all-round ability

[weldone]

An interesting (not the only) way to measure all-round ability of players is to measure their ability in the area they were weaker between batting and bowling. For example, Kallis' all-round ability will be measured by his efficiency in bowling only, while Hadlee's all-round ability will be measured by his efficiency in batting only. For such a study, all the players with more than 150 career wickets and more than 2000 career runs were shortlisted. They were awarded points which is equal to minimum of their career batting average and (1150/career bowling average)...This number 1150 can be changed according to perception, but I kept it at 1150 since it makes a batting average of 50 equivalent to a bowling average of 23, a batting average of 40 equivalent to a bowling average of 28.75 and a batting average of 60 equivalent to a bowling average just over 19 which are fair according to me...Then these players were ranked according to the points obtained...

It should be kept in mind that this ranking doesn't attempt to measure their ability as players, but it attempts to measure their ability in the area they were weaker between batting and bowling (For example, it is just a measure of Sobers' bowling ability, not his ability as a player as a whole).

The first 10 positions are as follows -
1. Imran Khan (points 37.69)
2. Keith Miller (points 36.97)
3. Jacques Kallis (points 36.74)
4. Garfield Sobers (points 33.79)
5. Ian Botham (points 33.54)
6. Chris Cairns (points 33.53)
7. Andrew Flintoff (points 32.5)
8. Shaun Pollock (points 32.31)
9. Vinoo Mankad (points 31.47)
10. Kapil Dev (points 31.05)

 

[bond21]

I think there are different types of all rounders, i like to put them into ratios like -

Kallis 80:20 Batting:Bowling Which means he is considerably better as a batsman than a bowler

Flintoff 70:30 Bowling:Batting He is still a much better bowler than batsman, but his batting is closer to his bowling than Kallis' bowling is to his batting.

Whereas a specialist player like McGrath would be 100:0 Bowling, and Hayden is 100:0 batting

Basically each player has 100 points to be divided between both skills in relation to what kind of player they are.

 

[weldone]

I think there are different types of all rounders, i like to put them into ratios like -

Kallis 80:20 Batting:Bowling Which means he is considerably better as a batsman than a bowler

Flintoff 70:30 Bowling:Batting He is still a much better bowler than batsman, but his batting is closer to his bowling than Kallis' bowling is to his batting.

Whereas a specialist player like McGrath would be 100:0 Bowling, and Hayden is 100:0 batting

Basically each player has 100 points to be divided between both skills in relation to what kind of player they are.

That's why McGrath or Dravid are not known as al-rounders; but Kallis and Flintoff are. This system doesn't measure the ability of one as a player, but measures their proximity to a genuine al-rounder - one who is great in both batting and bowling and almost equally great in both...The point I am trying to make is think of a player with bowling average 39 and batting average 50...He is an al-rounder. Now, suppose his batting average becomes 60 keeping the bowling average same...So he becomes a greater batsman but he doesn't go nearer to becoming a genuine al-rounder...For that he has to improve his bowling...This is just one way to measure al-round ability, not to measure greatness as a player as a whole.

 

[Flem274*]

I think there are different types of all rounders, i like to put them into ratios like -

Kallis 80:20 Batting:Bowling Which means he is considerably better as a batsman than a bowler

Flintoff 70:30 Bowling:Batting He is still a much better bowler than batsman, but his batting is closer to his bowling than Kallis' bowling is to his batting.

Whereas a specialist player like McGrath would be 100:0 Bowling, and Hayden is 100:0 batting

Basically each player has 100 points to be divided between both skills in relation to what kind of player they are.

This is something you've posted I can actualy agree with.

So, for that list if we use the ratio method (the following ratios are just my opinion of course)

bat/bowl

Imran: 35:65
Miller: Don't really know alot about him..
Kallis: 75:25
Sobers: 70:30
Botham: 45:55
Cairns: 45:55
Flintoff: 70:30
Pollock: 30:70
Mankad: erm
Dev: 40:60

 

[weldone]

This is something you've posted I can actualy agree with.

So, for that list if we use the ratio method (the following ratios are just my opinion of course)

bat/bowl

Imran: 35:65
Miller: Don't really know alot about him..
Kallis: 75:25
Sobers: 70:30
Botham: 45:55
Cairns: 45:55
Flintoff: 70:30
Pollock: 30:70
Mankad: erm
Dev: 40:60

Let me tell it once again; I didn't try to measure their ability as players. Say, Sachin averages 55 with the bat and 45 with the ball...So if he takes his batting average to say 65 keeping his bowling average the same, does he become a better player as a whole? yes. but does he become a better al-rounder? No. Why? Because for that he has to improve his bowling...So, Sachin's al-round ability can be measured by his bowling...Hadlee's with his batting...Kallis' or Sobers' with their bowling...That's all I tried to say and that's what I tried to measure...

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

This system doesn't measure the ability of one as a player, but measures their proximity to a genuine al-rounder

Yet Kallis is 3rd ahead of Ian Botham for example?

 

[Manee]

Flintoff: 70:30

Flintoff: 45:55 imo

 

[weldone]

Yet Kallis is 3rd ahead of Ian Botham for example?

Kallis' bowling may be just slightly better than Botham's batting [Kallis' batting is definitely better than Botham's bowling, this ranking doesn't try to capture that though]

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Kallis' bowling may be just slightly better than Botham's batting [Kallis' batting is definitely better than Botham's bowling, this ranking doesn't try to capture that though]

 

[weldone]

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm pleased you can laugh at yourself for thinking that Kallis batting is even remotely comparable to the match winning bowling of Ian Botham.

 

[weldone]

I'm pleased you can laugh at yourself for thinking that Kallis batting is even remotely comparable to the match winning bowling of Ian Botham.

I am pleased that you don't know who I was laughing at

 

[bond21]

ok that emoticon has been abused enough

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I am pleased that you don't know who I was laughing at

 

[Lillian Thomson]

ok that emoticon has been abused enough

When it's suggested that Kallis is superior to Ian Botham the emoticon slips itself in there automatically.. oops there another .........and another.

 

[Son Of Coco]

An interesting (not the only) way to measure all-round ability of players is to measure their ability in the area they were weaker between batting and bowling. For example, Kallis' all-round ability will be measured by his efficiency in bowling only, while Hadlee's all-round ability will be measured by his efficiency in batting only. For such a study, all the players with more than 150 career wickets and more than 2000 career runs were shortlisted. They were awarded points which is equal to minimum of their career batting average and (1150/career bowling average)...This number 1150 can be changed according to perception, but I kept it at 1150 since it makes a batting average of 50 equivalent to a bowling average of 23, a batting average of 40 equivalent to a bowling average of 28.75 and a batting average of 60 equivalent to a bowling average just over 19 which are fair according to me...Then these players were ranked according to the points obtained...

It should be kept in mind that this ranking doesn't attempt to measure their ability as players, but it attempts to measure their ability in the area they were weaker between batting and bowling (For example, it is just a measure of Sobers' bowling ability, not his ability as a player as a whole).

The first 10 positions are as follows -
1. Imran Khan (points 37.69)
2. Keith Miller (points 36.97)
3. Jacques Kallis (points 36.74)
4. Garfield Sobers (points 33.79)
5. Ian Botham (points 33.54)
6. Chris Cairns (points 33.53)
7. Andrew Flintoff (points 32.5)
8. Shaun Pollock (points 32.31)
9. Vinoo Mankad (points 31.47)
10. Kapil Dev (points 31.05)

What...no Glenn Mcgrath!?

 

[weldone]

What...no Glenn Mcgrath!?

Glenn McGrath's batting!

 

[weldone]

When it's suggested that Kallis is superior to Ian Botham the emoticon slips itself in there automatically.. oops there another .........and another.

no it does when the opposite is suggested

 

[SJS]

Kallis is a far superior batsman than Botham and Botham was a far superior bowler.

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.

 

[weldone]

Kallis' bowling may certainly be compared to Botham's batting because there's nothing much to choose between the two...If one is ahead of the other that is by just a small margin....But Botham's bowling can, in no way, be compared to Kallis' batting in tests....While Kallis is one among the best 15-20 test batsmen the world has ever produced, Botham, by no means, can come in top 20 in the test bowlers' list.