Just for discussion sake who was the greatest All rounder of The fab four kapil imran

[ganeshran]

rett - no offence, but you are an idiot without the mental capacity to engage in a constructive debate. Maaf karo yaar.

[zen]

@ duhsaran ..... So is pattison the new MCGrath? What constructive discussion were you hoping to get? Where did you get scientific data to do that comparision? Was everyone who laughed at you on that thread not worty of a discussion too .... Tsk Tsk, no one can do constructive discussion with this genius :haha:

[Cricket Tragic]

rett, You have stated that you only started watching cricket a few years back. So I'm pretty sure that you haven't followed the careers of these chaps.

[zen]

rett, You have stated that you only started watching cricket a few years back. So I'm pretty sure that you haven't followed the careers of these chaps.

I started watching cric from late 80s but don't recall much except for Sidhu's 6s and SRTs 4 6s of Qadir .... Mainly from the 90s is what I remember So yeah, my opinion on these all rounders is mainly based on reading abt them, opinion exchanged and videos .... Kapil after that 92 OZ tour was mostly dishing crap, iirc. But on that 92 tour he bowled brilliantly. Border even rated him as the best he faced, if I m not wrong

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

lol come back here after 15-20 yrs and i will guarantee you that you will be rolling on the floor reading your own posts ...

What would I be laughing at? For rating Kapil has better but picking hadlee :dontknow:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Vijay.Sharma]

I started watching cric from late 80s but don't recall much except for Sidhu's 6s and SRTs 4 6s of Qadir .... Mainly from the 90s is what I remember So yeah, my opinion on these all rounders is mainly based on reading abt them, opinion exchanged and videos .... Kapil after that 92 OZ tour was mostly dishing crap, iirc. But on that 92 tour he bowled brilliantly. Border even rated him as the best he faced, if I m not wrong

Nice to know that....it clarifies the image I had of your age. I guess I truly confused you with another poster on another forum. Now I know better...or maybe not? :--D

[zen]

Nice to know that....it clarifies the image I had of your age. I guess I truly confused you with another poster on another forum. Now I know better...or maybe not? :--D

:facepalm:

[Sooda]

Personally I think Kallis is a great batsman with bowling skills. Does that quantify him to be considered as an all time great all-rounder? I dont quite think so. Is it enough to be qualified to be picked as batsman or bowler to be qualified as an all-rounder? If that was the case Ravi Shastri or Tony Greig would be world beater too. To me an all-rounder is one who can do both the skills but is darn good at it too. As the opposing team you should be apprehensive enough of a player to be considered all time great all-rounder. If India were playing South Africa tomorrow and Kallis was the lone pacer, would Indians be really worried about him as a bowler? As a batsman of course there is no debate. To me Kallis has always been a good 1st or 2nd change bowler. Not quite a strike bowler. On the other hand if a team was playing against Pakistan, India, England or NZ in 80s you can be assured they were apprehensive of the Kapil, Imran, Botham, Hadlee. Not only were these gents leading bowling attack pretty much but were also very capable batsmen who would change the course of the game, specially the first three. xx

By that token would Hadlees batting too make him a bowler who could bat a bit as opposed to an allrounder? I would have thunk Greig and definitely Shastri were not nearly as good bowlers as Kallis to be counted as great allrounders

[Lurker]

By that token would Hadlees batting too make him a bowler who could bat a bit as opposed to an allrounder? I would have thunk Greig and definitely Shastri were not nearly as good bowlers as Kallis to be counted as great allrounders

That has broadly been the case against Hadlee. Of the 4 he is the first one to be dropped because his batting successes were not as much as the other 3. Bowling wise he was the best of the lot. Tony Greig was a pretty decent bowler. Ravi Shastri was also not bad. Shastri played many a series as the leading spin bowler. In fact his debut series he was the leading spin bowler and took a ten for, or something like that, against NZ. I am in no ways comparing Kallis to Shastri but Kallis does not create the same apprehenion in opposition as a strike bowler as an all-rounder typically should. Even his compatriots Chris Cairns and Freddie Flintoff were ahead of him in this regard.

[Vijay.Sharma]

I think the true ARs of the game - I did a thread on this lon time back. reposting it -

Folks, I just did some queries on statsguru to figure out some real elite all rounders in Test cricket. I also computed the ARIndex = Batting Avg / Bowling Average. An ARI of 1.00 is a very good all-rounder...the higher the number the better the AR. I also computed a Normalized ARI, the normalization is done based on a factor called "Relative Frequency Factor". The RFF is a value between 0.8 to 1.2 and it addresses consistency over long periods. The logic to include RFF is that, an ARI score of 1.00 achieved over 100+ Tests should have slightly more value than an identical ARI achieved over 25 Tests. The range of 0.8 and 1.2 is decided based on certain assumptions (we can change the range) based on the minimum and maximum number of Tests played by the shortlisted players. the minimum number of Tests was 25, and maximum was 131. So if both of these players had an ARI of 1.00, then the Normalized ARI would be 0.8 and 1.2 respectively. The RFF for all other players would be between 0.8 and 1.2 with the player who played 88 Tests (25 + 53 or 131 - 53) having an RFF of 1.00. Finally, Normalized ARI = RFF * ARI Now the conditional queries on statsguru...I qualified the results to give a shortlist of players who attested to the following conditions - a. Batting Average > 30 b. Bowling Average < 30 c. Minimum Runs scored in career >= 1000 d. Minimum Wickets taken in career >= 50 e. Minimum 1 Wkt/Match (to avoid situations where say a player who has taken 60 wickets from 100 Tests makes the cut) The list of elite ARs (sorted based on rank) - Player Normalized ARI Imran Khan (Pak) 1.71 SM Pollock (SA) 1.56 KR Miller (Aus) 1.47 IT Botham (Eng) 1.29 N Kapil Dev (India) 1.26 Mushtaq Mohammad (Pak) 1.23 GA Faulkner (SA) 1.23 TL Goddard (SA) 1.13 CL Cairns (NZ) 1.07 MA Noble (Aus) 1.05 W Rhodes (Eng) 1.04 GE Gomez (WI) 0.90

I dont agree with the exact ranks (esp Pollock so high) but well it's a start to do some more detailed analysis further

[Vijay.Sharma]

Then these two posts also were added to improve the method - And an improved version from Thongale in response to one of my posts

Me - I thought on those lines too...something similar (but don't agree with your example of batting average of 25 and 50 comparison to bowling average of 25 and 50. Maybe the comparison would be better this way - Batting improving from 30 to 45, Bowling improving from 30 to 22.5). So here is what I thought we could do to include the one-department-heavy ARs...oh looks like I have already mentioned it in the previous posts. Anyway copy-paste But, if we want to recognize the one-dept-heavy ARs, we can make the cut-offs conditional such that, a. If Bat-Avg >= 45 then Bowl Avg can be <= 35 b. If Bowl Avg <= 22.5/23 then Bat Avg can be >= 25 OK, pls tweak this a lil more to make it more appropriate and lemme know...I'll pull out the data and present them. Edit - I think a factor of 2 should be the difference for improvement in Batting over Bowling...lemme explain... If Bat of 50+ is considered ATG then Bowl of 25- is considered ATG. If 30 is the cut-off point for G-ness then a. on Bat scale moving from 30 to 40 is equivalent to moving from 30 to 25 on Bowl scale b. on Bat scale moving from 40 to 50+ is equivalent to moving from 25 to 22.5/23- on Bowl scale c. on Bat scale moving from 50 to 60+ is equivalent to moving from 22.5 to 20- on Bowl Scale So maybe roughly, a factor of between 2 and 4. However, I think we should take it step-wise (a, b, c) and make it factor of 2 for a, 3 for b, and 4 for c. How does the above sound? Thongale Great. The same thing can be done by introducing a exponential equation like y = a * exp(x). (Exp - exponential, or anti-natural log). That will avoid your grouping bias (the top candidate of the group and the bottom one will be treated similarly when groupings are done) and make it uniform. It's like improving the number of groups to a very high amount.

[akshayxyz]

Think there are quite a few. They come in 2 categories: 1. Cricket was an amateur, non competitive sport. Obviously they won't have a problem in saying Sobers is a worse all rounder than Bhagwaan as he played with a bunch of imbeciles, while Bhagwaan has been playing with the true Devtaas of cricket. 2. We can't say anything about cross era comparisons. So, obviously we can't even say anything about who was the better all rounder between Sobers and Bhagwaan.

koi gustaakhi ho gayi hai to maafi de do pracharya mahoday, humein nahi pata tha noble prize aapke kar kamlon se baanta jaata hai. Waise clarify kar deta hoon... when I say "cross era comparison does not make sense" - it is my polite way of saying, that such a study is beyond the auqat of most of the enlightenment-ki-torch bearers, esp likes of rettards with proven 2 paise ka background/credibility.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[BestVRest]

Kallis is overrated as an all rounder, yes he is a good player but I wouldn't put him in the pantheon of Hadlee, Botham, Dev and Imran.

[akshayxyz]

Kallis is overrated as an all rounder' date=' yes he is a good player but I wouldn't put him in the pantheon of Hadlee, Botham, Dev and Imran.[/quote'] This is unfair towards Kallis, what else one has to do to be regarded as great allrounder.. he has performed with bat , as good as best batsmen of his era, and has been very effective bowler.. Should he go for hair transplant to command some respect?

[BestVRest]

I have never had time for Kallis to be honest, he isn't that good as some people make him out to be, and he has never been respected in Australia. Kallis will just be a footnote in the history of the game, while Botham, Imran, Dev, Hadlee will be up there with the likes of Sobers. For me the greatest allrounder ever would have to be Sir Gary Sobers, wish we all could have watched him play, he could do everything and anything.

[Vijay.Sharma]

This is unfair towards Kallis, what else one has to do to be regarded as great allrounder.. he has performed with bat , as good as best batsmen of his era, and has been very effective bowler.. Should he go for hair transplant to command some respect?

I think it has got to do with his style of play...he is just not inspiring enough rather flamboyant like say Imran, Kapil, Botham, Sobers, Miller, Cairns, even Pollock, Hadlee. His greatness is in his numbers just like Rahul Dravid. If you are making an All Time XI I doubt anyone would pick Kallis as an AR ahead of Imran and Sobers. I doubt if they would pick him as an AR even in an SA All Time XI - surely Mike Proctor and Shaun Pollock would get a vote ahead of him. His only chance of getting picked in such teams is as a batsman and while he will make it to an all time SA XI I dont think he stands a chance in an all time world XI...maybe an all time second XI or third XI.

[BestVRest]

Imagine having Imran, Sobers, Hadlee and Kapil in the same team, they say Sobers could bowl at 140+ and bowl left arm, right arms, off sipn, leggies, the works and his batting was up there with the greats as well. Even Bradman said he has never see anyone like Sobers and there probably will never be anyone llike Sobers.