-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The "Greatest" Allrounder
- Thread starter Bahnz
- Start date
Slifer
International Captain
Who ever it is who said that Sobers and Kallis were batsmen who could bowl a bit needs to come again. In that case, Imran and Miller were Bowlers who could bat a bit. Examples of a batsmen who could bowl a bit would be Frank Worrell or Wally Hammond. Realistically there is not a single cricketer who could make it into any test team on both disciplines, most allrounders have usually had one ability prevail over the other. In the case of Botham (and to some extent Dev), career wise, he was pretty good to average in both disciplines but great at neither. My Ranking:
Sobers
Imran
Miller
Botham
Everyone else
KAllis I'll judge when his career is over.
Sobers
Imran
Miller
Botham
Everyone else
KAllis I'll judge when his career is over.
aussie tragic
International Captain
Keith Miller could as he opened the bowling and batted at 5 for the majority of his career (scoring 1973 runs @ 41.97 at # 5)Slifer said:
C_C
International Captain
Indeed.
Boycott is on record stating that Sobers was one of the most dangerous new ball bowlers ever. He'd bowl at brisk pace, left arm and get the ball to cut around like nuts but he rarely bowled opening, as he was mostly a #5-6 batsman and WI had Hall-Gillchrist-Griffiths then, all of whom are more than accomplished enough to be opening bowlers.
Sobers is the best allrounder- easily and by far.
Sobers, as one ex-cricketer put in today's terms, would be what you'd get by mixing a Lara ( more stylish and slightly less brutal in his opinion than Lara) with the bat, a Giles when it comes to spin, a Gillespie when it came to pace, a Mark Waugh when it came to slip catching, and a decent outfielder all rolled into one.
After Sobers, i'd put the 'best of the rest' between Imran and Miller and i'd give it narrowly to Imran, if only because he had the luxury of a far lesser team than miller and played considerably more.
After those two, i'd put either Kapil, Mankad, Mike Procter and Kallis in a group, followed by Botham,Hadlee,Rhodes, Pollocks (both peter and shaun) and Cairns Jnr.
After that, i dont give a toss.
Btw, there is something interesting to note : Cricket in the last 50 years have had only two teams that can truely be called 'era-dominating' : Aussies of today and Windies of the 70s-early 90s. And neither of them has/have had a decent allrounder in their midst ( to the WI fans : i know Bernard Julien and Keith Boyce were decent allrounders and Julien had all the potential in the world that he drowned in booze- but they wernt really test regulars for long)
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Keith Miller
Wilfred Rhodes
Garry Sobers
Ian Botham
Imran Khan
In that order.
Wilfred Rhodes
Garry Sobers
Ian Botham
Imran Khan
In that order.
archie mac
International Coach
Read some books about the history of this great game, before making silly statementsBhupinderSingh said:
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
http://www.cricinfo.com/greatestallrounder/andyc said:
Whether or not a player has lots of potential as a batsman is completely irrelevant to whether or not they are actually a great player. I'm not saying Akram wasn't talented, but the fact is he never really performed as a batsman, nor was he type of player who would ever have been included in the side just as a batsman. He should fall into the long category of bowlers who are useful lower order batsmen like Shane Warne and Brett Lee.BhupinderSingh said:
And as for the Zimbabwe team Akram scored his 257*, back then the majority of Zimbabwe's strength was in their batting, not their bowling. And even then Heath Streak wasn't bowling in that game, so Zim were left with Henry Olonga and Brian Strang, hardly an intimidating attack. Jason Gillespie got a 200 recently against Bangladesh. Do you think he should be classified as an all-rounder?
Alan Knott did play in an era when wicketkeepers were not expected to be top batsmen. Still his average was 32. He'd only rank alongside some of the mediocre WK-batsmen of today (like McCullum and Akmal).BhupinderSingh said:
a massive zebra
International Captain
1. Garry Sobers
2. Imran Khan
3. Wilfred Rhodes
4. Keith Miller
5. Ian Botham/Mike Proctor
2. Imran Khan
3. Wilfred Rhodes
4. Keith Miller
5. Ian Botham/Mike Proctor
a massive zebra
International Captain
How can you justify the selection of George Hirst who was surely nothing more than the Graeme Hick or Mark Ramprakash of all-rounders?archie mac said:
Last edited:
archie mac
International Coach
Most people I would dismiss because they may not have read enough about George Hirst, but youa massive zebra said:
I was of cause taking his figures for Test and FC matches, his season in 1906 still makes the mind boggle, and this when the county championship was easily the strongest comp in the world and only just below Test cricket.
To quote Bill Frindall "The spectacular statisitcs of George Hirst's career will ensure his place in perpetuity amongst cricket's greatest all-rounders"
11 consecutive doubles. In 1906 he scored 2385 runs and claimed 208 wickets
a massive zebra
International Captain
Yes his county stats are indeed remarkable, but so are those of Graham Hick or Tich Freeman. No one in their right mind would consider either of these men to be among the greatest exponents of their art in all known history, purely as they failed at the highest level, and IMO George Hirst is pretty much in the same boat.archie mac said:Most people I would dismiss because they may not have read enough about George Hirst, but you
I was of cause taking his figures for Test and FC matches, his season in 1906 still makes the mind boggle, and this when the county championship was easily the strongest comp in the world and only just below Test cricket.
To quote Bill Frindall "The spectacular statisitcs of George Hirst's career will ensure his place in perpetuity amongst cricket's greatest all-rounders"
11 consecutive doubles. In 1906 he scored 2385 runs and claimed 208 wickets
The county championship of 100 years ago certainly enjoyed a much larger profile and far more positive reputation than the modern version, but I don't really agree with the notion that the standard was only just below Test cricket. A brief look at the records of leading English players at the time shows a large disparity between championship and Test averages. For example, Ranji averaged 63 in the championship and 45 in Tests, Fry 56 in the championship and 32 in Tests, Hayward 42 in the championship and 34 in Tests, and Tyldesley 41 in the championship and 30 in Tests. Test cricket has always been the place where cricketers have had to prove themselves in order to earn the right to be considered one of the greatest players of all time, and I don't think it should be any different in George Hirst's case.
Last edited:
archie mac
International Coach
Lets be honest county cricket which is now played in a different format, by too many teams, and plays four different comps. is a far cry from Hirst's time. Back then the county sides were a real match for Australian teams in FC cricket.a massive zebra said:
Stats I don't trust them, how come Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Barrington have much higher Test averages then their FC averages? Everything I have read by contemporary players suggests Hirst one of the truly greats.a massive zebra said:
