The Greatest All-Rounder of All Time

[bagapath]

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?

[G.I.Joe]

This is going to end well.

[SJS]

For Test matches only

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

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Warne is better!

[bagapath]

this was always going to be for test matches. will not bring ODI performances into the discussion

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by SJS

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]

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]

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

[Ikki]

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]

Originally Posted by Ikki

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]

Originally Posted by bagapath

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]

Originally Posted by Ikki

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?

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by bagapath

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.

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by Ikki

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....

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

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.