Are ARs just better by default?

[Randomfan]

Assuming Batting = bowling, the big five (Sobers, Hadlee, Imran, Kallis, Miller) all rounders would exceed any specialist.

Hadlee and Sobers are top 5 in their primary so meanigless in this debate about all rounders being better than top 5 batsmen/bowlers by default. Focus in on default as thread title suggests. They can be better but not by default.

As far as IK, Kallis and MIller providing more value than any specailist by default, why not have 3 of them in XI. If balance and composition is an issue, then at least 2 of them. Or just go with 1 in vast majority of great Xis. I meant, it's a stretch to call that IK, MIller and Kallis - all three provide more value than any specialist by default but not able to make into great XIs.

I have heard the club level team arguement but cricketers or experts don't really make all time Xis for club level cricketers, but a large sample size exist for all time XIs.

 

[Coronis]

o

Somehow I had missed this post, think I was tired of some of the back and forth.

Sometimes I think some around here fail to belive the lessons that history teaches us, or follow the templates that they provide.

And even though the names you provide may differ from mine, the premise remains mostly the same. Forceful, match winning batsmen capable of dominating attacks and versatile, adaptable and aggressive bowlers.
Also agree with your premise with regards to wicketkeeping, even of there's some give for the batting, glove work has to be the priority.


Exceptional post.

I’m not sure how many times we have to remind you, but everyone is agreeing that specialists and team structure are the most important factors in selecting an ATG team. But fsr you can’t reconcile this with Imran and Kallis objectively being better players that do not fit.

 

[Johan]

Hadlee and Sobers are top 5 in their primary so meanigless in this debate about all rounders being better than top 5 batsmen/bowlers by default.

As far as IK, Kallis and MIller providing more value than any specailist, why not have 3 of them in XI. If balance and composition is an issue, then at least 2 of them. I meant, it's a stretch to call that IK, MIller and Kallis - all three provide more value than any specialist but vast majority of XIs they don't make it.

I have heard the club level team arguement but cricketers or experts don't really make all time Xis for club level cricketers, but a large sample size exist for all time XIs.

Hadlee and Sobers are all rounders, they are not Sachin/McGrath equal in Primary but them being all rounders make them much better Cricketers, hence showing ARs > Specialists.

All time XIs are irrelevant and don't exist, more value is provided to the average team, not fantastical imaginery teams.

 

[Randomfan]

Hadlee and Sobers are all rounders, they are not Sachin/McGrath equal in Primary but them being all rounders make them much better Cricketers, hence showing ARs > Specialists.

All time XIs are irrelevant and don't exist, more value is provided to the average team, not fantastical imagineru teams.

They are among the top 5. For constructing any team, that's as elite as you can get. Taking Hadlee and Sobers examples, who are top 5 in primaries, hardly makes the case for other all rounders, who don't appear in the top 5 in primaries.

All time Xis are done by tons of experts and fans. A very large sample size of such XIs exist and folks are trying to put together a team spannig across eras. Sure , they do consider value addition by each player. They are not randomly putting players there. If most think that Kallis, IK, MIller all three are adding more value than any specialist then we should be seeing them in XIs. Not ncessarily all 3 at the same time due to team composition and other factors, but 2 of them most of the times or at least 1 of them all the time. We can't say that they all 3 of them add more value than any specialist and yet struggle to feature in XIs.

Now average team or club level teams, I have not seen too many examples of folks doing it. All time XIs data does exist but average team/club level team data does not exist. So we can see what most fans/expert think about this subject.

I am fully convinced that all rouders are not better by default. If they are elite tier in one skill then it's a different issue. Otherwise, it's case by case basis in comparisons.

 

[Johan]

They are among the top 5. For constructing any team, that's as elite as you can get. Taking Hadlee and Sobers examples, who are top 5 in primaries, hardly makes the case for other all rounders, who don't appear in the top 5 in primaries.

All time Xis are done by tons of experts and fans. A very large sample size of such XIs exist and folks are trying to put together a team spannig across eras. Sure , they do consider value addition by each player. They are not randomly putting players there. If most think that Kallis, IK, MIller all three are adding more value than any specialist then we should be seeing them in XIs. Not ncessarily all 3 at the same time due to team composition and other factors, but 2 of them most of the times or at least 1 of them all the time. We can't say that they all 3 of them add more value than any specialist and yet struggle to feature in XIs.

Now average team or club level teams, I have not seen too many examples of folks doing it. All time XIs data does exist but average team/club level team data does not exist. So we can see what most fans/expert think about this subject.

I am fully convinced that all rouders are not better by default. If they are elite tier in one skill then it's a different issue.

Why not? Imran and Hammond are top ten in primary, Kallis a top 15 in primary, everything exists on a spectrum, why should we ignore the tip top of all rounders? do we ignore the tip top of specialists (Sachin, Viv, Hutton, McGrath, Marshall etc)? No? exactly.

All time XIs are irrelevant because they are all about team composition and value of players who can contribute in all disciplines of the games is therefore diminished. For example, take Ian Botham to the West Indies team of the early 1990s, and then take Geoffrey Boycott or Ken Barrington to the same team, who would bring more value? obviously Boycott or Barrington, because the batting wasn't tight, but more importantly, Botham would never be given the new ball or semi new ball over Marshall/Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop and so forth. Same way, in an all time XI, you don't need Kallis as he would never get the ball because you already have Sobers to play the fifth bowler role, or Miller, who would never get the new ball either in an all time XI nor get to bat 5, so what's the point?

Now, an average team would be greatly enhanced by a number five batsman who averages 22 with the ball and can bowl 70-80% as much as any ATG bowler while also batting #5 or #6 without any loss in batting resources and be a world class slip fielder.

the value of a Cricket shows largely in average or ordinary teams, all time XIs are about team composition and with excessive resources in all three dimensions of the game, it's safe to go for the specialist. That's why Ian Botham > Ken Barrington.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I am fully convinced that all rouders are not better by default. If they are elite tier in one skill then it's a different issue. Otherwise, it's case by case basis in comparisons.

Hypothetically if there was a cricketer who could bat like Martin Crowd, could bowl like Courtney Walsh, I'd pretty easily rank him the greatest cricketer ever despite not being elite tier in any discipline. Unfortunately he doesn't exist.

 

[Randomfan]

Why not? Imran and Hammond are top ten in primary, Kallis a top 15 in primary, everything exists on a spectrum, why should we ignore the tip top of all rounders?

Because Sobers and Hadlee make it just based on their primary. It does not prove or disapprove anything about all rounders being better than elite bowlers/batsmen.

Yes. everything exist in spectrum. Since we have 4-5 spots for batsmen and 4-5 for bowlers in Xis, seeing a top 5 batsman( Sobers) or a top 5 bowler(Hadlee) in the team is not an evidence. That's why I said let's focus on outoside fo top 5 and see if all rounders are making it there to show value addition by all rounders being higher in those XIs.

I am not asking all olf them to be there. It's obvious that other factors like team composition exist, but vast majoriy of times not even 2 of them and lots of times none make it. That surely tells something about fan's opinion on value addition of players while selecting those teams.

Now some of them may not be picked, but they can be better player but not by default. If it was as clear cut as default for IK, MIller, Kallis etc then we should haev seen them more often in XIs.

 

[Randomfan]

Hypothetically if there was a cricketer who could bat like Martin Crowd, could bowl like Courtney Walsh, I'd pretty easily rank him the greatest cricketer ever despite not being elite tier in any discipline. Unfortunately he doesn't exist.

That's a high bar. If we pick high on spectrum in both sklls without getting into elite tier then it's a different situation. That's not the case here.

Anyway, I don't have much to add in this debate. I will leave all you to hash it out.

 

[subshakerz]

As far as IK, Kallis and MIller providing more value than any specailist by default, why not have 3 of them in XI. If balance and composition is an issue, then at least 2 of them. Or just go with 1 in vast majority of great Xis. I meant, it's a stretch to call that IK, MIller and Kallis - all three provide more value than any specialist by default but not able to make into great XIs.

Because an AR has more individual value but with more in your side after maybe two it’s diminishing returns.

 

[Johan]

Because Sobers and Hadlee make it just based on their primary. It does not prove or disapprove anything about all rounders being better than elite bowlers/batsmen.

Yes. everything exist in spectrum. Since we have 4-5 spots for batsmen and 4-5 for bowlers in Xis, saying that the a top 5 batsman( Sobers) or a top 5 bowler(Hadlee) in the team is not an evidence. That's why I said let's focus on outoside fo top 5 and see if all rounders are making it there to show value addition by all rounders being higher in those XIs.

I am not asking all olf them to be there. It's obvious that other factors like team composition exist, but if vast majoriy not even 2 of them and lots of times none of them make it. That surely tells something about value addition of players while selecting those teams.

Now some of them may not be picked, but thye can be better player but not by default.

It does, because if proves the best all rounders are better than best batsmen and bowlers, I don't know who told you Cricket rating is about making an imaginery team but it's not, it's about who can bring more value to a team, a normal one, Sobers and Hadlee beat specialists in this because they are all rounders. Proving the best all rounders are better than the best specialists.

Again, I'm not making a team, I'm telling you which cricketer is better in a one vs one, there are no five spots to deemm who is better and who isn't. Sobers isn't better than Sachin because he makes some imaginery team, he is better because he makes runs at a similar rate without a noticeable dip in quality and takes hundreds of wickets while doing so, in a career span as long as Tendulkar he would outperform Tendulkar all three dimensions combined by a lot. Same with Hadlee vs McGrath. Why are we even discussing XIs? All time XIs is a subject solely for mental masturbation, there is no logic behind connecting it to which Cricketer is better because of the concept of team composition.

Not exactly, Such XIs have an endless pool and can afford to go for elite options in every discipline. Put a elite AR (Miller, Imran, Kallis, Hammond, Sobers, Hadlee) into an average team and put an elite specialist into another team, both teams being average before addition, the team with the AR would do better and the AR would have a more impressive career.

 

[Jane Austen]

It does, because if proves the best all rounders are better than best batsmen and bowlers, I don't know who told you Cricket rating is about making an imaginery team but it's not, it's about who can bring more value to a team, a normal one, Sobers and Hadlee beat specialists in this because they are all rounders. Proving the best all rounders are better than the best specialists.

Again, I'm not making a team, I'm telling you which cricketer is better in a one vs one, there are no five spots to deemm who is better and who isn't. Sobers isn't better than Sachin because he makes some imaginery team, he is better because he makes runs at a similar rate without a noticeable dip in quality and takes hundreds of wickets while doing so, in a career span as long as Tendulkar he would outperform Tendulkar all three dimensions combined by a lot. Same with Hadlee vs McGrath. Why are we even discussing XIs? All time XIs is a subject solely for mental masturbation, there is no logic behind connecting it to which Cricketer is better because of the concept of team composition.

Not exactly, Such XIs have an endless pool and can afford to go for elite options in every discipline. Put a elite AR (Miller, Imran, Kallis, Hammond, Sobers, Hadlee) into an average team and put an elite specialist into another team, both teams being average before addition, the team with the AR would do better and the AR would have a more impressive career.

Johan,
I understand your premise of the the great all-rounder being compared to the specialist one-on-one,independently of ATG Team Selection.Absolutely valid---why not?
But,contrary to what you write in the last sentence of your first paragraph,you have no proof to substantiate your claim.
You may well be able to produce some statistics,subjectively chosen by you to support your claim and,it being researched by your goodself,I'm fairly sure they may appear to be persuasive at first glance.
BUT,as a counter-argument,do you really put even Sobers,much less Hadlee,above Bradman?
When a hundred of the great and good were asked by Wisden to choose the five top players of the 20th century,they picked three batters,a bowler and just one all-rounder.Note that they were not picking players for a team but,in effect,comparing them as individuals.
Only rarely does an all-rounder peak with both skills in the one match.
Ask yourself how many times has the feat of a century and a 5-wickets-in-an-innings in the same Test been achieved,and by how many players,over the course of 149 years of these matches,many of which were mis--matches against (very) weak teams.

I'd be interested in your further comments please Johan.

 

[Johan]

Johan,
I understand your premise of the the great all-rounder being compared to the specialist one-on-one,independently of ATG Team Selection.Absolutely valid---why not?
But,contrary to what you write in the last sentence of your first paragraph,you have no proof to substantiate your claim.
You may well be able to produce some statistics,subjectively chosen by you to support your claim and,it being researched by your goodself,I'm fairly sure they may appear to be persuasive at first glance.
BUT,as a counter-argument,do you really put even Sobers,much less Hadlee,above Bradman?
When a hundred of the great and good were asked by Wisden to choose the five top players of the 20th century,they picked three batters,a bowler and just one all-rounder.Note that they were not picking players for a team but,in effect,comparing them as individuals.
Only rarely does an all-rounder peak with both skills in the one match.
Ask yourself how many times has the feat of a century and a 5-wickets-in-an-innings in the same Test been achieved,and by how many players,over the course of 149 years of these matches,many of which were mis--matches against (very) weak teams.

I'd be interested in your further comments please Johan.

Bradman has to be kind of ignored, he is an outlier even among specialists and by far the greatest test cricketer of all time (ignoring Grace, if Grace is counted, it becomes a two way race).

Regarding Wisden 100, I'll just say I disagree with them personally. They mention Shane Warne and Sachin Tendulkar in the top five, for the life of me I can't understand how someone like Tendulkar can have more effect on the team or be more valuable to the team than someone like Imran. My perception is the value of all rounders is often overestimated on the lower level (like, Ben Stokes) and somewhat underestimated on the highest level (Kallis).

Regarding how often one can fire in both regards, well to that I'll say being an all rounder, you can produce match winning performances very similarly to a specialist. Take Imran Khan and Walter Hammond, both of these individuals can and did consistently win matches for their team in a similar manner as an elite specialist like McGrath or Viv would, Imran often won matches with the ball and Hammond often won matches with the bat, now the latter two come with an addition of simply excelling in more dimensions of the sport, Imran Khan can win or save games with the bat somewhat consistently in a way we've seen lower order batsmen do, Hammond can influence matches with the ball by simply taking off workload and chipping in with a crucial few wickets or so ever so often. There is also the factor that the three greatest batting all rounders (Sobers, Kallis, Hammond) also excelled on historic levels in the slips which can and does often help win games.

when one compares someone like Hammond to Tendulkar or Imran to McGrath, I just believe while Sachin and McGrath would probably win more games/have more consistent contributions, realistically it would be by such a small margin that it won't really matter. While Hammond/Imran will consistently contribute as the fifth bowler or a #6/#7 batsman over their career, that just seems to me to hold more value than marginally superior primary discipline.

 

[Coronis]

BUT,as a counter-argument,do you really put even Sobers,much less Hadlee,above Bradman?

C’mon Bradman is the exception, we all know this. He was just so far ahead, arguably has the output of almost two ATG bats. You’d need to be ATG (or close to) in both bat and bowl to come near him.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Hypothetically if there was a cricketer who could bat like Martin Crowd, could bowl like Courtney Walsh, I'd pretty easily rank him the greatest cricketer ever despite not being elite tier in any discipline. Unfortunately he doesn't exist.

1961-68 Sobers was close.
World's best batsman + 28 avg bowler with almost 4 WPM.

 

[Jane Austen]

OK Johan and Coronis I was sort of trying it on wirh Bradman but,say,Hobbs or Viv v Hadlee,I reckon I'm on even ground here at the least.
Johan I don't know about the Wisden 100 to which you are referring--could you direct me to where I could find this list please?No---I am referring to Wisden Almanack 2001 in which they asked 100 historians,writers,players etc to each forward their top five players of the 20th century (WG was specifically excluded as a name to be put forward).
Bradman naturally featured as a choice for everyone,Sobers was chosen by 90%,Hobbs achieved 33%,Warne and Viv Richards 17% and 15% respectively.So only one all-rounder.
I think that the comparatively small amount of bonus from a wicket or two per match,eg Woolley,or an extra 8-I0 runs per game,eg Hadlee,doesn't make up for where they may not quite reach the heights of the top specialist,say Sutcliffe or Marshall.
I accept you don't agree but I think it's a reasonable counter-argument.
Yes,leaving aside Sobers,there are all-rounders who can compete with the top specialists but they are very few in number I think.
Procter,Imran Khan and Kallis perhaps,and early Botham.

 

[Randomfan]

Because an AR has more individual value but with more in your side after maybe two it’s diminishing returns.

Even with diminishing returns, why stop with Sobers in XI if all of them are providing more value. We don't see even 2 all rounders in most XIs.

Either all fans and experts don't see all rounders providing more value by default or explayers, fans and experts have gone collecively crazy to ignore extra value provided by all rounders compared to specialists. I suspect the first situation is more likely. One possible explanation I think @Bolo. provide that we have become used to seeing only one all rounder in XI and we simply follow it. I am not sure, that's the case. If 2nd or 3rd all rounders were providing clear cut more value compared to specialists, we may not see 3 playing at the same time, but playing 2 would have been a norm.

It's an interesting discussion though.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Even with diminishing returns, why stop with Sobers in XI if all of them are providing more value. We don't see even 2 all rounders in most XIs.

Either all fans and experts don't see all rounders providing more value by default or explayers, fans and experts have gone collecively crazy to ignore extra value provided by all rounders compared to specialists. I suspect the first situation is more likely. One possible explanation I think @Bolo. provide that we have become used to seeing only one all rounder in XI and we simply follow it. I am not sure, that's the case. If 2nd or 3rd all rounders were providing clear cut more value compared to specialists, we may not see 3 playing at the same time, but playing 2 would have been a norm.

It's an interesting discussion though.

The clear answer here is most teams don't have one World Class AR let alone 2 or 3. If even say, two very good but some way from ATG ARs, like Chris Cairns and Andrew Flintoff played for the same team, they mostly would play together. You aren't benching Shaun Pollock because Jacques Kallis is playing, right? But you don't want need Beau Webster now if Cam Green is playing, just not worth it.

 

[subshakerz]

Even with diminishing returns, why stop with Sobers in XI if all of them are providing more value. We don't see even 2 all rounders in most XIs.

Either all fans and experts don't see all rounders providing more value by default or explayers, fans and experts have gone collecively crazy to ignore extra value provided by all rounders compared to specialists. I suspect the first situation is more likely. One possible explanation I think @Bolo. provide that we have become used to seeing only one all rounder in XI and we simply follow it. I am not sure, that's the case. If 2nd or 3rd all rounders were providing clear cut more value compared to specialists, we may not see 3 playing at the same time, but playing 2 would have been a norm.

It's an interesting discussion though.

Depending on what team you are facing, an ATG XI can pick more specialists or ARs.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes,leaving aside Sobers,there are all-rounders who can compete with the top specialists but they are very few in number I think.
Procter,Imran Khan and Kallis perhaps,and early Botham.

Jane, we readily agree that specialist overtake regular ARs.

But the reason we highlight Sobers, Imran, Hadlee, Kallis and Miller is that they are all world class in a primary discipline to compete with specialists and the secondary skills as an add on over take the specialists.

 

[DrWolverine]

Depending on what team you are facing, an ATG XI can pick more specialists or ARs.

A hypothetical ATG team has the luxury of picking specialists.