Historical Discussion- Best batting all-rounders after Sobers and Kallis

[Red]

Jayasuriya didn't quite manage a wicket per test, but it's reasonable to say he's a decent 5th bowler.

Someone who can manage 1-2 wickets per test while holding a place in the top 6 is so valuable to the balance of a team.

 

[fredfertang]

Jayasuriya didn't quite manage a wicket per test, but it's reasonable to say he's a decent 5th bowler.

Someone who can manage 1-2 wickets per test while holding a place in the top 6 is so valuable to the balance of a team.

I don't think he'd have taken anything like as many as he did if Sri Lanka had had four half decent front line bowlers

 

[watson]

Botham walks straight into the England team as a batsman during his peak period. Given the number of Tests played by the likes of Derek Randall and Chris Tavare he'd probably have been one of the first names on the sheet.

For the record.....

[SUP][/SUP]
1977 to 1984

No.6 or higher
Tests = 56
Ave = 35.33
100s = 7
HS = 208

No.7 or lower
Tests = 25
Ave = 39.70
100s = 6
HS = 149*

Botham did indeed bat twice as often in the top 6 with a good degree of success. But I still can't help think of Botham as a batsman who was at his best when thrashing the ball about from the safety of No.7. Not saying that Botham never carefully constructed an innings while at No.5 or 6, but it seems to me that his technique and temperment were best suited to the No.7 spot.

 

[Migara]

I don't think he'd have taken anything like as many as he did if Sri Lanka had had four half decent front line bowlers

Better would be to visualize him being in a squal like NZ/SAF or ENG where spin options were no where close to what SL had in late 90s and early 2000s. Jayasuriya is a deadset front line spinner at least in English and SAF sides surely.

 

[cnerd123]

WG Grace - a bowler who learned to bat. You heard it here first.

Bah meant that to be Wilfred Rhodes. I really should proof read my posts.

I discounted Noble and faulkner as they were too good as bowlers.

Grace actually does fit OP's criteria a bit...can't say for certain he would have played for England as a bowler as most writings about him seem to focus around his batting

 

[zaremba]

Hah, yes, though it might have been a typo.

Anyway Grace took more FC wickets than Jimmy Anderson, Mitch Johnson, Dennis Lillee and Glenn McGrath combined.

 

[Red]

One of the remarkable things about Sobers is the amount of bowling he did while maintaining a very high batting average.

It's often commented on how the bowling load of guys like Botham and Miller reduced their averages, and I think that's fair enough, but it's remarkable how high a batting avg Sobers had while taking on a pretty hefty bowling load.

 

[kyear2]

One of the remarkable things about Sobers is the amount of bowling he did while maintaining a very high batting average.

It's often commented on how the bowling load of guys like Botham and Miller reduced their averages, and I think that's fair enough, but it's remarkable how high a batting avg Sobers had while taking on a pretty hefty bowling load.

This.

Have mentioned that before. The bowling load he carried, the fact he played the first couple of years of his career as a spin bowler and started out batting in the lower order added to his aggressive style shows how special he really was as a batsman to have ended his career with the average he did.

In my cricket trilogy for sure.

 

[cnerd123]

Hah, yes, though it might have been a typo.

Anyway Grace took more FC wickets than Jimmy Anderson, Mitch Johnson, Dennis Lillee and Glenn McGrath combined.

Come now, that's a terrible comparison. Comparing modern day bowlers to those back in the day of dodgy pitches, lack of proper batting equipment, and sluggish outfields?

It also seems that Grace persisted with round-arm bowling in the era of over-arm bowling, which suggests that despite the fine statistics, he would have had trouble being picked as a bowler alone.

All debatable I suppose, and I hate basing these debates on articles and statistics. It's just theories and speculation unless we can actually see the cricketers play and the conditions they play under for ourselves.

So might as well put WG Grace third behind Sobers/Kallis in the list of best batting ARs of all time (under OP's requirements) for now. Unless someone wants to talk about the merits of Hammond's bowling?

 

[AldoRaine18]

Frank Woolley seems like a good shout tbh. He has over 1 wickets per match in tests but has 2066 wickets in 978 FC games while also close to 60K runs @ 40.

 

[Goughy]

The GOAT with career batting of over 40 and bowling under 15 is just 2 wickets away from qualifying based on criteria in OP

 

[Red]

Don't worry about my criteria then!

 

[Dissector]

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Botham averaged 37 with the bat in his peak period. Within that he averaged 30 and 15 against the two best sides Australia and the West Indies. He hit some fine hundreds but he was way too inconsistent to be considered a test-class batsman even if he might have been picked for batting alone in a weak England middle order.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Imran averaged 51 from 1982-1990. I think he would have been a contender as a pure batsman at 5 or 6 in most sides of the time despite his relatively small number of hundreds. He also averaged 19 with the ball in that same period.

Of the others I think Greig seems the best contender: 40 with the bat and 32 with the ball.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Botham averaged 37 with the bat in his peak period. Within that he averaged 30 and 15 against the two best sides Australia and the West Indies. He hit some fine hundreds but he was way too inconsistent to be considered a test-class batsman even if he might have been picked for batting alone in a weak England middle order.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Imran averaged 51 from 1982-1990. I think he would have been a contender as a pure batsman at 5 or 6 in most sides of the time despite his relatively small number of hundreds. He also averaged 19 with the ball in that same period.

Of the others I think Greig seems the best contender: 40 with the bat and 32 with the ball.

The idea that Imran Khan was ever a Test class batsman is laughable, never mind a number 5 is any team from 82-90. He turned himself into a dogged accumulator of runs for 4 or 5 years at the end of his career. I doubt that he batted at number 5 a handful of times in his life.

 

[watson]

Imran did score a century at Adelaide in 1990 while batting at No.5, but I think that his average of 34.81 in the No.7 position is probably a true reflection of his batting skill despite some excellent innings higher up the order.

 

[ankitj]

Botham's peak icc batting rating was 811 compared to Imran's 650, so one would have to think Botham at peak was considerably better.

 

[fredfertang]

There is one thing that folk tend to forgot on this subject that being that the usual suspects have one thing in common, the fact that they made the most of the talents they had - sadly Sir Beefy never went close to doing the same

 

[Dissector]

Imran batted at 5/6 in 24 tests and averaged 61 with 3 hundreds. I would certainly prefer him in those positions to Botham at any point in his career.

Meanwhile Botham averaged 27 in 32 tests against the West Indies and Australia in his peak period. I think people are blinded by some spectacular hundreds from seeing that Botham was often a very ordinary batsman, certainly not someone you would want in the top six of a strong batting lineup.

 

[ankitj]

Imran may have applied ​himself better over the entire career but he was basically a tenacious batsman with relatively less flair. If you watch Botham batting, you will see he had the compact technique of a genuine test class batsman.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Imran batted at 5/6 in 24 tests and averaged 61 with 3 hundreds. I would certainly prefer him in those positions to Botham at any point in his career.

Meanwhile Botham averaged 27 in 32 tests against the West Indies and Australia in his peak period. I think people are blinded by some spectacular hundreds from seeing that Botham was often a very ordinary batsman, certainly not someone you would want in the top six of a strong batting lineup.

Come on, that's a very misleading statistical analysis. Why are you taking only West Indies and Australia for Botham? You're conveniently clubbing Imran's records at 5 and 6 to show he could bat in those positions when actually imran batted only 4 innings (!) at no.5 in his whole career.

In all honestly, I don't think Imran or Botham were quite good enough to bat at 6 if you had a specialist batsman as an alternative. I do think however that Botham overall was a better batsman than Imran. For an all-rounder at no.6-7 I'd much rather prefer the attacking ones like Botham to Imran. Imran is probably my favorite cricketer ever but man is his batting overrated on here. He has the flashier average but for lower order batsmen, the one who gets more runs before getting out is more useful imo. Botham might average lower, but he just gets lots of runs... 50+ runs/match is something none of the other great 80s all rounders matched