Imran v Hadlee v Miller

[TNT]

Fully agree, but since most don't even rate Hadlee as an all rounder (just look earlier in the thread) they definitely don't rate Marshall or Warne as such. But they fully filled that role brilliantly.

In most cases to label a player as an allrounder is because they would be picked as a batsman or a bowler. I dont think Hadlee or Imran would be picked just as a batsman.

 

[Coronis]

I guess Alistair Cook and Faf du Plessis would be up there as well.

Cook
.
du Plessis
.
.
Miller
Engineer+
Imran
Lee
Cummins
.

Alastair Cook is one ugly mother****er.

 

[Pothas]

Responded to this a bit above.

But why not. Sobers is arguably best after Bradman, and while Kallis is a bit below it isn't an ocean and he was ranked down a bit because of his batting bubble more than lack of skill.

He also allows me to bat Sobers higher and both bring different bowling styles and angles to the table if required. Additionally they are both superb top tier slip fielders and with these bowlers and against equal opposition I want to take every possible chance back there.

Just don't think you need what Kallis brings with the ball when you have Sobers so you can just pick the best possible bat (lots of them were excellent fielders as well). If you think that is Kallis then sure but I don't think many would, especially to bat 6.

 

[Pothas]

In most cases to label a player as an allrounder is because they would be picked as a batsman or a bowler. I dont think Hadlee or Imran would be picked just as a batsman.

I mean this is clearly just not true. As I say all rounders in this sense are basically a myth.

 

[kyear2]

There are at least 3 types of all rounders.

True all rounders. These tend to be the can be selected as either batsman or bowler type, but generally not "great" at either.

Miller, Botham, Stokes or in modern equivalent Jadaja, Holder etc.

The batting all rounders. Self explanatory.

Sobers, Kallis, Hammond, Simpson

And likewise self explanatory the bowling all rounders.

Hadlee, Imran, Pollock, Davidson etc..

And I don't think it fair or even possible to compare the different types. Miller being, at least in an ATG conversation would be rated more genuine all rounder, though for his team would possibly be classified as a batting one. But you can't compare his contributions to say a Hadlee or even an Imran because they performed different roles and filled different responsibilities.

If we look beyond the all rounder discussion and just look at them as cricketers, they were and all invaluable to their teams.

Imran was a great bowler who could hold up an end and provide a partnership with a top order batsman or hang on with the tail to save a game and he also captained the team.

Sobers and Kallis were worth their weight in gold. great batsmen, handy 5th bowlers who even came on 1st change or in Sobers case often opened the bowling. At times wining the game for their teams with the ball by breaking partnerships or taking 5 wicker hauls. And in the field, you can't watch highlights of Steyn without seeing Kallis holding some stunners at 2nd. Sobers was brilliant everywhere and alsosublime in the cordon.

If I was building a test team from scratch, they would be among the 5 names I would legitimately consider for the 1st pick. Well either Kallis or Gilly for the 5th.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Shakib as a genuine allrounder gets ignored - Australia is the no 1 side in the world atm yet his bowling average is the same as Lyon's and he's as good a batsman as Travis Head (and clearly better than Wade).

Also Stephen Fleming would captain that good looking XI.

 

[trundler]

Vinoo Mankad deserves a mention too.

 

[Red]

So do you rate Miller more highly as a bowler than, say, Gillespie?

I dont know about more highly, maybe, but most certainly on par.

Miller gives a team a combo of some like Gillespie and someone like MWaugh or Kim Hughes, rolled into one bundle.

What a combo.

 

[Red]

Also miller wasn't even the best bowler in his team .

I dont think anyone has ever really said he was, have they? Lindwall was certainly a better pure bowler all things considered.

 

[Red]

In most cases to label a player as an allrounder is because they would be picked as a batsman or a bowler. I dont think Hadlee or Imran would be picked just as a batsman.

I think they both would've, in their respective teams. Legit think Hadlee was a far better bat than his average shows, better than plenty of guys who batted top six in his era, like Ken Rutherford. Imran definitely would've been selected at 5 or 6 if he didnt bowl.

 

[smash84]

Trying to find a good picture of Miller. Unfortunately not too many out there. Here's a good one with Lindwall

 

[smash84]

And of course, this thread would be incomplete without a picture (or 3) of Imran (obviously the better looking bloke)

 

[AndrewB]

I think they both would've, in their respective teams. Legit think Hadlee was a far better bat than his average shows, better than plenty of guys who batted top six in his era, like Ken Rutherford. Imran definitely would've been selected at 5 or 6 if he didnt bowl.

Imran was picked in several Tests where he couldn't bowl (always, I think, as captain), usually batting at 6.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Trying to find a good picture of Miller. Unfortunately not too many out there. Here's a good one with Lindwall

Looks like CDG's doppelganger

 

[TheJediBrah]

Alastair Cook is one ugly mother****er.

Alastair Cook is a handsome man. Kind of ruins it when he talks though.

I'm more miffed by du Plessis' inclusion. pretty ordinary looking bloke IMO

Shakib as a genuine allrounder gets ignored - Australia is the no 1 side in the world atm yet his bowling average is the same as Lyon's and he's as good a batsman as Travis Head (and clearly better than Wade).

you'd ****ing hope so

 

[subshakerz]

Alastair Cook is a handsome man. Kind of ruins it when he talks though.

I'm more miffed by du Plessis' inclusion. pretty ordinary looking bloke IMO



you'd ****ing hope so

How about Stephen Fleming?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fleming is definitely on the good end of the spectrum. Something a bit gangly about him though, I'd put him as a slightly less handsome version of Cook.

 

[honestbharani]

He has bunny teeth, does Fleming. Do not think he is handsome or even good looking. Passable at best for me. Ravi Shastri was a bit of a heart throb in India in the late 80s and even early 90s.

 

[tony p]

As far as this thread is concerned i would have Miller just ahead of Imran and then Hadlee. Certainly at Test Level Hadlee was the poorest performing batsman of the three.

I would love to had seen what Proctor would have done in a long career, alas we will never know, ( I think he would have been pretty good)

And as has been mentioned , Faulkner of South Africa is rarely given his due. One of the very best all-rounders of all time, only ever played against Australia & England, no chance to boost his record against minnow teams.

Name another all-rounder who scored over 700 runs in a five Test Series as he did against Australia, in Australia in 1910/11, in a side heavily beaten, also managed 10 wickets as well

 

[Daemon]

Alastair Cook is a handsome man. Kind of ruins it when he talks though.

I'm more miffed by du Plessis' inclusion. pretty ordinary looking bloke IMO



you'd ****ing hope so

forget du Plessis, wtf is Lee doing in there