• 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.

all-round ability

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
:book:
Do yourself a favour mate, put your pocket calculator away and go and watch a game of cricket..........you might learn something.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
I have done both. You have done neither it seems...Even I am better than you in your mother-tongue which is evident from our silly debate on the other thread...And you know I won't advise you to learn anything, because I know you don't have capabilities for that.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
I have done both. You have done neither it seems...Even I am better than you in your mother-tongue which is evident from our silly debate on the other thread...And you know I won't advise you to learn anything, because I know you don't have capabilities for that.
:laugh: Let's see, Jacques Kallis is a better all rounder than Garry Sobers and Ian Botham..........excellent. Jacques Kallis is one of the top 15 batsman of all time........super.
With stuff like this to learn there just aren't enough minutes in the day.:laugh:
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Glenn McGrath's batting!
What about that sterling 61 at the Gabba (or was it 61*). God...do I have to do this again!?

Why Glenn McGrath should be making one of England’s bowlers his target in this Ashes series!

A lot has been made of Adam Gilchrist’s lethal performances with the bat over the last 7 years or so, but what about the forgotten man of Australian cricket – Glenn McGrath? A part-time bowler whose claims to batting greatness have generally been thwarted by his continual placement at the very bottom of Australia’s order, he’s generally regarded as a bit of a batting bunny. His plight certainly hasn’t been helped by articles such as this appearing in various news outlets around the cricketing globe:

McGrath Vindicated

"Glenn McGrath today took advantage of the newly relaxed laws regarding the player's Code of Conduct to speak out about rumours surrounding his position at no.11 in the National team.

It had been reported in the media that Glenn may be struggling to hold on to his spot at 11 and may in fact be moved down to 10.

McGrath responded by saying "The number 11 spot in any batting line-up is a specialist position, and I feel it's ludicrous to suggest that a rookie can simply waltz into the team and go straight in at the tail. I've fought hard over the last 10 years to make it my own"

Glenn's coach, Barry Average, also weighed into the debate saying "Glenn and I have worked hard together to hone his batting to a finely crafted edge, and rumours such as these undermine all the hard work we've put in together over the years."

Barry also shared some of the duo's training secrets with us, revealing that the secret to Glenn's success is his patented "Barn Door and Shovel" routine. "Last week Glenn actually swung the shovel and hit the barn door, it was a breakthrough, and I think the only way is up from here", Barry said.

Glenn hopes his recent form will have quashed any rumours he is going to lose his coveted number 11 spot.

He finished by thanking Michael Kasprowicz for preventing him from doing his own cause any harm in the First Test against Sri Lanka.

"I felt like I was actually hitting them ok there in the second innings, and was seeing them almost as big as cricket balls, luckily Kasper could see what happening from the other end and sacrificed himself with a wild pull shot before I could do any real damage to my cause."

Tune in to the second half of the revealing interview with Glenn next week when he shares some of his batting tips with aspiring young no.11's, and also tells us why he thinks he might have been able to sneak the aluminium bat into test cricket undetected."

(Note: Article taken from The Bladder website by the writer of this statistical piece in what may, or may not, be a gratuitous plug for both the site and his contribution)

I think Glenn brought up quite a pertinent point in that article though – and that is the idea that, by batting at 11, he really is in a specialist position all on his own. Whilst the glory boys like Ponting, Martyn, Hayden, and indeed Gilchrist prance around with any number of partners in hand knowing that all they have to do to score runs is stay at the crease…McGrath is up against right from the start, knowing that if a wicket falls (whether it’s his or not) he’s out of there!

This might sound a little like a bunch of excuses penned to cover up for McGrath’s apparent weakness with the willow, but I’m prepared to wheel out a set of stats right here and now that will have you convinced that McGrath is the better batsman out of himself and Gilchrist!

* I’m looking at stats from Gilchrist’s First Test onwards here as I feel it’s important to make a direct comparison of the two across Tests they’ve both played in. Some of you will no doubt argue that McGrath had some 6 years to become accustomed to batting in Test match situations by the time Gilchrist came on the scene….but I’d put it to you that by the end of Gilchrist’s First Test they were pretty much even as far as aggregate goes.

* I’ve done an analysis of games Australia has lost since 99/00 comparing Gilchrist and McGrath’s records and have come up with some amazing findings! In this period Gilchrist has scored 440 runs @ 29.33 in losing games with two ducks and 0 not outs. McGrath has scored 87 runs @ 21.75 in the same games, again with two ducks and 7 not outs. Gilchrist has the higher average, but it does highlight something I’ve noticed for a while now – when McGrath fails with the bat, the team inevitably loses!

* Further to this, McGrath has an amazing 7 not outs in this period, to Gilchrist’s 0. I thought it necessary to add an element of scaling here given the extraordinary amount of times McGrath was left stranded…so I took into account the fact that an ordinary batsman would be expected to convert at least two of these ‘starts’ into big scores (i.e. 100’s) so if we add 200 to McGrath’s total he has 287 runs at an astounding average of 71.75!! This not only makes him better than Gilchrist, he’s been the best batsman in the team in losing efforts since 99/00! So not only does the team fail when McGrath doesn’t fire, when the team loses because they don’t fire it robs McGrath of the chance to fire! He’s basically a smoldering ember held in check by the damp cloth that is his under performing team-mates!

* In fact, if you apply the ‘not out’ system of run accreditation (copyrighted by this stats firm as of today), McGrath has an amazing 42 not outs during his career! That’s an extra 1200 runs which brings his average up to 14.8…if you then times that by the number of positions Gilchrist is ahead of him in the batting list (4) to come up with a fair result you see that McGrath’s test batting average is a resounding 59.2, a long way ahead of Gilchrist’s average of 55.64…and involving a hell of a lot more tests! Consistency, that’s what it’s all about folks!

* Considering McGrath is a number 11 it’s pretty much a given that he’s never officially been ‘out’ in his whole life, so when he does actually fall prey to a legitimate dismissal his average will be (weighted and factored) 1756+ - amazing stuff from probably the best batsman we’ve ever seen.

* As far as aggression goes, Gilchrist’s strike rate is a rather high 83.26 in tests – one of the highest ever. But if we again factor in McGrath’s position in the order, and take into consideration the fact that he rarely ever lasts more than 11.1 balls, we see that his 1756 runs came in 1332 balls (120 innings), giving him a strike rate of 131.83….again much higher than Gilchrist.


I have to confess that when Andy mentioned aggression I wasn’t sure whether he was referring to the physical act or the approach to batting. Deeming the first way too easy to prove in McGrath’s favour I opted for the latter…and was surprised to see both fall to McGrath.

I know this has been a lengthy stats thesis. Given the perception some people have of his ability with the willow though I felt it necessary to support my findings with numerous facts to back them up.

I hope you can all now sit back and appreciate McGrath as possibly the greatest attacking batsman the game has ever seen, and quite a useful part-time bowler as well.

Thank you…..and goodnight.
 

Debris

International 12th Man
I think Kallis will slip in this list as his career continues. His bowling is definitely fading as he concentrates on his batting.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
:laugh: Let's see, Jacques Kallis is a better all rounder than Garry Sobers and Ian Botham..........excellent.
It takes brain-size larger than that of a nut to understand from my first post in this thread that I didn't compare them as players (or all rounders)...I compared the area they were weaker at between batting and bowling....That means I compared Kallis' bowling with Sobers' bowling and Botham's batting...Do I have to say again?
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
I think Kallis will slip in this list as his career continues. His bowling is definitely fading as he concentrates on his batting.
Maybe you are right...I prepared this list based on things as they stand as of now...In future (when Kallis and Flintoff end their career) this may change...
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
It takes brain-size larger than that of a nut to understand from my first post in this thread that I didn't compare them as players (or all rounders)...I compared the area they were weaker at between batting and bowling....That means I compared Kallis' bowling with Sobers' bowling and Botham's batting...Do I have to say again?

Nah, no need to say it again. In fact it wasn't worth saying in the first place as can be ascertained by the fact that there hasn't been one serious reply to it.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
Nah, no need to say it again. In fact it wasn't worth saying in the first place as can be ascertained by the fact that there hasn't been one serious reply to it.
First of all, if you knew what serious posting means then you knew getting a reply is not the sole intension of posting...Besides that, there have been serious replies in this thread...From some who understood, and from some who tried to understand...
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
I doubt though if Kallis could ever haver played for South Africa as a pure bowler while Botham could have as a pure batsman for many years.
In the 22 test matches that Kallis played in 2001 and 2002 his bowling performance is much better than any regular player except Shaun Pollock...He bowled considerably better than anyone except Donald and Pollock (the likes of Ntini) from 1999 to 2002...Moreover, South African pace bowling attack was excellent during Kallis' time...

Similarly Botham could have played in England middle-order as a pure batsman for some years that I agree...But for many years (say for 6-8 years)? I doubt considering the number of good to great middle-order batsmen England produced during that time who had better records than him...

It only proves my point that there's not much to choose between Kallis' bowling and Botham's batting...
 
Last edited:

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
It only proves my point that there's not much to choose between Kallis' bowling and Botham's batting...
I agree with that bit.

In fact it is futile to try and choose between two different skills. Anyone who tries top claim that Warne's bowling is better than say Tendulkar's batting is just trying to appear as a pundit. Its not so much a question of being close as of the impossible nature of comparison.

But we love the debates so...
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
Yes, debate brings forth many points of view.

One I subscribe to, if I may digress, is that if you listed the Test All-rounders and attempted to gauge them on an ' exciting ' index, Botham would be the most exciting (or near the top), Kallis would be at or near the other end of the scale.
 

Engle

State Vice-Captain
Going by intuition, if you attempted to find out which All-Rounder is closest to having equitable batting and bowling skills (i.e. not sure if they are a batting or bowling AR), the names would be Botham, Grieg, Mankad, perhaps Shastri
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
The best all-round ability is Keith Miller quite easily for mine. Was a natural batsman, #5 IIRC for the invincibles and as a bowler was one of the best in the world. Imran Khan was an outstanding bowler but never at a time was he one of the best batsmen in the world.

Keith Miller was more of a batsman originally but focused more on his bowling for the sake of the team. A supremely gifted man that did not care for his stats.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Keith Miller really fits into the oft quoted but rarely-applied-fully criteria of - 'selectability on the basis of either discipline alone".

I cant think of another all rounder (Sobers included whom I still rate the greatest allrounder) fulfills that criteria for as long a period of his entire carer as does Miller.

If there is anyone who truly challenges Sobers for that greatest all rounder title it has to be Miller. If one was bent on having two all rounders in a playing XI, I dont see how these two should not be the only ones in most short lists.

Most people do take Sobers (when choosing the lone all rounder in the side) since he would be in the side on batting alone so why not chose a specialist bowler after that. Other than there is no reason to keep Miller out.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
The supposed idea of this thread was to judge performance on the weakest discipline, and even if by some stretch of the imagination the batting of Kallis is superior to the bowling of Botham, the fact that Imran is at Number 1 just shows what utter tripe these purely stats based judgement usually are. Great a cricketer as Imran was he was not in the same league as Botham as a batsman which is presumably the weaker area they're both being judge on here. Imran was little more than a useful number 7 and 8 for much of his career and it was only through hard work and dedication in his latter years that he turned himself into a batsman capable of scoring consistantly at Test level.
 

Top