cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
Gilchrist could be up for discussion. I would not say Dhoni deserves mention among these great allround names.
Best Allrounder of all time
- Thread starter Fenil
- Start date
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Steady...that's kinda my view too, but just not as extreme. Sobers = Steady bowler and very adaptable, but nothing more IMHO. I think his bowling generally gets overrated a bit and his batting underrated. To me, he probably makes a top 5 batsman list even if he couldnt' bowl.
Yea i dont rate Sobers bowling any higher than that either, its not as great as Botham, Imran, Miller, Hadlee at their bowling peaks, but its was good enough to be part of 4-man attack from of Hall/Griffith/Gibbs/Sobers for almost a decade during the 1960s, when the Windies were the # 1 test team.
That should tell you everything, if his bowling at its peak had any noticeable drawbacks Windies may have needed a 5th bowler more consistently - but they didn't.
Fenil
PC Cricket Leagues Legend
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
I personally am not a fan of Dhoni. I'd rather choose Gichrist or even Boucher for the wicket-keeping allrounders ahead of Dhoni.
bobby210
Club Cricketer
Imran khan for me. BUt I reckon that is because I am Pakistani
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
This article should provide some of the those in this thread with some interesting information ... Wisden - Sir Garfield Sobers
"Garfield Sobers was seventeen when he first played for West Indies -- primarily as an orthodox slow left arm bowler (four for 81) though he scored 40 runs for once out in a losing side. His batting developed more rapidly than his bowling and, in the 1957-58 series with Pakistan in West Indies, he played six consecutive innings of over fifty -- the last three of them centuries. Through the sixties he developed left-arm wrist-spin, turning the ball sharply and concealing his googly well. Outstandingly, however, at the need of his perceptive captain, Sir Frank Worrell, he made himself a Test-class fast medium bowler. Out of his instinctive athleticism he evolved an ideally economic action, coupling life from the pitch with late movement through the air and, frequently, off the seam. Nothing in all his cricket was more impressive than his ability to switch from one bowling style to another with instant control.
He was always capable of bowling orthodox left arm accurately, with a surprising faster ball and as much turn as the pitch would allow a finger spinner. He had, though, an innate urge to attack, which was his fundamental reason for taking up the less economical but often more penetrative chinaman, and the pace bowling which enabled him to make such hostile use of the new ball."
Another interesting article that shines further light on his fighting qualities and character -
When Sobers Took On Lillee | Cric Ages
"Everytime Sobers walked into bat the young Lillee presented him with the chin music.This upset Sobers a bit and it ended up as the start of famous duel between him and Lillee."
"Garfield Sobers was seventeen when he first played for West Indies -- primarily as an orthodox slow left arm bowler (four for 81) though he scored 40 runs for once out in a losing side. His batting developed more rapidly than his bowling and, in the 1957-58 series with Pakistan in West Indies, he played six consecutive innings of over fifty -- the last three of them centuries. Through the sixties he developed left-arm wrist-spin, turning the ball sharply and concealing his googly well. Outstandingly, however, at the need of his perceptive captain, Sir Frank Worrell, he made himself a Test-class fast medium bowler. Out of his instinctive athleticism he evolved an ideally economic action, coupling life from the pitch with late movement through the air and, frequently, off the seam. Nothing in all his cricket was more impressive than his ability to switch from one bowling style to another with instant control.
He was always capable of bowling orthodox left arm accurately, with a surprising faster ball and as much turn as the pitch would allow a finger spinner. He had, though, an innate urge to attack, which was his fundamental reason for taking up the less economical but often more penetrative chinaman, and the pace bowling which enabled him to make such hostile use of the new ball."
Another interesting article that shines further light on his fighting qualities and character -
When Sobers Took On Lillee | Cric Ages
"Everytime Sobers walked into bat the young Lillee presented him with the chin music.This upset Sobers a bit and it ended up as the start of famous duel between him and Lillee."
WindieWeathers
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
No contest, it's Sobers!
Nah, I'm torn between someone like Imran or Botham, someone who was pretty evenly balanced between batting and bowling. Perhaps the ones with most 100s and 5wis in the same match deserve the accolade, not sure where you'd readily find that kind of info (not got time to look now
)
swacker
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2011
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
Keith Miller is probably the greatest allrounder I have seen. He has got pretty cool records both with bat and bowl and, I think he was brought in the team as a batsman but he started the ball rolling for a change for the better in the team.
^Yah Keith Miller certainly had a lot of responsibility. He batted #5 and opened the bowling. Very few of the great ARs have done that. Sobers and Kallis weren't good enough bowlers to open, and Botham and Imran batted further down for most of their careers.
This is the page you are after:
Records | Test matches | All-round records | A hundred and five wickets in an innings | ESPN Cricinfo
For those who are too lazy, only 4 players have done it more than once:
5 times - Ian Botham
2 times - Jacques Kallis, Garry Sobers, Mushtaq Mohammad
Another good one is 250 runs and 20 wickets in a series:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282789.html
Those who have done that more than once:
3 times - Ian Botham & Garry Sobers
2 times - Keith Miller, Kapil Dev
Going by those you'd have to say Botham had the most influence on BOTH disciplines at once. Botham's also the only guy to ever have at least 10 100s and at least 10 5fers. Sobers only had 6 5fers, Kallis 5, Miller had 7.
Nah, I'm torn between someone like Imran or Botham, someone who was pretty evenly balanced between batting and bowling. Perhaps the ones with most 100s and 5wis in the same match deserve the accolade, not sure where you'd readily find that kind of info (not got time to look now
This is the page you are after:
Records | Test matches | All-round records | A hundred and five wickets in an innings | ESPN Cricinfo
For those who are too lazy, only 4 players have done it more than once:
5 times - Ian Botham
2 times - Jacques Kallis, Garry Sobers, Mushtaq Mohammad
Another good one is 250 runs and 20 wickets in a series:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282789.html
Those who have done that more than once:
3 times - Ian Botham & Garry Sobers
2 times - Keith Miller, Kapil Dev
Going by those you'd have to say Botham had the most influence on BOTH disciplines at once. Botham's also the only guy to ever have at least 10 100s and at least 10 5fers. Sobers only had 6 5fers, Kallis 5, Miller had 7.
Last edited:
barto123
School Cricketer
In order to pick the greatest allrounder, you need to look at each candidate and ask could they be selected as purley a bowler and purely a batsmen? That would eliminate the players who are good at one aspect of the game and not the other.
Kallis would not be selected purely on his bowling. He is a handy bowler, but nothing more. He is therefore a batmen who can bowl, and should not be considered the best allrounder. He could be considered a great great batsman though who also bowled a bit.
Sobers also would not make the team purely on bowling. Also a handy bowler, he could probably make a world XI side purley as a batsmen though.
Miller would be selected on bowling alone, and probably be selected as purely a batsmen as well. Remember, his statistics lie a bit, and he was one of the best batsmen in a team full of brilliant batters. This guy is a great allrounder and good at both aspects, so he must be considered. Not to mention the fact that he didnt get to bat on the flat wickets of today with a thick modern bat!
Botham, hed make it as a bowler easily, its hard to say though if hed make it purley on batting though. He is matchwinnning with the bat though, and could have made the team in that regard so he can also be considered. But in comparision to the competition i would rule him out, matching winning does not equal consistancy.
Khan could probably make it based on both his talents. He should be considered. Though not a great batsmen, he was certainly very good.
You can apply this kind of anaylsis to other players. Based on my thoughts, Khan and Miller are the two leading canditates for best allrounder, based on the fact they could do both bowling and batting equally well, and very very well at that! However i wouldnt class either of them the best, i would rather have tiers of greatness. With these two standing at the top.
Kallis would not be selected purely on his bowling. He is a handy bowler, but nothing more. He is therefore a batmen who can bowl, and should not be considered the best allrounder. He could be considered a great great batsman though who also bowled a bit.
Sobers also would not make the team purely on bowling. Also a handy bowler, he could probably make a world XI side purley as a batsmen though.
Miller would be selected on bowling alone, and probably be selected as purely a batsmen as well. Remember, his statistics lie a bit, and he was one of the best batsmen in a team full of brilliant batters. This guy is a great allrounder and good at both aspects, so he must be considered. Not to mention the fact that he didnt get to bat on the flat wickets of today with a thick modern bat!
Botham, hed make it as a bowler easily, its hard to say though if hed make it purley on batting though. He is matchwinnning with the bat though, and could have made the team in that regard so he can also be considered. But in comparision to the competition i would rule him out, matching winning does not equal consistancy.
Khan could probably make it based on both his talents. He should be considered. Though not a great batsmen, he was certainly very good.
You can apply this kind of anaylsis to other players. Based on my thoughts, Khan and Miller are the two leading canditates for best allrounder, based on the fact they could do both bowling and batting equally well, and very very well at that! However i wouldnt class either of them the best, i would rather have tiers of greatness. With these two standing at the top.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
I ignore the hundreds of half baked opinions on Sobers these days Zorax. Somehow anyone under the age of 20 seems to look at his numbers and decide he wasn't a bowler.
They ignore some of the history that surrounds him. For example, Sobers rarely got to bowl at tail-enders as the job was handed back to any of the lightning fast quicks they had that would not be needed to bat. The fact that he could bowl three different actions and styles to an international level meant that he was a man to break partnerships, but also to often bowl against set batsmen on good batting decks.
There is so much numbers don't tell people about his bowling. He would, and was, picked for his bowling, he just also happened to become one of the world's greatest batsman.
Oh, and a sublime fielder.
They ignore some of the history that surrounds him. For example, Sobers rarely got to bowl at tail-enders as the job was handed back to any of the lightning fast quicks they had that would not be needed to bat. The fact that he could bowl three different actions and styles to an international level meant that he was a man to break partnerships, but also to often bowl against set batsmen on good batting decks.
There is so much numbers don't tell people about his bowling. He would, and was, picked for his bowling, he just also happened to become one of the world's greatest batsman.
Oh, and a sublime fielder.
He mostly had a holding role too. Keep one end tight and build pressure while others around him attacked. More a stock bowler than a wicket-taker. Despite that he could alter his style depending on conditions; and had a lot of success as a quick bowler as then he wasn't just used to hold up an end.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Yep, he would have played as a front line seamer in most teams in history, and probably taken a ton of wickets in a 3/4 man bowling attack. However due to the resources of fast bowlers they had, he quite unbelievably adapted his action to be able to offer a variety of different attacks depending on the pitch, conditions, match situation. If you took out 2 tail-end wickets from most of the quick bowlers in history, they would have much higher bowling figures obviously. This applied to Sobers.
Shoaib87
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Miller only took 3.1 wickets per match which shows he didn't have good stamina while Imran still managed 4.1 despite not bowling in his last 7 tests(he was 40 yrs then)
----------
And Ian "Hit & Miss" Botham was good only first 4 or 5 years & was pretty crap for most of his career.Hence would struggle to make my top 10 ever.
----------
And Ian "Hit & Miss" Botham was good only first 4 or 5 years & was pretty crap for most of his career.Hence would struggle to make my top 10 ever.
Similar threads
