• 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 All-Rounder of All Time

bagapath

International Captain
With the Post World War 2 XI's selection in its final stages, I want to turn our attention to one question which, as a child growing up in 80s, I used to hear all the time.
Who is the greatest all-rounder of all time?

The answers used to range from sobers to miller to botham to imran. having followed the sobers vs kallis thread i know it is not going to be any easier to answer the question 25 years later. Here is what I propose as a new thread to discuss this.

We will divide cricket history into six eras: 1877 - 1900, 1900-1911, 1919-1939, 1945 - 1975, 1976-1995, 1996 -2009. To start with, we will set minimum cut off marks for wickets taken and runs scored which will differ from era to era depending on the amount of cricket played. Then, we will look at each era's overall batting and bowling averages and divide the candidates into four broad categories.

1. All-rounders: batting and bowling avg not worse than 3 runs from the era's overall averages

2. Batting all-rounder: batting avg same as above but bowl avg between 3 and 8 runs more than era's overall avg

3. Bowling all-rounder: bowling avg not more than 3 runs from era's avg but batting avg between 3 and 8 runs less than era's avg.

4. Wicket keeping all-rounder: batt avg not less than 3 runs from era's overall avg plus a min no of dismissals as keeper.

We can ad wild card entries whenever we want. this can happen when players' careers are split between eras or even when some players dont meet the requirements statistically but have overwhelming support of the forum members. We will also throw in a requirement of minimum no of 50+ scores and 4 wicket hauls to reduce the playing field if it gets too big.

I want to conduct a series of polls choosing one or two winners from each era and have a grand finale. The aim is to rank the top 10 all-rounders of all time at the end of the thread.

Any ideas?
 
Last edited:

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
For Test matches only

  • Batting Allrounder : Sobers
  • Bowling All Rounder : Miller
  • Keeping All Rounder : Ames
 

bagapath

International Captain
this was always going to be for test matches. will not bring ODI performances into the discussion
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
For Test matches only

  • Batting Allrounder : Sobers
  • Bowling All Rounder : Miller
  • Keeping All Rounder : Ames
Am happy with that, and since i consider bowling all rounders to be the most useful I'll have to go with Miller.

Imran's got a massive shout too though.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Its a really tough question and one Im not sure there is a correct answer for, unlike Bradman as best batsman for example.

I guess my answer is, I dont know.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
WG - and with all due respect to some great players of the twentieth century, by some distance
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
There is no more complete player in my mind than Miller. Someone who was brought in as a batsman but took up bowling for the betterment of the team. Who became an awesome bowler and high-quality batsman. Who competed with both disciplines regularly. Who was at an awesome standard with both when he was in form and to a very high standard even when not. Who also had his prime cut short because of War and possibly his legacy because of ongoing war-pains.
 

bagapath

International Captain
There is no more complete player in my mind than Miller. Someone who was brought in as a batsman but took up bowling for the betterment of the team. Who became an awesome bowler and high-quality batsman. Who competed with both disciplines regularly. Who was at an awesome standard with both when he was in form and to a very high standard even when not. Who also had his prime cut short because of War and possibly his legacy because of ongoing war-pains.
i think faulkner should be the greatest all-rounder of all time.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
i think faulkner should be the greatest all-rounder of all time.
I don't know too much about Faulkner to be honest. I generally am skeptical of judging players that played just at the turn of the 20th century. He seems to have a pretty black and white record. Awful bowling against Australia and great against England. Awful batting against England and great against Australia.
 

bagapath

International Captain
I don't know too much about Faulkner to be honest. I generally am skeptical of judging players that played just at the turn of the 20th century. He seems to have a pretty black and white record. Awful bowling against Australia and great against England. Awful batting against England and great against Australia.
may be. but to average 40 with the bat and 26 with the ball bowling leg spin is no mean achievement. also he had taken 4 five-fers and scored 4 centuries in 25 tests. would have scored a lot more in 55, 88, 93 or 102 matches. you know what i mean?
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
may be. but to average 40 with the bat and 26 with the ball bowling leg spin is no mean achievement. also he had taken 4 five-fers and scored 4 centuries in 25 tests. would have scored a lot more in 55, 88, 93 or 102 matches. you know what i mean?
Uncovered pitches? Spinners in those days, on those pitches, like Trumble, Blythe and Rhodes were cleaning up teams for embarrassingly low figures.
 
Last edited:

bagapath

International Captain
Uncovered pitches? Spinners in those days on those pitches like Trumble, Blythe and Rhodes were cleaning up teams for embarrassingly low figures.
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....
 
Last edited:

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Am happy with that, and since i consider bowling all rounders to be the most useful I'll have to go with Miller.

Imran's got a massive shout too though.
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.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
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

Hall of Fame Member
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

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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?
 

Top