Best Bowling All Rounder

[Spikey]

you don't have to fight kyear2, but you do have to answer to jesus

 

[kingkallis]

you don't have to fight kyear2, but you do have to answer to jesus

 

[kyear2]

you don't have to fight kyear2, but you do have to answer to jesus

lol


Was a a question.

 

[kyear2]

The main reason I started this thread was to see what opnions were on Procter, he was probably the best batsman of the lot and just as good a bowler. He was supposedly also a good slipper and could bat at 7 if required, especially if I wanted to play two spinners. Like Barry Richards I feel like if he played an entire career it would be a no contest, but he didn't, he did like Richards though he did perform well in WSC.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

The main reason I started this thread was to see what opnions were on Procter, he was probably the best batsman of the lot and just as good a bowler. He was supposedly also a good slipper and could bat at 7 if required, especially if I wanted to play two spinners. Like Barry Richards I feel like if he played an entire career it would be a no contest, but he didn't, he did like Richards though he did perform well in WSC.

To be honest without playing enough test cricket it is difficult to judge him properly. So unfair on all the Saffer players of that time as they potentially had one of THE all time great teams.

 

[smash84]

FU Smali

haha.....sorry mate....but the last time I saw a picture of you (I think it was more than a year back) you didn't have so much weight on you? Is my recollection correct?

To be honest without playing enough test cricket it is difficult to judge him properly. So unfair on all the Saffer players of that time as they potentially had one of THE all time great teams.

yeah...awta.....

 

[smash84]

you don't have to fight kyear2, but you do have to answer to jesus

good one

 

[Red]

Hadlee and Imran. Hadlee a slightly better bowler, Imran a slightly better batsman. Can't split them really.

Botham and Miller are more "pure" all rounders. Although if Miller had bowled more, he'd be the best.

 

[Jager]

As overall players...

1. Miller
2. Imran
3. Procter
4. Hadlee
5. Beefy
6. Kapil

 

[zaremba]

The main reason I started this thread was to see what opnions were on Procter, he was probably the best batsman of the lot and just as good a bowler. He was supposedly also a good slipper and could bat at 7 if required, especially if I wanted to play two spinners. Like Barry Richards I feel like if he played an entire career it would be a no contest, but he didn't, he did like Richards though he did perform well in WSC.

An absolutely brilliant player. My guess is that he would have been a really top class Test bowler although maybe a rung or two below that as a batsman. In other words, comparable with Imran in both departments.

Picking a composite XI I'd find it hard to choose between Procter, Imran and Hadlee. Botham and then Kapil a notch or two behind those three.

 

[The Sean]

An absolutely brilliant player. My guess is that he would have been a really top class Test bowler although maybe a rung or two below that as a batsman. In other words, comparable with Imran in both departments.

Picking a composite XI I'd find it hard to choose between Procter, Imran and Hadlee. Botham and then Kapil a notch or two behind those three.

Good man, I'm pleased that you acknowledge Nugget to be a class above them all and as such not worth involving in such trifling discussions.

 

[watson]

I guess it comes down to Miller, Procter, Hadlee, and Imran. Since it's unfair to use Procter's Test record as a measure it seems reasonable to compare their First Class Records. Especially with respect to Procter, Hadlee, and Imran whose careers followed a similar path in era and longevity. Incidently, the higher the Batting Ave / Bowling Ave ratio the better;

Miller
Matches = 226
Runs = 4,183
Ave = 48.91
100s = 41
Wkts = 497
Ave = 22.31
5/ = 16
Batting Ave / Bowling Ave = 2.19

Procter
Matches = 401
Runs = 21,936
Ave = 36.01
100s = 48
Wkts = 1417
Ave = 19.53
5/ = 70
Batting Ave / Bowling Ave = 1.84

Hadlee
Matches = 342
Runs = 12,052
Ave = 31.71
100s = 14
Wkts = 1490
Ave = 18.11
5/ = 102
Batting Ave / Bowling Ave = 1.75

Imran
Matches = 382
Runs = 17,771
Ave = 36.79
100s = 30
Wkts = 1287
Ave = 22.32
5/ = 70
Batting Ave / Bowling Ave = 1.65


If we leave aside the intangibles like leadership, charisma, and 'impact on the game', then it comes down to a two horse race between Miller and Procter with regards to the combined task of scoring runs and taking wickets.

Miller's batting average is superb, but he is let down by his relative lack of '5 fors'. This implies to me that he would be more inclined to 'chip-in' with wickets rather than roll through the opposition's batting line-up with a 'bag-full'. His impact as a bowler is not what it should be despite an excellent average of 22.31.

Therefore, if we are looking for a highly capable No.7 or No.8 batsman who can knock-over batting sides with the ball then I would choose Procter as the most effective all-rounder.

At No.5 or No.6 it is Miller in a canter provided that the keeper at No.7 is a good batsman, and that the No.8 is also reasonable with the bat.

 

[Ikki]

Not sure I agree with Miller being a bowling all-rounder. Probably the purest all-rounder of them all.

 

[Eds]

I guess it comes down to Miller, Procter, Hadlee, and Imran. Since it's unfair to use Procter's Test record as a measure it seems reasonable to compare their First Class Records. Especially with respect to Procter, Hadlee, and Imran whose careers followed a similar path in era and longevity.

Miller
Matches = 226
Runs = 4,183
Ave = 48.91
100s = 41
Wkts = 497
Ave = 22.31
5/ = 17
Batting Ave / Bowling Ave = 2.19

Procter
Matches = 401
Runs = 21,936
Ave = 36.01
100s = 48
Wkts = 1417
Ave = 19.53
5/ = 70
Batting Ave / Bowling Ave = 1.84

Hadlee
Matches = 342
Runs = 12,052
Ave = 31.71
100s = 14
Wkts = 1490
Ave = 18.11
5/ = 102
Batting Ave / Bowling Ave = 1.75

Imran
Matches = 382
Runs = 17,771
Ave = 36.79
100s = 30
Wkts = 1287
Ave = 22.32
5/ = 70
Batting Ave / Bowling Ave = 1.65


If we leave aside the intangibles like leadership, charisma, and 'impact on the game', then it comes down to a two horse race between Miller and Procter with regards to the combined task of scoring runs and taking wickets.

Miller's batting average is superb, but he is let down by his relative lack of '5 fors'. This implies to me that he would be more inclined to 'chip-in' with wickets rather than roll through the opposition's batting line-up with a 'bag-full'. His impact as a bowler is not what it should be.

Therefore, if we are looking for a highly capable No.7 or No.8 batsman who can knock-over batting sides with the ball then I would choose Procter as the most effective all-rounder.

At No.5 or No.6 it is Miller in a canter provided that the keeper is a good batsman at No.7 and the No.8 is also reasonable.

This is all well and good, but there's some small points which, when combined, make this post largely irrelevant.

1. Batting average / bowling average gives us an [incredibly rough] idea into the ability of player x as a pure all-rounder, whereas the thread title specifically says otherwise.
2. You don't just disregard Test matches, surely? The fact it wasn't Procter's fault, or lack of ability, that he played too few Tests is irrelevant. He didn't prove himself at the highest level over an extended period of time, whereas the others did - which makes a massive difference.
3. The four all played in vastly different domestic climates, meaning the averages would be skewed in different ways.
4. This isn't an issue with your post, as such, but a point I'd like to bring up about it. Do we/should we be leaving aside "intangibles like leadership, charisma and 'impact on the game'"? Surely Procter's career is fairly "intangible" and speculation into the added value of Imran's captaincy, or Miller's slip-fielding, is in the same class? But then, I ask, do we consider these extras as part of a bowling all-rounders role in a side, which is obviously a difficult question to answer.

I understand it was only meant as a brief overview, but making sweeping statements because of it, seems unwise.

 

[watson]

This is all well and good, but there's some small points which, when combined, make this post largely irrelevant.

1. Batting average / bowling average gives us an [incredibly rough] idea into the ability of player x as a pure all-rounder, whereas the thread title specifically says otherwise.
2. You don't just disregard Test matches, surely? The fact it wasn't Procter's fault, or lack of ability, that he played too few Tests is irrelevant. He didn't prove himself at the highest level over an extended period of time, whereas the others did - which makes a massive difference.
3. The four all played in vastly different domestic climates, meaning the averages would be skewed in different ways.
4. This isn't an issue with your post, as such, but a point I'd like to bring up about it. Do we/should we be leaving aside "intangibles like leadership, charisma and 'impact on the game'"? Surely Procter's career is fairly "intangible" and speculation into the added value of Imran's captaincy, or Miller's slip-fielding, is in the same class? But then, I ask, do we consider these extras as part of a bowling all-rounders role in a side, which is obviously a difficult question to answer.

I understand it was only meant as a brief overview, but making sweeping statements because of it, seems unwise.

We know from observation that Procter was a damned good player, so we then look around for evidence to back-up that observation. Admittedly, FC evidence is not as good as Test match evidence, but it's not bad just the same. Therefore, I conclude that it is extremely likely that Procter would have had a superb Test match career given the chance.

'Therefore, if we are looking for a highly capable No.7 or No.8 batsman who can knock-over batting sides with the ball then I would choose Procter as the most effective all-rounder.' - I don't consider that statement to be over the top or 'sweeping' at all.

Lastly, not including 'intangibles' in my discussion doesn't mean that Procter didn't have any. After all, he inspired Gloustershire for many years. I didn't include them in the discussion for the sake of clarity and brevity.

 

[Dan]

Imran.

Only because I don't classify Miller a bowling all rounder

 

[smash84]

yeah....Miller wasn't really a bowling all rounder

 

[watson]

yeah....Miller wasn't really a bowling all rounder

 

[benchmark00]

Jason Gillespie not an option??

 

[Himannv]

Has to be Imran.