The true all-rounder

[steve132]

How about whether they would get into their respective country's all-time XI as either a bowler or batsman?

Botham- YES
Imran- YES
Kapil Dev- YES
Kallis- NO (Donald, P.Pollock, S.Pollock, Procter, Ntini all better bowlers)
Sobers- NO (Holding, Croft, Garner, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Roberts, Hall, Ramadhin, Gibbs, Clarke, Daniel all better bowlers IMO)

No all-rounder in history has ever come close to making his country's all-time team as either batsman or bowler alone. Botham is not in contention for this - he would not be selected for an all-time England team in either capacity. Imran and Kapil Dev would be selected as bowlers for their countries' respective all-time teams, but certainly not as batsmen.


Sobers comes closer than any, simply because of his sheer versatility. You could make an argument for picking him as the fourth bowler in a team that contains, say, Marshall and Ambrose as fast bowlers and Gibbs as the spinner. Ultimately, however, I don't think that this argument would succeed. The West Indies would be better off opting for Holding or Garner as the final front-line bowler.

 

[Flem274*]

Loving how an Aussie is defending Thorpe from an Englishman (assuming the location is indicative of native country)

 

[zaremba]

There's actually an argument to suggest that not outs actually artificially deflate a batsman's average. In cases where it's actually a batsman we're talking about and he doesn't have a concentration problem or a tenancy to throw away starts, I'm actually inclined to agree.

Batsmen are most vulnerable early in their innings. It's easier to bat when you're on 20 than when you're on 0 and the stats back this up. In the history of Test cricket, top-six batsmen average 36.99.. but only taking into account scores above 20 they average 66.02... which means that from the moment batsmen get to 20 they average a further 44.02 - roughly 7 more than at the start of their innings.

Ergo, getting 20 not out actually robs you of the chance to bat when batting is at its easiest.. you have to continue your "innings" back at the vulnerable stage and get set all over again.

This is a theory I've been nursing for a while but you've articulated it far better than I've ever managed to do.

 

[zaremba]

I have my doubts anyone who actually watched Thorpe bat would call into question his ability.

AWTA. He was an absolutely excellent player who scored runs when the going was tough - which it very often was in the 1990s / early 2000s when England were playing against Australia.

 

[rivera213]

There's actually an argument to suggest that not outs actually artificially deflate a batsman's average. In cases where it's actually a batsman we're talking about and he doesn't have a concentration problem or a tenancy to throw away starts, I'm actually inclined to agree.

Batsmen are most vulnerable early in their innings. It's easier to bat when you're on 20 than when you're on 0 and the stats back this up. In the history of Test cricket, top-six batsmen average 36.99.. but only taking into account scores above 20 they average 66.02... which means that from the moment batsmen get to 20 they average a further 44.02 - roughly 7 more than at the start of their innings.

Ergo, getting 20 not out actually robs you of the chance to bat when batting is at its easiest.. you have to continue your "innings" back at the vulnerable stage and get set all over again.

The NO innings don't deflate a batsman's average, let's not be silly.

Batting at No. 5 is high enough to get many big scores and get big runs. Steve Waugh for example.

I'm not saying Thorpe sucked, but he wasn't great either IMO and I saw 99% of his career including for Surrey. Being the best of a very bad bunch doesn't equate to being a great batsman.

His range of shots was very limited, he is far from being the master strokesman David Gower was.

Your proposed standard is far more favorable to bowling all-rounders than it is to batting all-rounders. There are MANY bowlers who have enjoyed long and distinguished Test careers despite posting bowling averages of over 30. The list includes Harbhajan Singh, Vettori, Brett Lee, Abdul Qadir, Harmison, Prasanna, Sarfraz Nawaz, Valentine, etc - and, before the war, such names as Gregory, McDonald and Mailey.

By contrast, averaging 30 runs per innings is not a notable achievement. EVERY Test batsman of note has averaged 40 or more, except for a tiny minority of players in the Golden Age (W.G. Grace, Trumper) who did not have the opportunity to play much Test cricket.

There shouldn't be such thing as a "batting" or "bowling" all-rounder. That's my point.

I would pick Imran in my all time Pakistan team as a batsman alone, batting at 6. His average of 37 in a time where the top players averaged 40 is notable. He wasn't as good as Javed Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Saeed Anwar or Mohammed Yusuf but I try to be realistic with my all-time XI and pick a genuine team, not a bunch of No. 4's in the middle order.

Also, having a bowling AND batting average of 30 is a ridiculous acheivement considering a lot of players acheive neither.

A top notch batsman would average 40 (45 nowadays) and a top notch bowling average of 25- (30 nowadays due to the batsman friendly wickets) so 30-30 is pretty fair IMO- though I only suggested it as 1 possible way of finding the best AR's.

No all-rounder in history has ever come close to making his country's all-time team as either batsman or bowler alone. Botham is not in contention for this - he would not be selected for an all-time England team in either capacity. Imran and Kapil Dev would be selected as bowlers for their countries' respective all-time teams, but certainly not as batsmen.

Sobers comes closer than any, simply because of his sheer versatility. You could make an argument for picking him as the fourth bowler in a team that contains, say, Marshall and Ambrose as fast bowlers and Gibbs as the spinner. Ultimately, however, I don't think that this argument would succeed. The West Indies would be better off opting for Holding or Garner as the final front-line bowler.

You wouldn't even pick Beefy as 1 of the top 5 bowlers?

I take it you've seen Trueman & Statham live as well as all the bowlers in the modern era to make that call?

I don't think Botham was the BEST bowler at all, but based on the fact people should pick their all-time XI's on players they've actually seen (god forbid), I'd put Beefy in the 5 (and bat him at 6).

See above for my answer to picking Imran as the 6th batsman.

AWTA. He was an absolutely excellent player who scored runs when the going was tough - which it very often was in the 1990s / early 2000s when England were playing against Australia.

He wasn't an excellent batsman. Gower was an excellent batsman. Thorpe (like Hussain and Atherton) was a good player when the going was tough yet did hardly anything against top teams when we were on top. Thorpe's best innings by far was his 138 against the Aussies, but he played like that maybe 5% of his whole career, and yes I've seen almost all his career.

 

[zaremba]

He wasn't an excellent batsman. Gower was an excellent batsman. Thorpe (like Hussain and Atherton) was a good player when the going was tough yet did hardly anything against top teams when we were on top. Thorpe's best innings by far was his 138 against the Aussies, but he played like that maybe 5% of his whole career, and yes I've seen almost all his career.

As you've put it yourself -

let's not be silly.

I'm surprised you managed to see so much of him and yet fail to see what a fine player he was. But each to his own I suppose.

 

[GIMH]

There's actually an argument to suggest that not outs actually artificially deflate a batsman's average. In cases where it's actually a batsman we're talking about and he doesn't have a concentration problem or a tenancy to throw away starts, I'm actually inclined to agree.

Batsmen are most vulnerable early in their innings. It's easier to bat when you're on 20 than when you're on 0 and the stats back this up. In the history of Test cricket, top-six batsmen average 36.99.. but only taking into account scores above 20 they average 66.02... which means that from the moment batsmen get to 20 they average a further 44.02 - roughly 7 more than at the start of their innings.

Ergo, getting 20 not out actually robs you of the chance to bat when batting is at its easiest.. you have to continue your "innings" back at the vulnerable stage and get set all over again.

Just because people have started likening Uppercut to you doesn't mean you have to steal his posts!!!

 

[Prince EWS]

Just because people have started likening Uppercut to you doesn't mean you have to steal his posts!!!

Haha, I've seen Uppercut mention the fact that he hates people suggesting not-outs inflate a batsman's average but I've never seen him post that particular theory (that they, in fact, deflate it) and accompanying half-baked statistical proof.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha, i've said the same before only much less eloquently. It generally deteriorates into large-scale frustration.

 

[steve132]

There shouldn't be such thing as a "batting" or "bowling" all-rounder. That's my point.

Almost everyone who has played Test cricket has been better at either batting (W.G. Grace, Frank Woolley, Sobers, Kallis) or bowling (Miller, Procter, Imran, Botham). That is the basis for the distinction. A very small group - more or less limited to the players named above - have been good enough to make a strong Test team as either batsman or bowler. That does not change the fact that they are better at one discipline than at the other

I would pick Imran in my all time Pakistan team as a batsman alone, batting at 6. His average of 37 in a time where the top players averaged 40 is notable. He wasn't as good as Javed Miandad, Zaheer Abbas, Saeed Anwar or Mohammed Yusuf but I try to be realistic with my all-time XI and pick a genuine team, not a bunch of No. 4's in the middle order.

Imran is not an opening batsman, so he would need to be considered for places 3 to 6 in the batting order. Pakistan has produced, among others, Majid Khan, Javed Miandad, Zaheer Abbas and Inzamam-ul-Haq. Given the talent available, I doubt very much whether most analysts would select Imran solely as a batsman in an all-time team.

Also, having a bowling AND batting average of 30 is a ridiculous acheivement considering a lot of players acheive neither.

A top notch batsman would average 40 (45 nowadays) and a top notch bowling average of 25- (30 nowadays due to the batsman friendly wickets) so 30-30 is pretty fair IMO- though I only suggested it as 1 possible way of finding the best AR's.

The issue is that the two achievements are not symmetrical. If you insist that a Test all-rounder must have a bowling average of under 30, you are using a criterion that excludes not only several great all-rounders but also many specialist bowlers who enjoyed long and distinguished careers in international cricket. By contrast, even mediocre batsmen typically average over 30. A player with such a batting average could not command a place in an average Test side. Every Test batsmen of note since the First World War has averaged over 40.

You wouldn't even pick Beefy as 1 of the top 5 bowlers?

I take it you've seen Trueman & Statham live as well as all the bowlers in the modern era to make that call?

I don't think Botham was the BEST bowler at all, but based on the fact people should pick their all-time XI's on players they've actually seen (god forbid), I'd put Beefy in the 5 (and bat him at 6).

See above for my answer to picking Imran as the 6th batsman.

If you are redefining an "all-time XI" to mean "XI composed of players I have seen" the proposition becomes trivial. Even so, I'm far from certain that I would include Botham purely as a specialist bowler, since I saw Snow, Willis and Underwood as well as more recent England bowlers.

 

[Slifer]

My 2 cents:

A decent batsman should average 40 with the bat, score a hundred every 6 tests or every 12 innings
A decent fast bowler should average under 30 with the ball, have a WPM of about 3.5 and SR under 60
A decent spinner should average under 35 WPM 3.5 SR under 75.

From where i sit there's no one player that fulfills these requirements. The consensus going around on this thread seems to be that most consider Imran and Miller to be true AR with players like Sobers to be "batsmen who could bowl". That makes no sense. For me Imran is a bowler who could bat a bit. Miller, well he seems to be the most well-rounded of all the cricketers in question.

 

[rivera213]

As you've put it yourself

But not being as good as Gower doesn't equal being a poor batsman though. And unlike Gower, Botham made the most of his ability.

I'm surprised you managed to see so much of him and yet fail to see what a fine player he was. But each to his own I suppose.

Well he was very good at his job, but I much prefer stroke players or those who move the game on more than nurdlers. I'm not a huge fan of Collingwood either, though he does his job.

Almost everyone who has played Test cricket has been better at either batting (W.G. Grace, Frank Woolley, Sobers, Kallis) or bowling (Miller, Procter, Imran, Botham). That is the basis for the distinction. A very small group - more or less limited to the players named above - have been good enough to make a strong Test team as either batsman or bowler. That does not change the fact that they are better at one discipline than at the other

I'm not talking about being precisely as good at both disciplines, but players like Kallis, Sobers, Hadlee were/are MUCH better at 1 discipline than the other. Imran, Kaps and Botham were better bowlers, but not so much as, for example, Hadlee.

Imran is not an opening batsman, so he would need to be considered for places 3 to 6 in the batting order. Pakistan has produced, among others, Majid Khan, Javed Miandad, Zaheer Abbas and Inzamam-ul-Haq. Given the talent available, I doubt very much whether most analysts would select Imran solely as a batsman in an all-time team.

Sorry but Majid Khan was no better a player than Imran when it comes to "getting it done". The others I agree with fully, but Majid had an average only slightly better than Imran, had only a slightly better conversion rate, not many more runs per inning than Imran (7, even though he batted most of his career at No.1-4).

He was better to watch, much more "classical" than Imran, quality timing from the very little I saw, but so is Ian Bell and I don't think he is as good as Imran either. I'd rather have Imran in my XI.

The issue is that the two achievements are not symmetrical. If you insist that a Test all-rounder must have a bowling average of under 30, you are using a criterion that excludes not only several great all-rounders but also many specialist bowlers who enjoyed long and distinguished careers in international cricket. By contrast, even mediocre batsmen typically average over 30. A player with such a batting average could not command a place in an average Test side.

Botham and Imran especially from the allrounders were excellent bowlers. I'd take either of those above Brett Lee for example.

You have to take into account where a person bats in the order too. Imran only played 5 tests where he batted higher than No. 6 and had double the amount of tests at No. 6 than he did anywhere else in the order. Botham also. Kapil Dev batted 7th or lower for almost all his test career.

How many runs per inning can you really get that low down? (I know NO's aim to counter that, but a NO 0 doesn't add anything to the average).

I agree with you for positions 1-4 and in most cases No. 5, but No. 6 and lower often bat with the tail and don't spend as long in as those who have averaged 40+. It's a bit harsh to jusdge a No. 6 or 7 by what a No. 4 should be getting bare minimum.

I think a batsman averaging 30 +/- could get into a test side at No. 6 if he had an impressive strike rate. I can't see many world coaches putting someone who averages 40 but has an SR of below 40 ahead of someone who averages 30 but has a SR of 60+ knowing the game situation. Nowadays, the No. 8 is expected to bat but back in Beefy & Imran's era, no-one was expected to bat past 6.

Every Test batsmen of note since the First World War has averaged over 40.

Well, I am skeptical about the stats of those pre-1970.

If you are redefining an "all-time XI" to mean "XI composed of players I have seen" the proposition becomes trivial. Even so, I'm far from certain that I would include Botham purely as a specialist bowler, since I saw Snow, Willis and Underwood as well as more recent England bowlers.

Not when you've seen live, or footage of all the notable names of the modern era.

Picking a cricketer in an XI even though you haven't seen him play is as bad as saying J.S Bach is the greatest musician ever even though you haven't heard his music (not you, but people in general- I'm a musician and that pisses me off immensely).

I think people who pick on stats and opinions only are picking on ignorance. You may as well put Grace and Ranji in your XI since their stats are great.

 

[rivera213]

My 2 cents:

A decent batsman should average 40 with the bat, score a hundred every 6 tests or every 12 innings
A decent fast bowler should average under 30 with the ball, have a WPM of about 3.5 and SR under 60
A decent spinner should average under 35 WPM 3.5 SR under 75.

From where i sit there's no one player that fulfills these requirements. The consensus going around on this thread seems to be that most consider Imran and Miller to be true AR with players like Sobers to be "batsmen who could bowl". That makes no sense. For me Imran is a bowler who could bat a bit. Miller, well he seems to be the most well-rounded of all the cricketers in question.

Imran averaged almost 38. Thats more than just a bit. Many people of eras gone by said that quality batsmen average 40+ with the bat and the greats around 45+ but most of those in question bat No.4 or higher, in some cases No.5.

38 in relation to 40 is bloody good IMO. Botham at his peak was better than just 30 too. I think Hadlee was a great bowler who was useful with the bat, but he averaged below 30.

I agree no-one fits your requirements, but I think they're a touch harsh considering where AR generally bat in the order. As long as you're consistent then that's all that matters.

 

[Slifer]

Yes but for example its not just that Imrans average, in 88 tests i think he scored like 6 hundreds which is far from what a good batsman would achieve. Imran making a Pakistan team on batting alone (i doubt he would) is just a matter of Pakistan not having as much depth in batting as say Australia.

 

[rivera213]

Yes but for example its not just that Imrans average, in 88 tests i think he scored like 6 hundreds which is far from what a good batsman would achieve.

It's not great, but Majid Khan's is only marginly better and he batted much higher up the order.

Imran had a number of NO innings above 50 (70, 67, 72, 69, 72, 83, 58 & 93) where he could've got a century but was out of partners, the team declared or Pakistan won so his conversion rate isn't as good at it deserves to be.

Imran making a Pakistan team on batting alone (i doubt he would) is just a matter of Pakistan not having as much depth in batting as say Australia.

For sure. Younis Khan & Mahammad Yusuf will be certs in the Pakistan team ahead of Imran as batsmen once they've retired but I can only talk about today.

 

[steve132]

I'm not talking about being precisely as good at both disciplines, but players like Kallis, Sobers, Hadlee were/are MUCH better at 1 discipline than the other. Imran, Kaps and Botham were better bowlers, but not so much as, for example, Hadlee.

Are you saying that Sobers, for example, would have been a better all-rounder if his batting had been worse, or Hadlee a better all-rounder if his bowling had been worse? Surely what matters is whether a player can command a place in a strong Test team with either bat or ball. Sobers could do so at least as easily as Botham and Imran. He was one of the four main bowlers in a West Indies team that was for five or six years the world's best.

Sorry but Majid Khan was no better a player than Imran when it comes to "getting it done". The others I agree with fully, but Majid had an average only slightly better than Imran, had only a slightly better conversion rate, not many more runs per inning than Imran (7, even though he batted most of his career at No.1-4).

He was better to watch, much more "classical" than Imran, quality timing from the very little I saw, but so is Ian Bell and I don't think he is as good as Imran either. I'd rather have Imran in my XI.

Having seen both Majid and Imran bat many times I have to disagree. I have nothing against Imran - in my view, he is the greatest player ever produced by Pakistan. But I don't know a single cricketer or journalist who would maintain that Imran would be selected for an all-time Pakistan XI solely for his batting.

Botham and Imran especially from the allrounders were excellent bowlers. I'd take either of those above Brett Lee for example.

I don't disagree. Imran, in fact, is one of the greatest ever fast bowlers.

You have to take into account where a person bats in the order too. Imran only played 5 tests where he batted higher than No. 6 and had double the amount of tests at No. 6 than he did anywhere else in the order. Botham also. Kapil Dev batted 7th or lower for almost all his test career.

How many runs per inning can you really get that low down? (I know NO's aim to counter that, but a NO 0 doesn't add anything to the average).

I agree with you for positions 1-4 and in most cases No. 5, but No. 6 and lower often bat with the tail and don't spend as long in as those who have averaged 40+. It's a bit harsh to jusdge a No. 6 or 7 by what a No. 4 should be getting bare minimum.

Well, Garry Sobers averaged 67 when he batted at No. 7 for the West Indies. It's obviously not impossible to score runs in the middle order.

If you are saying that we have to cut all-rounders some slack I would agree. This principle, however, applies as much to bowling as to batting statistics. Trevor Bailey, who was England's best all-rounder in the immediate postwar period, observed that a long innings invariably took the edge off his bowling, while on the other hand if he did a lot of bowling his footwork would be too slow to allow him to play a major innings.

For some reason, however, you are prepared to make allowances for all rounders' batting but not for their bowling. Why is it reasonable to expect an all-rounder to average under 30 with the ball when many specialist bowlers do not do so, while an anemic batting average of 30 is considered satisfactory?

I think a batsman averaging 30 +/- could get into a test side at No. 6 if he had an impressive strike rate. I can't see many world coaches putting someone who averages 40 but has an SR of below 40 ahead of someone who averages 30 but has a SR of 60+ knowing the game situation. Nowadays, the No. 8 is expected to bat but back in Beefy & Imran's era, no-one was expected to bat past 6.

A player who is selected as a specialist batsman would bat no lower than No. 6, and for such a player an average of 30 would not be considered acceptable, irrespective of his scoring rate. Strong Test teams - Australia under Bradman in the 1940's and under Waugh in the last decade, England in the 1950's, West Indies in the 1960's and under Lloyd, South Africa c. 1970 - have no room for such mediocrity.

Well, I am skeptical about the stats of those pre-1970.

Why? Is there some reason to believe that people could not play cricket before that date?

Not when you've seen live, or footage of all the notable names of the modern era.

Picking a cricketer in an XI even though you haven't seen him play is as bad as saying J.S Bach is the greatest musician ever even though you haven't heard his music (not you, but people in general- I'm a musician and that pisses me off immensely).

I think people who pick on stats and opinions only are picking on ignorance. You may as well put Grace and Ranji in your XI since their stats are great.

Fair enough, but if that's your view you are not really entitled to express an opinion on many of the issues discussed in this forum. Most of the rest of us never saw Bradman or Hobbs bat live, but we still voted them the two best batsmen of all time in the current poll. I think that we have enough information to justify that assessment.

 

[aussie]

Yes but for example its not just that Imrans average, in 88 tests i think he scored like 6 hundreds which is far from what a good batsman would achieve. Imran making a Pakistan team on batting alone (i doubt he would) is just a matter of Pakistan not having as much depth in batting as say Australia.

Based on pass research. I dont think this would be an accurate view of Imran batting at its peak during the 80s. He definately could have done it.

 

[rivera213]

Are you saying that Sobers, for example, would have been a better all-rounder if his batting had been worse, or Hadlee a better all-rounder if his bowling had been worse? Surely what matters is whether a player can command a place in a strong Test team with either bat or ball. Sobers could do so at least as easily as Botham and Imran. He was one of the four main bowlers in a West Indies team that was for five or six years the world's best.

No, but Sobers was simply better at batting than bowling. It doesn't mean he wasn't good at both, but while he was good at bowling (in regards to all time great WI bowlers) he was a GREAT batsman.

1.5 wickets per innings is excellent for an allrounder but his bowling wasn't as good as his batting by any stretch of the imagination. Even if people disagree with Imran and Botham being put into an all-time XI of their respective countries based on 1 discipline, their abilities were more even than Sobers, Hadlee or Kallis.

Well, Garry Sobers averaged 67 when he batted at No. 7 for the West Indies. It's obviously not impossible to score runs in the middle order.

Not impossible, but improbable over a long career. BTW- Sobers only had 13 innings at No. 7, hardly a fair comparison to 63. He did however have a run average of 45.86 batting at No.6 and had over 50 innings there so that comparison is fair. However, that's Garry Sobers- possibly the greatest ever WI batsman. Imran wasn't that level and I didn't claim he was anywhere. No.6 and lower as a position didn't lend itself to too much time at the crease when players weren't expected to bat as deep as they are now.

If you are saying that we have to cut all-rounders some slack I would agree. This principle, however, applies as much to bowling as to batting statistics. Trevor Bailey, who was England's best all-rounder in the immediate postwar period, observed that a long innings invariably took the edge off his bowling, while on the other hand if he did a lot of bowling his footwork would be too slow to allow him to play a major innings.

Which is even more astonishing when the players I mentioned average 30+ with the bat and 30- with the ball.

You could say 30+ with the bat and 40- with the ball, but then you'll get people saying a 40 bowling average isn't great. 30 and 35 would be closer, but again people would argue 30 per innings isn't great.

For some reason, however, you are prepared to make allowances for all rounders' batting but not for their bowling. Why is it reasonable to expect an all-rounder to average under 30 with the ball when many specialist bowlers do not do so, while an anemic batting average of 30 is considered satisfactory?

30 per innings when the top players were averaging 40 isn't too harsh. 40 has been the magic number for years and in the years gone by it was easier for bowlers than today. I took into account the positions AR's generally bat at. All of them were in the top 4 bowlers so were guaranteed a fair amount of bowling time whereas their batting innings was also down to the players coming in after them sticking around. In the 70's to 90's that wasn't the case so to expect a No. 6 or lower to average 40 is unrealistic, but to average 30- for a front line bowler isn't.

A player who is selected as a specialist batsman would bat no lower than No. 6, and for such a player an average of 30 would not be considered acceptable, irrespective of his scoring rate. Strong Test teams - Australia under Bradman in the 1940's and under Waugh in the last decade, England in the 1950's, West Indies in the 1960's and under Lloyd, South Africa c. 1970 - have no room for such mediocrity.

Yes, but you know my criteria for selecting all time XI's so only 2 of those stand (1970's WI and SA). I wouldn't select Mike Procter as a specialist batsman.

Why? Is there some reason to believe that people could not play cricket before that date?

No, but HOW good they were isn't something you can judge by "reports" or opinions. To not have seen someone, even a decent amount of footage of, and say they were in the best XI is laughable. If you made decisions like that in business you'd be sacked.


[quote[Fair enough, but if that's your view you are not really entitled to express an opinion on many of the issues discussed in this forum. Most of the rest of us never saw Bradman or Hobbs bat live, but we still voted them the two best batsmen of all time in the current poll. I think that we have enough information to justify that assessment.[/QUOTE]

I'm "entitled" to express whatever opinion I like, as far as I know communism hasn't hit the internet.

I don't really care about internet polls, so whether Bradman and Hobbs were the top 2 batsmen of all time as voted by GW or the bottom 2- it doesn't effect my criteria.

Would you really say the 2 best musicians of all time were Bach and Beethoven, even if you never heard them, based on articles?

Or would you say "I can't say because I haven't heard their music"?

 

[Slifer]

Ok Bothams ability were more even yes, good bowler and ok batsman. But Imran was a considerably better bowler than batsman, as Sobers was a much superior batsman than bowler. Either way Botham is not makin ne all time team on either discipline, Imrans not making any as a batsman alone and Sobers not as a bowler.

 

[steve132]

I'm afraid that we are approaching the point of diminishing returns in this exchange, but I'll try just once more.

No, but Sobers was simply better at batting than bowling. It doesn't mean he wasn't good at both, but while he was good at bowling (in regards to all time great WI bowlers) he was a GREAT batsman.

1.5 wickets per innings is excellent for an allrounder but his bowling wasn't as good as his batting by any stretch of the imagination. Even if people disagree with Imran and Botham being put into an all-time XI of their respective countries based on 1 discipline, their abilities were more even than Sobers, Hadlee or Kallis.

Once again, IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW EVEN an all-rounder's abilities are. Your argument implies that Sobers would be a better all-rounder if he had been a worse batsman, because then his batting and bowling abilities would have been more even. This is surely counterintuitive. What really matters is how good a player is in each discipline. Sobers was certainly good enough to hold his place in a strong Test team as a bowler. In fact, he could do so more easily than Imran was likely to be selected as a batsman alone.

Not impossible, but improbable over a long career. BTW- Sobers only had 13 innings at No. 7, hardly a fair comparison to 63. He did however have a run average of 45.86 batting at No.6 and had over 50 innings there so that comparison is fair. However, that's Garry Sobers- possibly the greatest ever WI batsman. Imran wasn't that level and I didn't claim he was anywhere. No.6 and lower as a position didn't lend itself to too much time at the crease when players weren't expected to bat as deep as they are now.

Sobers averaged 72 batting at no. 3 for the West Indies, 63 batting at no. 4, 59 at no. 5, 53 (not 45) at no. 6 and 67 at no. 7. I mention these figures only to show that a batsman of quality will score runs wherever he bats in the order.

Which is even more astonishing when the players I mentioned average 30+ with the bat and 30- with the ball.

You could say 30+ with the bat and 40- with the ball, but then you'll get people saying a 40 bowling average isn't great. 30 and 35 would be closer, but again people would argue 30 per innings isn't great.

30 per innings when the top players were averaging 40 isn't too harsh. 40 has been the magic number for years and in the years gone by it was easier for bowlers than today.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

I took into account the positions AR's generally bat at. All of them were in the top 4 bowlers so were guaranteed a fair amount of bowling time whereas their batting innings was also down to the players coming in after them sticking around. In the 70's to 90's that wasn't the case so to expect a No. 6 or lower to average 40 is unrealistic, but to average 30- for a front line bowler isn't.

If a batsman runs out of partners he is left not out at the end of the innings. That event does not reduce his batting average.

There are advantages and disadvantages associated with batting in higher and lower positions, but in general if a player bats below no. 6 he does so only because he is not considered good enough to bat any higher in the order.

Once again, your bowling criterion excludes not only some great all rounders but also many specialist bowlers who enjoyed long and distinguished Test careers. At the same time, the batting performance expected of all-rounders is ridiculously low.

No, but HOW good they were isn't something you can judge by "reports" or opinions. To not have seen someone, even a decent amount of footage of, and say they were in the best XI is laughable. If you made decisions like that in business you'd be sacked.

I'm "entitled" to express whatever opinion I like, as far as I know communism hasn't hit the internet.

I don't really care about internet polls, so whether Bradman and Hobbs were the top 2 batsmen of all time as voted by GW or the bottom 2- it doesn't effect my criteria.

Would you really say the 2 best musicians of all time were Bach and Beethoven, even if you never heard them, based on articles?

Or would you say "I can't say because I haven't heard their music"?

Well, we certainly would need to hear the music, but we do not need to know the composers or to hear them personally perform any works.

Yours is a remarkable epistemological position. Do you really believe that someone who never saw Bradman and Bill O'Reilly bat has no reason for believing that Bradman was the better batsman?

If we can't make judgments on the basis of "reports" and are limited to what we have personally seen, then we would have to throw out much of the knowledge that we take for granted. Historians, geologists and possibly even astronomers would be out of business. I doubt very much that most people would be comfortable with this position.