The REAL allrounders Poll

[PhoenixFire]

my point is for example in 20 years people see afridi's sixes record and should they say he was the best ever cos he could hit a 6 whenever he wanted?

or cos shoaib was the fastest ever he was the best bowler ever?
NO

you cannot base your judgements on statistics

I sort of get where you're coming from. But people have said when they saw Bradman that he was the best ever, and no matter what, you can't not be the best player ever, if you average all but 100 every innings, just look at the averages of his contemparies.

 

[Goughy]

Well it all depends how you judge players. We have often discussed, is being great for a short time better than good for a longtime?

When judging players, regarding this type of question, I like to imagine each player at their respective heights.

I have never been a fan of his (though I spend a lot of time defending him) but for a period of a few years (before the back injury) Botham was the greatest allrounder ever to walk the planet (maybe ).

As an allrounder at their peak for 1 game or series I would take Botham. Sobers would probably make the team as a batsman but thats neither here nor there.

Sobers batting dominates his bowling for mine and it will take a lot of good arguments that Ive not heard here before to make me excited about his bowling.

 

[adharcric]

my point is for example in 20 years people see afridi's sixes record and should they say he was the best ever cos he could hit a 6 whenever he wanted?

or cos shoaib was the fastest ever he was the best bowler ever?
NO

you cannot base your judgements on statistics

Huh? Since when did anyone knowledgable start rating batsmen because they can hit sixes or bowlers because they can crank up the pace?

 

[C_C]

Sobers batting dominates his bowling for mine and it will take a lot of good arguments that Ive not heard here before to make me excited about his bowling.

If you get a chance, talk to Boycott or read his book.
He rated Sobers extremely highly as a left-arm fast medium bowler.

 

[Natman20]

Cricket is a game all about statistics. But statistics dont always tell you the quality of players. A player can have brilliant classy strokes but only average 18, Oram for example but everyone knows he is better than his average shows. The same thing could be said about bowling, Vettori averages over 30 per wicket but everyone knows that he is going to probably be economical and take the occasional wicket. My point: Dont judge a player by their statistics alone, just because they have a great record doesn't mean that some other players with poorer records are necessarily worse, it just means that they probably made silly mistakes or things like that. Although statistics are used heavily for comparisons I think people should look more at how each player contributed to their teams and think of how great an asset they were to earning those victories.

 

[adharcric]

Cricket is a game all about statistics. But statistics dont always tell you the quality of players. A player can have brilliant classy strokes but only average 18, Oram for example but everyone knows he is better than his average shows. The same thing could be said about bowling, Vettori averages over 30 per wicket but everyone knows that he is going to probably be economical and take the occasional wicket. My point: Dont judge a player by their statistics alone, just because they have a great record doesn't mean that some other players with poorer records are necessarily worse, it just means that they probably made silly mistakes or things like that. Although statistics are used heavily for comparisons I think people should look more at how each player contributed to their teams and think of how great an asset they were to earning those victories.

I nearly believed all of that. Silly mistakes? WTF? Generally speaking, a cricketer will have a superior record because he is a superior cricketer.

 

[Richard]

No he wouldn't be considered 2nd best because he wouldn't have had enough bowling to justify that place. Waqar Younis would have been the greatest bowler since Sydney Barnes if he had quit after his 33rd test, but I wouldn't have put him there because 30 tests are not enough.

Same with Botham.

You really think so?

You really think it wouldn't simply be assumed they'd have gone on the same after 33 (in Waqar's case) or 42\70 (in Botham's case)?

'Cos I do.

I agree that 33 Tests isn't enough to call someone greatest-ever bowler, but most would simply assume it was injury cutting-short a career destined for the stars.

 

[Richard]

Alternatively, if he'd signed up with the Gooch's 1982 "rebels", and as a result, missed all of England's tests for the next 3 years, returned for his triumphant 1985 Ashes series and called it a day after the 1985/6 WI debacle?

Certainly his reputation as a human-being would have been (rightly) soured.

 

[Richard]

the way you all go on its like you seen every all rounder ever in action and think you can compare
you cant compare with stats at your disposal and by reading articles
from all the cricket i have seen i would have to say its between imran khan and ian botham with imran khan coming out on top

i cant say bradman was the greatest ever cos most of his matches were against england around then and for all we know the england attack then could've been the equivelant of the canada/ireland/uae attack of now,

and i never saw him in action so i cant call him the best ever

i can say tendulkar is the best ever odi batsman but i wouldnt let him bat for my life

You can't even say that last line so as for the rest of the post...

 

[Richard]

my point is for example in 20 years people see afridi's sixes record and should they say he was the best ever cos he could hit a 6 whenever he wanted?

You don't think if he were able to do such a thing he'd choose every single delivery?

 

[Richard]

Well it all depends how you judge players. We have often discussed, is being great for a short time better than good for a longtime?

Or, perhaps more interestingly, being great for a shortish time and crap for another shortish time.

Sobers batting dominates his bowling for mine and it will take a lot of good arguments that Ive not heard here before to make me excited about his bowling.

Someone capable of bowling, to a decent standard, outswing, inswing, fingerspin and wristspin, doesn't excite you?

 

[C_C]

My top 10 allrounders :

1. Sobers



2. Imran
3. Miller
4. Kapil
5. Botham
6. Mankad
7. Hadlee
8. Pollock,S
9. Cairns, C
10.Greig

 

[Richard]

Cricket is a game all about statistics. But statistics dont always tell you the quality of players. A player can have brilliant classy strokes but only average 18, Oram for example but everyone knows he is better than his average shows. The same thing could be said about bowling, Vettori averages over 30 per wicket but everyone knows that he is going to probably be economical and take the occasional wicket. My point: Dont judge a player by their statistics alone, just because they have a great record doesn't mean that some other players with poorer records are necessarily worse, it just means that they probably made silly mistakes or things like that. Although statistics are used heavily for comparisons I think people should look more at how each player contributed to their teams and think of how great an asset they were to earning those victories.

I'd say the accurate thing to say would be statistics tell you just about anything if you use them properly and don't just take a banal ledger like one single number (eg a career batting-average).

And also I'll add, it tends to be a good idea to use both tangibles and untangibles, and intermingle them. That'll tell you as much as you can wish for.

 

[Goughy]

Someone capable of bowling, to a decent standard, outswing, inswing, fingerspin and wristspin, doesn't excite you?

No. Being decent at a number of things is no substitute for being very good at one. Otherwise Id rank Funky Miller as a good player (and no Im not comparing Miller and Sobers)

 

[Richard]

6. Mankad

Nonsense, he was just someone with a professional attitude benefiting from a bunch of amateurs who never picked-up cricket equipment with any seriousness whatsoever.

 

[Richard]

No. Being decent at a number of things is no substitute for being very good at one. Otherwise Id rank Funky Miller as a good player (and no Im not comparing Miller and Sobers)

Difference was, Funky Miller was a wholly average seamer who tried his hand at off-breaks and (like Bruce Yardley) bowled them well for a season or two at an old age.

 

[C_C]

Nonsense, he was just someone with a professional attitude benefiting from a bunch of amateurs who never picked-up cricket equipment with any seriousness whatsoever.

??

 

[C_C]

No. Being decent at a number of things is no substitute for being very good at one. Otherwise Id rank Funky Miller as a good player (and no Im not comparing Miller and Sobers)

Sobers, i repeat for the zillionth time, was a very very good left arm seamer, particularly when opening the bowling.
I don't know whether its anecdotal or based on some evidence but Boycott is on record saying that Sobers while bowling pace was averaging in the mid 20s. Thats pretty good by any standard.

 

[Richard]

??

I think you know perfectly well that it's a reference to your statement of a couple of years ago that virtually no cricketer before the late 1960s could be taken seriously because cricket was not exclusively a professional pastime and amateurs couldn't be taken seriously while the (majority) pros were simply inflating their figures against said joyriders.

 

[C_C]

I think you know perfectly well that it's a reference to your statement of a couple of years ago that virtually no cricketer before the late 1960s could be taken seriously because cricket was not exclusively a professional pastime and amateurs couldn't be taken seriously while the (majority) pros were simply inflating their figures against said joyriders.

I didn't say no cricketer before 60s could be taken seriously- but very very few could be.
I'd take Bradman,Miller, Lindwall, Davidson, Mankad, Hazare, Adcock, Tayfield and Ranji seriously.
Someone like Hobbs, Hutton, Woodfull,Ponsford, Larwood, etc. i dont consider to be in the alltime category.
However, why just highlight Mankad if you wanted to make that point ? Did you miss seeing Miller's name there as well ?