Majestic Posted December 31, 2022 Posted December 31, 2022 You have to pick 10 names here, I am throwing 25 names that comes to my mind. You can pick someone who is not in this list too if you think he merits a place in top 10. Garfield Sobers Keith Miller Vinoo Mankad Imran Khan Richard Hadlee Ian Botham Kapil Dev Tony Grieg Ravi Shastri Brian Macmillan Chris Cairns Shaun Pollock Jacques Kallis Daniel Vettori Andrew Flintoff Shakib Al Hasan Ravichandran Ashwin Ben Stokes Ravindra Jadeja Jason Holder Mike Proctor Aubrey Faulkner Wilfred Rhodes Trevor Goddard Monty Noble
zen Posted December 31, 2022 Posted December 31, 2022 (edited) Sobers Hadlee Imran Stokes Procter Kallis Mankad Miller Botham Kapil Edited January 1, 2023 by zen
Majestic Posted January 1, 2023 Author Posted January 1, 2023 (edited) To start with, the definition of all rounder is an interesting discussion to have. Should it be someone who is good enough to win matches with bat or bowl, someone who can get into the team on either of his discipline. These are all subjective metrics. Should it be that a bowling A/R(who is still good enough with bat but a great bowler) be rated higher than genuine A/R( very good with bowl and bat both but not necessarily great in any discipline) because he is overall a better cricketer? A Shaun Pollock or Ashwin for that example when compared to Stokes/Jadeja/Cairns etc or a Hadlee compared to Botham/Dev? Edited January 1, 2023 by Majestic
Vijy Posted January 1, 2023 Posted January 1, 2023 (edited) On 12/31/2022 at 2:54 PM, Majestic said: You have to pick 10 names here, I am throwing 25 names that comes to my mind. You can pick someone who is not in this list too if you think he merits a place in top 10. Garfield Sobers Keith Miller Vinoo Mankad Imran Khan Richard Hadlee Ian Botham Kapil Dev Tony Grieg Ravi Shastri Brian Macmillan Chris Cairns Shaun Pollock Jacques Kallis Daniel Vettori Andrew Flintoff Shakib Al Hasan Ravichandran Ashwin Ben Stokes Ravindra Jadeja Jason Holder Mike Proctor Aubrey Faulkner Wilfred Rhodes Trevor Goddard Monty Noble what format? tests I assume. 1. sobers [the most talented cricketer ever] 2. proctor [the only one I saw who equaled sir garry in talent] 3. miller [seems to be another one with almost sir garry talent as per eyewitness accounts, and with big-match performances] 4. kallis [the best AR of past 30-40 years; underachiever with ball] 5. botham [if we only consider first 35-40% of his career, he would be no. 1] 6. imran [great AR undoubtedly, but overhyped by Pak] 7. shakib [most balanced and consistent AR currently around; but a big d**khead] 8. greig [very underrated player; proper middle-order bat who could bowl penetrative seam,spin] 9. faulkner [with his stats, he should be somewhere in top 10] 10. j. gregory = stokes [see above post for gregory; stokes is a matchwinner that goes beyond stats] 11. mankad = jaddu [india's greatest AR] 12. kapil [batting & bowling were inconsistent, underachieved] 13. pollock [beautiful batting, but underachieved] 14. cairns [like pollock, underachieved with bat] Edited January 2, 2023 by Vijy Pollack 1
Majestic Posted January 1, 2023 Author Posted January 1, 2023 20 minutes ago, Vijy said: what format? tests I assume. 1. sobers [the most talented cricketer ever] 2. proctor [the only one I saw who equaled sir garry in talent] 3. miller [seems to be another one with almost sir garry talent as per eyewitness accounts, and with big-match performances] 4. kallis [the best AR of past 30-40 years; underachiever with ball] 5. shakib [most balanced and consistent AR currently around; but a big d**khead] 6. botham [if we only consider first 35-40% of his career, he would be no. 1] 7. imran [great AR undoubtedly, but overhyped by Pak] 8. greig [very underrated player; proper middle-order bat who could bowl penetrative seam,spin] 9. faulkner [with his stats, he should be somewhere in top 10] 10. j. gregory = stokes [see above post for gregory; stokes is a matchwinner that goes beyond stats] 11. mankad = jaddu [india's greatest AR] 12. kapil [batting & bowling were inconsistent, underachieved] 13. pollock [beautiful batting, but underachieved] 14. cairns [like pollock, underachieved with bat] Asian pace bowling all rounders should be rated higher than what their average suggests. I see you underrating them. There is no way Shakib is a greater all rounder than Kapil and Imran also should be rated a tad higher. Kapil for example played 130 tests in 13 years of his career, that's bound to hurt his average because he didn't had the privilege to skip tests. Also, he stood up against the great Windies side with both bat and bowl too. Vijy 1
Vijy Posted January 1, 2023 Posted January 1, 2023 4 minutes ago, Majestic said: Asian pace bowling all rounders should be rated higher than what their average suggests. I see you underrating them. There is no way Shakib is a greater all rounder than Kapil and Imran also should be rated a tad higher. Kapil for example played 130 tests in 13 years of his career, that's bound to hurt his average because he didn't had the privilege to skip tests. Also, he stood up against the great Windies side with both bat and bowl too. I wasn't underrating any of them in my book. I put Imran a bit lower than most would because I regard his home record with an asterisk; of course, pakistani fans will not accept that. as for kapil, I am a big fan, but I don't think he achieved what he could with the bat. with the ball, he was pretty good - which is why he is at no. 12. he overstayed for several years though, and that is what ultimately hurt his record, more so than playing in SC shakib has done well at home, obviously, but there are several overseas countries where either his batting or bowling has been very good.
Vijy Posted January 1, 2023 Posted January 1, 2023 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Majestic said: To start with, the definition of all rounder is an interesting discussion to have. Should it be someone who is good enough to win matches with bat or bowl, someone who can get into the team on either of his discipline. These are all subjective metrics. Should it be that a bowling A/R(who is still good enough with bat but a great bowler) be rated higher than genuine A/R( very good with bowl and bat both but not necessarily great in any discipline) because he is overall a better cricketer? A Shaun Pollock or Ashwin for that example when compared to Stokes/Jadeja/Cairns etc or a Hadlee compared to Botham/Dev? almost no AR can play both as pure bowler and as pure batter simultaneously. only ones who come to mind are sobers (because WI attack was very weak then); jack gregory (too old); aubrey faulkner (too old); shakib; mankad (weak Indian team). I think proctor could have played as pure batter, but didn't get enough tests to display his potential Imran, for instance, was not at his batting peak when at his bowling peak and vice-versa. thus, he would not qualify since Pak had very strong batting when he was at his bowling peak. Edited January 1, 2023 by Vijy
Lord Posted January 1, 2023 Posted January 1, 2023 Kallis Sobers Imran Botham Miller Mankad Pollock Shakib Kapil Hadlee Vijy 1
AuxiliA Posted January 1, 2023 Posted January 1, 2023 Why people here are rating Mankad over Ashwin and Jadeja? Makes ZERO sense. raki05 1
Majestic Posted January 1, 2023 Author Posted January 1, 2023 1 hour ago, raki05 said: Harpic Bandya. Bandya Bafridi Bazzak Batson don't count in tests. raki05 and Lord 2
Vijy Posted January 1, 2023 Posted January 1, 2023 1 hour ago, Majestic said: Bandya Bafridi Bazzak Batson don't count in tests. what about batman?
zen Posted January 1, 2023 Posted January 1, 2023 16 hours ago, Vijy said: Imran, for instance, was not at his batting peak when at his bowling peak and vice-versa. thus, he would not qualify since Pak had very strong batting when he was at his bowling peak. Difficult to be at both batting & bowling peaks at the same time, however, Imran has the longest streak (81 tests or something) of averaging over 40 with the bat and less than 30 with the ball. In the 80s for e.g. - Batting avg 44, Bowling avg 19 ... Away Batting avg 44, Bowling avg 21; Home 44 & 17 In the 90s for e.g. - Batting avg 61, Bowling avg 30 (90-92 period, where he played 9 tests, probably influences the opinion about his peak because his batting improved and bowling declined relatively but his record in the 80s as an AR was good) A quick comparison in the 80s: Imran: batting 44, bowling 19 Hadlee: batting 31, bowling 19 Botham: batting 34, bowling 32 Kapil: batting 31, bowling 30
Vijy Posted January 1, 2023 Posted January 1, 2023 1 hour ago, zen said: Difficult to be at both batting & bowling peaks at the same time, however, Imran has the longest streak (81 tests or something) of averaging over 40 with the bat and less than 30 with the ball. In the 80s for e.g. - Batting avg 44, Bowling avg 19 ... Away Batting avg 44, Bowling avg 21; Home 44 & 17 In the 90s for e.g. - Batting avg 61, Bowling avg 30 (90-92 period, where he played 9 tests, probably influences the opinion about his peak because his batting improved and bowling declined relatively but his record in the 80s as an AR was good) A quick comparison in the 80s: Imran: batting 44, bowling 19 Hadlee: batting 31, bowling 19 Botham: batting 34, bowling 32 Kapil: batting 31, bowling 30 yes, but my original reply was to another poster about whether someone can get selected both as pure bowler and pure batter. Pak batting was at its best in 80s, so I don't feel imran would be selected as pure batter - that's not downplaying his ability, but rather commenting on the strength of pak batting. zen 1
zen Posted January 2, 2023 Posted January 2, 2023 50 minutes ago, Vijy said: yes, but my original reply was to another poster about whether someone can get selected both as pure bowler and pure batter. Pak batting was at its best in 80s, so I don't feel imran would be selected as pure batter - that's not downplaying his ability, but rather commenting on the strength of pak batting. Imran was more focused on bowling in the 80s (and he was known to play against strong teams and rest against likes of SL), his batting avg was better than many specialist batsmen: Primary team Pakistan Start of match date between 1 Jan 1980 and 31 Dec 1989 Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 Ordered by batting average (descending) Overall figures Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 0 Javed Miandad 1980-1989 76 110 7 5642 280* 54.77 16 26 3 Zaheer Abbas 1980-1985 41 58 7 2460 215 48.23 6 11 5 Shoaib Mohammad 1983-1989 26 37 3 1543 203* 45.38 4 8 4 Imran Khan 1980-1989 54 71 16 2430 135* 44.18 5 13 4 Saleem Malik 1982-1989 56 77 13 2642 119* 41.28 7 14 6 Mudassar Nazar 1980-1989 61 90 7 3328 231 40.09 8 14 7 Mohsin Khan 1981-1986 42 69 6 2427 200 38.52 7 9 3 Qasim Umar 1983-1986 26 43 2 1502 210 36.63 3 5 2 Wasim Raja 1980-1985 29 45 8 1246 125 33.67 2 8 4 Ramiz Raja 1984-1989 29 46 3 1379 122 32.06 2 9 2 In the 90- early 92 period, he had the best batting average for Pak! Primary team Pakistan Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 7 Jan 1992 Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 400 Ordered by batting average (descending) Overall figures Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s Imran Khan 1990-1992 9 13 4 545 136 60.55 1449 37.61 1 4 2 42 5 Shoaib Mohammad 1990-1992 12 20 3 845 203* 49.70 2239 37.74 3 1 2 92 2 Saleem Malik 1990-1992 10 16 3 613 102 47.15 1139 53.81 2 4 1 70 1 Ramiz Raja 1990-1992 10 16 1 458 98 30.53 1111 41.22 0 4 2 53 0 Javed Miandad 1990-1992 11 16 1 400 65 26.66 1089 36.73 0 3 0 40 1 Vijy 1
zen Posted January 2, 2023 Posted January 2, 2023 (edited) 12 hours ago, AuxiliA said: Why people here are rating Mankad over Ashwin and Jadeja? Makes ZERO sense. Mankad is Ind's best AR when you account for him not playing on "tailored" pitches at home, performing overseas including hitting 100s in Aus and Eng (the top 2 teams and 100% of SENA teams that Ind played during his period) opening the batting for India for e.g. Link, having bowling spells like 5-ers in Eng (Jadeja & Ashwin b/w them probably have like a 5-er in SENA. Now they are at the end of their careers. Mankad only has one country where he does not have a 5-er), and so on. PS in matches won, Mankad as an avg difference of around 100 with a batting average of 113 (112.60) and bowling avg of 13 (13.31) Edited January 2, 2023 by zen
zen Posted January 2, 2023 Posted January 2, 2023 (edited) Similarly, Hadlee in the 80s for NZ View overall figures Primary team New Zealand Start of match date between 1 Jan 1980 and 31 Dec 1989 Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 Ordered by batting average (descending) Overall figures Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s JF Reid 1981-1986 18 29 3 1277 180 49.11 3616 35.31 6 2 3 131 1 MD Crowe 1982-1989 45 76 7 3127 188 45.31 7339 42.60 10 11 7 384 6 JV Coney 1980-1987 45 73 14 2303 174* 39.03 5345 43.08 3 14 3 231 5 JG Wright 1980-1989 56 100 4 3271 141 34.07 9235 35.41 7 13 4 380 6 BA Edgar 1980-1986 33 57 4 1662 161 31.35 5176 32.10 2 11 5 150 0 Sir RJ Hadlee 1980-1989 53 80 14 2040 151* 30.90 3466 58.85 2 10 7 235 20 GP Howarth 1980-1985 30 51 2 1491 147 30.42 3649 40.86 2 8 3 149 0 JJ Crowe 1983-1989 38 64 4 1592 128 26.53 4615 34.49 3 6 6 182 4 IDS Smith 1980-1989 49 70 15 1376 113* 25.01 2347 58.62 1 5 7 170 4 In that NZ batting line up heavily dependent on M Crowe, that is useful performance with the bat, considering his humongous performances with the ball as well! Edited January 2, 2023 by zen
Vijy Posted January 2, 2023 Posted January 2, 2023 1 minute ago, zen said: Similarly, Hadlee in the 80s for NZ View overall figures Primary team New Zealand Start of match date between 1 Jan 1980 and 31 Dec 1989 Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 Ordered by batting average (descending) Overall figures Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s JF Reid 1981-1986 18 29 3 1277 180 49.11 3616 35.31 6 2 3 131 1 MD Crowe 1982-1989 45 76 7 3127 188 45.31 7339 42.60 10 11 7 384 6 JV Coney 1980-1987 45 73 14 2303 174* 39.03 5345 43.08 3 14 3 231 5 JG Wright 1980-1989 56 100 4 3271 141 34.07 9235 35.41 7 13 4 380 6 BA Edgar 1980-1986 33 57 4 1662 161 31.35 5176 32.10 2 11 5 150 0 Sir RJ Hadlee 1980-1989 53 80 14 2040 151* 30.90 3466 58.85 2 10 7 235 20 GP Howarth 1980-1985 30 51 2 1491 147 30.42 3649 40.86 2 8 3 149 0 JJ Crowe 1983-1989 38 64 4 1592 128 26.53 4615 34.49 3 6 6 182 4 IDS Smith 1980-1989 49 70 15 1376 113* 25.01 2347 58.62 1 5 7 170 4 In that NZ batting line up heavily dependent on M Crowe, that is useful performance with the bat, considering his humongous performances with the ball! I never trusted hadlee much with the bat. although he had a decent batting avg, I always saw him as a bowler who can wield the long handle effectively, but not a proper lower-middle-order bat. his greatness as a bowler is beyond doubt too.
zen Posted January 2, 2023 Posted January 2, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Vijy said: I never trusted hadlee much with the bat. although he had a decent batting avg, I always saw him as a bowler who can wield the long handle effectively, but not a proper lower-middle-order bat. his greatness as a bowler is beyond doubt too. Hadlee was effective with the bat ... esp. when you consider he is playing more in Aus, Eng, NZ, & WI ... His % of team runs are likely to be high for NZ. Compare that with a Pollock, who % of runs scored would be relatively miniscule for SA Edited January 2, 2023 by zen
Vijy Posted January 2, 2023 Posted January 2, 2023 2 minutes ago, zen said: Hadlee was effective with the bat ... esp. when you consider he is playing more in Aus, Eng, NZ, & WI. he did okay in home conditions, but didn't do well with the bat in aus (20.4), WI (22.8), eng (26.9), and Ind (11.0). he was definitely below the other 3 (or 4-5 if one adds proctor and rice) with the bat. not just stats-wise, but in terms of just ability. he was the best bowler of the lot though
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now