Greatest All-Rounder Since Sobers

Greatest All-Rounder Since Sobers?

  • Imran Khan

    Votes: 21 31.3%
  • Richard Hadlee

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Jacques Kallis

    Votes: 33 49.3%
  • Kapil Dev

    Votes: 2 3.0%
  • Ian Botham

    Votes: 6 9.0%
  • Shakib Al-Hasan

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Daniel Vettori

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Andrew Flintoff

    Votes: 3 4.5%

  • Total voters
    67
I think fielding is an important part of cricketer's skill, and should be judged when considering an all-rounder's overall contribution to his team. Imran is indeed one of the greatest cpatains ever, and the biggest legend from those names on the poll. But great capatincy can not change sloppy fielding.

If an XI full of Imrans went up against an XI full of Sobers, the Sobers would win. I know Sobers bowling stats aren't that great, but to be able to bowl 3 different styles at test level is quite an achievement. Add on top of that one of the greatest batsman of all-time and a fielder who could take spectacular catches at slip and cannon throws from the deep, you've easily got the greatest all-rounder in the game.
 
I think fielding is an important part of cricketer's skill, and should be judged when considering an all-rounder's overall contribution to his team. Imran is indeed one of the greatest cpatains ever, and the biggest legend from those names on the poll. But great capatincy can not change sloppy fielding.

If an XI full of Imrans went up against an XI full of Sobers, the Sobers would win. I know Sobers bowling stats aren't that great, but to be able to bowl 3 different styles at test level is quite an achievement. Add on top of that one of the greatest batsman of all-time and a fielder who could take spectacular catches at slip and cannon throws from the deep, you've easily got the greatest all-rounder in the game.
Hardly an achievment when you're absolutely crap at bowling 2 styles & mediocre at third.Automatically means a team with 11 Sobers would lose coz neither was Imran a poor fielder nor did he used to give catches at slip/gully very often.

There many other things in cricket which should be done similarly in your opinion fielding should be included but is actually not.Thats how cricket is.Being that said Imran>Miller>>Sobers.
 
Have you ever seen Sobers play, or just going by his stats? I've never seen him play either, but from people who have, especially Benaud who's seen each legend since Bradman, are of the conclusion that he was the greatest cricketer ever.
 
Worst thread ever coz Garry"I'm not only one of the greatest batsmen but also worst bowlers ever"Sobers (2.56 wickets per match with a S/R of 90+ puts him in the league of Sami,Agarkar etc) was hardly an allrounder.
Anyway,my ranking:

1.Imran Khan
2.Keith Miller
3.S.A.Faulkner
4.Richard Hadlee
5.Shaun Pollock
6.Garry Sobers
7.Kapil Dev
8.Ian Botham
9.Wasim Akram
10.Allan Davidson

No way could Aubrey Faulkner be in any top 3 of all-rounders much less be considered better than Gary Sobers, thats is not a sensible assertion to can substantiated by any creditable cricket evidence sir.

Plus Kallis has to be in any top 10 all-rounder list. Id also be tempted to include Mike Procter aslo, although he didn't play much tests for obvious reasons.

Yes,I believe A bowling allrounder>>A batting allrounder of same class

Kindly explain why?



Hardly an achievment when you're absolutely crap at bowling 2 styles & mediocre at third.

:lol. OMG, this has got to be the most insulting & inaccurate description of Sobers bowling ive ever seen. Only on the internet could such comments be seen. Come on now sir, lift your your game.


Ian"Hit & a miss"Botham

I hope you are aware that Ian Botham peak lasted 7 YEARS (1977-1984). Regardless of how much he declined after that, any player who could maintain a high standard @ test level for 7 years, it is disrespect to refer to them as "hit & miss".
 
I hope you are aware that Ian Botham peak lasted 7 YEARS (1977-1984). Regardless of how much he declined after that, any player who could maintain a high standard @ test level for 7 years, it is disrespect to refer to them as "hit & miss".

I agree. Plus, I don't know of anyone who was as devastating as at their peak as Botham was, with both bat and ball, at his.
 
1.Imran Khan
2.Keith Miller
3.S.A.Faulkner
4.Richard Hadlee
5.Shaun Pollock
6.Garry Sobers
7.Kapil Dev
8.Ian Botham
9.Wasim Akram
10.Allan Davidson

No way could Aubrey Faulkner be in any top 3 of all-rounders much less be considered better than Gary Sobers, thats is not a sensible assertion to can substantiated by any creditable cricket evidence sir.

Plus Kallis has to be in any top 10 all-rounder list. Id also be tempted to include Mike Procter aslo, although he didn't play much tests for obvious reasons.
Yeah,Kallis would probably get a place at no.7 in my list because 5 or 6 years ago,he used to be a very good bowler but now he bowls only on supporting tracks or against weak batsmen/tailenders.

Kindly explain why?
It probably requires me tons of pages to explain it but I would try to sum it up in a few lines.
1.Cricket has been a batsmen's game.This is the case since 1930s atleast.Bowlers, especially pacers have shorter careers as compared to batsmen.

2.Bowlers get more injured than batsmen which means cricket is tougher for batsmen as compared to bowlers.

3.You need to be more fit to be a bowler(especially if u r a pacer).I've seen many batsnen doing great Job at test despite the fact they were not very fir but I hardly think there have been any pacers who were not fully fit for most of their careers & ended up being alltime greats.

4.Most of the times,when you are chasing a target of let's say 400,you have more than 95% chance of losing the game even if you have one are two Pontings or Tendulkars in your side but if you give your opposition a target of 200,More than 60% of the time,you have one or two alltime great pacers,you can count on them to win the game for you.I'm talking about whole history of cricket not just last decade in which wickets have been one of the flatest ever.Which means most of the time,you depend on your bowlers to win the game,not batsmen.

5.Rules have always been changed to favour batsmen,eg bouncer rule in Tests & Power Play in ODIs etc.

There are many of other reasons but let me save them for another day.


:lol. OMG, this has got to be the most insulting & inaccurate description of Sobers bowling ive ever seen. Only on the internet could such comments be seen. Come on now sir, lift your your game.
Click hereIf Sobers was not a batsman,he would've never been able to maintain his place in the side after first few games coz the bowling performances he showed in his first 30 Tests(1/3rd of his career) is till one of the worst ever,probably the worst ever.For another 1/3,he was mediocre and and average for the rest,considering his overall stats in those periods.So,my statements are absolutely true & accurate .

I hope you are aware that Ian Botham peak lasted 7 YEARS (1977-1984). Regardless of how much he declined after that, any player who could maintain a high standard @ test level for 7 years, it is disrespect to refer to them as "hit & miss".
No,Botham's peak as an allrounder lasted 4 years(1978-1982).After that his bowling started declining.He was still a fine bowler for next 3 years but that can't be included in his peak because peak is a period at which a player is at his best,which for Botham is from 1978-1982.As for as "hit & miss" thing is concerned,Imeant no disrespect to Botham by doing.I've a habit giving players such & do it mostly to good players from the country I support as well.But if you watched him play,he had indeed become a "hit & miss" in his last 3 or 4 years.
 
Yeah,Kallis would probably get a place at no.7 in my list because 5 or 6 years ago,he used to be a very good bowler but now he bowls only on supporting tracks or against weak
batsmen/tailenders.[/quote]

Well yes that true & i have mentioned this before when people try to compare Kallis the bowler to Sobers the bowler. Kallis hasn't taken a 5 wicket haul against a strong test opposition in almost 8 years now. Trent Bridge 2003 vs ENG was the last time he did so.


It probably requires me tons of pages to explain it but I would try to sum it up in a few lines.
1.Cricket has been a batsmen's game.This is the case since 1930s atleast.Bowlers, especially pacers have shorter careers as compared to batsmen.

2.Bowlers get more injured than batsmen which means cricket is tougher for batsmen as compared to bowlers.

3.You need to be more fit to be a bowler(especially if u r a pacer).I've seen many batsnen doing great Job at test despite the fact they were not very fir but I hardly think there have been any pacers who were not fully fit for most of their careers & ended up being alltime greats.

4.Most of the times,when you are chasing a target of let's say 400,you have more than 95% chance of losing the game even if you have one are two Pontings or Tendulkars in your side but if you give your opposition a target of 200,More than 60% of the time,you have one or two alltime great pacers,you can count on them to win the game for you.I'm talking about whole history of cricket not just last decade in which wickets have been one of the flatest ever.Which means most of the time,you depend on your bowlers to win the game,not batsmen.

5.Rules have always been changed to favour batsmen,eg bouncer rule in Tests & Power Play in ODIs etc.

There are many of other reasons but let me save them for another day.

Hmm i actually agree with this 100%.

Only thing i would say as you rightfully highlighted my friend. Cricket in the 2000s has seen the decline of quality quick bowling & increase of flat tracks, which would have certainly made it harder to be a top-class bowling all-rounder compared to batting one.

But when the balance between bat & ball between the 1950s-1990s was very even. Then advantages to batsmen wouldn't be around, thus i feel if we judge historically based on that period in test history, then one really cant give a world-class bowling all-rounder an edge over a batting one TBH.


Click hereIf Sobers was not a batsman,he would've never been able to maintain his place in the side after first few games coz the bowling performances he showed in his first 30 Tests(1/3rd of his career) is till one of the worst ever,probably the worst ever.For another 1/3,he was mediocre and and average for the rest,considering his overall stats in those periods.So,my statements are absolutely true & accurate .

You cant judge Sobers as an "allrounder" based on his first 30 test. The same way you cant judge:

- Richie Benaud as an all-rounder & world-class spinner based on anything he did before 1957/58 tour to S Africa.

- Steve Waugh as world-class batsmen before his career chaning MCG 1992/93 vs West Indies.

- Allan Davidson as world-class left-arm quick before the 57/58 tour to S Africa.

- VVS Laxman as batsmen before his Kolkatta 2001 century.

- Imran Khan as all-rounder before 1980. Although he was already a quality bowler by 1976

- Zaheer Khan as a quality test quick before the 05/06 tour to S Africa.

- Majid Khan & Asif Iqbal as an opener & quality batsmen before the mid 70s.

Since Majid used to be an quick bowler before back injuries forced him to give it up & he became a top-class opener later in his career. While Iqbal transformation was sort of similar to S Waugh.

Daniel Vettori currently. Was basically a left-arm spinner who could bat a bit. Now his batting his transformed immensely in the last 4-5 years & he is top quality bowling all-rounder.

etc etc etc

The above are historical examples of players who had years of being poor/mediocre/different player. Transformed out of sight later in their careers.

So when judging Sobers as a batsman & all-rounder:

- As a batsman you cant judge him based on anything after before his 365 not in 57/58, that was when Sobers the batting legend was born. But his bowling was still average.

- As a all-rounder his bowling began to step until the 60/61 tour to AUS. Thus his peak as complete all-rounder was between Australia 60/61 to ENG 1969 in tests. Once could include the Rest of World vs England matches in 1970 as well here.

In that period Sobers averaged 55 with the bat - 31 with the ball . Which included that tremendous all-round series vs ENG in 1966 where he scored 722 runs @ 103 & 20 wickets @ 27. Which is argubaly the greatest single series individual performance other than Bradman 974 runs in Ashes 1930.

His bowling for that 9 year period was with him part of a 4-man attack of Hall/Griffith/Sobers/Gibbs which pretty much proves how good his bowling was @ its peak.


No,Botham's peak as an allrounder lasted 4 years(1978-1982).After that his bowling started declining.He was still a fine bowler for next 3 years but that can't be included in his peak because peak is a period at which a player is at his best,which for Botham is from 1978-1982.As for as "hit & miss" thing is concerned,Imeant no disrespect to Botham by doing.I've a habit giving players such & do it mostly to good players from the country I support as well.But if you watched him play,he had indeed become a "hit & miss" in his last 3 or 4 years.

Its a bit subjective given i have had this debate before on Botham where you want to stop his peak. I have read articles, listened to journalist & family members who saw his peak & i have rounded it off to 1984 vs Windies.

I do so against people like yourself who stop it @ 1982 because we his 8 wicket haul vs Windies in 1984 was certainly him bowling well as anything he did between 77-82. While although he had an average Ashes 82/83 with the blade his bowling was still solid & his batting vs NZ 83/84 was also pretty good.

But even if you want to limit it 1982 for argument sake. Your contryman Waqar Younis peak was also quite short from 1990-1994 before injuries crippled him like Botham, but everyone still refers to him as a great bowler based on that short period of 38 test between 1990-1994 - no one calls him hit & miss.

Botham 77-82 period was good 40-45 tests, maintaining such a high standard for so much tests is superb & deserves respect my friend regardless of how much he declined in the late 19080s. Even if Dale Steyn where to suddenly decline rapidly in the next couple years - wouldn't you still rank him as one of the great fast bowlers based on his efforts/peak since 2006?.
 
Hmm i actually agree with this 100%.

Only thing i would say as you rightfully highlighted my friend. Cricket in the 2000s has seen the decline of quality quick bowling & increase of flat tracks, which would have certainly made it harder to be a top-class bowling all-rounder compared to batting one.

But when the balance between bat & ball between the 1950s-1990s was very even. Then advantages to batsmen wouldn't be around, thus i feel if we judge historically based on that period in test history, then one really cant give a world-class bowling all-rounder an edge over a batting one TBH
Even in those days,bowlers had shorter careers & since the time covered wickets,they've never helped the bowlers as they used to.Especially in the subcontinent,wickets have always been as flat as they're now.Its a universal fact & everyone knows.


You cant judge Sobers as an "allrounder" based on his first 30 test. The same way you cant judge:

- Richie Benaud as an all-rounder & world-class spinner based on anything he did before 1957/58 tour to S Africa.

- Steve Waugh as world-class batsmen before his career chaning MCG 1992/93 vs West Indies.

- Allan Davidson as world-class left-arm quick before the 57/58 tour to S Africa.

- VVS Laxman as batsmen before his Kolkatta 2001 century.

- Imran Khan as all-rounder before 1980. Although he was already a quality bowler by 1976

- Zaheer Khan as a quality test quick before the 05/06 tour to S Africa.

- Majid Khan & Asif Iqbal as an opener & quality batsmen before the mid 70s.

Since Majid used to be an quick bowler before back injuries forced him to give it up & he became a top-class opener later in his career. While Iqbal transformation was sort of similar to S Waugh.

Daniel Vettori currently. Was basically a left-arm spinner who could bat a bit. Now his batting his transformed immensely in the last 4-5 years & he is top quality bowling all-rounder.

etc etc etc

The above are historical examples of players who had years of being poor/mediocre/different player. Transformed out of sight later in their careers.

So when judging Sobers as a batsman & all-rounder:

- As a batsman you cant judge him based on anything after before his 365 not in 57/58, that was when Sobers the batting legend was born. But his bowling was still average.

- As a all-rounder his bowling began to step until the 60/61 tour to AUS. Thus his peak as complete all-rounder was between Australia 60/61 to ENG 1969 in tests. Once could include the Rest of World vs England matches in 1970 as well here.

In that period Sobers averaged 55 with the bat - 31 with the ball . Which included that tremendous all-round series vs ENG in 1966 where he scored 722 runs @ 103 & 20 wickets @ 27. Which is argubaly the greatest single series individual performance other than Bradman 974 runs in Ashes 1930.

His bowling for that 9 year period was with him part of a 4-man attack of Hall/Griffith/Sobers/Gibbs which pretty much proves how good his bowling was @ its peak.
Look,I'm just debating Sobers was most useless bowler ever for about half of his career & even at his peak,he was mediocre.So,he can be considered a fine allrounder based on how great a batsman he was but greatest allrounder ever?That has to be biggest lie & cheating ever.And cherry picking the stats,sample size should be goof.Performance in one or two series means almost nothing in a career of 100 matches.

Its a bit subjective given i have had this debate before on Botham where you want to stop his peak. I have read articles, listened to journalist & family members who saw his peak & i have rounded it off to 1984 vs Windies.

I do so against people like yourself who stop it @ 1982 because we his 8 wicket haul vs Windies in 1984 was certainly him bowling well as anything he did between 77-82. While although he had an average Ashes 82/83 with the blade his bowling was still solid & his batting vs NZ 83/84 was also pretty good.

But even if you want to limit it 1982 for argument sake. Your contryman Waqar Younis peak was also quite short from 1990-1994 before injuries crippled him like Botham, but everyone still refers to him as a great bowler based on that short period of 38 test between 1990-1994 - no one calls him hit & miss.

Botham 77-82 period was good 40-45 tests, maintaining such a high standard for so much tests is superb & deserves respect my friend regardless of how much he declined in the late 19080s. Even if Dale Steyn where to suddenly decline rapidly in the next couple years - wouldn't you still rank him as one of the great fast bowlers based on his efforts/peak since 2006?.
Although,his bowling had begun to decline in 1982 but lets take it from 1984 onwards since you think his peak lasted till then which actually didn't.Here are Botham & Waqar's figures for the last 8 years.The period after their notable injuries.
Botham 1984-1992 39 1652 138 28.48 2 106 8/103 37.75 7 48 0
Bowling avg=37.75
Waqar 1995-2003 54 95 1561.1 297 5148 183 6/55 10/133 28.13 3.29 51.1 3 1

Bowling avg=28.12

Which shows was more than a decent bowler for last 8 years of his career where as Botham had become crap.Moreover,Waqar ended up with an alltime great bowling avg of 23,Botham didn't.Also,look at his batting avg of 28.Thats why Waqar is considered a great bowler,botham is not but still manages to make top 10 allrounders ever coz its no joke to be a quality allrounder for so many years.I always think he should've retired after 1986 ashes.
 
Even in those days,bowlers had shorter careers & since the time covered wickets,they've never helped the bowlers as they used to.Especially in the subcontinent,wickets have always been as flat as they're now.Its a universal fact & everyone knows.

Im not sure what you are saying here.

Yea bowlers compared to the last decade or so have had shorter careers compared the 50s-90s. But thats because they played less tests, nothing more.

The eradication of uncovered has affected spin more though. Quality fast bowlers have survived fine since then.

S Continent wickets have always been flat. Bu PAKs perfection of reverse-swing in the late 70s has given fast-bowlers especially (if the have the ability to bow Reverse-swing) a wicket-taking weapon on the roads.

Look,I'm just debating Sobers was most useless bowler ever for about half of his career & even at his peak,he was mediocre.So,he can be considered a fine allrounder based on how great a batsman he was but greatest allrounder ever?That has to be biggest lie & cheating ever.And cherry picking the stats,sample size should be goof.Performance in one or two series means almost nothing in a career of 100 matches.

Haha are you serious.

That not cherry picking stats. Thats is understanding how Sobers career as an all-rounder evolved sir. I understood from researching, reading & speaking to eye-witness how his career stages progressed - THEN i used to cricinfo to check what his stats of that period was. I didnt look for stats wildy & then come to conclusion - that would be madness & dishonest.

Thus based on that research, AFAIC its is utter codswallop to suggest "Sobers was the most useless bowler ever for about half of his career".

Clearly you are behind in your research on Sobers fine sir. I repeat as i showed above the man bowling peak lasted 10 years from 1960-1970. How could his bowling have been useless for a whole decade if he was generally part of 4-man bowling attack of Hall/Griffith/Sobers/Gibbs???. If hsi bowling was so crap, surely then the great windies team of the 60s would have needed a 5th bowler - but they didn't. Hell he even took the new-ball on many occasions & Geoff Boycott one the great openers, will tell how how dangerous he was with the new cherry.


Although,his bowling had begun to decline in 1982 but lets take it from 1984 onwards since you think his peak lasted till then which actually didn't.Here are Botham & Waqar's figures for the last 8 years.The period after their notable injuries.
Botham 1984-1992 39 1652 138 28.48 2 106 8/103 37.75 7 48 0
Bowling avg=37.75
Waqar 1995-2003 54 95 1561.1 297 5148 183 6/55 10/133 28.13 3.29 51.1 3 1

Bowling avg=28.12

Which shows was more than a decent bowler for last 8 years of his career where as Botham had become crap.Moreover,Waqar ended up with an alltime great bowling avg of 23,Botham didn't.Also,look at his batting avg of 28.Thats why Waqar is considered a great bowler,botham is not but still manages to make top 10 allrounders ever coz its no joke to be a quality allrounder for so many years.I always think he should've retired after 1986 ashes.

I have did my research & spoken to many eye-witnesses over the last 10 years that has made me come to conclusion that Botham overall peak ended in 1984. So unless you can bring forth some sort of similar evidence like i did to prove it ended in 1982, then you saying it didn't end in 1984 wont mean anything to me my friend.


Speaking about Waqar stats after 1994. Dont let the stats fool you, the man regressed horribly after 1994. Actually i would say after he came back from his 1994 injury, he was still fairly good between series vs Sri 1994 - vs S Africa 1998 (when he took his last 5 wicket haul vs a quality test opposition). Its just that his 1990-1994 was so amazing, that 94-98 period couldn't compare. But after the SA 98 tour, he was awful as test bowler, i remember him bowling in series vs AUS 99, 2002/03, in WI 2000, in England 2000 & he was a miserable sight of his former great self. So clearly Waqar greatness as a fast-bowler is solely based on what he did from 1990-1994.


Botham regression after Ashes 85/86 was similar & sure many reckoned he could easily have retired from test after that series. But even that Ashes 85/86 cant compare to his early 77-84 peak, especially his bowling.
 
Watching the South Africa / England game now. Ian Botham (commentating) has just said something along the lines that, in his opinion, Kallis is one of the greatest all rounders ever and he doesn't understand why Kallis is often forgotten or ignored when all-rounders are discussed. This is a huge compliment coming from another nominee on this list!

I don't understand why quite a few of you are saying that Kallis should not be included because he hasn't bowled well lately. Isn't this discussion about what the players have accomplished over their entire carreers? It wasn't that long ago that Kallis was a regular multi-wicket taker. Maybe no five-fas but South Africa has always had a seriously good bowling attack to compete with for those accolades.

Also, you've gotta admit that he has really safe hands in the slip cordon.
 
the reasons kallis isn't thought of in the same way as sober is because watching him is akin to watching paint dry.

he's obviously brilliant, would make it in to the best team in the world in every year of the 2000s and should be on a list of great all-rounders but he's a stat boys player.
 
the reasons kallis isn't thought of in the same way as sober is because watching him is akin to watching paint dry.

The reason you might think that is because he's not on your team. I view him as a player you can depend on. He bats slowly when he doesn't need to bat fast, but pulls out the stops when required. Please believe me, there have been many, many, many games when I have been glued to the screen watching Kallis pull us out of dire situations (batting, bowling and fielding), and it has been anything but boring. He is a brilliant batsman, a seriously good bowler, an amazing fielder and a master tactician.

Simply put, he is not the greatest all-rounder since Sobers. He is the greatest all-rounder EVER.
 
Every team needs a batsman like kallis,he allows the more expansive players around him to play their natural games,whilst he holds an innings together.Look at the success of Trott and Dravid,just because they don't smash bowlers around the park,doesn't make these type of batsmen any less talented than aggressive players.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top