England v NZ, 3rd Test, Trent Bridge, 5th-9th June

And, in FC cricket, George Hirst.

I suspect we have visited the 80's all rounders before, but to stir the pot once more:

As bowlers I would rank them, in order, Hadlee, Imran Khan, Botham and Kapil Dev. I consider the gap between the first two and between third and fourth to be rather small, with a larger distance between second and third.

As batsmen, I think the rank order is Imran, Botham, Kapil Dev and Hadlee. The first two strike me as fairly even and quite distinct in type but Imran's consistency takes the palm.
I think Kapil at his best was a match for Botham, but reached that level rather less frequently. Hadlee is a clear last.

The upshot is that Imran seems to me clearly the finest overall, although Botham's fielding might bridge some of the gap [but then Imran was a fine captain whereas Botham was dismal]

Equally, I'd suggest that Kapil is fourth. The other two's overall rank would depend on whether Hadlee's superiority as bowler was greater than his inferiority [to Botham] as batsman.

The above guesswork relates to Test cricket. In an ODI I would pick Kapil Dev.

peterg wrote:I suspect we have visited the 80's all rounders before, but to stir the pot once more:

As bowlers I would rank them, in order, Hadlee, Imran Khan, Botham and Kapil Dev. I consider the gap between the first two and between third and fourth to be rather small, with a larger distance between second and third.

As batsmen, I think the rank order is Imran, Botham, Kapil Dev and Hadlee. The first two strike me as fairly even and quite distinct in type but Imran's consistency takes the palm.
I think Kapil at his best was a match for Botham, but reached that level rather less frequently. Hadlee is a clear last.

The upshot is that Imran seems to me clearly the finest overall, although Botham's fielding might bridge some of the gap [but then Imran was a fine captain whereas Botham was dismal]

Equally, I'd suggest that Kapil is fourth. The other two's overall rank would depend on whether Hadlee's superiority as bowler was greater than his inferiority [to Botham] as batsman.

The above guesswork relates to Test cricket. In an ODI I would pick Kapil Dev.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Marsall was sometimes included in the 80s allrounder party. He would be top of the bowling list but bottom of the batting list.

I also agree with regard to Goddard and Noble who would both have been picked as either. The list of true all-rounders is somewhat longer than i thought. I suppose there is a differenve between being great at both and being test quality at both.

Giffen would be another. Cairns maybe as well. Of course some of this depends on the quality of the team they would be picked for - Cairns may have been picked as a batsman for New Zealand but clearly not for Australia.

Hirst never quite made it at test level though its hard to see why that should be. Grace, of course, hardly bowled at all in tests but was possibly the greatest ever in all FC cricket.

Of the 80s awesome foursome

I would rate

Batsmen
Botham
Kapil
Imran
Hadlee

I find it hard to fathom Peterg's ranking of Imran as the best batter of them all. Strange IMO.

Bowlers
Imran
Hadlee
Botham
Kapil

Paul Keating wrote:Of the 80s awesome foursome

I would rate

Batsmen
Botham
Kapil
Imran
Hadlee

I find it hard to fathom Peterg's ranking of Imran as the best batter of them all. Strange IMO.

Bowlers
Imran
Hadlee
Botham
Kapil

Imran was a fine classical batsman. I saw him many times for Susses as well as for Pakistan and always felt that he was potentially a great batsman. His test record at specialist batting positions was very impressive. Botham was rather all or nothing which was magnificent to watch but meant that he was less consistent that Imran. The difference between the two as batsmen is very small but i agree with peterg that Imran just shades it.

I would however, say that he was not as great a bowler as Hadlee.

To some a greater batsmen is one who will churn out the runs day in day out.

I prefer a batsmen who is going to turn a match for me in a session. Botham and Kapil could do that.

Paddles may have been a smarter bowler than most in the history of the game, however Imran to me had more variety, was quicker and was successful all over the world. To me, he is clearly better.

Ha ha, NZ are so shit.

I looked up the ratings book by Charles Davis [Zsore] published in 2000, "The Best of the Best".

He included a rating for fielding based on its sole quantifiable dimension, catches per match, provided this exceeded one.
Given that many aspects of fielding prowess are unquantifiable, such as speed across the ground, sureness of hand, speed and accuracy of throw, it seems to me to be arbitrary and discriminatory to include a measure that so much favours slips and other close fielders.

So, after removing the fielding measure, which does not have a great impact, Davis's all rounder rank order is:

Sobers, Imran Khan, Hadlee, Botham, SM Pollock [who was then in mid-career], Davidson, Worrell, Marshall, Goddard, FS Jackson, [Steve Waugh] Miller, Greg Chappell, Hammond, Faulkner, Wasim Akram, Kapil Dev.

Obviously the situation is complicated by the presence of onesided all rounders - great batsmen like Worrell, Hammond and Greg Chappell, great bowlers like Marshall, Davidson and Wasim.

Interestingly, Davis found quite a significant gap between Hadlee and Botham, but much smaller differences between all other stages and considerable crowding as the list lengthens. Hadlee rates extraordinarily well as a bowler, and it is the specialist strengths of the half dozen one sided all rounders I mentioned that lifts them so high.

I did my own ranking based on Batting average and Wickets Per Match (which i feel is the least useless a pretty uselss set of the indicators of a bowlers effectiveness over a careeer). It seems reasonable that a battiong average of 30 is about equivalent to taking 3 wickets per tests so i calculated the All Rounder index as Batting Ave + (WPM * 10).

With a quallification of a batting average > 5 ans more than 2.5 WPM this gives:

1. Sobers 82.8
2. Imran 78.7
3. Hadlee 77.3
4. Faulkner 73.8
5, Shaun Pollock 72.5
6. Jack Gregory 72
7. Botham 70.5
8. Mankad 68.5
Cairns 68.5
10. Miller 68
11. Tate 65.5
12. Goddard 64.4
13 Kapil Dev 64.1
14 Flintoff 61.9
15. Noble 60.3

In matches that Rhodes was picked primarily as a bowler he rated 64.1.

Sobers only just sneaks in as he took exactly 2.5 WPM. A more onerous criterion for WPM would put Imran as number 1.

A rating system that puts Cairns ahead of Miller, Tate and Noble is obviously far from perfect but it is generally pretty reasonable i feel. Ideally some adjustment should be made for matches in which players didn't bowl (this brings Noble up a bit) or where their careers were extended inappropriately such as with Botham and maybe Kapil Dev. Faulkners last test a decade after his previous one distorts his figures downwards given the few tests that were played at that time.

We've discussed wickets per match before.

It has a few problems, such as the tendency early in Test history [when innings tended to be of shorter duration] and also in more recent times [when overs per day have been relatively few] for bowling to be shared by relatively fewer bowlers.

There's also the problem of great bowlers in weak batting sides, which present them with fewer potential wickets and fewer runs to play with. The other problem, of bowlers competing with other great bowlers in the same side, as opposed to those who hunt alone, might partially be offset by the probability that the former attacks will more often take 20 wickets and hence have more to share around.

You've mentioned the point of those bowlers who don't always bowl, or whose overs are restricted by injury or precaution. This affected Miller and Imran, in particular. Miller, late in his career, was also handicapped by being in a weak Ashes batting side which gave him fewer second innings of consequence.

On another note there is the unquantifiable matter of "match turning" performances. All rounders often seem responsible for these. Noone needs reminding of Botham in 81 or Flintoff in 05 and Miller, anecdotally, was renowned for the same thing even when, as in 1948, his overall figures look fairly moderate.

The same can be said of a quite different type of all rounder, Trevor Bailey. Casual inspection of his stats might provoke curiosity as to why he played so often. Yet he played pivotal roles in winning or saving at least four series I can think of, which explains his omnipresence.

Jebus H Crikey. When I headed off for a little break up the coast, the last score I saw was England 7-290 odd. Next thing I see is that Jimmikins has rolled the Snoozers with 7-43.

I will now go back and read with interest the views of my learned English colleagues about this feat.

Dello wrote:He is literally going to take all ten, isn't he?

What a c*nt.

Particularly enjoyed this one.

4 wickets to Sibo, the cream is rising, thank goodness.

Looks like the batsmen arent' going to get a chance to reprieve themselves.

This is pretty much all over. Only thing left is whether Jimmykins can do what none of Ray Lindwall, Bob Wills, Joel Garner and Jason Gillespie could do and get a 10 for.


And wheter Big Jake can get a run a ball ton.

2 to go (including Martin), 20 runs for the Poms to bat again.

So Smuthy must be cheery?

At least Jimmikins won't be getting a 10-fer. That really would've been an abysmal result of this game.

Well, it's all over.
I'm glad Oram got his 50 first.

KP should be MOTM but I guess they'll give it to Jimmykins.

Well done to England. Gave the Snoozers a thorough thrashing after being sent in. Didn't answer a lot of questions thought, with the Saffie series coming up. Bell? Colly? Anderton?

He's still on Stalker's tail.

Pathetic effort there by kiwis in the end.

PeterCS wrote:He's still on Stalker's tail.

Stalker? The one that sells awings so that you're not blinded by the sun in your back garden?

ten years after wrote:I did my own ranking based on Batting average and Wickets Per Match (which i feel is the least useless a pretty uselss set of the indicators of a bowlers effectiveness over a careeer). It seems reasonable that a battiong average of 30 is about equivalent to taking 3 wickets per tests so i calculated the All Rounder index as Batting Ave + (WPM * 10).

With a quallification of a batting average > 5 ans more than 2.5 WPM this gives:

1. Sobers 82.8
2. Imran 78.7
3. Hadlee 77.3
4. Faulkner 73.8
5, Shaun Pollock 72.5
6. Jack Gregory 72
7. Botham 70.5
8. Mankad 68.5
Cairns 68.5
10. Miller 68
11. Tate 65.5
12. Goddard 64.4
13 Kapil Dev 64.1
14 Flintoff 61.9
15. Noble 60.3

In matches that Rhodes was picked primarily as a bowler he rated 64.1.

Sobers only just sneaks in as he took exactly 2.5 WPM. A more onerous criterion for WPM would put Imran as number 1.

A rating system that puts Cairns ahead of Miller, Tate and Noble is obviously far from perfect but it is generally pretty reasonable i feel. Ideally some adjustment should be made for matches in which players didn't bowl (this brings Noble up a bit) or where their careers were extended inappropriately such as with Botham and maybe Kapil Dev. Faulkners last test a decade after his previous one distorts his figures downwards given the few tests that were played at that time.

No room for Greig or Kallis?


Shaun Pollock above Botham as an allrounder?

Botham would probably be top of the bowlers tree if he hadn't injured himself.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

ten years after wrote:I did my own ranking based on Batting average and Wickets Per Match (which i feel is the least useless a pretty uselss set of the indicators of a bowlers effectiveness over a careeer). It seems reasonable that a battiong average of 30 is about equivalent to taking 3 wickets per tests so i calculated the All Rounder index as Batting Ave + (WPM * 10).

With a quallification of a batting average > 5 ans more than 2.5 WPM this gives:

1. Sobers 82.8
2. Imran 78.7
3. Hadlee 77.3
4. Faulkner 73.8
5, Shaun Pollock 72.5
6. Jack Gregory 72
7. Botham 70.5
8. Mankad 68.5
Cairns 68.5
10. Miller 68
11. Tate 65.5
12. Goddard 64.4
13 Kapil Dev 64.1
14 Flintoff 61.9
15. Noble 60.3

In matches that Rhodes was picked primarily as a bowler he rated 64.1.

Sobers only just sneaks in as he took exactly 2.5 WPM. A more onerous criterion for WPM would put Imran as number 1.

A rating system that puts Cairns ahead of Miller, Tate and Noble is obviously far from perfect but it is generally pretty reasonable i feel. Ideally some adjustment should be made for matches in which players didn't bowl (this brings Noble up a bit) or where their careers were extended inappropriately such as with Botham and maybe Kapil Dev. Faulkners last test a decade after his previous one distorts his figures downwards given the few tests that were played at that time.

No room for Greig or Kallis?


Shaun Pollock above Botham as an allrounder?

Botham would probably be top of the bowlers tree if he hadn't injured himself.

I doubt that. Imran and Hadlee would have always been better bowlers.....