Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Results 1 to 37 of 37
  1. #1
    Debut
    Oct 2012
    Runs
    3,278
    Mentioned
    111 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    12 best batsmen amongst genuine all-rounders

    This is my selection in order of merit of the 12 best batsman amongst the genuine allrounders.


    1.Gary Sobers
    2.Jacques Kallis
    3.Asif Iqbal
    4.Tony Greig
    5.Vinoo Mankad
    6.Mushtaq Muhammad
    7.Keith Miller
    8.Ian Botham
    9.Ben Stokes
    10.Andrew Flintoff
    11.Kapil Dev
    12.Imran Khan



    Sobers staggering record and ability to pulverize attacks speaks for itself.Few batsman were er as complete.In terms of statistics Kallis was close to the best of all time and was the ultimate to bat for your life.Asif Iqbal is amongst the top 3-4 batsman ever at no 6 ,who played outstanding knocks against the great Australian and West Indies bowling attacks.In a crisis he was a champion.Vinoo Mankad conquered the likes of Lindwall and Miller with 2 centuries on Australian soil in 1947-48..He also scored a classical 184 at Lords and a double century against New Zealand at home.Tony Greig bated in cavalier style facing the lies of Thomson and Lillee and and was also prolific in the Carribean.Mushtaq Muhammad battled like a soldier against top Australian and West Indies bowling ,championing winning causes.Keith Miller was an entertainer supreme and was prolific in West Indies and Ashes series.Ian Botham at his best was close to an all-time great like when scoring an unbeaten 149 at Leeds in 1981 or 208 v India at the Oval in 1982.Ben Stokes was virtually a re-incarnated Ian Botham with as much prowess when the chips were down.Andrew Flintoff on his day could take a game away from the oposition.Kapil Dev was the hardest hitter.If he applied himself more would have been close to Sobers,considering his nascent talent.Imran Khan at his best,was a world-class batsman who may have made an test xi on the merits of his batting alone.


    Asif may have averaged under 40 but if you asess the quality and si situation in which he scored his best innings,one would rate him morally a true great.Imran became a great batsman late in his career.Stokes faced lesser attacks than Botham,so rated below.

  2. #2
    Debut
    Oct 2012
    Runs
    3,278
    Mentioned
    111 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    @Robert. @Junaids @MMHS please contribute here

  3. #3
    Debut
    Jan 2012
    Venue
    Sialkot
    Runs
    6,461
    Mentioned
    963 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @Harsh Thakor Your comments about Shakib Ul Hasan and Shaun Pollock.

  4. #4
    Debut
    Jul 2016
    Venue
    New Jersey, USA
    Runs
    5,955
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    1-Sobers
    2-Kallis
    3-Botham
    4-Imran Khan
    5-Kalil Dev
    6-Stokes
    7-Mankad
    8-Greig
    9-Millar
    10-Flintoff

    Mushtaq and Asif were not genuine all rounders, they were mainly batsmen and useful bowler .

  5. #5
    Debut
    Apr 2006
    Runs
    433
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Imran is better than Kapil and Flintoff. Regardless of his low run output, averaging mid-30s in the 1980s is not a joke.

  6. #6
    Debut
    Dec 2010
    Venue
    Mississauga
    Runs
    96,891
    Mentioned
    876 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    These are not genuine all-rounders, what exactly defines a genuine all rounder ?

  7. #7
    Debut
    Aug 2010
    Venue
    Delhi
    Runs
    9,381
    Mentioned
    2314 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Batsman sorted by highest average (min 100 test wickets)
    Player Span Mat Runs Bat Avg 100 Wkts Bowl Av
    GS Sobers 1954-1974 93 8032 57.78 26 235 34.03
    JH Kallis 1995-2013 166 13289 55.37 45 292 32.65
    AW Greig 1972-1977 58 3599 40.43 8 141 32.2
    Shakib Al Hasan 2007-2021 57 3930 39.69 5 210 31.2
    Imran Khan 1971-1992 88 3807 37.69 6 362 22.81
    BA Stokes 2013-2021 70 4574 37.18 10 159 31.61
    KR Miller 1946-1956 55 2958 36.97 7 170 22.97
    CL Hooper 1987-2002 102 5762 36.46 13 114 49.42
    RA Jadeja 2012-2021 51 1954 36.18 1 220 24.32
    RJ Shastri 1981-1992 80 3830 35.79 11 151 40.96
    TL Goddard 1955-1970 41 2516 34.46 1 123 26.22
    IT Botham 1977-1992 102 5200 33.54 14 383 28.4
    CL Cairns 1989-2004 62 3320 33.53 5 218 29.4
    SM Pollock 1995-2008 108 3781 32.31 2 421 23.11
    JO Holder 2014-2020 45 2115 32.04 3 116 27.94
    A Flintoff 1998-2009 79 3845 31.77 5 226 32.78
    IK Pathan 2003-2008 29 1105 31.57 1 100 32.26
    MH Mankad 1946-1959 44 2109 31.47 5 162 32.32
    N Kapil Dev 1978-1994 131 5248 31.05 8 434 29.64
    MA Noble 1898-1909 42 1997 30.25 1 121 25
    W Rhodes 1899-1930 58 2325 30.19 2 127 26.96
    DL Vettori 1997-2014 113 4531 30 6 362 34.36


    Aaj ka kaam kal karo, Kal ka kaam parson. Aisi bhi jaldi kya hai, Jab jeena hai barson.

  8. #8
    Debut
    Aug 2010
    Venue
    Delhi
    Runs
    9,381
    Mentioned
    2314 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Justcrazy View Post
    These are not genuine all-rounders, what exactly defines a genuine all rounder ?
    I usually go with batting average over 25 and bowling average under 35 with more than 1.5 wickets per match.
    Player Mat Bat Avg 100 Wkts Bowl Av 5W Ave Diff Wk / Mat
    GS Sobers 93 57.78 26 235 34.03 6 23.74 2.53
    JH Kallis 166 55.37 45 292 32.65 5 22.71 1.76
    Imran Khan 88 37.69 6 362 22.81 23 14.88 4.11
    KR Miller 55 36.97 7 170 22.97 7 13.99 3.09
    RA Jadeja 51 36.18 1 220 24.32 9 11.86 4.31
    SM Pollock 108 32.31 2 421 23.11 16 9.19 3.90
    Shakib Al Hasan 57 39.69 5 210 31.20 18 8.49 3.68
    TL Goddard 41 34.46 1 123 26.22 5 8.23 3.00
    AW Greig 58 40.43 8 141 32.20 6 8.23 2.43
    BA Stokes 70 37.18 10 159 31.61 4 5.57 2.27
    MA Noble 42 30.25 1 121 25.00 9 5.25 2.88
    IT Botham 102 33.54 14 383 28.40 27 5.14 3.75
    Sir RJ Hadlee 86 27.16 2 431 22.29 36 4.86 5.01
    CL Cairns 62 33.53 5 218 29.40 13 4.13 3.52
    JO Holder 45 32.04 3 116 27.94 7 4.09 2.58
    W Rhodes 58 30.19 2 127 26.96 6 3.22 2.19
    R Ashwin 77 28.11 5 401 24.95 29 3.16 5.21
    N Kapil Dev 131 31.05 8 434 29.64 23 1.4 3.31
    TE Bailey 61 29.74 1 132 29.21 5 0.52 2.16
    PR Reiffel 35 26.52 0 104 26.96 5 -0.43 2.97
    MW Tate 39 25.48 1 155 26.16 7 -0.67 3.97
    IK Pathan 29 31.57 1 100 32.26 7 -0.68 3.45
    MH Mankad 44 31.47 5 162 32.32 8 -0.84 3.68
    A Flintoff 79 31.77 5 226 32.78 3 -1.01 2.86
    CR Woakes 38 27.52 1 112 29.30 4 -1.78 2.95
    DL Vettori 113 30 6 362 34.36 20 -4.36 3.20
    DA Allen 39 25.5 0 122 30.97 4 -5.47 3.13


    Aaj ka kaam kal karo, Kal ka kaam parson. Aisi bhi jaldi kya hai, Jab jeena hai barson.

  9. #9
    Debut
    Oct 2012
    Runs
    3,278
    Mentioned
    111 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by moghul View Post
    1-Sobers
    2-Kallis
    3-Botham
    4-Imran Khan
    5-Kalil Dev
    6-Stokes
    7-Mankad
    8-Greig
    9-Millar
    10-Flintoff

    Mushtaq and Asif were not genuine all rounders, they were mainly batsmen and useful bowler .
    Great list.appreciate.However why Imran above Kapil or Miller so low?Miller was more consistent than even Botham if you ***** scores in Ashes series and in West Indies.Kapil was more flamboyant and abetter match-winner than Imran,with a better bating record in and against West Indies.Tony Greig to me also was ahead of Botham and Imran if you asess his performances in West Indies and Australia in the mid 1970's.Compare strike rates in batting and how Kapil turned games.

  10. #10
    Debut
    Sep 2012
    Runs
    92,918
    Mentioned
    7267 Post(s)
    Tagged
    38 Thread(s)
    A genuine all-rounder is someone who will get into most teams in the world and in any era purely as a batsman or as a bowler.

    For most of these all-rounders, their weaker suit was not strong enough for them to be able to get into most teams.

    For example, Imran as a batsman will not get into any top team in the world in any era and neither will Stokes or Kallis as bowlers.

    Ian Botham for the first 50 odd Tests is the only genuine all-rounder the game has ever seen.

    Sobers himself was a non-serious bowler. He bowled multiple styles and his strike rate was worse than a part-timer’s in an era where there were very few teams with proper batting lineups.

    The concept of genuine all-rounder is largely a myth. All great all-rounders have a stronger and a weaker suit, which means that they are not genuine all-rounders.

  11. #11
    Debut
    Nov 2017
    Venue
    Queen of Arabian Sea
    Runs
    3,368
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamoon View Post
    A genuine all-rounder is someone who will get into most teams in the world and in any era purely as a batsman or as a bowler.

    For most of these all-rounders, their weaker suit was not strong enough for them to be able to get into most teams.

    For example, Imran as a batsman will not get into any top team in the world in any era and neither will Stokes or Kallis as bowlers.

    Ian Botham for the first 50 odd Tests is the only genuine all-rounder the game has ever seen.

    Sobers himself was a non-serious bowler. He bowled multiple styles and his strike rate was worse than a part-timer’s in an era where there were very few teams with proper batting lineups.

    The concept of genuine all-rounder is largely a myth. All great all-rounders have a stronger and a weaker suit, which means that they are not genuine all-rounders.
    Shakib maybe

  12. #12
    Debut
    Oct 2012
    Runs
    3,278
    Mentioned
    111 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamoon View Post
    A genuine all-rounder is someone who will get into most teams in the world and in any era purely as a batsman or as a bowler.

    For most of these all-rounders, their weaker suit was not strong enough for them to be able to get into most teams.

    For example, Imran as a batsman will not get into any top team in the world in any era and neither will Stokes or Kallis as bowlers.

    Ian Botham for the first 50 odd Tests is the only genuine all-rounder the game has ever seen.

    Sobers himself was a non-serious bowler. He bowled multiple styles and his strike rate was worse than a part-timer’s in an era where there were very few teams with proper batting lineups.

    The concept of genuine all-rounder is largely a myth. All great all-rounders have a stronger and a weaker suit, which means that they are not genuine all-rounders.
    Surely Sobers would make it even purely as a bowler in his prime having four styles and thus more versatile than even Botham.At peak he took four wickets per test at average less than thirty.

  13. #13
    Debut
    Sep 2012
    Runs
    92,918
    Mentioned
    7267 Post(s)
    Tagged
    38 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harsh Thakor View Post
    Surely Sobers would make it even purely as a bowler in his prime having four styles and thus more versatile than even Botham.At peak he took four wickets per test at average less than thirty.
    Quality over quantity. Sobers was a poor bowler with a bowling SR worse than a part-timer like Joe Root in an amateur era of cricket.

    His average was in the 30s only because run rates were low in that era. Had he played today with the same bowling skills, he would barely make it is a part-time bowler.

    Sobers was a brilliant batting all-rounder but far from a genuine all-rounder. Certainly not comparable to peak Botham was elite in both batting and bowling.

  14. #14
    Debut
    Sep 2015
    Venue
    Bangalore, India
    Runs
    17,869
    Mentioned
    352 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamoon View Post
    A genuine all-rounder is someone who will get into most teams in the world and in any era purely as a batsman or as a bowler.

    For most of these all-rounders, their weaker suit was not strong enough for them to be able to get into most teams.

    For example, Imran as a batsman will not get into any top team in the world in any era and neither will Stokes or Kallis as bowlers.

    Ian Botham for the first 50 odd Tests is the only genuine all-rounder the game has ever seen.

    Sobers himself was a non-serious bowler. He bowled multiple styles and his strike rate was worse than a part-timer’s in an era where there were very few teams with proper batting lineups.

    The concept of genuine all-rounder is largely a myth. All great all-rounders have a stronger and a weaker suit, which means that they are not genuine all-rounders.
    Flintoff?

  15. #15
    Debut
    Sep 2015
    Venue
    Bangalore, India
    Runs
    17,869
    Mentioned
    352 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Among those whose stronger suit is bowling, ranking in batting order:-

    Botham
    Miller
    Flintoff
    Kapil
    Imran
    Cairns
    Jadeja
    Pollock
    Vettori
    Ashwin
    Hadlee

    No point comparing batting ability of a batting all-rounder to bowling all rounder and then ranking them.

  16. #16
    Debut
    Sep 2018
    Runs
    393
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamoon View Post
    A genuine all-rounder is someone who will get into most teams in the world and in any era purely as a batsman or as a bowler.

    For most of these all-rounders, their weaker suit was not strong enough for them to be able to get into most teams.

    For example, Imran as a batsman will not get into any top team in the world in any era and neither will Stokes or Kallis as bowlers.

    Ian Botham for the first 50 odd Tests is the only genuine all-rounder the game has ever seen.

    Sobers himself was a non-serious bowler. He bowled multiple styles and his strike rate was worse than a part-timer’s in an era where there were very few teams with proper batting lineups.

    The concept of genuine all-rounder is largely a myth. All great all-rounders have a stronger and a weaker suit, which means that they are not genuine all-rounders.
    +1

    Ian Botham from 1977-82 & Andrew Flintoff from 2003-05 were the only genuine allrounders. although Flintoff's bowling was helped by the fact that he had Hoggard , Harmison & Simon Jones in the attack.

  17. #17
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    31,009
    Mentioned
    1090 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harsh Thakor View Post
    @Robert. @Junaids @MMHS please contribute here
    It looks about right to me @Harsh Thakor.

    Consider that Stokes, in his second test, hit a rampant Johnson about for 120. Though he appears weaker against good quality spin.

  18. #18
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    31,009
    Mentioned
    1090 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamoon View Post
    A genuine all-rounder is someone who will get into most teams in the world and in any era purely as a batsman or as a bowler.

    For most of these all-rounders, their weaker suit was not strong enough for them to be able to get into most teams.

    For example, Imran as a batsman will not get into any top team in the world in any era and neither will Stokes or Kallis as bowlers.

    Ian Botham for the first 50 odd Tests is the only genuine all-rounder the game has ever seen.

    Sobers himself was a non-serious bowler. He bowled multiple styles and his strike rate was worse than a part-timer’s in an era where there were very few teams with proper batting lineups.

    The concept of genuine all-rounder is largely a myth. All great all-rounders have a stronger and a weaker suit, which means that they are not genuine all-rounders.
    Can’t agree. He sometimes took the new ball with Wes Hall ahead of Charlie Griffith and got five wickets. He took 235 test wickets when only two guys in history had 300.

    We don’t know what his results were in each of his styles. As he got into the WI side as a SLA and tailender we must assume competence in that style. Plenty of top batters will tell you he was very dangerous in his FM swing style. I think he was wasteful as a wrist-spinner, buying wickets, which messed up his figures. And he bowled a lot on those 1960s roads, when no bowler had a very impressive looking record.

  19. #19
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    31,009
    Mentioned
    1090 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harsh Thakor View Post
    Surely Sobers would make it even purely as a bowler in his prime having four styles and thus more versatile than even Botham.At peak he took four wickets per test at average less than thirty.
    Of course. The only player who comes close is Kallis - and I would prefer Sobers for his explosive power.
    @Mamoon denigrates 1960s batters - though Sobers bowled at Barrington, Boycott, Edrich, Cowdrey, Greig, Pollock, Barlow, Zaheer, Simpson, Lawry and Ian Chappell.

  20. #20
    Debut
    Oct 2012
    Runs
    3,278
    Mentioned
    111 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Can’t agree. He sometimes took the new ball with Wes Hall ahead of Charlie Griffith and got five wickets. He took 235 test wickets when only two guys in history had 300.

    We don’t know what his results were in each of his styles. As he got into the WI side as a SLA and tailender we must assume competence in that style. Plenty of top batters will tell you he was very dangerous in his FM swing style. I think he was wasteful as a wrist-spinner, buying wickets, which messed up his figures. And he bowled a lot on those 1960s roads, when no bowler had a very impressive looking record.
    Great post .agree.Any view on my rankings or differences?appreciate


  21. #21
    Debut
    Aug 2011
    Runs
    22,350
    Mentioned
    373 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    The best batsman among bowling all-rounders.

    The best batsman among batting all-rounders.

    Those two threads will make much more sense. Genuine all-rounders, who can bring their A-game with the bat and the ball in the same period, are very rare.


    "If this happens I will swim across the Charles River! In winter!" -- OZGOD on NZ batting 6 sessions

  22. #22
    Debut
    Aug 2011
    Runs
    22,350
    Mentioned
    373 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    If your definition is flexible then it is just Sobers and Kallis. None of the other names will come even close due to the gap being too wide.


    "If this happens I will swim across the Charles River! In winter!" -- OZGOD on NZ batting 6 sessions

  23. #23
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    30,702
    Mentioned
    1040 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamoon View Post
    A genuine all-rounder is someone who will get into most teams in the world and in any era purely as a batsman or as a bowler.

    For most of these all-rounders, their weaker suit was not strong enough for them to be able to get into most teams.

    For example, Imran as a batsman will not get into any top team in the world in any era and neither will Stokes or Kallis as bowlers.

    Ian Botham for the first 50 odd Tests is the only genuine all-rounder the game has ever seen.

    Sobers himself was a non-serious bowler. He bowled multiple styles and his strike rate was worse than a part-timer’s in an era where there were very few teams with proper batting lineups.

    The concept of genuine all-rounder is largely a myth. All great all-rounders have a stronger and a weaker suit, which means that they are not genuine all-rounders.
    This is your definition, not the cricketing definition. On the contrary, most of the players mentioned would get into several sides purely as bowlers or batsmen. Imran was out there hitting half-centuries against the greatest team of all time and Flintoff won England matches with the ball. Stokes is playing as the second of only two pacers against India in the ongoing match.

    The genuine all-rounder is certainly not a myth but it is a legendary class of cricketer.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  24. #24
    Debut
    Sep 2012
    Runs
    92,918
    Mentioned
    7267 Post(s)
    Tagged
    38 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilal7 View Post
    This is your definition, not the cricketing definition. On the contrary, most of the players mentioned would get into several sides purely as bowlers or batsmen. Imran was out there hitting half-centuries against the greatest team of all time and Flintoff won England matches with the ball. Stokes is playing as the second of only two pacers against India in the ongoing match.

    The genuine all-rounder is certainly not a myth but it is a legendary class of cricketer.
    Imran Khan was not a great enough batsman to get into any team with a strong batting lineup, but he will get into pretty much every team as an all-rounder.

    Most all-rounders are batting and bowling all-rounders. The terminology of genuine all-rounder is misleading, because it implies equal capability with bat and ball.

    Peak Botham is the only all-rounder who achieved, or at least came very close, to becoming a genuine all-rounder.

    Stokes is playing as a second pacer in the ongoing match not because he is among the best pacers in England but because England are playing two spinners and need extra batting depth after the twin collapses in the previous Test.

    If Stokes couldn’t bat, he wouldn’t be playing today because there are superior fast bowlers than him in the squad.

    Kallis, widely regarded as the best modern all-rounder, was also a batting all-rounder because his bowling alone was not good enough to make most teams with quality fast bowlers.

  25. #25
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    30,702
    Mentioned
    1040 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamoon View Post
    Imran Khan was not a great enough batsman to get into any team with a strong batting lineup, but he will get into pretty much every team as an all-rounder.

    Most all-rounders are batting and bowling all-rounders. The terminology of genuine all-rounder is misleading, because it implies equal capability with bat and ball.

    Peak Botham is the only all-rounder who achieved, or at least came very close, to becoming a genuine all-rounder.

    Stokes is playing as a second pacer in the ongoing match not because he is among the best pacers in England but because England are playing two spinners and need extra batting depth after the twin collapses in the previous Test.

    If Stokes couldn’t bat, he wouldn’t be playing today because there are superior fast bowlers than him in the squad.

    Kallis, widely regarded as the best modern all-rounder, was also a batting all-rounder because his bowling alone was not good enough to make most teams with quality fast bowlers.
    You're right in saying that there is no all-rounder who is equally good with bat or ball. Even Botham was more a bowler than batsman. However, you don't need to be equally good at both to be a genuine all-rounder, you just need to be good enough to get in most sides with either skill.

    Just by looking at Imran's batting average of 37, you could slot him into most test teams, especially when that average came in such a strong cricketing era. We had Shafiq batting at #6 with a similar average for a long time, England have Stokes at #5 with a worse average, India have Rahane at 5, who scarcely averages more and there are many more examples.

    However, when you consider that Imran averaged 50+ for a period of ~10 years, you have to concede he would get into most teams on his batting prowess alone. Just because he wouldn't be able to make the strongest sides as a batsman does not mean he wasn't a genuine all-rounder. The cricketing definition has never included the caveat you are now adding.

    During these 52 matches, the only big team he failed against was the biggest team of all. Despite that, he played what looks to be, a gritty innings of 40-odd against the pace battery of the West Indies in their backyard. If this Imran does not get into most of the teams in history, you have ridiculously high standards.

    Name:  Screenshot_20210304-013730_Samsung Internet.jpg
Views: 105
Size:  313.4 KB

    Actually, those stats are incredible so let's take it a bit further. How many batsmen who have primarily batted at #6 or #7 have been better than Imran Khan?


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  26. #26
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    30,702
    Mentioned
    1040 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    As for Stokes, he's certainly good enough to get into teams like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the West Indies as a pace bowler. The same goes for Kallis. Just because they wouldn't find a spot in the 90s Pakistan side does not mean that they are not genuine all-rounders.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  27. #27
    Debut
    Sep 2012
    Runs
    92,918
    Mentioned
    7267 Post(s)
    Tagged
    38 Thread(s)
    @Bilal7

    You are talking about weak batting lineups like WI, SL, BD etc.

    I am talking about strong lineups. Sure you can slot Imran as a specialist batsman and Stokes as a specialist bowler in teams that do not have a lot of quality in batting or bowling, but none of them would get into any strong side purely on their weaker skills.

    The genuine all-rounder concept is one of those misleading terms in cricket that doesn’t really mean much. The vast majority of great all-rounders are batting and bowling all-rounders and that is where the distinction lies.

  28. #28
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    30,702
    Mentioned
    1040 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamoon View Post
    @Bilal7

    You are talking about weak batting lineups like WI, SL, BD etc.

    I am talking about strong lineups. Sure you can slot Imran as a specialist batsman and Stokes as a specialist bowler in teams that do not have a lot of quality in batting or bowling, but none of them would get into any strong side purely on their weaker skills.

    The genuine all-rounder concept is one of those misleading terms in cricket that doesn’t really mean much. The vast majority of great all-rounders are batting and bowling all-rounders and that is where the distinction lies.
    Anyone averaging 64 in Australia, 50 in England, 64 in India, 140 in New Zeland and 50 in Pakistan is good enough to be considered a genuine batsman. If this player also happens to have some ridiculous bowling figures, he is a genuine all-rounder, despite bowling being the stronger suit.

    However, we can agree to disagree. Although, going by your definition, Botham was never a genuine all-rounder either. In fact, he would never make it into the best bowling attacks as a bowler, nor the best batting sides as a batsman.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  29. #29
    Debut
    Sep 2015
    Venue
    Bangalore, India
    Runs
    17,869
    Mentioned
    352 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Imran stats are inflated by not outs. Similar to Jadeja.

  30. #30
    Debut
    Nov 2017
    Runs
    3,632
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bilal7 View Post
    As for Stokes, he's certainly good enough to get into teams like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the West Indies as a pace bowler. The same goes for Kallis. Just because they wouldn't find a spot in the 90s Pakistan side does not mean that they are not genuine all-rounders.
    Remove West Indies from this lis(Gabriel, Roach, Holder, joseph) , so basically Stokes can only make it as a bowler in minnow teams.
    Also there's a whole lot of difference between bowling alongside Anderson, Broad and lakmal, ranjitha. Stokes would average 40 with the ball if he played for srilanka.

  31. #31
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    30,702
    Mentioned
    1040 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jeeteshssaxena View Post
    Remove West Indies from this lis(Gabriel, Roach, Holder, joseph) , so basically Stokes can only make it as a bowler in minnow teams.
    Also there's a whole lot of difference between bowling alongside Anderson, Broad and lakmal, ranjitha. Stokes would average 40 with the ball if he played for srilanka.
    Stokes has good fundamentals and would not average 40 if he was bowling with the new ball. He'd average below 35.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  32. #32
    Debut
    Feb 2005
    Runs
    3,381
    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamoon View Post
    @Bilal7

    You are talking about weak batting lineups like WI, SL, BD etc.

    I am talking about strong lineups. Sure you can slot Imran as a specialist batsman and Stokes as a specialist bowler in teams that do not have a lot of quality in batting or bowling, but none of them would get into any strong side purely on their weaker skills.

    The genuine all-rounder concept is one of those misleading terms in cricket that doesn’t really mean much. The vast majority of great all-rounders are batting and bowling all-rounders and that is where the distinction lies.
    I think it depends on how you define ‘genuine’ all rounder , most people would consider an all rounder to be ‘genuine’ if they are good enough to earn their place in their team as specialists in one discipline of batting or bowling and able to make a serious contribution in the other.

    A great all rounder in my view, is one of who is world class and preferably ranked as an ATG in one discipline , as well as making a serious contribution in the other.

    Let’s face it , and history proves it , no cricketer or all rounder has ever reached ATG status with both and ball , or for that matter even world class status with bat and ball at the same point in their career. By that I mean a Top 10 ranked batsman and a Top 10 ranked bowler, averaging close to 50 as a batsman and under 25 as a bowler.

    And there’s a reason for that why even the very best only go on to achieve greatness in one discipline be it batting or bowling, and that is because becoming world class does not just come from talent alone , but it takes years of hard work, focus and practice to develop skills to the required level as a batsman or bowler. And frankly speaking there’s just not enough hours in the day or strong enough motivation to push yourself to become masters in both disciplines of batting and bowling. Or for that matter any other disciplines in life, people go on to specialise and master one subject or field to become the very best they can in that profession , and in cricket batting and bowling are full time jobs at a professional level.

    Otherwise if you were to give equal attention to both disciplines then you will most likely end up like Mark Ealham, Adam Hollioake, Ronnie Irani from the 1990s - mediocre with bat and ball, but ‘useful’ all-rounders.

    The one thing to complement Imran Khan here is of all the great all rounders , from being a world class fast bowler early in his career averaging under 25 , he focused more on his batting later in his test career once his bowling declined due to age , and as captain if I’m not mistaken he averaged 50 as a test batsman. He was not a Tendulkar or even Inzamam as a batsman , but he adapted his batting style to suit the needs of the fragile batting order of the Pakistan team of that era and played the role Misbah played with the bat decades later very effectively.

    It would be great if some day there is a genuine all rounder who can open the batting and score 100s and open the bowling and take 5-fers and be the best batsman and bowler in his team - I’ll be happy to change my definition of a ‘genuine’ all rounder that day and call the likes of Imran/Kapil/Botham as ‘non-genuine’ all rounders in comparison...
    Last edited by Majid Khan; 4th March 2021 at 12:35.

  33. #33
    Debut
    Dec 2010
    Venue
    Mississauga
    Runs
    96,891
    Mentioned
    876 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Most so-called great all-rounders in the game generally have been bowlers who can bat. Also, such players are far more useful than batting all-rounders. Any given day I would like to have a Imran , Flintoff , Botham etc in my team , rather than Sobers or kallis.

  34. #34
    Debut
    Sep 2015
    Venue
    Bangalore, India
    Runs
    17,869
    Mentioned
    352 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Justcrazy View Post
    Most so-called great all-rounders in the game generally have been bowlers who can bat. Also, such players are far more useful than batting all-rounders. Any given day I would like to have a Imran , Flintoff , Botham etc in my team , rather than Sobers or kallis.
    I will never take Flintoff over Sobers or Kallis though.

  35. #35
    Debut
    Aug 2011
    Runs
    22,350
    Mentioned
    373 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Majid Khan View Post
    I think it depends on how you define ‘genuine’ all rounder , most people would consider an all rounder to be ‘genuine’ if they are good enough to earn their place in their team as specialists in one discipline of batting or bowling and able to make a serious contribution in the other.


    Let’s face it , and history proves it , no cricketer or all rounder has ever reached ATG status with both and ball , or for that matter even world class status with bat and ball at the same point in their career. By that I mean a Top 10 ranked batsman and a Top 10 ranked bowler,


    If we take a look,

    • Kallis was ranked in the top 10 in bowling and batting both at the same time.
    • Sobers was ranked in the top 10 for bowling and batting at the same time.
    • Botham was ranked in the top 10 for bowling and batting both at the same time.
    • Miller was ranked in the top 10 in bowling and batting at the same time.
    • IK never made it into the top 10 in batting even once in his entire career. So getting in the top 10 with both skills at the same time was not even possible for IK.




    Botham, Kallis, Sobers etc made it to the top 10 ranks with their weaker skills and they did at the same time with their stronger skills. When it comes to IK, forget about doing it at the same time, he was not ranked in the top 10 in his weaker skills any time.

    IK as a player is ahead of the likes of Botham, but not really ahead as a genuine all-rounder. Genuine all-rounders should be able to bring their top-class batting and bowling in the same period and that's what the likes of Kallis, Sobers, Botham did.

    Now someone who could be ranked in the mid-20s in batting and bowling both, but he won't be better than someone who could be ranked in the top 10 in one and top 20 in another. The second one is more imbalanced, but far better genuine all-rounder than the first one.


    "If this happens I will swim across the Charles River! In winter!" -- OZGOD on NZ batting 6 sessions

  36. #36
    Debut
    Aug 2011
    Runs
    22,350
    Mentioned
    373 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    All-rounders rating trend over a long period takes account of both skills, and take a look.

    .
    Name:  Kallis_IK.jpg
Views: 57
Size:  195.8 KB

    As a genuine all-rounder trend will be visible in the all-rounder rating trend over a long period.

    Yah, I know PPers are very quick to put 5 years of the period when he was gun in bowling and 5 years when he was good in batting to paint a picture as if he was massively contributing with bat and ball both for 10 years, but that's misleading.


    "If this happens I will swim across the Charles River! In winter!" -- OZGOD on NZ batting 6 sessions

  37. #37
    Debut
    Aug 2011
    Runs
    22,350
    Mentioned
    373 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Kallis was in a different era, so

    Botham VS IK - All rounder rating trend:

    Name:  Botham_IK.jpg
Views: 51
Size:  215.5 KB

    Clearly, some players like Kallis, Botham etc were world-class with bat and ball both in the same period. They may have made it into most teams based on their weaker skills, but it is rare to see something like that.

    It is better to talk about batting all rounder and bowling all rounders.


    "If this happens I will swim across the Charles River! In winter!" -- OZGOD on NZ batting 6 sessions


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •