The "Greatest" Allrounder

[Bahnz]

Has anyone seen the shortlist of "great" allrounders up for discussion on CricInfo's new blog? What a farce! For a start it includes wicketkeepers in the list. I know the skill is very difficult, but really wicketkeepers are slip fieldsmen with catching gloves. If you want to discuss them they should do a greatest wicketkeeper blog, and for god's sake make sure they don't include Alan Knott in the list.

On top of that there are a number of curious ommissions and inclusions. Like Wasim Akram. He may have been a great bowler, but his test batting average was 22, and that was boosted by a 250 n.o against Zimbabwe. Ravi Shastri is another odd one, as he took only 151 wickets in 80 test matches at an average of 40. And then there is Chris Cairns, who is absent from the shortlist despite being the second fastest player to achieve the 3000 runs/200 wickets double.

Who do you guys think is the best allrounder, and why? Personally, when I think of allrounders, I think of players who could win games with both bat and ball, so for me it would probably have to be Imran Khan. But Sobers, Miller and to a lesser extent Botham, Flintoff and Pollock would all have to be up there.

[BhupinderSingh]

Top 5 allrounders ever IMO:
Imran Khan
Ian Botham
Keith Miller
Kapil Dev
Chris Cairns

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by BhupinderSingh

Top 5 allrounders ever IMO:
Imran Khan
Ian Botham
Keith Miller
Kapil Dev
Chris Cairns

Mine

Sobers
Miller
Rhodes
Faulkner
Hirst

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by BhupinderSingh

Top 5 allrounders ever IMO:
Imran Khan
Ian Botham
Keith Miller
Kapil Dev
Chris Cairns

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/m...1100210300.htm

[BhupinderSingh]

If you want to discuss them they should do a greatest wicketkeeper blog, and for god's sake make sure they don't include Alan Knott in the list.

Alan Knott is one of the greatest ever WK-Batsmen,what makes u think that he doesn't deserve a mention with other WK-allrounders.

Wasim Akram. He may have been a great bowler, but his test batting average was 22, and that was boosted by a 250 n.o against Zimbabwe.

Akram was a true bowling-allrounder.Actually,he underperformed with the bat because his bowling was lot more than enough to keep him in the side.Also,there's a hell of a difference between the strength of the current Zimbabwian team & the one against whom Akram scored 257*.

Ravi Shastri is another odd one, as he took only 151 wickets in 80 test matches at an average of 40.

Ravi Shastri was a much better cricketer than u're giving him credit for.He initially got selected in the team as a bowler but later developed himself into a very fine batting allrounder.He's not an alltime great but one of the finest cricketers India has ever produced.

And then there is Chris Cairns, who is absent from the shortlist despite being the second fastest player to achieve the 3000 runs/200 wickets double.

The guy who wrote that article must be an idiot.How the hell can one forget Chris Cairns while discussing modern cricket allrounders.

But Sobers,Miller and to a lesser extent Botham, Flintoff and Pollock would all have to be up there.

Ian Botham & Keith Miller,both were much better allrounders than Gary Sobers.Sobers may be one of the greatest batsmen ever but he was hardly an allrounder.Infact,he was an excellent batsman who could bowl a bit,,just like Jacques Kallis.

[BhupinderSingh]

Originally Posted by bagapath

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/m...1100210300.htm

Thats pure nonsense.Also,it doesn't prove that G.A.Faulkner was a better allrounder than Imran Khan & Ian Botham.Faulkner was not even as good to wipe the shoes of both these allrounders(Imran & Botham).

[Jono]

THIS is the age of the specialist, and its chief casualty is the all-rounder. A true all-rounder would get into his team if he did not bowl a ball, as a batsman; and if he did not score a run, as a bowler. By these not necessarily exalted standards, there are perhaps only four genuine all-rounders in the game today, and three of them play for South Africa.

Who were the 3 that fit this description in SA at the time of the article (2001). Kallis I guess, Pollock? Surely he wouldn't get in on his batting alone at test level. Klusener? Who are the other players which meet this criteria?

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by BhupinderSingh

Thats pure nonsense.Also,it doesn't prove that G.A.Faulkner was a better allrounder than Imran Khan & Ian Botham.Faulkner was not even as good to wipe the shoes of both these allrounders(Imran & Botham).

when did i ever claim he was better than botham and imran? relax man. we are discussing cricket. it is fun. dont get hassled. you need to check your BP.

[Matt79]

For me:
Sobers
Imran
Miller
Hadlee
Botham

[silentstriker]

In order:

1. Sobers
2. Imran
3. Miller
4. Botham
5. Hadlee

[aussie tragic]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

In order:

1. Sobers
2. Imran
3. Miller
4. Botham
5. Hadlee

First time I think I'm in 100% agreement with SS

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by aussie tragic

First time I think I'm in 100% agreement with SS

That's cause you're coming around!

[Matt79]

Aussie Tragic - it feels wrong at first, but then you find yourself thinking "Indian pace sucks. Hmmm McGrath makes me all gooey" at random intervals, and suddenly everything feels like its going to be oooooooookay!

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Aussie Tragic - it feels wrong at first, but then you find yourself thinking "Indian pace sucks. Hmmm McGrath makes me all gooey" at random intervals, and suddenly everything feels like its going to be oooooooookay!

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Hmm, not at all comfortable with that!