The Greatest All-Rounder of All Time

[SJS]

i think faulkner should be the greatest all-rounder of all time.

His record is fantastic and he is very highly rated by those who saw him. He should be on any short list.

[Ikki]

well... u r somewhat right... rhodes was not as a great a bowler as the rest on that list... but am gonna hold on with the arguments till the thread starts....

(can you replace my quote in your post with the spelling corrected one i've re-posted? looks embarrassingly bad)

I did replace .

I am not saying Faulkner has no case, I am just saying I am pretty skeptical. I think he'd be more akin to a Sobers (looking at his batting average) than a Miller who was probably the most rounded all-rounder of them all.

[SJS]

WG - and with all due respect to some great players of the twentieth century, by some distance

Oh yes. But you know why I do not arte him amongst the greatest of all time, because of what he bowled. He bowled round arm slow. His arm was just at shoulder level, parallel to the ground, and he tossed the ball in the air and his main wicket taking ball was where he tempted the batsman to try and hit what looked like a 'lollipop' towards square leg (which was really the only place you could hit such a ball. And he would have them caught in the deep.

This doesn't seem the kind of tactics that would work with latter day cricketers. I think under arm and round arm bowlers have to be left out of consideration in all time teams unless they really made the ball talk by putting some work on them.

[fredfertang]

I don't disagree with you SJS - judging by different criteria will give different opinions - WG had a degree of dominance over his peers that no modern day rival can come close to matching - but I would accept that doesn't really help much in making comparisons

[Uppercut]

I agree about Imran but I have one issue. His best bowling years and his best batting years hardly overlapped. By the time his batting really flowered he was bowling from experience and memory and really relied on the younger legs of Wasim and Waqar (even Bakht) to prop up the bowling.

Hmm that's true. I suppose you can say he was a world-class batsman and a world-class bowler, but never at the same time, so it might not quite be right to call him the greatest all-rounder ever.

What about if you factor in captaincy?

[bagapath]

Oh yes. But you know why I do not arte him amongst the greatest of all time, because of what he bowled. He bowled round arm slow. His arm was just at shoulder level, parallel to the ground, and he tossed the ball in the air and his main wicket taking ball was where he tempted the batsman to try and hit what looked like a 'lollipop' towards square leg (which was really the only place you could hit such a ball. And he would have them caught in the deep.

This doesn't seem the kind of tactics that would work with latter day cricketers. I think under arm and round arm bowlers have to be left out of consideration in all time teams unless they really made the ball talk by putting some work on them.

well, with only 9 wickets he would not be able to meet any statistical cut off point. i guess he would never be part of the poll. intend to start the first poll tomorrow evening. will wait for any further opinions/tips on how this can be run.

[Uppercut]

I don't disagree with you SJS - judging by different criteria will give different opinions - WG had a degree of dominance over his peers that no modern day rival can come close to matching - but I would accept that doesn't really help much in making comparisons

I don't really think you can even begin to compare WG Grace to any of the others mentioned though. Inter-generational comparisons grow tedious at the best of times, but the game Grace played was so different it's akin to adding Babe Ruth to the equation.

[zaremba]

I'd like to add Babe Ruth to the equation.

[pasag]

W. Armstrong

[fredfertang]

I'd like to add Babe Ruth to the equation.

A career total of 700 odd runs doesn't merit the inclusion of a bloke who doubtless chucked as well

[inbox24]

Andrew McDonald

[zaremba]

Sobers - Kallis - Warne - Murali - stats - eyewitness evidence - Babe Ruth - Andrew Macdonald - close the thread please - goodbye

[SJS]

I don't disagree with you SJS - judging by different criteria will give different opinions - WG had a degree of dominance over his peers that no modern day rival can come close to matching - but I would accept that doesn't really help much in making comparisons

Exactly. I agree he was a very good bowler in his time but the stuff he bowled is gone. No one bowls it any more. I always maintain that a great athlete in one time period will be a great athlete in another. He will adapt to the change since he would be born to it but its difficult to decide what WG would bowl for example in a different time.

I have no doubt, for example, that the Tendulkar's and Lara's may consider WG's bowling fodder if it was bowled at them today but they would have to treat it with respect if THEY were been 125 years ago.

Thats why, I dont mind putting WG in an all time side as a batsman (and maybe a change bowler) but not as an all rounder.

By the way, a change bowler is what he was called even in those days. I am sure I can find a description of his bowling by one of his contemporaries.

That should be interesting for some people here.

[fredfertang]

Although I don't really agree with Uppercut (although I can see his point) I suppose it has to be conceded that overarm bowling wasn't even legal when WG began his career

[SJS]

well, with only 9 wickets he would not be able to meet any statistical cut off point. i guess he would never be part of the poll. intend to start the first poll tomorrow evening. will wait for any further opinions/tips on how this can be run.

Of course if one was to consider WG one cant look at Test matches. He played so few, so late and at a time when they were not even considered as important as a game between Yorkshire and Surrey or Gentlemen versus Players.

WG has to be evaluated on the basis of his first class career.

By the way, someone mentioned that WG played a completely different game. Sorry mate, you have got it all wrong. If I send you action pictures of WG batting you will be stunned to see the strokes... and he also slog swept and did it often to balls outside the off stump in defiance to what was considered 'propah' in those days.

That guy could bat.

I read somewhere that we would look at WG differently if only he didn't have that beard. It somehow is in total contrast to our stereo type of an athlete. Add to that his increasing girth over his career and the modern fan finds him as an amusing caricature of a cricketer but wont always say it since it may be considered blasphemous by some.