Allrounders November 30, 2009

Plenty to pick from

Allrounders have been part of the South African landscape since cricket's beginnings. A look at six of the best contenders
  shares 67

Shake a tree in South Africa and the ground beneath it is likely to be littered with allrounders. So blessed is the country with players who are able to bat and bowl - fast, at least - well enough to hold down a place in a team on the strength of either skill, that it seems the gods of the game have done the place a disservice as much as they have blessed it.

It's as if South Africa has been granted all the allrounders it could possibly want, but hardly any of the spinners it so desperately needs. Still, two players for the price of one is a decent bargain. Consequently there aren't many South African captains complaining too bitterly about the paucity of quality spin bowlers.

South African pitches tend to be friendly to seam bowling and accommodating of uncomplicated batting. That goes some way to explaining why allrounders thrive there. Proof of that is the fact that allrounders have been part of the landscape in the country since cricket's beginnings. Pioneers like Jimmy Sinclair and Aubrey Faulkner have counterparts in modern heroes like Shaun Pollock and Jacques Kallis.

Nonetheless, while Kallis is certainly in the reckoning for our all-time South African XI for middle-order batting prowess, he has not made the shortlist of allrounders. Is this because there are simply too many South African allrounders to choose from, and therefore it has been thought useful to ship off quality players into other departments? Or has the well of South Africans who have been genetically advantaged enough to star with both bat and ball finally been proven to have a bottom?

Certainly, the domestic game in the country seems as well-endowed with multi-skilled players as ever. So much so that Daryn Smit of the KwaZulu-Natal Dolphins routinely strips off his wicketkeeping pads to bowl distinctly non-occasional legspin. With 58 wickets in 43 first-class matches to his name - not to mention 123 dismissals, a century and seven half-centuries - Smit might just be a prototype for the cricketer of the future.

But for that to happen, cricket's more hidebound factions will have to relinquish their obsession with specialist players. That doesn't seem to be something we can look forward to anytime soon. For now, we'll have to content ourselves with marvelling at those magnificent men and the all-round talents they thrust into service, whether bowling or batting. Our jury has done exactly that, and here are the contenders:

Aubrey Faulkner
Afflicted first by malaria, then by depression, which led him to take his own life, he nonetheless crammed much into his 48 years. An early master of the googly and an un-pretty though highly effective batsman.

Mike Procter
Started his run next to the sightscreen and tore into the wicket with an untidy action and an unsettling fury. Similarly spectacular with the bat, once scoring centuries in six consecutive first-class innings for Rhodesia.

Brian McMillan
A giant of a man, but a caresser of the ball. Pierced the armour of almost as many batsmen with his wit as with awkward bounce. Virtually infallible in the slips.

Trevor Goddard
Grace on wheels. A batsman to whom elegance came as easily as his smile, and a bowler who looked as fresh in the last over of the day as he did in the first.

Jimmy Sinclair
A big-bang cricketer - could hit hard and bowl fast, and look good doing either. A template for the modern South African allrounder? Escaped from a Boer POW camp to take 107 wickets on the 1901 tour of England.

Shaun Pollock
Simply put, had too much talent not to outgrow the boots of a world-class fast bowler. Delighted the purists with his immaculately grooved action, but trusted his instincts to inform his batting.

We'll be publishing an all-time South Africa XI based on readers' votes to go with our jury's XI. To pick your allrounders click here

Telford Vice made his Test debut as a cricket writer in Barbados in 1992 - the match that marked the end of South Africa's isolation

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY waspsting on | December 3, 2009, 20:32 GMT

    @ Xolile - I've toyed with the idea of having an entire 11 of all rounders too! hows this for a world 11 - 1)Wilfred Rhodes 2) Vinoo Mankad 3)Kallis 4)Sobers 5) Gilchrist 6)Imran Khan 7)Miller 8) Procter 9) Botham 10) Benaud 11) Hadlee. spinners - rhodes, mankad, benaud as well as sobers, miller and procter. fast lot leaders - hadlee, imran, procter, miller and then the rest star catchers - sobers, kallis, miller, procter, benaud, botham.

    nothing like it has ever been seen (or ever will be), but i wonder how this lot would fare against anybody. the world 11 that Bradman supposedly selected, for example, only had Sobers from this list - if we could keep sobers and have a replacement for him in that team, I'm positive this team would come out on top!

  • POSTED BY Curlybrownitem on | December 2, 2009, 20:26 GMT

    Procter was easy to pick for the first slot. After thinking long and hard about the second, it has to be Faulkner, the reason being that a spinner adds an extra dimension to an attack that won't be short of pace/seam, but relatively weak in spin. That means no room for Shaun Pollock (I can have a rant later if he's not "available " as a bowler) which is harsh but, I think, necessary. In addition, Faulkner is much the better batsman and while this side won't be short of batting either, an extra batsman is always a better option than a 7th or 8th bowler. On Kallis, while I agree he's a top-class all-rounder, why all the fuss? He's most people's selection as a batsman, including mine - he can't play twice!

  • POSTED BY argylep on | December 1, 2009, 17:26 GMT

    Vsssarmas post today @ 8.15 illustrates pefectly that individual stats while not everything in the game are nevertheless a strong and compelliing indicator when assessing the category or theory of cricketing greatness. I think the term is used too often and for allround cricketers who are NOT great per se but Kallis certainly is. His stats are phenomenal compared to others of his era and of any other period for that matter. He is quite simply but statistically the finest all rounder since Sobers but don't favour my opinion over others in the game. Just read these... Pietersen recently described him "as the greatest cricketer ever"....not sure about that accolade? - but Boucher commented that he is a cricketing colussus not just on the South African but World stage and his IPL captain referred to him as being an "the outstanding cricketer" Praise indeed but richly deserved IMO. argylep

  • POSTED BY gitacarya on | December 1, 2009, 15:59 GMT

    My all time list is...

    1. Graeme Smith 2. Gary Kirsten 3. Jacques Kallis 4. Graeme Pollock 5. Hansie Cronje (C) 6. Johnty Rhodes (too tempting to omit him)/Can pick if know more names. 7. Mark Boucher 8. Shaun Pollock 9. Peter Pollock 10. Mike Procter 11. Alan Donald (Who else? The king of Pace, and white Lightening)

    (Reserve opener... Barry Richards Spinner, if need be, Nicky Boje for his all round skills Reserve Pacer... Makhaya Ntini (Why leaving him?) and the fifteenth man, you will be doomed if you can not pick Lance Zulu Klusener at least into the team :-)

  • POSTED BY sanzo5 on | December 1, 2009, 13:48 GMT

    Where is lance klusners name in the list?

  • POSTED BY argylep on | December 1, 2009, 11:49 GMT

    An all time South African All Rounders XI without Kallis selected as either a batsman or bowler would be a much weaker side. Sure he is a batting allrounder but his bowling stats are just as impressive. He may have lost some pace and penetration over the years but over 500 International wickets at just over 30 is superior to a lot of test match bowlers. I've always rated Kallis very highly in both disciplines - IMO he is the best white modern day era batsman I've ever seen and he is a very effective breakthrough bowler much as Botham was when wickets had to be "bought'. Pietersen recently described him "as the greatest cricketer ever" Boucher refers to him as an "irreplaceable South African Cricket Colussus" . Praise indeed from opponents and colleagues alike! Statistically except for a slightly inferior test match batting average he has been and still is the Worlds finest all rounder since Sir Garfield Sobers.

  • POSTED BY BringITXI on | December 1, 2009, 11:31 GMT

    Where is Lance Klusener?

  • POSTED BY BloodbathAndBeyond on | December 1, 2009, 11:25 GMT

    I am waiting for the All time West Indies XI. In the middle order, we'll probably have to select 3 from Lara, Sobers, Richards, Lloyd, Headley, Walcott, Weekes, Worrell, Chanderpaul. Phew !!! That would be a daunting task.

  • POSTED BY thirdmanboundary on | December 1, 2009, 10:51 GMT

    I love Xolile's idea of an entire team of all rounders. Only problem: who would control 10 world-class bowlers all clamouring to bowl? And let's not forget that Proctor, like Sobers, was 3 players in one, bowling tidy off-spinners too. As a spectator one of the great treats was watching Pollock at his early peak pace bowling together with Donald (all too briefly) before Donald began his fade. At that point Pollock had a world-class throat ball, a high gather, and broke some kind of currie cup record for the number of times he hit the helmet in a season. That said, as his pace dropped as a bowler, Pollock's aplomb as a batsman increased. With both SA and NZ there should be no restriction on the number of all rounders.

  • POSTED BY sean_kelly on | December 1, 2009, 10:09 GMT

    Faulkner and Procter - better for the balance

  • POSTED BY waspsting on | December 3, 2009, 20:32 GMT

    @ Xolile - I've toyed with the idea of having an entire 11 of all rounders too! hows this for a world 11 - 1)Wilfred Rhodes 2) Vinoo Mankad 3)Kallis 4)Sobers 5) Gilchrist 6)Imran Khan 7)Miller 8) Procter 9) Botham 10) Benaud 11) Hadlee. spinners - rhodes, mankad, benaud as well as sobers, miller and procter. fast lot leaders - hadlee, imran, procter, miller and then the rest star catchers - sobers, kallis, miller, procter, benaud, botham.

    nothing like it has ever been seen (or ever will be), but i wonder how this lot would fare against anybody. the world 11 that Bradman supposedly selected, for example, only had Sobers from this list - if we could keep sobers and have a replacement for him in that team, I'm positive this team would come out on top!

  • POSTED BY Curlybrownitem on | December 2, 2009, 20:26 GMT

    Procter was easy to pick for the first slot. After thinking long and hard about the second, it has to be Faulkner, the reason being that a spinner adds an extra dimension to an attack that won't be short of pace/seam, but relatively weak in spin. That means no room for Shaun Pollock (I can have a rant later if he's not "available " as a bowler) which is harsh but, I think, necessary. In addition, Faulkner is much the better batsman and while this side won't be short of batting either, an extra batsman is always a better option than a 7th or 8th bowler. On Kallis, while I agree he's a top-class all-rounder, why all the fuss? He's most people's selection as a batsman, including mine - he can't play twice!

  • POSTED BY argylep on | December 1, 2009, 17:26 GMT

    Vsssarmas post today @ 8.15 illustrates pefectly that individual stats while not everything in the game are nevertheless a strong and compelliing indicator when assessing the category or theory of cricketing greatness. I think the term is used too often and for allround cricketers who are NOT great per se but Kallis certainly is. His stats are phenomenal compared to others of his era and of any other period for that matter. He is quite simply but statistically the finest all rounder since Sobers but don't favour my opinion over others in the game. Just read these... Pietersen recently described him "as the greatest cricketer ever"....not sure about that accolade? - but Boucher commented that he is a cricketing colussus not just on the South African but World stage and his IPL captain referred to him as being an "the outstanding cricketer" Praise indeed but richly deserved IMO. argylep

  • POSTED BY gitacarya on | December 1, 2009, 15:59 GMT

    My all time list is...

    1. Graeme Smith 2. Gary Kirsten 3. Jacques Kallis 4. Graeme Pollock 5. Hansie Cronje (C) 6. Johnty Rhodes (too tempting to omit him)/Can pick if know more names. 7. Mark Boucher 8. Shaun Pollock 9. Peter Pollock 10. Mike Procter 11. Alan Donald (Who else? The king of Pace, and white Lightening)

    (Reserve opener... Barry Richards Spinner, if need be, Nicky Boje for his all round skills Reserve Pacer... Makhaya Ntini (Why leaving him?) and the fifteenth man, you will be doomed if you can not pick Lance Zulu Klusener at least into the team :-)

  • POSTED BY sanzo5 on | December 1, 2009, 13:48 GMT

    Where is lance klusners name in the list?

  • POSTED BY argylep on | December 1, 2009, 11:49 GMT

    An all time South African All Rounders XI without Kallis selected as either a batsman or bowler would be a much weaker side. Sure he is a batting allrounder but his bowling stats are just as impressive. He may have lost some pace and penetration over the years but over 500 International wickets at just over 30 is superior to a lot of test match bowlers. I've always rated Kallis very highly in both disciplines - IMO he is the best white modern day era batsman I've ever seen and he is a very effective breakthrough bowler much as Botham was when wickets had to be "bought'. Pietersen recently described him "as the greatest cricketer ever" Boucher refers to him as an "irreplaceable South African Cricket Colussus" . Praise indeed from opponents and colleagues alike! Statistically except for a slightly inferior test match batting average he has been and still is the Worlds finest all rounder since Sir Garfield Sobers.

  • POSTED BY BringITXI on | December 1, 2009, 11:31 GMT

    Where is Lance Klusener?

  • POSTED BY BloodbathAndBeyond on | December 1, 2009, 11:25 GMT

    I am waiting for the All time West Indies XI. In the middle order, we'll probably have to select 3 from Lara, Sobers, Richards, Lloyd, Headley, Walcott, Weekes, Worrell, Chanderpaul. Phew !!! That would be a daunting task.

  • POSTED BY thirdmanboundary on | December 1, 2009, 10:51 GMT

    I love Xolile's idea of an entire team of all rounders. Only problem: who would control 10 world-class bowlers all clamouring to bowl? And let's not forget that Proctor, like Sobers, was 3 players in one, bowling tidy off-spinners too. As a spectator one of the great treats was watching Pollock at his early peak pace bowling together with Donald (all too briefly) before Donald began his fade. At that point Pollock had a world-class throat ball, a high gather, and broke some kind of currie cup record for the number of times he hit the helmet in a season. That said, as his pace dropped as a bowler, Pollock's aplomb as a batsman increased. With both SA and NZ there should be no restriction on the number of all rounders.

  • POSTED BY sean_kelly on | December 1, 2009, 10:09 GMT

    Faulkner and Procter - better for the balance

  • POSTED BY rambo2111 on | December 1, 2009, 9:21 GMT

    For the folks who have been complaining about kallis not being included in the all-rounder list, two comments: (1) i agree that he is probably south africa's best ever all rounder, (2) but the reason he is not on this list is because he has been included (and probably/hopefully selected) in the middle order batsman list. and i agree with cricinfo's rationale of including him in the batsman list simply because he has been more useful to south africa as a batsman rather than as an all-rounder, which is why he always bats at no. 4 or 5 rather than the typical all-rounder's spot at no. 6 or 7

  • POSTED BY BellCurve on | December 1, 2009, 8:43 GMT

    To win in Test cricket a team must have the ability to take 20 wickets in no more than 230 overs, and then score up to 700 runs in around 210 overs. It means bowlers must have strike rates of below 70 balls per wicket. And they must be able to bowl 230 overs in a match without loosing their effectiveness. Since most pace bowlers start to loose their effectiveness when they have to bowl more than 30 overs in a match, you will need at least 7 bowlers in your team (unless you have access to a top quality spinner). In the batting department you need a team average of at least 35 runs per wicket and a strike rate above 50 runs per 100 balls. What does all of this mean? It means given the pool of players available for selection, the all-time SA team should comprise of 3 specialist batsmen, 5 all-rounders, 1 wicketkeeper-batsman, and 2 outright strike bowlers. Such a team will be perfectly balanced and capable of winning most of the matches it plays.

  • POSTED BY vsssarma on | December 1, 2009, 8:15 GMT

    The best test match all rounders of South Africa are: (1) George Faulkner: 25 Tests, 1,754 runs at an average of 42.78. 82 wkts at an average of 26.59 runs per wkt. (2) Trevor Goddard: 41 Tests, 2,516 runs at an average of 34.47. 123 wkts at an average of 26.23 runs per wkt. (3) MJ Procter: 7 Tests, 226 runs at an average of 25.1. 41 wkts at an average of 15.02 runs per wkt. (4) Shaun Pollock: 108 Tests, 3,781 runs at an average of 32.32. 421 wkts at an average of 23.12 runs per wkt. (5) Jacques Kallis: 131 Tests, 10,277 runs at an average of 54.66. 258 wkts at an average of 31.09 runs per wkt. (6) Hugh Tayfield: 37 Tests, 862 runs at an average of 16.9. 170 wkts at an average of 25.91 runs per wkt. (7) Brian McMillan: 38 Tests, 1,968 runs at an average of 39.36. 75 wkts at an average of 33.83 runs per wkt. (8) EJ Barlow: 30 Tests, 2,516 runs at an average of 45.75. 40 wkts at an average of 34.05 runs per wkt. Faulkner is certainly the best SA all rounder.

  • POSTED BY R_U_4_REAL_NICK on | December 1, 2009, 7:59 GMT

    I'm probably too young to comment about most of these contenders, but I can't believe Kallis aint there! Loved Pollock for his bowling and he should definately be in the team, but he only made 2 test centuries. Kallis, on the other hand, to go with his terrific bowling stats that most bowlers are jealous of, has 31 test centuries and has averaged over 50 for ages. Therefore there's no way Pollock should go ahead of Kallis for the all-rounder slot. Both players should be in the team though. Totally agree with Ed_Lamb, MrFur and argylep (amoung others) about this totally shocking absentee!

  • POSTED BY mandrake1962 on | December 1, 2009, 5:36 GMT

    Even though I was too young to see him at his best and I have great respect for Shaun Pollock, if this team has one all-rounder you would have to go with Mike Procter. He was explosive in every way and as an attacking cricketer you have to give him the nod.I think you could find a place for both in a best all-time team with Proctor batting at 6 and Pollock a little further down. I first saw him play in the Rest of the World tour to Australia in '71 and thought he was a touch over-rated, but later my Father spoke of his deeds with South Africa and Gloustershire. That was enough for me. At his best , with the bat as good as Sobers and Viv Richards,and frightening deadly with the ball Mandrake

  • POSTED BY rson on | December 1, 2009, 0:38 GMT

    Why is South Africa allowed two all-rounders(admittedly deserved)in their XI while New Zealand,another country whose strength lay in that area ,was restrictred to one.Off the point maybe,but how could anyone have a New Zealand team without Chris Cairns. Back to the point I fail to see why most seem to consider Kallis superior as an all rounder to Pollock.Kallis is a good bowler but hardly a match-winner on manyu occasions whereas there is no way that Shaun Pollock would have batte as low as no.8 in any other team except Gilchrist's Australia.

  • POSTED BY snapper007 on | November 30, 2009, 22:32 GMT

    I cannot believe that Clive Rice is not part of this selection of allrounders. He definitely could have been in a team for either batting, bowling or for being a capitain! i do agreed with the choice selection above but they should have added Clive Rice to that selection!

  • POSTED BY wicked_soul on | November 30, 2009, 21:50 GMT

    Klusener should certainly have been there in the nominees list, he was easily one of the best ODI allrounders. But I guess it wouldn't make a difference because I don't think any1 would pick him for the final 11 given his test record. I also think Procter should be picked as a bowler rather than an allrounder. Here's my XI: Richards, Mitchell, Kallis, Pollock, Nourse, Faulkner, Boucher, Pollock, Proctor, Adcock, Donald

  • POSTED BY Godof86 on | November 30, 2009, 21:36 GMT

    Remember that Brian McMillan played his first test when he was almost 29 and had lost almost all pace. And even then he was the best in the world. May be the South Africans who have seen him play domestic can tell how good he was.... And leaving out Clive Rice is a sin.

  • POSTED BY MattBlake on | November 30, 2009, 21:18 GMT

    Faulkner should be a certainty - only about half a dozen players managed a batting average of 40 pre-WWI, so even if he wasn't pretty, he must have been pretty damned good. And the side desperately needs some balance in the bowling attack - I see some folk are picking teams with 6 or 7 right arm seam bowlers which can't be right.

    The second spot is a coin-toss between Procter and Pollock (though I respect those who want Goddard for the left arm variety) - hopefully one or both appear in the seam bowling options so I can get them both in.

  • POSTED BY argylep on | November 30, 2009, 21:09 GMT

    If you are going to select an all time South African All Rounders XI then based purely on batting averages and wickets taken you HAVE to include Kallis in that line up. His figures in both disciplines speak for themselves and his actual test batting average apart - its not that MUCH lower than his nearest rival/competitor for the greatest all rounder of all time - Sir Garfield Sobers - he is and remains statistically the Worlds never mind South Africas finest all rounder so you can't possibly omit him. Certainly he is a BATTING all rounder but if you've taken over 500 international wickets (nearly 260 in tests and approx 250 in ODIs) at just over 30 then you'd quite reasonably expect to make an imgainary (past players) National Representative All Rounders side just as a BOWLER!!

  • POSTED BY MrFur on | November 30, 2009, 20:59 GMT

    Is this some kind of sick joke?! No Jacques Kallis?! The man averages 54 with the bat and 31 with the ball in test matches and is a capable slip fielder. The article starts by stating that the all rounder is capable of being in the final XI on the basis of either skill....batting or bowling. As if Shaun Pollock would have been picked for his batting alone and given a slot in the top six?! Kallis should take his place in this list

  • POSTED BY Ed_Lamb on | November 30, 2009, 20:23 GMT

    Not to include Kallis makes a mockery of the list - it must be a weird kind of cricket snobbery! Digging into the archives and finding one or two that Cricinfo readers haven't heard of is madness when you've got one of the greatest allrounders of all time playing in the current South African team when fit. Yes, he plays on covered wickets but Kallis would walk into anyone's top 6 SA allrounders....except yours Cricinfo!

    I would have liked to see Clive Rice included too, but that's far far more debatable.

  • POSTED BY Curlybrownitem on | November 30, 2009, 20:17 GMT

    Procter is a shoe-in. I think few who saw him in his pomp would disagree. He's the third of a trio of all-time greats who would have graced the game together, even more than they did, had they been born elsewhere. As a quick bowler, he's in a class of his own, even in this goup: he'd be my first choice bowler for this team even if he'd been a rabbit with the bat - it wasn't pretty, but it was awesomely effective. But he was a genuine batsman too (as opposed to being primarily a bowler who could also bat quite well) and for a large part of his career, he'd probably have been picked by every test-playing nation at the time purely as a batsman irrespective of his bowling ability (and, of course, vice-versa) had he been available to them. Perhaps only Sobers falls into the same category. As if that weren't enough, he was a more than useful off-spinner and an excellent captain. Second all-rounder is trickier - will have to think a bit longer. But where is Rice?

  • POSTED BY yonatan on | November 30, 2009, 19:30 GMT

    I can"t believe that Clive Rice is not on the list. Its true that most of his international cricket was played in "rebel" formats however he is perhaps the only player who was truly equally brilliant with the bat and the ball. Few, who saw him batter the opposition with his fast bowling and then go on to make centuries for Transvaal in the 70's and 80's will forget him. A team with Kallis, Rice, Proctor and Sean Pollock have batting down to no. 9 or 10.

  • POSTED BY Darth_Bal on | November 30, 2009, 19:16 GMT

    BloodbathAnd Beyond, I agree with completely. Does the fact that Shaun Pollock is here, means that he won't be included in the list of fast bowlers. Because to my mind he is one of the greatest SA fast bowlers but, although great, not the best of the all-rounders. So I can't pick him as an all-rounder, but he would be in my fast bowling contigent - however, if he's not in the list of faster bowlers, then I can't pick him at all! :( And that just doesn't seem right.

    I've gone with Faulkner and Proctor as my all rounders. I am now crossing my fingers and hoping that Shaun P is in that list of faster bowlers!

    My overall team would be: 1.) Barry Richards 2.) Graeme Smith (capt) 3.) Jaques Kallis 4.) Dudley Nourse 5.) Graham Pollock 6.) Aubrey Faulkner 7.) Mike Proctor 8.) Shaun Pollock 9.) Mark Boucher 10.) Peter Pollock 11.) Alan Donald. Close calls for numerous fast bowlers! :)

  • POSTED BY moodytiger on | November 30, 2009, 19:07 GMT

    Telford, How can you leave Clive Rice off the list when he was ranked as the equal of Richard Hadlee, Ian Botham and Imran Khan when he played county cricket in England?

  • POSTED BY Engle on | November 30, 2009, 18:44 GMT

    Faulkner should command a spot. With a batting avg of 40 and bowling avg of 26, he is one of only 5 All-rounders who could be selected on the basis of his batting or bowling alone (Sobers, Botham, Miller and Imran being the others). Also, Faulkner brings to the table variety with LBG to complement Tayfield. An AT XI must provide variety to showcase to the world their nation's depth as well as complement the team. The 2nd remaining spot is between Procter and S.Pollock. This is tough. I'm going to have to give it to Procter. He deserves it. Had he been given the chance, the world could only have imagined his exploits. His unorthodox action plus his bounding enthusiasm edges it. Here's hoping that S.Pollock merits consideration amongst the pacers choice

  • POSTED BY waspsting on | November 30, 2009, 16:59 GMT

    Procter and Faulkner. Procter was a more damaging bowler than Pollock IMO - he had a bigger rep for sure, and that was in an era filled with great fast bowlers. Faulkner because the spin option he presents is more valuable than having another fast bowler. Faulkner and Tayfield are a decent spin combo, whereas another fast bowling all rounder would be less necessary given there are two more to come, as well as Kallis. Goddard - not a very penetrating bowler, more the steady spinner type. I agree its harsh to not even have Rice mentioned. I guess only players who've played test cricket are being considered - the omission of Cook from the openers lot was curious too.

  • POSTED BY rson on | November 30, 2009, 16:25 GMT

    I would go with Shaun Pollock and Procter as all-rounders if Shaun is not included among the fast bowlers.If he is then Trevor Goddard gets the nod over Faulkner.I can't believe that Ntini and SDteyn would be considered for fast bowling spots ahead of Adcock and Peter Pollock. With regard to Lance Klusener I think he should have been among the six nomineees ahead of McMillan and possibly Sinclair. For the record therre are eight players who have scored 1000 runs with an average over 30 and taken 100 wickets at an average under 30 and two are South Afruicans-Trevor Goddard w/34 batting and 26 bowling and Shaun Pollock w/32 batting and 23 bowling. In ODI's Klusener is one of only 3 with that distinction,the others being Imran and Flintoff.

  • POSTED BY passionate_cricket_follower on | November 30, 2009, 16:12 GMT

    Jack Kallis, Lance Klusener, Hansie Cronje should be there in the list. These men could win any match in any format of the game with both the bat and ball on their day!

  • POSTED BY vnvaditya on | November 30, 2009, 15:35 GMT

    Where is ZULU ??? where is ZULU ...one of the fearsome striker of cricket ball and the only finisher South African has produced till date.

  • POSTED BY RomanNoseJob on | November 30, 2009, 15:24 GMT

    this stupid. any SA all-time XI has Proctor and Pollock as automatic choices. To be quite frank even Goddard would probably be in there.

  • POSTED BY lodger67 on | November 30, 2009, 13:14 GMT

    Xolile, it's a nice idea, but does not filter a lot of factors. Magiet gets in for 67 games in a minor comp (avge 29 with bat and 171 wkts at 12.99). What about George Brockwell (4.2) or William Lillywhite (4.2) who both excelled in pre-test playing days? And do you account for how many wickets a bowler must take per match in order to qualify? Aubrey Faulkner just misses your top 5 (at 9.5) as does Tarrant (9.6) but at close to 4 wkts and 5 wkts per game respectively, over long careers, and with batting averages of 36, compared to Magiet less than 3 wkts per game and batting avge of 29, I'd be suspicious of any rating system that puts Magiet higher than these two. And if wicket filters are not applied, we can give a gong to Ramesh Nagdev (1.3) for his bat avge of 36 and bowling avge (2 wkts) of 2.5 from 24 matches. Avge is not the only factor.

  • POSTED BY BloodbathAndBeyond on | November 30, 2009, 12:10 GMT

    I find this logic of sticking to a particular combination(5 batsmen + 1 all rounder + 1 keeper + 3 pacers + 1 spinner) ridiculous. Each country has its own strengths and weaknesses and final XI should represent the best team without sticking to any predefined combination. Why should one be forced to select either of Pollock or Procter ? Why not both ? And if Kallis can be listed as a pure batsman instead of an all rounder, why not list Pollock purely as a bowler.IMHO the best XI should be 1. Richards 2. Smith 3. Pollock 4. Kallis 5. Nourse 6. Procter 7. Boucher 8. Pollock 9. Ntini 10. Steyn 11. Donald

  • POSTED BY sairaghavan5694 on | November 30, 2009, 12:03 GMT

    What happened to Lance Klusener? Just because he was there in the pitch on two occasions when the scores were tied in the World Cups doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve a place in the All rounder's spot.He must at least be included for ODI all rounder's list.

  • POSTED BY Bagapath on | November 30, 2009, 11:54 GMT

    faulkner and shaun pollock for sure. procter didnt play enough tests. could've been a contender, though. the rest are solid cricketers. shaun and george were not; they were simply awesome.

  • POSTED BY riteshjsr on | November 30, 2009, 11:22 GMT

    This is a tough one. Well, I'll go with Goddard and Pollock. Leaving out Procter is not easy, however, I think you need a genuine batsman at 6 and Goddard was a more accomplished batsman. Moreover, being a left armer he also lends variety to the attack. Pollock was a very useful lower middle order batsman and an outstanding bowler. You just cannot leave him out. My picks so far 1. Barry Richards 2. Eddie Barlow 3. Graeme Pollock 4. Jacques Kallis 5. Dudley Nourse 6. Trevor Goddard 7. Shaun Pollock.

  • POSTED BY buntyj on | November 30, 2009, 11:22 GMT

    my choices are procter and faulkner though goddard came close; but all 6 are worthy contenders

  • POSTED BY shams44 on | November 30, 2009, 11:01 GMT

    Do not select Pollock as an allrounder, because he will be selected as a bowler for sure.

  • POSTED BY shams44 on | November 30, 2009, 10:55 GMT

    hey man where is Lance Klusener? too bad he is sitting out of the ground...i think he deserved to be in this list at least... he won many matches with his bowl equally as with the bat.

  • POSTED BY warrenh11 on | November 30, 2009, 10:30 GMT

    WHERE IS CLIVE RICE!!!!!!

  • POSTED BY ColSin on | November 30, 2009, 9:51 GMT

    Apart from Kallis, statistically inseparable from Sobers as the best allrounder ever, only Faulkner really qualifies as an international class allrounder, and will add a spin option to a very short list. To have Procter in this category is laughable, especially since he would qualify as a fast bowler only. Pollock is the best of the rest.

  • POSTED BY BellCurve on | November 30, 2009, 9:50 GMT

    Consider a team made up entirely of all-rounders born and raised in SA: (1) Barlow (2) Goddard (3) Kallis (4) Lindsay (5) D'Oliveira (6) Rice (7) Greig (8) Faulkner (9) Procter (10) McMillan (11) Pollock

  • POSTED BY ashishkumar36 on | November 30, 2009, 9:44 GMT

    I konw that's its so tough. But I would go for Procter, Pollock and Faulkner and finally go with Pollock and Procter leaving Faulkner out. Because if we choose Tayfield as specialist spinner than it could be a great combination for South Arica to have Tayfield as off spinner and Faulkner as leg spinner.

  • POSTED BY Schorpie on | November 30, 2009, 9:28 GMT

    I agree with those calling for Clive Rice.

  • POSTED BY CricketPissek on | November 30, 2009, 8:49 GMT

    @ NakibAhmed - dont be such a drama queen. kallis was already shortlisted as a middle order batsman. read the whole thing before being so comment happy.

  • POSTED BY MaraudingJ on | November 30, 2009, 8:43 GMT

    The fact that any one of these men must be left out of a team is a travesty. Along with Australia's middle order, this has so far been the most difficult pick to make. Yet pick I must. I'm not sure if I get one or two. If I had two picks, I'd want to go with Procter and Pollock, but that would be picking two bowling allrounders (I know, somewhat ridiculous to call Procter a bowling allrounder, but technically he was). Eschewing that, I'd go with Goddard and Procter, hoping that Pollock will show up in the list of fast bowlers later, and feeling guilty that I didn't pick Faulkner. Keep in mind, also, that we've left out players who missed most of their careers due to Apartheid, including one Mister Clive Rice, one of the greatest allrounders ever to play the modern first class game, from bat to ball to captaincy. And if I have only one pick, it'll have to go to Procter. As far as I'm concerned, the man would've bested both Beefy and Imran. That's saying something.

  • POSTED BY kakashi_hatake on | November 30, 2009, 8:41 GMT

    How come there is no Clive Rice or Lance Klusener? Okay, Shaun Pollock and Brian McMillan are brilliant cricketers, but they don't really come up to the level of Clive Rice, one of the best all rounders the game has ever seen. Also, in one day cricket, Lance Klusener in his prime was indispensable asset to the team. Surprised that they were not included.

  • POSTED BY flojo7 on | November 30, 2009, 8:37 GMT

    i have just one comment - why can't so many of you spell mike PROCTER's name right? it's not just you, he's been plagued by this all his life

  • POSTED BY qdavis on | November 30, 2009, 8:34 GMT

    How can you exclude Clive Rice? Surely, he deserves to be included for his contribution to domestic cricket and his leadership in the first tour to India in 1991? Come on Telford!

  • POSTED BY Clan_McLachlan on | November 30, 2009, 8:28 GMT

    too bad Basil D'Oliveira isn't available for selection...

  • POSTED BY BellCurve on | November 30, 2009, 8:19 GMT

    The finest statistical measure of an all-rounder is a simple ratio that is calculated as follows: bowling average x 20 / batting average. The first part of the equation calculates the number of runs the opposition would score against the all-rounder for the loss of their allotted 20 wickets. Then by dividing the product by the all-rounder's batting average, you get the number of times the all-rounder would loose his wickets in chasing down the target set by the opposition. The lower the ratio, the better the all-rounder. In the history of First Class cricket the top 5 players based on this ratio are: 1. Warrick Armstrong (8.4); 2. Saait Magiet (8.9); 3. Keith Miller (9.1); 4. Charles Macartney (9.15); and 5. WG Grace (9.2). Whilst Armstrong, Miller, Macartney and Grace are counted among the game's greats few people have heard of Saait Magiet. He played his cricket for Western Province in the Howa Bowl. Unfortunately he was robbed of a chance to compete at the highest level.

  • POSTED BY mirfarali on | November 30, 2009, 8:03 GMT

    Faulkner and Proctor for sure. If not for anything, compare their averages with the rest and they come out on top easily.

    Faulkner for the additional reason that he was a spinner, a rarity in SA cricket (world class too at that).

    Pollock for the simple reason that if I could I would love to see this legend in action. So much has been said about his action, would be a pleasure to see actually go out and do it.

    I do hope Shaun Pollock does make it as one of the fast bowlers. But to pick him as an allrounder, well IMHO he was more of an intelligent batsman than a good one.

  • POSTED BY vinnigefanie on | November 30, 2009, 7:59 GMT

    It is a great shame that some readers hanker for Shaun Pollock forgetting others in their rush of how they performed. Aubrey Faulker was great in his era and deserves to be recognised as his incredible performances in Australia where his 732 runs on the 1911-12 tour where games were played on the uncovered pitches. For those who have overlooked Trevor Goddard, the biographical notes presented here fail to do justice to the man who won a test on his own against the odds at Leeds in 1955. There are two fine studies of Goddard that should be looked at first before dismissing him. The first is a book titled the Great All Rounders and edited by John Arlott in which Louis Duffus pens an impressive word portrait. The seocnd is in a book of South Africa cricket captains published in 2003, which is as indepth as the Duffus item. Having read both and knowing the history of the others, Faulkner and Goddard are my choices - one a spinner the other a left-arm bowler and batsman to give balance.

  • POSTED BY TMS8137 on | November 30, 2009, 7:49 GMT

    Chill out nakib kallis was picked as a batsman.

  • POSTED BY Nipun on | November 30, 2009, 7:20 GMT

    Another no-brainer:-it's Pollock & McMillan,easily.

  • POSTED BY NakibAhmed on | November 30, 2009, 6:52 GMT

    No Kallis?Thats it!...I officially have no more interest in this anymore...this is just idiotic..

  • POSTED BY CricFan78 on | November 30, 2009, 6:11 GMT

    Faulkner and Proctor for me. Shaun narrowly misses out but he should get in as one of pace bowlers instead.

  • POSTED BY hemant.brar on | November 30, 2009, 5:49 GMT

    i wish to see both proctor and pollock in the final eleven...

  • POSTED BY Maui3 on | November 30, 2009, 5:40 GMT

    Wow, this is a extraordinary group to select from. It good we didn't have Kallis in this group! Picked Faulkner and Goddard for their impressive record as allrounder over a much longer career than Proctor. Would have loved to include Shaun Pollock, but with Steyn, Donald and Kallis (as a fifth bolower) almost a certainty, there is no room for another right arm bowler (hence picked a left-handed Goddard, who is a better batsman than pollock). Faulkner would fill a nice leg-spinner spot and yet get a full batsman. Would have liked to pick three from this group.

  • POSTED BY Clan_McLachlan on | November 30, 2009, 5:39 GMT

    I'd prefer to pick Faulkner and Proctor here, and have S Pollock in as a bowler, batting at 8 or 9.

  • POSTED BY TMS8137 on | November 30, 2009, 5:37 GMT

    I havent seen faulkner or sinclair. But i have heard of goddard and read of mike procter. I think it isn't fair to leave out Shaun pollock as he is an outstanding bowler who could bat pretty decently. So my votes would go to shaun pollock and procter. besides it would be quite interesting if all three pollocks made the team wouldnt it? As far as i am concerned the keepers slot should automatically go to Boucher. Just for the sake of his sheer durability behind the stumps.

  • POSTED BY sacricketlegend on | November 30, 2009, 5:25 GMT

    I feel horrible leaving Trevor Goddard out. But he was an opening bat, and I'd rather have Barlow in the side. Aubrey Faulkner and Mike Proctor for me. Would be interesting to see if Shaun Pollock makes the side. That would mean at least 5 world-class all-rounders! Incredible.

  • POSTED BY jimbond on | November 30, 2009, 4:57 GMT

    I havent seen some of the older allrounders mentioned. Yet, its hard to believe that someone like Clive Rice does not find even a mention. He surely would compare favourably with say Brian McMillan. And if its a one day team, Lance Klusner may come into the recknoning.

  • POSTED BY Alan James Sanders on | November 30, 2009, 4:54 GMT

    Aubrey Faulkener and Mike Proctor. Faulkener's batting record is pretty extraordinary considering the time in which he played (not even the great Vic Trumper topped his average of 40) and having a quality leggie to bowl with the specialist spinner (presumably Tayfield) would be handy especially on the fifth day. Proctor's probably pretty self-explanatory. I just hope Shaun Pollock is eligible to be chosen stricly as a bowler, because I think he's as good with just that one string to his bow as many of the specialists who'd come into consideration.

  • POSTED BY Shafaet on | November 30, 2009, 4:53 GMT

    Shaun Pollock walks in any SA team. Mike proctor may be another choice. And Kallis is certainly going to be selected as middle order batsman in this XI. This 3 players are effectively 6 in 3

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY Shafaet on | November 30, 2009, 4:53 GMT

    Shaun Pollock walks in any SA team. Mike proctor may be another choice. And Kallis is certainly going to be selected as middle order batsman in this XI. This 3 players are effectively 6 in 3

  • POSTED BY Alan James Sanders on | November 30, 2009, 4:54 GMT

    Aubrey Faulkener and Mike Proctor. Faulkener's batting record is pretty extraordinary considering the time in which he played (not even the great Vic Trumper topped his average of 40) and having a quality leggie to bowl with the specialist spinner (presumably Tayfield) would be handy especially on the fifth day. Proctor's probably pretty self-explanatory. I just hope Shaun Pollock is eligible to be chosen stricly as a bowler, because I think he's as good with just that one string to his bow as many of the specialists who'd come into consideration.

  • POSTED BY jimbond on | November 30, 2009, 4:57 GMT

    I havent seen some of the older allrounders mentioned. Yet, its hard to believe that someone like Clive Rice does not find even a mention. He surely would compare favourably with say Brian McMillan. And if its a one day team, Lance Klusner may come into the recknoning.

  • POSTED BY sacricketlegend on | November 30, 2009, 5:25 GMT

    I feel horrible leaving Trevor Goddard out. But he was an opening bat, and I'd rather have Barlow in the side. Aubrey Faulkner and Mike Proctor for me. Would be interesting to see if Shaun Pollock makes the side. That would mean at least 5 world-class all-rounders! Incredible.

  • POSTED BY TMS8137 on | November 30, 2009, 5:37 GMT

    I havent seen faulkner or sinclair. But i have heard of goddard and read of mike procter. I think it isn't fair to leave out Shaun pollock as he is an outstanding bowler who could bat pretty decently. So my votes would go to shaun pollock and procter. besides it would be quite interesting if all three pollocks made the team wouldnt it? As far as i am concerned the keepers slot should automatically go to Boucher. Just for the sake of his sheer durability behind the stumps.

  • POSTED BY Clan_McLachlan on | November 30, 2009, 5:39 GMT

    I'd prefer to pick Faulkner and Proctor here, and have S Pollock in as a bowler, batting at 8 or 9.

  • POSTED BY Maui3 on | November 30, 2009, 5:40 GMT

    Wow, this is a extraordinary group to select from. It good we didn't have Kallis in this group! Picked Faulkner and Goddard for their impressive record as allrounder over a much longer career than Proctor. Would have loved to include Shaun Pollock, but with Steyn, Donald and Kallis (as a fifth bolower) almost a certainty, there is no room for another right arm bowler (hence picked a left-handed Goddard, who is a better batsman than pollock). Faulkner would fill a nice leg-spinner spot and yet get a full batsman. Would have liked to pick three from this group.

  • POSTED BY hemant.brar on | November 30, 2009, 5:49 GMT

    i wish to see both proctor and pollock in the final eleven...

  • POSTED BY CricFan78 on | November 30, 2009, 6:11 GMT

    Faulkner and Proctor for me. Shaun narrowly misses out but he should get in as one of pace bowlers instead.

  • POSTED BY NakibAhmed on | November 30, 2009, 6:52 GMT

    No Kallis?Thats it!...I officially have no more interest in this anymore...this is just idiotic..