![]() Batters who can bowl and have taken lot of wickets did not get to the top of the list. The balance perspective is to just show that they are strong in both aspects. ^ In the case above, his overs are not necessarily helping the team, which has tons of similar options! PS and in Eng, he bowled the most overs, while other pacers with better SRs were given relatively less overs: the series against Aus in 1986:Ībove he bowled only 45 overs in 5 innings (and even failed to pick up a wicket so could have gone through the motions), therefore, the workload can balance out. Workload dynamics can be different for different players as someone could bowl like 15-20 overs and bat for 100 balls on average.Īs for Kapil, many times, he hardly bowled in a series esp. The point of my post was to note how active the ARs were with the ball too. Talking about workload here, not to be confused by quality. So, when someone plays more because he is the only one carrying that team, this should count for more than someone else who played for like 20 years and hardly bowled for 150 innings. Similarly compare it to number of bowls bowled by rest. You need to consider the fact that one of these A/Rs( let's take Kapil as example )played test cricket for 15 years, played 227 innings so he bowled 227*20 balls in 15 years. But statistically, Stokes would get disqualified among great A/R for this reason that his batting stats aren't as impressive for someone's stronger suit. What about players with inflated stats due to high not outs like Shaun Pollock's batting or if you compare Stokes batting with Jadeja's batting, Stokes is obviously the better batsman with 12 hundreds compared to Jadeja's 3. There is probably a certain criteria that needs to be met to be qualified as all rounder but question is whether statistics is the right way to set that criteria. Interesting list but this seems more about the balanced all rounders rather than the great ones. But I think for a while he bowled the bulk of the overs and thus got wickets. Someone like Vettori has lot of wickets and good runs. Stokes has played some memorable games which increases his visibility. I think Flintoff was a better all rounder than stokes. Both Jadeja and Shakib have vastly superior bowling records while having higher batting average. He has only 4 instances of 5 wicket hauls. However only has a batting average of 36 after 90 tests while not completing 200 wickets yet. Mostly regarded the best all rounder of current era. I liked Chris Cairns a lot and thought he could play for that NZ side as a bowler or batter but he missed out top 10. Cut off of more than 2000 runs and 200 wickets. Looking for at least 10 or more 5 wicket hauls with bowling average below 30 and a batting average of 30 or more with few centuries and 10+ fifties. I am looking to list people who had a better balance and had strong enough impact with bat and ball with some exceptions. I have not seen sobers but I am not sure if Kallis plays just as a bowler in that SA side. However they get in to the team just for their batting even if they don't bowl. ![]() They were for sure very good bowlers as they took so many wickets. They scored so many runs at great average that even with higher bowling average and less 5W hauls they have good difference between batting and bowling average. However for both of them the balance was heavy towards batting. ![]() ![]() They are great cricketers who were good in every aspect of the game including fielding. People will interpret stats differently and many will decide their best by what they see and like.įor a while I thought Sobers and Kallis were the best.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |