baby ringtoneit ringtone rundefying gravity ringtone

Quotehanger

  • "I suppose you guys are doing us a favour in some ways."
    New Zealand's Chris Martin is spurred on by the media expecting little from his side ahead of the first Test against England

    • Help the blog...

    Recent Posts

    The headlines


    The 19th best all-rounder in the world

    By Jonathan Liew 2 months ago Leave a comment on this post

    The latest ICC Test rankings have Huddersfield’s own Ryan Sidebottom in the top 10 for the first time. That’s a mighty fine effort, seeing as he’s only played 13 tests and doesn’t yet qualify for a full rating.

    Even more impressive, however, is that LG deem him to be the 19th best all rounder in world cricket. Suck on that, Stuart Broad…

    The list goes:
    1) Kallis 2) Vettori 3) Flintoff 4) Vaas 5) Bravo 6) Pathan 7) Oram 8. Gayle 9) Kumble 10) Lee 11) Symonds 12) Franklin 13) Sehwag 14) Collingwood 15) Harbhajan 16) Muralitharan 17) Clark 18) Rafique 19) Sidebottom 20) Zaheer

    I still maintain that if Anthony McGrath had got a fair crack of the whip he could have been the new Ian Botham. The man averages 40 with the bat and 14 with the ball in Test cricket. Botham averaged 33 and 28 respectively. Reckon we missed out on a potential legend of the game there.

    Tags: , , , , , , |

    7 Responses to “The 19th best all-rounder in the world”

  • Steve wrote:
    March 27th, 2008 at 9.08 am

    I wouldn’t get too excited about the all-rounder list. It looks pretty sad to me - Lee, Kumble, Clark, Harbhajan, Murali as allrounders? Just to name a few on your list. I know they can hit the ball some times but they are hardly equally gifted in both skills. Though at least Lee can field, unlike just about everyone else on that list. An allrounder should be a great fielder as well.

    I think I’d stick to watching Sidebottom’s rank on the bowlers list, Jonathon.

  • Alex wrote:
    March 27th, 2008 at 1.48 pm

    The list was misplaced with batting and bowling, there is only one allrounder in that list - Flintoff. Either they are very imaginative or stoned to come up with such fiction.

  • Marcus wrote:
    March 27th, 2008 at 11.16 pm

    I basically tried to say the same thing as Steve yesterday- twice- but my comments wouldn’t go through. I guess it’s a problem with my computer.

    But that’s right though. It’s absurd to call Sidebottom, Kumble, Harbhajan and even Zaheer Khan allrounders. Also, Michael Clarke and Virender Sehwag, who are just batsmen who bowl part-time. I think the minimum for being an allrounder should be a battung average of at least 20, and at least 20 overs bowled per match. This would sort out the legitimate allrounders from the tailend batsmen and part-timers.

  • JII wrote:
    March 28th, 2008 at 3.51 am

    Marcus,
    I think the 1st 7 in that list satisfy that criteria. They are decent enough allrounders though not in the class of Imran, Kapil, Botham & Hadlee

  • Marcus wrote:
    March 28th, 2008 at 8.31 am

    Yes, the first seven on that list are very good allrounders. But some of the other names on that list are a stretch.

  • Ed Lamb wrote:
    March 28th, 2008 at 11.55 am

    I’m not quite sure if you’re serious about Anthony McGrath - I assume not!!

    Just in case you were serious(!?!), the guy made some dodgy runs against Zimbabwe and failed against South Africa with the bat. He only bowled 17 overs in his whole test career so his average is misleading - unfortunately he just wasn’t up to Test cricket and only got a go because of a few injuries.

  • jim brant wrote:
    March 30th, 2008 at 11.10 am

    What a sensible chap. Mags was certainly badly done by - a better batsman than Colly, no worse a bowler (better most days), and while perhaps not quite as good a fielder he is perfectly adequate.

    • Comments

    Receive email updates on new comments


    « Ticket availability for England’s summer | Main | The greatest beard since WG »