WAC
A good bowling all rounder to me is arguably the most valuable player you can get in your team. Without going into the permutations and combinations of kyear2 about batting positions a bowling all rounder gives you the flexibility to have an additional batsman in while giving more depth to the side. Secondly (and I take Ikki's point here) that in a test match every player (theoretically) must bat but not every player must bowl and hence the bowling becomes a more specialized job. And I do agree with Ian Chappell's statement that batsmen set up the matches and it is the bowlers who win it. So ladies and gentleman I think Imran it is coupled with his fantastic leadership I give him the nod.
Where to start, first off how exactly does a a bowling All Rounder give a team the flexibility to add an additional batsman, if anything to use Imran in the top 6 costs the team a batsman and using him at 8 just adds depth and quite frankly if the top 6 just got rolled I don't hold out much hope for Imran. Additionally when ever we pick teams in drafts we all pick a batting all rounder because most teams needs a fifth bowler who doesn't weaken the top six, a bowling AR doesn't give us that.
The main problem with your Imran is the greatest ever player argument is that Imran only became a good batsman after his days as a great bowler was over after the injury and at his bowling best he was not a very good batsman and vice versa.
Here is an analysis of his All Round Ability
I.Khan - Batting - highest rating: 650 V SL 1991. spent 2 of his 88 Tests (2.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 922 V Ind 1983. spent 71 of his 88 Tests (80.7%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1483 v Ind 1983. (Batting-562, Bowling-921).
vs Sobers
G.Sobers - Batting - highest rating: 938 V Ind 1967. spent 77 of his 93 Tests (82.8%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 715 V Ind 1966. spent 19 of his 93 Tests (20.4%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1651 v Ind 1966. (Batting-936, Bowling-715).
Just for reference Bradman's
D.Bradman - highest rating: 961 V Ind 1948. spent 36 of his 52 Tests (69.2%) rated above 850.
Additionally Imran as a bowler is not seen to be as good a bowler as Sobers was a batsman and his home vs away average (19 avg 47 s/r vs 25 avg 59 s/r) has quite a disparity not seen with most ATG bowlers, but Imran did admit to having patriots umpiring at home. He was not a good or great fielder and I actually heard with my own ears Rameez Raja speaking about how he was taught to ball tamper without it being apparent.
With regards to the Bradman vs Sobers argument, Sobers from 58 - 68 and for about as many tests that Bradman played averaged around 70 with the b at on more difficult and varied pitches and againts much better attacks, add this to the massive amount of overs he bowled (comparatively to a similar level of a Jimmy Anderson for example) and amount of first class cricket that he forced into his schedule to maximise on his earning potential and the fact that he may be the greatest fielder to play the game and one has "the greatest cricketer the world has ever seen"
And I stronlgy disagree that even at his best Bradman was twice the batsman that Sobers, Tendulkar or Richards were at their very best, or that he would have averaged a hundred batting in the 70's vs Australia/ England or in the '80 vs the West Indies.
Bradman was the best batsman in the history of the game, but adjusting for modern (lbw) rules, fielding, quality of bowling and DRS, the gap would not be so massive. He faced two great bowlers in his career and in the case of Larwood the stats don't exactly bear that out, and the closest thing he came to an agressive pace attack was body line and when he faced Martindale and Constantine and he averaged 55 in body line and averaged 74 vs the W.I scoring two hundreds after being dropped on seven while scoring the first after struggling to start the series and both those attacks pale in comparrison to the attacks mentioned previously as well as his own of Lindwall and Miller.
Apparently as Warne is lowered (in another thread) for not facing his own batsmen maybe Bradman could be as well for not facing undoubtably the four best bowlers of his era in Lindwall, Miller, O'Reilly and Grimmett. But then again he did have to face India and South African at (his) home and a neutered England attack after Larwood left the scene and especially after the war.
Bradman, as said above is the greatest batsman to play the game, and there is daylight to second (not a separate tier, but daylight), but he was the beneficiary of a perfect storm, (and some flat pitches in Australia between the wars ), but it compares to Tendulkar who in my mind has had the best career of any batsman, almost 200 tests, 100 intl 100's and the rock of India while maintaing an average over 50, or to ability of Viv to take over a game and apart any attack anywhere and intimidate the bowlers in the process, or to the highs reached by Lara or the early dominance of Hobbs and the sheer genius and all round abilities of Sobers.
As an aside and to answer an earlier question, if I had the first pick in a real draft who would I personally select, I belive that fast bowlers win matches and you have to take 20 wickets to win a match and I would take the bowler to only loose 4 matches as an opening bowler, and the bowler who had all the toys and knew how and when to play with them, is he the greatest ever player ever, definately not, thats an argument for the Don and Sir Garry, but I would take Macco any day.
. And care to point out as to how many dismissals for Imran were the umpire's help?
