Best Allrounder of all time
- Thread starter Fenil
- Start date
Papa_Smurf
International Cricketer
Fenil
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
Its a little different topic, pal. Your thread talks about the allrounders of Post Sobers era while my thread talks about the best allrounder in the entire history of the game including pre and post Sobers era. So, it(my thread) is quite different from yours.
lewissaffin
Club Cricketer
Being just 16, I've only seen Jacques Kallis and Freddie Flintoff live, in their prime. I've seen the 1981 Botham Test where he and Bob Willis destroyed the Australians too but, unfortunately, I haven't really seen the others much.
I'll say, though, that Freddie Flintoff was a massive player and, supposing the others are bigger than him, I've missed out on some amazing cricketers :P
I'll say, though, that Freddie Flintoff was a massive player and, supposing the others are bigger than him, I've missed out on some amazing cricketers :P
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
mmmm Tough one this. Just off the bat I'd like to say, Freddy was a very very good player but I would not class him as great.
Sobers and Khan are possibly the two greatest allrounders and it's difficult to distinguish between the two. Sobers just pips it for me. Kallis would most likely be third on my list, I think his achieved more than that other titular allrounder Botham .
Sobers and Khan are possibly the two greatest allrounders and it's difficult to distinguish between the two. Sobers just pips it for me. Kallis would most likely be third on my list, I think his achieved more than that other titular allrounder Botham .
Yeah Sobers was pretty good, but I like to talk about other people too. Kallis is way underrated historically, and Imran and Botham were excellent too. And just to sound smart: Aubrey Faulkner an all-rounder from pre WW1 playing in a weak South African team against Australia and England only. Here's his cricinfo profile:
Aubrey Faulkner | South Africa Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo
Aubrey Faulkner | South Africa Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo
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.
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.
It does depend on how you define allrounder.
Sobers did make the West Indies side on the back of his spin bowling, but it's hard to say if he would have maintained it. Hadlee and Dev developed into very adapt batsmen, but wouldn't have made their nation's sides as batsmen alone. It's a tricky side.
Even Imran was only a genuine allrounder in the second half of his career, primarily a bowler at the start.
Miller, Botham and Cairns are the most balanced (Late Imran aside), but then could we honestly say they could have made their nation's sides on batting or bowling alone, instead of them being very good at both and having their moments at international level?
Sobers did make the West Indies side on the back of his spin bowling, but it's hard to say if he would have maintained it. Hadlee and Dev developed into very adapt batsmen, but wouldn't have made their nation's sides as batsmen alone. It's a tricky side.
Even Imran was only a genuine allrounder in the second half of his career, primarily a bowler at the start.
Miller, Botham and Cairns are the most balanced (Late Imran aside), but then could we honestly say they could have made their nation's sides on batting or bowling alone, instead of them being very good at both and having their moments at international level?
That's a nice list Owzat, but what is the variable that it is sorted by??
One other qualifying thing you could do is say that the batting average must be greater than the bowling average (as a minimum), maybe by 5 or more to get a more elite selection.
Anyway, so I put a query in to statguru for 1500 runs, 75 wickets, 2 or more 5fers, 2 or more 100s. It spits out 29 all-rounders All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo. Using the batting must be great than bowling average criteria you can cull 11 of those. Taking out the guys who took between 75-100 wickets, takes out another 8, leaving only 11.
Those 11, sorted by batting average over bowling average:
1. Jacques Kallis (57.43/32.01 = 1.794)
2. Sir Garfield Sobers (57.78/34.03 = 1.698)
3. Imran Khan (37.69/22.81 = 1.652)
4. Keith Miller (36.97/22.97 = 1.609)
5. Shaun Pollock (32.31/23.11 = 1.398)
6. Tony Greig (40.43/32.20 = 1.256)
7. Sir Richard Hadlee (27.16/22.29 = 1.218)
8. Sir Ian Botham (33.54/28.40 = 1.181)
9. Chris Cairns (33.53/29.40 = 1.140)
10. Wilfred Rhodes (30.19/26.96 = 1.120)
11. Kapil Dev (31.05/29.64 = 1.048)
I like that list. It doesn't have any fluff. It rewards 2 guys that are always underrated in these discussions: Shaun Pollock and Tony Greig, and it shows the top 4 guys are clearly a cut above with a big gap between their ratios and the bottom guys. Note: Wally Hammond and Aubrey Faulkner would finish 5th and 6th if let the guys with 75-100 wickets in.
One other qualifying thing you could do is say that the batting average must be greater than the bowling average (as a minimum), maybe by 5 or more to get a more elite selection.
Anyway, so I put a query in to statguru for 1500 runs, 75 wickets, 2 or more 5fers, 2 or more 100s. It spits out 29 all-rounders All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo. Using the batting must be great than bowling average criteria you can cull 11 of those. Taking out the guys who took between 75-100 wickets, takes out another 8, leaving only 11.
Those 11, sorted by batting average over bowling average:
1. Jacques Kallis (57.43/32.01 = 1.794)
2. Sir Garfield Sobers (57.78/34.03 = 1.698)
3. Imran Khan (37.69/22.81 = 1.652)
4. Keith Miller (36.97/22.97 = 1.609)
5. Shaun Pollock (32.31/23.11 = 1.398)
6. Tony Greig (40.43/32.20 = 1.256)
7. Sir Richard Hadlee (27.16/22.29 = 1.218)
8. Sir Ian Botham (33.54/28.40 = 1.181)
9. Chris Cairns (33.53/29.40 = 1.140)
10. Wilfred Rhodes (30.19/26.96 = 1.120)
11. Kapil Dev (31.05/29.64 = 1.048)
I like that list. It doesn't have any fluff. It rewards 2 guys that are always underrated in these discussions: Shaun Pollock and Tony Greig, and it shows the top 4 guys are clearly a cut above with a big gap between their ratios and the bottom guys. Note: Wally Hammond and Aubrey Faulkner would finish 5th and 6th if let the guys with 75-100 wickets in.
Papa_Smurf
International Cricketer
My cricket knowledge is not that great, but from what I've read, only Miller, Botham and Cairns seem to fit the bill of 'Pure Allrounder' - equally devastating with both bat and ball.
But, I disagree with that criteria of assesssing the effectiveness of allrounders. For me, if a player is exceptional in one disicipline (Sobers, Kallis, Hadlee, Imran etc...), but still Test quality in the other, then that is more impressive. Personally, I'd rate Sobers, Imran and Botham as the best ever. Hard to compare the the 3, as what they offered to their team was completely different from each other.
But, I disagree with that criteria of assesssing the effectiveness of allrounders. For me, if a player is exceptional in one disicipline (Sobers, Kallis, Hadlee, Imran etc...), but still Test quality in the other, then that is more impressive. Personally, I'd rate Sobers, Imran and Botham as the best ever. Hard to compare the the 3, as what they offered to their team was completely different from each other.
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
Miller can never EVER be number one. people are you serious? And it is not all about statistics, it is also about the skill and talent on view, coupled with statistics.
Khan was without a doubt the best bowler of the lot, agreed upon by almost everyone in the game and a very decent batsman (averaging over 50 in the last decade of his career).
Sobers was the greatest batsman, and a pretty good bowler.
I could go into more details about this but I will leave that for another day.
Khan was without a doubt the best bowler of the lot, agreed upon by almost everyone in the game and a very decent batsman (averaging over 50 in the last decade of his career).
Sobers was the greatest batsman, and a pretty good bowler.
I could go into more details about this but I will leave that for another day.
Papa_Smurf
International Cricketer
Bit harsh, won't you say? Especially considering none of us have actually seen him play. Those who saw him rate him very highly, and since I have nothing else on him instead of his stats, I'll agree with them.
But I personally don't rate him number one. That title belongs to either one of Sobers, Imran or Botham - depending on what you're looking for in an allrounder.
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
i wouldn't say harsh because like you I would rate Imran, Sobers and Botham higher, in fact I would ass Kapil Dev and Kallis to that list.
Well I'm afraid Keith Miller's weakness WAS his stats. I think it was in one of Bradman's books where he mentions Keith always threw his innings away after a century, never played for not outs and generally didn't care much for the stat side of the game. So if you are judging on skill and talent alone, he has to be right up there with the best. He batted #5 and opened the bowling. How many guys have done that? Guys in weak teams maybe could have that kind of responsibility (think Shakib), but Miller played for Australia who were still quite good in the 50s. Sobers and Kallis weren't good enough to open the bowling like that, Botham and Imran weren't good enough with the bat to be a #5.
Edit: and just some real evidence I found on Miller's hatred of stats on Wikipedia:
There's probably better quotes out there, it's just the first one I found.
Last edited:
sami ullah khan
Panel of Selectors
I have not seen any of the greats in action in their full swing except for Kallis. At the present moment in World Cricket, he is the only genuine all rounder. Based on stats and various discussions I have had, I would rate Imran Khan, Sobers and Botham as the best ever. Who is better of the three requires a lot of thought and research and may still be inconclusive. Imran certainly was one the most charismatic of the three and had that added quality of strong leadership skills. He was the quickest of the lot. Sobers was the best batsman of the three with a variety of bowling skills. Botham could be devastating with bat and ball on his day. All in all its a tough call and the one I won't make. 
Similar threads
