Swann greater than Botham, Flintoff? [Greatest Allrounders Updated]
tendulkar.com
under their belt, why not Swann?
Updating the Greatest All-rounders list (from Dec 2008)
GS Sobers (WI) 23.75
*JH Kallis (ICC/SA) 23.30
Imran Khan (Pak) 14.88
KR Miller (Aus) 14.00
SM Pollock (SA) 9.20
TL Goddard (SA) 8.24
AW Greig (Eng) 8.23
>>> GP Swann (Eng) 6.20
MA Noble (Aus) 5.25
IT Botham (Eng) 5.14
Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) 4.87
CL Cairns (NZ) 4.13
AK Davidson (Aus) 4.06
W Rhodes (Eng) 3.23
N Kapil Dev (India) 1.41
TE Bailey (Eng) 0.53
MW Tate (Eng) -0.68
IK Pathan (India) -0.69
MH Mankad (India) -0.85
Wasim Akram (Pak) -0.98
*A Flintoff (Eng/ICC) -1.01
RR Lindwall (Aus) -1.88
MD Marshall (WI) -2.09
R Benaud (Aus) -2.58
G Giffen (Aus) -3.74
WPUJC Vaas (SL) -4.95
* I only updated the numbers for these players
Nirvanam
I just had a thought...we need to tweak the numbers a little to bring
out the true all-rounders really. Of course most of these are all-
rounders. But consider this a batsman who averages 50+ has a bowling
average of 30+ and yet be among the toppers. Similarly a bowler who
averages 10- and with bat 30- can still make it to the top. That's not
fair.
We should have a formula where,
if batting average >= 45 then bowling average must be <= 30
if batting average >= 50 then bowling average must be <= 32.5
if bowling average <= 15 then batting average must be >= 25
if bowling average <= 20 then batting average must be >= 30
If above not met then reduce overall difference by a certain
proportion. This will sort out the true all-rounders from the
pretenders. The greatest all rounder ever, in deed the greatest Test
cricketer ever has to be Imran Khan Niazi
Andrew B.
> I just had a thought...we need to tweak the numbers a little to bring
> out the true all-rounders really. Of course most of these are all-
> rounders. But consider this a batsman who averages 50+ has a bowling
> average of 30+ and yet be among the toppers. Similarly a bowler who
> averages 10- and with bat 30- can still make it to the top. That's not
> fair.
>
> We should have a formula where,
> if batting average >= 45 then bowling average must be <= 30
Doug Walters.
> if batting average >= 50 then bowling average must be <= 32.5
Jacques Kallis.
> if bowling average <= 15 then batting average must be >= 25
Albert Trott (only played 5 Tests, though)
> if bowling average <= 20 then batting average must be >= 30
Trott again.
> If above not met then reduce overall difference by a certain
> proportion. This will sort out the true all-rounders from the
> pretenders. The greatest all rounder ever, in deed the greatest Test
> cricketer ever has to be Imran Khan Niazi
No, by your criteria the greatest all-rounder ever is Jacques Kallis
(averages 54 & 31).
Before you complain - yes, Imran would be in my all-time World XI, as
would Sobers (and Kallis might be).
(Curious fact I noticed while checking the above: only two test
cricketers have a batting average of 50+ and a bowling average of <20;
Allen Hill and Arthur Hill - excluded above as they played a total of
5 tests).
jzfredricks
What makes me so happy about Swann is he's a spinner. We've not had a
decent spinner since WW1, it seems.
Andrew Dunford
"tendulkar.com" <tendul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:140436eb-d1bd-4444...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> If Pollock & Richards can claim ATG status with literally no tests
> under their belt, why not Swann?
It might be worth reviewing what the phrase "literally no tests" actually
means, literally.
<snip>
Andrew
Nirvanam
> "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar....@gmail.com> wrote in message
They might have been great players at county level and of course even
in whatever little Test cricket they got to play. But the fact that
they didn't play even 25 Tests or at least 40 innings rules out the
possibility of them being considered as Test greats...they are in the
category of "would definitely have been Test greats if their country
was more sensible". Including them in a Tests ATG list would be unfair
to many players who would've averaged maybe 3-4 runs lesser but still
maintained such a good average for over 100 innings
John Hall
<92d515cd-f665-4232...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
I think that Verity, Laker and Wardle were pretty decent.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"
Bob Dubery
> They might have been great players at county level and of course even
> in whatever little Test cricket they got to play. But the fact that
> they didn't play even 25 Tests or at least 40 innings rules out the
> possibility of them being considered as Test greats...they are in the
> category of "would definitely have been Test greats if their country
> was more sensible". Including them in a Tests ATG list would be unfair
> to many players who would've averaged maybe 3-4 runs lesser but still
> maintained such a good average for over 100 innings
I'm inclined to use the Holmans yardstick here - IE what did the
players who saw these guys play say? Richards is a bordeline case for
many people, but enough people saw Graeme Pollock on the field at the
highest level to form an opinion of how good he was, and mostly the
opinion is that he was very good indeed.
Most who got a look at him say that he was a very, very good judge of
length. They also talk about his timing - he was one of those players
who usually didn't take big swipes at the ball and didn't need too. My
own memories of watching Pollock are mostly of him just seeming to
waft at the ball and then seeing it hit the fence very fast and very
hard.
I heard Rodney Marsh talk about Pollock. He said that for any player
there is an area, a range of length, in which they can get into two
minds as to whether it's a bad ball and thus can be punished or a good
ball and thus must be defended against. He said that for Pollock this
area was smaller than for any other player he'd been on the field
with.
I agree that we should require a certain amount of evidence before
opining about the greatness or otherwise of a player, but I think the
evidence is there for Graeme Pollock.
Haydos
of bowlers he played against. Whether he would have been the
same on all kinds of pitches & all kinds of international bowlers -
who's to know?
Haven't there been a lot of players about whom such poetry has
been written when they playing cricket other than international
cricket & they never succeeded in international cricket.
"Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bffd776c-b7ff-414a...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Andrew B.
> Maybe he was all these one a few kinds of pitches & few kind
> of bowlers he played against. Whether he would have been the
> same on all kinds of pitches & all kinds of international bowlers -
> who's to know?
Well, there you go. There haven't been any old-fashioned sticky
wickets in Test matches since about the 50s, so maybe no recent
players would be able to cope with them - so no batsman since 1960 can
be regarded as an all-time great.
But before about 1960, there were never more than 3 good teams, so no
batsman before 1960 was properly tested either.
Ergo, there are no all-time great batsmen.
Nirvanam
With the same yardstick then Archie Jackson (the guy who was better
than Don?) should make it to the Test ATG because he died of TB.
Similarly even guys who had their purple patch at the start of their
career and were dropped once for whatever reasons and never returned
for whatever reasons could also be considered...a la Kambli.
The way I'd look at it is that if a cricketer is in a Test ATG list,
he should not need any kind of * or qualifier when his name is
mentioned. It is alright to mention players with * and qualifier in
the lower ranks of the list (> 50 rank) though.
Nirvanam
I'd think Haydos was being a lot more broader in his viewpoint than
your post suggests. If I am interpreting Haydos' post correctly what
he is trying to say is that given a certain stage in evolution of
cricket, if a player has been known to perform at a high level in all
the then available conditions then he deserves to be an ATG.
Unfortunately for the RSA guys of the late 60s although cricket had
different conditions existing for a few decades by then (Ind, Pak, NZ,
WI, Eng, Aus), they did not get a chance to play in most of them. They
definitely would have if the ban wasn't imposed. Combine this with the
fact that the chances they got to perform in the conditions that they
did play in, were not many. Hence the dilemma.
The point is that if the sample size is significantly large then even
if a player fails in one or two conditions we are sure that he
deserves to be an ATG (there aren't many virtuosos in the game
really..not even 0.5% of all the players). For ex Lillee...miserable
in Pak but rest of his record is amazing hence we don't doubt his
ATGness and give him the benefit of doubt that had he more
opportunities in Pak he would've rectified his record. Same with Warne
in India (but in Warne's case if he had more opportunities his record
would have become even more dismal...lol)
Mad Hamish
<viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 31, 4:08�am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
>> "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:140436eb-d1bd-4444...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > If Pollock & Richards can claim ATG status with literally no tests
>> > under their belt, why not Swann?
>>
>> It might be worth reviewing what the phrase "literally no tests" actually
>> means, literally.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Andrew
>
>They might have been great players at county level and of course even
>in whatever little Test cricket they got to play. But the fact that
>they didn't play even 25 Tests or at least 40 innings rules out the
>possibility of them being considered as Test greats.
Pollock did play over 40 innings in tests
>..they are in the
>category of "would definitely have been Test greats if their country
>was more sensible". Including them in a Tests ATG list would be unfair
>to many players who would've averaged maybe 3-4 runs lesser but still
>maintained such a good average for over 100 innings
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Nirvanam
<newsunspammel...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:19:23 -0800 (PST), Nirvanam
>
>
>
>
>
> <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 31, 4:08 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> >> "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:140436eb-d1bd-4444...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > If Pollock & Richards can claim ATG status with literally no tests
> >> > under their belt, why not Swann?
>
> >> It might be worth reviewing what the phrase "literally no tests" actually
> >> means, literally.
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> Andrew
>
> >They might have been great players at county level and of course even
> >in whatever little Test cricket they got to play. But the fact that
> >they didn't play even 25 Tests or at least 40 innings rules out the
> >possibility of them being considered as Test greats.
>
> Pollock did play over 40 innings in tests
>
top 10. You are aware he hasn't performed on surfaces other than Aus,
Eng, and SA (1 game in NZ)...that he has played only 9 Tests abroad. I
am sure if you think Pollock is a Test ATG, you'd have George Headley
in the same company. Headley's overall stats are similar but he
averages only 37 in Aus compared to his overall average of 60. He
played around 22 Tests, 16 of them against England and averaged
something like 71. Impressive numbers against England but overall very
less evidence to have him as an out and out Test ATG...definitely an
ATG with a qualifier. Pollock's stats are also similarly inconclusive.
Mad Hamish
<viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 31, 9:27�pm, Mad Hamish
><newsunspammel...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:19:23 -0800 (PST), Nirvanam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 31, 4:08�am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
>> >> "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:140436eb-d1bd-4444...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > If Pollock & Richards can claim ATG status with literally no tests
>> >> > under their belt, why not Swann?
>>
>> >> It might be worth reviewing what the phrase "literally no tests" actually
>> >> means, literally.
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> Andrew
>>
>> >They might have been great players at county level and of course even
>> >in whatever little Test cricket they got to play. But the fact that
>> >they didn't play even 25 Tests or at least 40 innings rules out the
>> >possibility of them being considered as Test greats.
>>
>> Pollock did play over 40 innings in tests
>>
>Where would you rate him in your top batsmen list?
In the cluster behind Bradman.
> Will he be in your top 10.
probably
> You are aware he hasn't performed on surfaces other than Aus,
>Eng, and SA (1 game in NZ)...that he has played only 9 Tests abroad.
Yes, but then again Tendulkar and other modern players have never
played on a sticky (with 1 exception in an Ashes test where Such ran
through Aus in 97 iirc)
> I
>am sure if you think Pollock is a Test ATG, you'd have George Headley
>in the same company. Headley's overall stats are similar but he
>averages only 37 in Aus compared to his overall average of 60.
he also only have 1 series in Aus (iirc they were also caught on a
brute of a sticky in at least 1 match in that series)
Tendulkar averages 39.76 in RSA from 12 tests, want to raise questions
about his rating based on it?
> He
>played around 22 Tests, 16 of them against England and averaged
>something like 71. Impressive numbers against England but overall very
>less evidence to have him as an out and out Test ATG...definitely an
>ATG with a qualifier. Pollock's stats are also similarly inconclusive.
In your opinion maybe.
Most judges will disagree with you there.
Nirvanam
How many are in that cluster?
> > Will he be in your top 10.
>
> probably
He's definitely not in mine and neither is Headley. They are in the
top 15/20 for sure.
> Yes, but then again Tendulkar and other modern players have never
> played on a sticky (with 1 exception in an Ashes test where Such ran
> through Aus in 97 iirc)
Tendulkar has played 160+ Tests, 12 Tests in SA on 4 separate tours. 3
centuries against one of the fastest bowler the world of cricket has
known, one of the greatest seam and swing bowler the world has known.
And generally a very good attack on fast pitches.
Like I mentioned in a post earlier, you cannot hold against Sachin or
for that matter modern batsmen that they do not play on sticky
wickets. Frankly, none of them need to, and the technology in their
age does not necessitate playing on such wickets. However, Pollock
when he was playing, there were enough dust bowls around in the
world...unfortunately he never got a chance to play on any of them.
Would he have done as well? Probably yes...but that is only a
probability. We don't know for sure.
Why do we hold Bradman in high regard when it is clearly known that he
NEVER played on a dust bowl against world class spinners in a Test,
played at a time when there was just one more seriously good team in
Test cricket: England. All of NZ, WI, SA, and Ind were minnows at that
time. Because Bradman had an average of 99.94 and hence we would like
to believe that he would do well against anyone anywhere. His numbers
are so awesome that they compel us to give him that benefit of doubt.
> he also only have 1 series in Aus (iirc they were also caught on a
> brute of a sticky in at least 1 match in that series)
That is exactly the point....too less data for anyone to claim Pollock
is a Test ATG. (without requiring a qualifier)
> In your opinion maybe.
> Most judges will disagree with you there.
Fair enough.
higgs
I agree, we must set the criteria so thjat Imran comes out on top.
I was going to suggest that the criteria be that the player must have
the first initial of 'I' and a 2nd initial of 'K', but I think your
idea is probaly better, I'm not so sure about the 32.5 for bowling
though.
Is that enough to exclude Kallis and include Imran?
Does it need a little tweak?
Higgs
higgs
wrote:
> "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar....@gmail.com> wrote in message
Given that Nirvanam had a go at putting Shoaib in his All-Time XI, I'd
suggest that ATG status can be conferred on or taken away from anyone
you care to choose.
Actual ability at cricket would appear to have precious little to do
with anything
Higgs
Nirvanam
What??????????????
When did I ever include Shoaib in my world XI??????????????
higgs
OK, possibly not World XI, just ATG & Virtuoso:
---------------------------------------------------
> Let me clarify, I am not saying the above are not great batsmen or
> ATGs. They definitely are. But there is a special league of batsmen
> called the virtuoso league. Currently there are only 3 batsmen who
> have been admitted in that league: Sachin, Lara, and Don. They are
> like Satch, Vai, Yngwie kinda virtuosos. The other guys' applications
> have been considered, studied, deliberated, yet somehow some tiny
> thing's missing somewhere, so not in the league.
> Similar virtuoso league for swing bowlers: Wasim, Hadlee. Barnes. For
> express bowlers: Marshall, Thomson, Shoaib. For leg spinners: Warne.
> For off spinners: Murali. For left-arm orthodox: Bedi
-------------------------------------------------------------
Given that you've picked 9 bowlers who you consider to be one step
above ATG, I think my original point stands.
Anyone who considers Shoaib to be any sort of ATG/virtuoso sets a
pretty low standard.
You might just as well pick me for your World XI.
Oh, and Andrew's point stands too. Why do Pollock's 23 Tests (43 inns)
count as "literally no tests"?
If you're going to take things 'literally', at least make them
'literal'
Higgs
Nirvanam
> > Let me clarify, I am not saying the above are not great batsmen or
> > ATGs. They definitely are. But there is a special league of batsmen
> > called the virtuoso league. Currently there are only 3 batsmen who
> > have been admitted in that league: Sachin, Lara, and Don. They are
> > like Satch, Vai, Yngwie kinda virtuosos. The other guys' applications
> > have been considered, studied, deliberated, yet somehow some tiny
> > thing's missing somewhere, so not in the league.
> > Similar virtuoso league for swing bowlers: Wasim, Hadlee. Barnes. For
> > express bowlers: Marshall, Thomson, Shoaib. For leg spinners: Warne.
> > For off spinners: Murali. For left-arm orthodox: Bedi
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Given that you've picked 9 bowlers who you consider to be one step
> above ATG, I think my original point stands.
>
> Anyone who considers Shoaib to be any sort of ATG/virtuoso sets a
> pretty low standard.
See that is clearly misrepresentation...have I not in the same thread
accepted that including Shoaib as one was not a good decision?
> Oh, and Andrew's point stands too. Why do Pollock's 23 Tests (43 inns)
> count as "literally no tests"?
lol...grandpa is getting pedantic now. Come on Higgs, don't tell me
you actually thought I was arguing that number 23 = number zero
> If you're going to take things 'literally', at least make them
> 'literal'
oh no...I just moved the goalpost, innit?
higgs
> > OK, possibly not World XI, just ATG & Virtuoso:
> > > Let me clarify, I am not saying the above are not great batsmen or
> > > ATGs. They definitely are. But there is a special league of batsmen
> > > called the virtuoso league. Currently there are only 3 batsmen who
> > > have been admitted in that league: Sachin, Lara, and Don. They are
> > > like Satch, Vai, Yngwie kinda virtuosos. The other guys' applications
> > > have been considered, studied, deliberated, yet somehow some tiny
> > > thing's missing somewhere, so not in the league.
> > > Similar virtuoso league for swing bowlers: Wasim, Hadlee. Barnes. For
> > > express bowlers: Marshall, Thomson, Shoaib. For leg spinners: Warne.
> > > For off spinners: Murali. For left-arm orthodox: Bedi
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > Given that you've picked 9 bowlers who you consider to be one step
> > above ATG, I think my original point stands.
>
> > Anyone who considers Shoaib to be any sort of ATG/virtuoso sets a
> > pretty low standard.
>
> See that is clearly misrepresentation...have I not in the same thread
> accepted that including Shoaib as one was not a good decision?
>
So you didn't say what I quoted?
Was that someone else using your account?
> > Oh, and Andrew's point stands too. Why do Pollock's 23 Tests (43 inns)
> > count as "literally no tests"?
>
> lol...grandpa is getting pedantic now. Come on Higgs, don't tell me
> you actually thought I was arguing that number 23 = number zero
>
Anyone is entitled to post an opinion here, when posters start
resorting to insults, it's usually indicative that they have been
found wanting.
If you didn't mean zero, why did you say zero?
You do understand what 'literally' means, don't you?
> > If you're going to take things 'literally', at least make them
> > 'literal'
>
> oh no...I just moved the goalpost, innit?
So what's new?
Higgs
Nirvanam
>
> Was that someone else using your account?
Huh? What are u talking about? Let's clarify - you said that I claimed
Akthar was a virtuoso and got a copy-paste of my text to make your
point. I said this was misrepresenting. Why? Because I said that in
the same thread I had accepted that my choice of Akthar as a virtuoso
was a bad one. So, must you misrepresent me by taking a previously
held opinion of mine (for whatever little time I held it for), in
spite of me specifically accepting that it wasn't a good choice, and
changing my opinion?
> If you didn't mean zero, why did you say zero?
> You do understand what 'literally' means, don't you?
Alright Higgsy, my bad. I used the word 'literally' wrongly. Happy?
R. Spanditt
wrote:
May i ask how those figures are arrived at? Love my maths
tendulkar.com
If you have to ask.......