The great 1980s all rounders

[The Sean]

What a time for cricket, to be blessed with four cricketers of that caliber. Not to mention the all-time great bowlers that played during the same era. We haven't had one all-rounder approaching that sort of level since.

Given that we all love combined international stats now, I'd be interested to know what more the bloke with

24,000+ runs
550+ wickets
300+ catches

needs to have done to be considered at least "approaching" that level.

 

[Mike5181]

Imran
Hadlee
Botham
Dev

 

[weldone]

Given that we all love combined international stats now, I'd be interested to know what more the bloke with

24,000+ runs
550+ wickets
300+ catches

needs to have done to be considered at least "approaching" that level.

Haha bang on target! In my list of 25 cricketers that I sent to Smali, I had Hadlee>Kallis>Imran. Dev and Botham didn't make the cut.

 

[CWB304]

Imran
Botham
Hadlee
Kapil

Imran first and Kapil last are pretty much nailed on in any serious analysis I would have thought. There are arguments for and against Botham and Hadlee in the middle positions but I would make Botham runner up, as they were all bowling all rounders and, unlike the other guys, Hadlee's batting was on the cusp of not being good enough to qualify as a genuine all rounder.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Given that we all love combined international stats now, I'd be interested to know what more the bloke with

24,000+ runs
550+ wickets
300+ catches

needs to have done to be considered at least "approaching" that level.

Kallis has hardly been the bowling force he was for the first 7-8 years of his international career. I haven't taken recourse to cricinfo stats yet but having followed his career pretty closely, his bowling has definitely fallen away w.r.t his batting over the years.

 

[weldone]

Kallis has hardly been the bowling force he was for the first 7-8 years of his international career. I haven't taken recourse to cricinfo stats yet but having followed his career pretty closely, his bowling has definitely fallen away w.r.t his batting over the years.

And Botham bowled like Marshall and batted like Bradman throughout his career?

 

[Arachnodouche]

No, he didn't. Hence why nobody really rates him post mid-80s. Look, what I'm saying is Kallis is an ATG batsman, and a very good bowler to boot, but his wickets have by and large been a result of accumulation over the years instead of many match-turning spells. Unless my memory deceives me, so much appreciated if anybody is kind enough to point them out.

 

[weldone]

No, he didn't. Hence why nobody really rates him post mid-80s. Look, what I'm saying is Kallis is an ATG batsman, and a very good bowler to boot, but his wickets have by and large been a result of accumulation over the years instead of many match-turning spells. Unless my memory deceives me, so much appreciated if anybody is kind enough to point them out.

At least he has been ATG in one discipline - Botham was in none. I shall have Kallis clearly ahead of Botham as a cricketer.

And if 'roundedness' matters to you so much, Vinoo Mankad must be a better cricketer than Sachin Tendulkar surely?

 

[weldone]

Actually this is a pretty good way of looking at it.

Hadlee and Imran are comfortably the best bowlers, but Hadlee loses out on batting. Likewise, Botham and Kapil lose out with their bowling.

It depends what you're looking for and how highly you value specialists. Hadlee and Imran, even if they were Martin-esque with the bat, are all time greats on bowling alone. Botham and Kapil aren't all time greats in either discipline. If you value specialists, Imran and Hadlee piss this in.

Exactly. I mean, if Botham was a better cricketer than Hadlee then I don't see a reason why by the same logic Chris Cairns shouldn't be considered a better cricketer than Glenn McGrath, for example.

 

[Ikki]

Batting all-rounders are generally less useful than bowling all-rounders IMO. It's why I don't put either Kallis nor Sobers above Miller and Imran.

As for the question at hand: Imran>Botham>Hadlee>Dev.

 

[The Sean]

Kallis has hardly been the bowling force he was for the first 7-8 years of his international career. I haven't taken recourse to cricinfo stats yet but having followed his career pretty closely, his bowling has definitely fallen away w.r.t his batting over the years.

Nah fair enough mate. I'm not disputing that Kallis' batting is far stronger than his bowling and that he hasn't produced many defining bowling spells. But equally I daresay you would only find a handful (if that many) of match-turning batting performances from someone like Hadlee as well. I was taking issue with your statement that no one since that quartet can even approach them, because I think Kallis' all round achievements certainly put him in that bracket.

 

[Arachnodouche]

At least he has been ATG in one discipline - Botham was in none. I shall have Kallis a million miles ahead of Botham as a cricketer.

And if 'roundedness' matters to you so much, Vinoo Mankad must be a better cricketer than Sachin Tendulkar surely?

I just feel a genuine bowling all-rounder is worth much more to the team than a batting all-rounder. Great bowlers are usually a rarer commodity than great batsmen.

 

[weldone]

I strongly disagree about bowling allrounders being far more useful to the team than batting allrounders, that's all.

 

[weldone]

Great bowlers are usually a rarer commodity than great batsmen.

That's not a good enough reason mate. Great wicketkeepers are even more rarer than great bowlers. Does that mean that I should stuff my top 25 with great wicketkeepers? Great kabaddi players are rarer than great footballers. Does that mean that they are more important?

 

[smash84]

I strongly disagree about bowling allrounders being far more useful to the team than batting allrounders, that's all.

But it is the bowlers that must take 20 wickets in order to seal the match. That is the way test cricket is designed hence ATG bowlers are probably deemed more valuable than ATG batsmen.

 

[The Sean]

yeah, Kallis. To be honest, people like Pollock, Cairns, and Flintoff had their moments, but it's only Freddie who'll be spoken in superlatives and in the same vein (from a sheer match-impacting pov) as the big 4 from the 80s.

Flintoff produced those magic moments of course, but looking at his career I'd personally rate him well, well below Pollock.

 

[Spark]

But it is the bowlers that must take 20 wickets in order to seal the match. That is the way test cricket is designed hence ATG bowlers are probably deemed more valuable than ATG batsmen.

Possibly, but there is the obvious fact that there are more batsmen than bowlers in general.

 

[weldone]

But it is the bowlers that must take 20 wickets in order to seal the match.

..and batsmen must score more runs than the opposition batsmen...

 

[weldone]

Flintoff produced those magic moments of course, but looking at his career I'd personally rate him well, well below Pollock.

Certainly.

 

[Mike5181]

Cairns>Flintoff as well.