Don't know what the heck is arcania, but the all rounder rating at any point of time is basically product of your batting and bowling ratings at the same time, divided by 1000 to normalize. That is why the highest all-rounders rating hover around 600-650 and never go as high as 800 or so.
Interesting point that you make.....Jacques Kallis strikes at 68 balls per wicket so why is his bowling rated so lowly? Maybe regarding Sobers it could be that he was one of the main bowlers in the team. I do shudder to think though if the main strike bowler takes 15 overs to get a wicket. So Sobers versatility counts and his ER.
It brings an interesting question. Would you rather a batsman that averages 50 per inning and takes expensive wickets for a lot of overs across innings but at the same time OR would you rather a player make a valuable contribution with the ball in one test and a valuable contribution with the bat in another even if they are not at the 'same time'? Because for me, Sobers was fantastic with the bat and consistent, but he just happened to bowl so many overs and took wickets in an inevitable sort of fashion. I'd say for the grand majority of his career he simply wasn't a good bowler. Whether he takes 2.5 wickets or what have you is not important to me unless it is done cheaply. But people tend to think of Sobers as "50+ runs with 2.5 wickets, what a player!" and then don't tend to appreciate the cost of his bowling. Not only for himself but the team. Especially in an all-time side, I find it wrong to pick him as a proper all-rounder.
I generally think if the best thing you can say about Sobers was that he was very versatile and had a good ER then he wasn't the greatest all-rounder ever (especially as emphatically as it is claimed). Especially since his versatile skills should be helping him to do better; not be an excuse for worse stats.
You could say that about Kallis too. The single most valuable player for any team - the mainstay of the batting, an excellent first change bowler, and a superb slip fielder - for a decade and a half. Not half as glamorous as Warne, Tendulkar, McGrath; but IMHO, more valuable to his team than any of them were to theirs.
Yes, one of the 3 most valuable cricketers of the last two decades with McGrath and Muralitharan IMO (considering Test matches alone).
I understand it and it certainly is valuable but in terms of a person's ability as an all-rounder it isn't saying a whole lot. Just because Sobers can bowl to a decent standard, to allow another specialist in does not say a whole lot about him - merely the tactics that are employed to allow someone else to have a big impact. In terms of these Reliance ratings I am not sure how he could be given points. Also, if you look at the composition of the teams he played in making spots open for others wasn't a necessary thing. In those days several all-rounders would play and Sobers didn't save a spot for another player. This point probably rings true more for Kallis than Sobers.
Debatable as batsmen (meaning it's close enough) but certainly not as keepers. Les Ames is probably a good shout.
For me Tendulkar is 3rd Best Cricketer from India. I believe Kapil to be the best cricketer from India, Gavaskar to be the second best cricketer (and best batsman) from India.
Apropos of SF Barnes' longevity (though I realise you're talking Tests), a couple of startling facts:
If he were that great a batsman, he wouldn't be batting in a situation to have so many not-outs?
Barnes WAFG..........great post.......haha skittling out teams even at 60...lol
Could there not be the possibility that you have better batsman above you????
While Pak did have its fair share of good batsmen, that is really not true that Imran had some guys who all averagede 40+ batting above him.. The fact that he batted below blokes who averaged in the mid 30s says its own story...
