with specialist batsman and bowlers.

[maniac]

With a heavy heart I say this Shakib is world class...and before @Malcolm Merlyn and the ilk celebrate this post...fk Shakib .....but yeah he is world class

[Texan]

On 8/30/2017 at 5:15 AM, goose said:

Not sure Ben Stokes even deserves the tag of all rounder. He's a batsman that bowls a bit.

He bowls more than a bit.

[Texan]

On 8/30/2017 at 8:49 PM, Trichromatic said:

Shakib is a specialist batsman now. He averages 41 with bat and can easily most of the teams as batsman. He has scored 2000 runs in his last 25 tests with avg of 49. Those are numbers of a top class batsman. He is unlucky to play just those 25 matches in last 5-6 years.

 

Currently he is ranked 16th as batsman above likes of Faf and Dhawan. His career ratings are higher than what Dhawan has ever achieved. At this rate he can break into top 10 as batsman.

 

He has taken 17 5-fer in 50 tests at avg of 32. He won't get into Indian team as spinner, but we have played worse spinners for long time. He will easily get into Aus, NZ, SA, WI, Pak, SL and Eng as spinner either first or second spinner.

 

He is probably becoming first AR who looks like can maintain a spot in many teams on either skills.

 

Sobers was great batsman, but 235 wickets in 93 tests with 6 5-fer means he was good as support bowler. 

Imran, Kapil won't get into teams as specialist batsmen.

Botham was among top bats and bowler in Englad for first 4 years but later he was just stretching it.

Kallis could get into some teams as bowler, but his numbers are of 5th bowler only.

 

Shakib is probably only AR in history of game for whose numbers you can take separately and compare with specialist batsman and bowlers.

Strictly on statistics, that sounds right. However, Kallis was a much better bowler than he is given credit for. If he wasn't such a good batsman and bowled more often in the top 3 bowlers, he would have much more wickets. He had decent pace and could swing the ball really well with good accuracy. Could have easily become first change bowler for Saffers.

 

Also, you missed Keith Miller. He batted mostly at 5 and averaged 41 at that position and played at a time when many of his fellow batsmen averaged in the 30s. His overall average of 37 is also pretty good. And his bowling average of 22 would easily give him a spot as a specialist bowler.

[Trichromatic]

2 hours ago, Texan said:

Strictly on statistics, that sounds right. However, Kallis was a much better bowler than he is given credit for. If he wasn't such a good batsman and bowled more often in the top 3 bowlers, he would have much more wickets. He had decent pace and could swing the ball really well with good accuracy. Could have easily become first change bowler for Saffers.

 

Also, you missed Keith Miller. He batted mostly at 5 and averaged 41 at that position and played at a time when many of his fellow batsmen averaged in the 30s. His overall average of 37 is also pretty good. And his bowling average of 22 would easily give him a spot as a specialist bowler.

No doubt about that. Kallis of 2000s looked much better than some of Indian pacers played till date. He had good pace, swing and control. 

 

He could have been first change bowler in any team except saffers. 

[CoverDrive]

Shakib and Stokes. Stokes gets my votes currently by being in a really amazing run of form with bat. He gets breakthroughs with ball but right now he is actually England's best batsman after Root 

 

[CoverDrive]

1 minute ago, CoverDrive said:

Shakib and Stokes. Stokes gets my votes currently by being in a really amazing run of form with bat. He gets breakthroughs with ball but right now he is actually England's best batsman after Root 

 

actually these two are probably the only 2 who can get into the team on the strength of their batting or bowling

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, Trichromatic said:

No doubt about that. Kallis of 2000s looked much better than some of Indian pacers played till date. He had good pace, swing and control. 

 

He could have been first change bowler in any team except saffers. 

But was not that great a batsman then. To become the batsman he later became, he had to give up his bowling a certain extent.  Still, even after that he could have been first change bowler for any team except SA is a bit exaggerated. He could not have made into Aus or Pak team of late 90s, early 2000s as a bowler alone. 

 

In his first 43 tests, he just had 70 wickets at 29 with an incredibly high SR of 73. While he averaged 43 with the bat in the same period.

Edited September 8, 2017 by rkt.india

[Kerberos]

3 hours ago, rkt.india said:

In his first 43 tests, he just had 70 wickets at 29 with an incredibly high SR of 73. While he averaged 43 with the bat in the same period.

Stellar stats for an allrounder.You must have very high standards?

[rkt.india]

5 minutes ago, Kerberos said:

Stellar stats for an allrounder.You must have very high standards?

yes, good for an alrounder but here discussion was something else. Here people were claiming that he could play for any team except SA as a first change specialist bowler in test cricket which wasn't the case looking at his stat of less than 2 wickets per match at a very high SR for a pacer.

[putrevus]

3 hours ago, rkt.india said:

yes, good for an alrounder but here discussion was something else. Here people were claiming that he could play for any team except SA as a first change specialist bowler in test cricket which wasn't the case looking at his stat of less than 2 wickets per match at a very high SR for a pacer.

Why do you think he wouldn't bowl more if he had too if he was playing for other teams. The team he played for did not need him that much so he might not had the stats, more than stats, Kallis always had pace  and skill good enough to be first change bowler for any team.He in my book if he wanted to could walk into any team as a bowler or batsman.

 

He and Sobers are only two players who could walk into any playing eleven either as a bowler or batsman.Botham in his first 50 tests would also fit but he would be more bowling all rounder and these two batting allrounders.

[rkt.india]

17 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Why do you think he wouldn't bowl more if he had too if he was playing for other teams. The team he played for did not need him that much so he might not had the stats, more than stats, Kallis always had pace  and skill good enough to be first change bowler for any team.He in my book if he wanted to could walk into any team as a bowler or batsman.

 

He and Sobers are only two players who could walk into any playing eleven either as a bowler or batsman.Botham in his first 50 tests would also fit but he would be more bowling all rounder and these two batting allrounders.

there is a reason his SR was high in that stat of his first 43 test from 95 to 200 I posted. Even if he had bowled less if he was good, his SR should been better than 73 and in early days, Kallis was not the batsman, he later became. His batting average of 43 over 43 tests showed that he might not have walked into every team as a batsman alone. He was not indispensable with the bat in that period. I have seen him bowl when he was new and in fact, he became a better bowler later but by then he was a reluctant bowler.

[putrevus]

5 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

there is a reason his SR was high in that stat of his first 43 test from 95 to 200 I posted. Even if he had bowled less if he was good, his SR should been better than 73 and in early days, Kallis was not the batsman, he later became. His batting average of 43 over 43 tests showed that he might not have walked into every team as a batsman alone. He was not indispensable with the bat in that period. I have seen him bowl when he was new and in fact, he became a better bowler later but by then he was a reluctant bowler.

Not everybody is the great to begin with , the question is did he have skills to works with to become great in both bowling and batting the answer is emphatic yes.Along with the skills he had work ethic too.

 

Players evolve and become great, Kallis was far better batsman when he retired than when he started just like Sanga.

[Vijy]

Shakib is the only player who I'd back to get 100's and 5-fers on a reasonably consistent basis, followed by Stokes. Hence, for me, they are the players who are the most complete all rounders as of now.