The best all-rounder

[dog town]

Re: The best all-rounder

Botham was more of the classical number 6 and first change bowler so he more than meets the criteria. I believe Dev's batting was underrated. Khan was a bowling all-rounder who's batting improved once he stopped bowling quick.
Even Sobers didn't bat at number 4 like Kallis has.

Yeah I agree they are all capable batsmen but not in the classical elite type that Kallis is. Anyone got some stats on these guys? Just for a talking point it would be interesting to compare statistically the difference in all rounders from era to era .

[GVGjr]

Re: The best all-rounder

Yeah I agree they are all capable batsmen but not in the classical elite type that Kallis is. Anyone got some stats on these guys? Just for a talking point it would be interesting to compare statistically the difference in all rounders from era to era .

I think Botham suffers in comparison to a lot of guys because the great West Indian teams owned him. His bowling got knocked around when he played them and his batting was well below his average.
Dev on the other hand could mix it with the WI sides.

[Happy Days]

Re: The best all-rounder

Kallis would have to be the best I've seen, although my time watching cricket is far too breif in comparison with some of the other posters around.

[Rocco Jones]

Re: The best all-rounder

Didnt see Sobers so I have to go with Kallis. Pretty bloody underrated player if you ask me. Sobers looked amazing from the footage I have seen. I saw Kahn, Botham and Akram and still have Kallis ahead of them. His batting is amazing and his bowling is better than most think.

God I am in love with your posting. Totally agree with the Kallis call. He made my time's greatest XI in the thread I put up and I gotta say he made it with ease. I seriously can't think of a more underrated sportsperson (excluding women playing male dominated sports and disabled people, who are underrated via not many people caring). Obviously it has to do with his no fuss way of going about things. A solid, conservative batsman who bowls medium paced line and length. There's that old chestnut about statistics not being very honest but averaging 54.57 with the bat and taking 252 wickets at an average of 31.12 over 128 tests tells me you're one of the greatest all-rounders of all time. Another reason he is underrated is that Australian cricket fans seem to ignore performances that don't involve Australia but since 2000 Kallis has average over 43. Not too bad for an all-rounder when you look at it away from his wonderful usual average.

[The Doctor]

Re: The best all-rounder

I suppose the difference between me going for Kallis and the rest of you going for Dev/Botham/Akram/Khan is that I have gone for more of a batting all rounder. I would class the other guys as bowling all rounders. All very dangerous hard hitting batsmen in there own right but more bowlers than batsmen. I really think Kallis is undervalued sometimes.

The main reason I rated Kallis behind the others is because I don't think he is capable of breaking a game open in the same way. The bowling all rounders could all take charge of a game against the best opposition and be regular match winners. Whilst Kallis is a good bowler as his record testifies it is not in the elite class as the others are.

On the batting front Kallis is the best batsmen statistically and certainly consistently but again I don't think he hurts the opposition enough. To me, whilst he scores well, he just doesn't take command. He tends to accummulate and bore teams into submission. I think if he was a bit more dynamic I'd rate him much higher.

[The Doctor]

Re: The best all-rounder

I think Botham suffers in comparison to a lot of guys because the great West Indian teams owned him. His bowling got knocked around when he played them and his batting was well below his average.
Dev on the other hand could mix it with the WI sides.

Absolutely

Botham got spanked by the great Windies teams of the 70/80's.

His record against us is great but a lot of his glory was against our poor teams such as the the 1978 team ravaged by WSC defections. However when you look at his record against our good and full strength teams it is ordinary.

[ledge]

Re: The best all-rounder

Keith Miller i would say none of us saw, but going by players like Bradman they say he was the best, was known to back himself in any situation ala big beefy.
A few names that wouldnt make it but were good.
Cairns, both of them, pretty good effort for father, son.
Gilmour?
Dare i say it but Vettori is a spinner and has carried NZ with the bat a few times, was terrible when he first started but batting has improved heaps when you consider he has pressure of captaincy in a shocking side.

The their were blokes like Bernard Julian who I remember broke his thumb then came out and made a ton.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The best all-rounder

Benaud was a spinning allrounder.

[KT31]

Re: The best all-rounder

Adam Gilchrist.

Why does an allrounder have to bowl?

I agree with Sockeye, Adam Gilchrist is the best all rounder the game has seen.

And if he wasn't keeping and you threw him the ball, I bet he would have averaged in the high 20's.

[KT31]

Re: The best all-rounder

Dizzy made 200 as a bowler.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The best all-rounder

Botham was more of the classical number 6 and first change bowler so he more than meets the criteria. I believe Dev's batting was underrated. Khan was a bowling all-rounder who's batting improved once he stopped bowling quick.
Even Sobers didn't bat at number 4 like Kallis has.

Yes, he did. Almost solely at number 4 scoring 8,000+ runs at 57.7. Other posters have commented about Kallis not taking attacks on. Well I can tell you that Sobes did it better than anybody else.

Those of us who saw him take Lillee and others to the cleaners playing for the Rest of the world at the MCG will never forget that innings of 230.

As a bowler he bowled fast-medium and once the shine was off the ball he bowled left-hand chinaman's to the tune of 235 wickets

I understand that few posters had the oppportunity to see Sobers but in my view he was head and shoulders above all others.

[lemmon]

Re: The best all-rounder

Kallis for mine even though i never saw Sobers. A guy who has batted in the top 4 his whole career and mainatined an average above 50 as well as approaching 10,000 test runs is an absolute champion batsmen but then you throw in his 250 odd wickets bowling second change at around 30. Those figures are good enough for a top class batsmen or bowler, he can be a bit selfish while batting sometimes but he will go down as one of the greatest.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: The best all-rounder

Carl Hooper and Ian Harvey (Victorian)

[mighty_west]

Re: The best all-rounder

By the numbers, compare averages:

Kapil Dev : Batting - 31.05, Bowling - 29.64
Imran Khan : Bat - 37.69, Ball - 22.81
Richard Hadlee : Bat - 27.16, Ball - 22.29
Jacques Kallis : Bat - 54.57, Ball - 31.12
Garfield Sobers : Bat : 57.78, Ball - 34.03 [can't really split Sobers & Kallis]
Ian Botham : Bat - 33.54, Ball - 28.40
Chris Cairns : Bat - 33.53, Ball - 29.40
Wasim Akram : Bat - 22.64, Ball - 23.62

Adam Gilchrist : Bat - 47.60, W/K - 379 catches / 37 stumpings

The only way to compare Gilly with the other all rounders is to stack his wicket keeping average up against other wicket keepers, if that side of his games stands up against the best, then he has to be right up top given his batting average is so high.

- Kapil Dev's averages with both bat & ball are average.
- Imrans batting is above average but bowling is outstanding at 22.81.
- Hadless batting is average whilst his bowling is also outstanding.
- Kallis is outstanding with the bat, but average with the ball, same goes with Sobers.
- Cairns & Botham are both average, but Akram has a brilliant bowling average.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The best all-rounder

Adam Gilchrist.

Why does an allrounder have to bowl?

He's not really a keeper...in the traditional sense!! certainly no Marsh, Knott or even Healy with the Gloves!!