Best Allrounder of all time

[Umair7]

Sir Jadeja

 

[VC the slogger]

Who is the best allrounder in all format of cricket?

That would be Jacques Kallis.

 

[sifter132]

Kallis in Tests for sure, Watson for T20s I reckon, and it could be anyone in ODIs with guys like Hafeez and Shakib doing a very good job with the ball

 

[spooony]

I don't go along with the views Sobers was the best all-rounder, I would class him as a batsman who was a very good bowler.

I tried a rating system to compare all-rounders, only those with 1000+ runs, 100+ wickets, a Test hundred and at least one 5wi to their name - it's tough! Reason it is tough is because it is unlikely someone is a pure all-rounder, who does exactly as much with bat as ball. Some, like Sobers and Hadlee, will be so strong in one discipline over the other that you have a hard time doing it so that those who say average 33 with bat and 24 with ball get more credit than someone who is runs or wicket heavy - that is without excluding the likes of Sobers and Hadlee on the premise they weren't true all-rounders.

While we class Sobers, Hadlee, Flintoff and Kallis (to name a few) as all-rounders, do they really stack up as such? Sobers, Kallis and Flintoff have never taken a 10wm haul, Hadlee has scored hundreds but two hundreds to NINE 10wm hauls is hardly equal contribution. And others have scored hundreds without being all-rounders, sadly I had no choice but to include Jason Gillespie as he meets the four main requirements.

So here's what I have currently as the top 10, although I admit I haven't checked for potential newbs.

Top 10 all-rounders?

1. Keith Miller (AUS, 55 Tests) : 2958 runs @ 36.98 & 170 wkts @ 22.98
100 x7, 50 x13 (HS 147). 5wi x7, 10wm x1 (SR 52.81, BB 7/60)

2. Ian Botham (ENG, 102 Tests) : 5200 runs @ 33.55 & 383 wkts @ 28.40
100 x14, 50 x22 (HS 208). 5wi x27, 10wm x4 (SR 55.61, BB 8/34)

3. Imran Khan (PAK, 88 Tests) : 3807 runs @ 37.69 & 362 wkts @ 22.81
100 x6, 50 x18 (HS 136). 5wi x23, 10wm x6 (SR 51.48, BB 8/58)

4. Chris Cairns (NZE, 62 Tests) : 3320 runs @ 33.54 & 218 wkts @ 29.40
100 x5, 50 x22 (HS 158). 5wi x13, 10wm x1 (SR 53.66, BB 7/27)

5. Tony Greig (ENG, 58 Tests) : 3599 runs @ 40.44 & 141 wkts @ 32.21
100 x8, 50 x20 (HS 148). 5wi x6, 10wm x2 (SR 66.23, BB 8/86)

6. Montague Noble (AUS, 42 Tests) : 1997 runs @ 30.26 & 121 wkts @ 25.00
100 x1, 50 x16 (HS 133). 5wi x9, 10wm x2 (SR 60.17, BB 7/17)

7. Wilfred Rhodes (ENG, 58 Tests) : 2325 runs @ 30.19 & 127 wkts @ 26.97
100 x2, 50 x11 (HS 179). 5wi x6, 10wm x1 (SR 65.96, BB 8/68)

8. Irfan Pathan (IND, 29 Tests) : 1105 runs @ 31.57 & 100 wkts @ 32.26
100 x1, 50 x6 (HS 102). 5wi x7, 10wm x2 (SR 58.84, BB 7/59)

9. Richard Hadless (NZE, 86 Tests) : 3124 runs @ 27.17 & 431 wkts @ 22.30
100 x2, 50 x15 (HS 151no). 5wi x36, 10wm x9 (SR 48.18, BB 9/52)

10. Kapil Dev (IND, 131 Tests) : 5248 runs @ 31.05 & 434 wkts @ 29.65
100 x8, 50 x27 (HS 163). 5wi x23, 10wm x2 (SR 63.92, BB 9/83)

As I recall it compares runs per innings, percentages of 100s, 50s, 5wi and 10wm per match and volume of runs or wickets are not in any way factored in ie if a bowler takes 5 wickets per match then that is treated the same if one has 200 wickets and one has 300 wickets, they would be distinguished between by a different factor.

If I can crack a way to reward all-roundness over bat or bowl heavy stats then I'll be delighted, perhaps standard deviations from average or something like that. If it is possible to add an extra factor for differentiating exactly the same stats where one has taken twice the number of wickets and scored twice the number of runs, but at the same rates, percentage 10wms etc then even better.

You can immediately see Hadlee is top heavy with bowling, two hundreds yet 36 5wis and his bowling figures are way better than his batting figures. Kallis comes in at 12, only five 5wis and while at a good average, that does him no favours. Flintoff came in at 19 for similar reasons and with weaker batting.

Sobers came in at 13, a batting average of 57.78 excessive and FIFTY-SIX 50s and 100s combined to just SIX 5wis. He also took only 2.5 wickets per match, although that is better than Greig (Greig too two 10fers though)

If you upped the entry requirements to make it the "elite" and made a 10wm a minimum requirement then Kallis, Sobers, Lindwall, Flintoff and a few others wouldn't make it in. 100s and 10wms are probably not quite equals, so you'd want to exclude anyone with less than say one 100 for every 20 innings played which would eliminate Noble, Rhodes, Pathan and Hadlee.

DISCLAIMER : no effort was made to try and get the result desired, other than to try and achieve the effect as mentioned above (more all-roundness) I neither agree nor disagree with the results, they are just what came out.

No Kallis?

Kallis and Sobers played in different era's and different roles in their teams. Just like Tendulkar and Lara you will get some say Lara some say Tendulkar depends who do you support. Like Tendulkar and Lara I class Sobers and Kallis as the two best allrounders ever. Then you get daylight then the others follow

 

[spooony]

I'll reply on the premise you mean Test all-rounder, although you haven't specified and this is a wishy washy version of threads that have gone before.



Jacques Kallis is a batsman who happens to be a very useful bowler, he is not an all-rounder. He took only two wickets a game average and bowled only 21 overs per Test, taking only five 5wi. Afridi is a joke of an inclusion, decent Test average but made his name for his ODI bowling and while his name is often referred to as "boom boom Afridi", he is in fact pop gun Afridi.

Sobers on the other hand bowled 37 overs per Test, took six 5wi and 2.5 wickets per Test. I still don't rank him as best ever all-rounder, some all-rounders like Botham took three wickets per Test, 10wm hauls. Some people just see a big batting average from someone who was a decent to good bowler and label them best all-rounder - usually because they don't consider what makes an all-rounder.

Shakib doesn't qualify in my book, not because of ability but because he hasn't snared 100 wickets yet. How can anyone with only 96 wickets be the "best ever" as either bowler or batsman!??!? Likewise Watson (Test figures, as stated no specifics on what cricket and Test cricket is proper cricket)


I'll mention Chris Cairns if it is all-round all-rounderness, 3320 runs and 218 wickets in 62 Tests, 4950 runs and 201 wickets in 215 ODIs. He played only two T20Is

He doesn't bowl as often or as much as he use to but go have a look at whose wickets he took to avg that 2 per game. Only player in history to have over 200 wickets in both froms of the game and avg over 50 with the bat. Show me any guy who has done that. No one. Botham bowled well but what was his batting avg? Way way below Sobers and Kallis.

Tests
285wickets @32,40
Have a look at the batsman he dismissed over the years. Not tailenders most of them
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting @56.73 and have taken 193 catches most while being in the slips

ODI's
Batting @45.26
270 wickets @31.69

This is Sobers
Bowling
235 wickets @34.03
Batting @57.78

Seriously how can you class Sobers as a Allrounder but Kallis not who got a better avg than him with bowling? Don't you just like Kallis or something. Just say so then we would understand otherwise your reasoning don't make some sense

 

[AbhishekS]

Who is the best allrounder in all format of cricket?

From the ones I have seen playing, Kallis for sure. I also used to like Flintoff a lot. Watson too is doing very well in the limited overs format. But Kallis is the winner for me.

 

[Akul]

Jaques Kallis & Gary Sobers were the best all rounders of all time.

 

[Satan666]

Sachin Tendulkar!

 

[vaibhavtewatia]

Jacques Kallis..OUTRIGHT winner!!

 

[spooony]

Chris Martin all the way!

 

[Why]

Gary Sobers; one of the best ever, to me Kallis is no match to him. Not going by reputation, but after seeing some of his videos and the way he played that time it was just truly marvelous. He was Sobers after all! Kallis comes next in my list.

 

[Owzat]

Seriously how can you class Sobers as a Allrounder but Kallis not who got a better avg than him with bowling? Don't you just like Kallis or something. Just say so then we would understand otherwise your reasoning don't make some sense

What utter nonsense, because YOU don't understand something I don't like Kallis?!?!? That reasoning is just stupid.

Kallis does bowl well, but you have to draw a line as to who is actually an "all-rounder" and who is a batsman who bowls, even if when he does bowl he does so well. If you'd questioned the inclusion of Sobers I might have suggested he is borderline, but bowling nearly twice as many overs per Test might be a clue.

Frontline bowlers take around 3.5 - 4.0 wickets per Test, depending on their ability of course, but as a rule of thumb you'd expect a bowler to be taking more than a wicket an innings average. And yes an "all-rounder" isn't an out and out frontline bowler, but still to be considered an "all-rounder" suggests a better balance of batting and bowling than batting top order averaging 50 while occaisionally turning his arm over - although Kallis is clearly a lot more than a part-time bowler, doesn't make him an "all-rounder".

In his last 10 Tests Kallis has bowled 888 balls, about 7.5 overs per innings and taken a dozen wickets. If that doesn't help you understand the "sense" then I'm not sure I can help you. He's also only taken five 5wis and no 10 wms, not exactly a balance between batting and bowling for someone with 44 hundreds. He could maybe have been an all-rounder, but South Africa didn't need him as such.

Now in ODIs there he's much closer to the mark in terms of balance between batting and bowling, although he only bowls six overs average per ODI.

You compare Kallis' 5wis with a lot of the big name Test all-rounders, narrowing it down to those scoring 1000 runs and taking 100 wickets he falls 31st, although admittedly there may be some new additions missing. Considering he's played the most Tests of that list of 35, to come in 31st in taking just 5wis is weak. I could easily exclude those without 10wms and only 21 would remain - Kallis not among them, but then Sobers neither.

Kallis is an excellent cricketer, just doesn't bowl enough in Tests for me to consider him an "all-rounder". If you want to then knock yourself out, it isn't as if there is a right or wrong answer but because something doesn't make sense to YOU, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or someone is set against that something

----------

Jaques Kallis & Gary Sobers were the best all rounders of all time.

Behind Miller, Botham, Khan, Cairns, Greig, Dev and a whole host of others. Neither Kallis nor Sobers took 10 wickets in a Test, fewer 5wis between them than others took on their own, and Kallis barely enough overs a Test as most bowlers bowl in an innings,

Both Kallis and Sobers are/were great players, very good bowlers, but I think a lot of people see their 50+ batting averages and a decent, fairly low bowling averages and disregard a whole host of factors about what makes a genuine "all-rounder" - the clue is in the description. Otherwise you might as well just throw in any tom, dick or harry bowler who batted or batsman who bowled and declare someone with a low or high average the winner.

Hadlee is often a bit of a false inclusion, phenomenal bowler but contributing around 23 runs per innings and scoring just two hundreds. I'd have Hadlee, Sobers or Kallis in any best XI of all time, well maybe one of Sobers or Kallis I'd have to consider the balance of the XI more carefully.

One way of considering a "best" all-rounder is whether they could genuinely hold down their place only on the one skill alone. Hadlee wouldn't as a batsman, Kallis and Sobers probably not quite in a decent Test side as bowlers. A lot of all-rounders could, take a five fer as often as score a hundred. Therein lies another factor, you'd expect Sobers and Kallis to make runs, but match winning contributions in their weaker suit? And I don't mean contribute towards as in "chip in", I mean knock the opposition off their feet, and more than a few times as I think Kallis may have done, I mean to the point they are a full blown weapon in the bowling attack.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

yeah, pretty much agree with all of that. one thing you definitely can't do when rating all-rounders is just look at cricinfo's player profiles and see the averages for a number of reasons.

for one, with bowling all-rounders, you kind have to evaluate them only when they were an all-rounder, imran khan for example came in as a pure bowler, throughout the 80s managed to average around 44 (which considering it was the 80s is pretty damn hot) I think you should be able to say "the best all-rounder was X from 1980-1990." or something like that. it's a bit like marking tendulkar down for seeing his average drop as he plays on, I mean, he's clearly proved longevity, the idea that he would have been an objectively better player had he retired at 38 instead of 40 doesn't make any sense, same with all-rounders. if they were only there to be all-rounders they would have retired after their all round contribution faded. mind you, in favour of kallis here, his contribution with the ball has been remarkably consistent, it's not like he's getting away with maintaining his low bowling average by not bowling in his late 30s.

however, the other point is all-rounders bat quite low, to give them a proper rest between innings and the like. going back to imran he really only managed 44 because he was not out quite often. sobers himself batted 5 and 6 a fair amount, if he hadn't been an all-rounder he'd have undoubtedly been higher. I don't really always think not out innings are handled that well in averages.

so yeah, there is that I think.

imo botham and miller are the purest all-rounders, but then it's hard to say they're better than sobers, imran or kallis because each of those excelled so much at one of their disciplines that you could put the first twoin an all-time XI as a specialist.

 

[Epic]

You know, I never really thought of it that way... neither Sobers or Kallis would make any top team(maybe India ) merely on their bowling prowess and that says it all really.

 

[puddleduck]

Anyone ever considered that had they not been so unbelievably good with the bat, and as such batted for massive lengths of time they might have bowled more? Or that maybe had they played in teams that didn't have awesome bowling attacks they might have taken a lot more lower order batsman (and cheap) wickets?

You can manipulate anything however you want, but Sobers and Kallis are the two greatest all-rounders to ever play the game.

----------

Because to look at it that way, Botham wouldn't actually have gotten into most teams as a batsman alone... neither would Khan.