Will, your justifications are sound - Imran appears to best fit the mould of the "genuine" allrounder of the four playing in his era. The genuine allrounder with match winning skills batting or bowling in equal measure has to be that rarest of beasts, most highly prized player. But are they only once in a generation?

But what about other eras? Who best fits the tag?

How does this sound:
current - Flintoff (has he peaked?)
up and coming: Dwayne Bravo and maybe Irfan Pathan
1990s - Chris Cairns
1970s - Imran, Mike Procter looked promising
1950s - Keith Miller
1930s - Aubrey Faulkner (yes spinners can be game breakers too)

any thoughts?

There can be no doubts whatsoever that Sobers was the greatest all rounder, and indeed the greatest cricketer, there ever was. His exploits with bat and ball plus his brilliant fielding are unmatched as a combo. His only weakness was perhaps his cavalier approach to captaincy.

No doubts also that Imran Khan is the second greatest all rounder and to top that he was a magnificent leader of an " egoistical " band of Pakistanis who creamed the rest in 1992. No other would have managed to gel that team. Unfortunately we did not get to see enough of Keith Miller(on tape) nor Mike Procter who would most certainly have challenged for the no. 2 spot . But Sobers would still have remained the champion of champions.

I would rate Kapil Dev higher than Imran in the all rounder category. Though Imran was the better bowler, Kapil was the better bat. Overall, I think Kapil had the edge, albeit slightly. That being said, I think Mike Proctor and perhaps, Eddie Barlow, were better than either Kapil or Imran. We'll never know for sure, however, because neither player had the opportunity to play at the highest level in their prime.

Imran was an all rounder- but its not easy to compare him even with his peers- let alone players of a different era. First his weaknesses- he rarely did everything together, to begin with, he was more of a bowler, refining his batting as his bowling and pace began to fail him. His captaincy was good though autocratic and its easy to link the origins of schisms in Pakitani Cricket to him. Comparing him to his peers, Kapil Dev was possibly the most talented batsman though never fully justifying his potential, able to play any stroke and a joy to watch- and equally good to see him bowl. Hadlee was arguably the most incisive bowler among the four, plying his trade in an understrength New Zealand side-though his batting would be the weakest of the four. Botham in my view would be the most complete all rounder of the four. Of the current lot, Flintoff clearly is head and shoulders over Imran (one of the very few who can really be chosen either as a batsman or as a bowler). Kallis too would be up there, and though his batting rates with the best (foolish to talk of gears for such a fine batsman), he could struggle to make a place in the south african side purely as a bowler. My gut feeling is that Imran could not have played even one test as a specialist batsman in a Pakistan team of that era.

imran is the best all rounder with sobers. he was great leader, a free batsman and a accurate and quick bowler of his time, thats why richie benaud picked him in his 11.

I don't think any one can math Sobers. None of those other all rounders can bowl both variety of pace bowling & spinners . Except Botham no one can field in close in position. None of those other all rounders can play a slow game to save a match like Sobers. They are all hard heaters .

Reg-Kapildev allrounder par excellence
Among the top 4 allrounders in late 70s to early 90s,Imran,Botham,Hadlee & Kapil were truly worldclass;The beauty was each one came from a different cricketing place,outlook, attitude and challenges to conquer.Imran rode like a colossus perennially battling the system in Pakistan-no doubt his achievements had an air of aristocracy and a war General;Hadlee appeared in early 70s & blosssomed into a world class allrounder through his stint with English county;his were late exploits-mainly as a magnificient fast bowler; The irrepressible Botham was a complete contrast to the typical English game-methodical,clinical and correct to the book ! He was assisted by seam friendly pitches;no doubt he was the supreme showman-grandeur,big bully and great theatretics! Kapildev by contrast was the typical streetfighter of rural India!His game was joyfully amateurish;his hitting was pure & clean!His seam bowling was effective;his outswingers were legendary;he had to battle it out on the placid tracks of India;He was inspirational not a great captain though!He typified the long craving Indian urge to hit right back at opponent-fire with fire theory really!He was remarkably fit after ages of toil on all kinds of tracks.I would rate Kapil as equal to Imran if not better(Imran was technically correct),above Botham and Hadlee......

I disagree about Botham. Where Botham lacked in technique and skill he made up in pure presence. He regularly skittled sides through intimidation. His batting not pretty, but definately burtal, he was extremely effective. I agree about Kallis and Pollock, but Gilchrist? Possibly the most devastating and entertaining batsman since Viv Richards with the keeping numbers to match anyone in international cricket, he's definately a major candidate. Khan was amazingly talented, a definate candidate, but not head-and-shoulders clear. Benaud should be considered too: his leadership sparked a new age of cricket, his bowling was testing with 248 test wickets and very often carried his side to victory with the bat in hand with 2200 runs to his name. However, I think that its Garry Sobers that deserves the best allrounder. Test debut at 17, a maiden century- that became a world record 365, 8000 runs at 58 and the ability to keep his spot in the team on bowling alone with the variety to adapt to any situation with left arm mediums, orthodox and chinamen. He also and took over 100 catches, most at short leg. His on-field presence could suck the life out of any opposition, and in my opinion, none compare.

Imran Khan flowered into a great fast bowler of all time. He wasn't a natural. His batting too came into its own at the Test level towards the latter part of his career.
Imran was a great cerebral player and a hard worker who achieved greatness. He had no flair and was nothing more than a club-level fielder.
He won the World Cup for Pakistan in 1992 under more bizarre circumstances than the 'most successful captain' of India, Sourav Ganguly reached the 2003 World Cup final in 2003 and deservingly lost it.
Imran's place in the pecking order will be after that of Botham and Kapil Dev for all that they had that Imran didn't have and vice versa.

yes will, i would agree with your assessment about imran, no doubt he was an all time great, but i think your being a bit harsh on mr botham on his day he was fantastic, the only beef i have about i t botham is that when he started out and put his stamp on the game most of the best players in world cricket were busy with mr packers circus, however he deserves more than being called a flat track bully.

sobers is peerless, only kallis comes close in terms of stats. noone else could perform so well in both aspects of the game

flintoff has a batting average like pollock and a bowling average like kallis - the other way around would make him truly great

In all this discussion of all-time great allrounders, there are some valid observations some of which have been discussed earlier. Conditions for playing cricket and statistical results are very different post 1990, viz. batting protection, quality of opposition (Zimbabwe and Bangladesh), money available to the players and the game in general, and the number of matches played per year.
Some players are just great like Sobers, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee and would be considered so in any age, the others, especially the current players have to be considered in the context of the game when they were playing. I have a points system which measures "influence" by a player on a match, season and career basis and takes in pretty much every aspect of the game, and the results are surprising as the "modern" players (Warne, Murali, Gilchrist, Lara, Ponting, et al.) come out as better than say the players from earlier decades, with some notable exceptions, like the above mentioned and some others like Marshall, Garner, Wasim Akram etc. My conclusions are that unless one can quantify the effect of the differences between the varying decades, the discussion of who is the better all rounder or even player is limited to comparing contemporaries.

Absolutely Imran Khan was a great player and an inspiration to his team - but your using stats to base your argument on and no offence but they don't stand up to Bothams I'm mean Botham took more wickets, scored more runs an scored more than double the centuries (and for a flat track bully he certainly took a lot of wickets on those flat tracks). Maybe the only way to judge the "greatest ever" is an individual thing of who you liked to watch most.

Personally they were all great players who brought something special to the game. My favourite being good ol Mike Proctor

I think it a great misfourtune to exclude the name of Carl lewellyn Hooper from your list. proper Examination of Carls Statistics reveals that he at least deserved to be included in the list even it is at no. 20. 100 test 5000+ runs, 100 wickets+ 13 hundreds + 100 cataches. In one dayers 200+ matches 5000 runs, 150+ wickets,100 plus catches 7 hundreds.lets be fair. Flintoff should be included when he has finished playing. not now at least. lets be objective not bias

With all the names pronounced loud and hard, I am sad to see two of the greatest allrounders of 90s - Sanath Jayasuriya and Chris Cairns. Imran and beefy were the best of the performers when a cricket team consisted of 4 bowlers, 5 batsmen, 1 wk and maybe 1 allrounder. These guys have dominated the game when teams have 2,3 or maybe 4 allrounders to share the wickets and contribute the runs. Chris Cairns has been a part of the most uncertain team of the game and Jayasuriya has seen his team transform from minnows to a world champions with his contribution not matched by anyone.

There is no doubt that Imran Khan was the best allrounder of his generation. He set the bar so high that I don't think any one has matched his phenomenal skill level yet. Not just was he only an outstanding allrounder but a brilliant captain. His side challenged the mighty West Indies, English and the Australians. His record speaks for its self. Hats off to Imran for his achievements.

Without a doubt Imran Khan was a great all rounder and an inspiration to his team. But you base his greatness around statistics and I'm sorry he doesn't stand up to botham - Botham took more wickets, scored more runs and more than double his centuries (as for the flat track bully well he took a hella of lot wickets on those flat tracks).

Perhaps then only real way to gage who the best all rounder ever is - is an individual preference on who you would rather watch - my Personal favourite is Mike Proctor.

The choice of Imran appears reasonable.

He was the genuine quick who held his pace intact close to 12 years and was a terror on any wicket for any batsman.

As a batsman too, he has shone when it really mattered.

The one question, he was never both at any point of time. The first phase of his career, he was a tearaway strike bowler whose batting skills were not apparent. And when he really came into his own as a batsman, his bowling days were well and truly over - over a critical phase he held his place as a batsman alone, peerless leadership skills notwithstanding.

There is no doubt Imran Khan was a great player and an inspiration to his team, but the greatest ever ?? You use statistics to back up your arguement yet Botham took more wickets, scored, more runs and more than double the centuries. (as for Botham being a flat track bully ?? he certainly took a lot of wickets on those flat tracks???)

I think the only real way to judge the "greatest ever" is the one who you wanted to watch the most - my personal favourite was Mr Mike Proctor

In 1970s Ian Botham was much better match-winning Allrounder then Imran, Procter, Headdlee and Kapil. In 1990s Wasim Akram was best, He was better then anyone els. Bravo could be next. 1950s - Keith Miller good choice.

wasim akram undoubtedly is the best all rounder the game has ever produced. he had the better potential to be the better batsman than the one he looks on paper.

Will - what has building a hospital and being a politician got to do with cricket? Ian Botham has raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for charity, become pilot of plane and helicopter and crashed 2 Saabs in one race - Irrelevant!

To say he's a flat track bully is ridiculous - his heroics in 1981 (winning an ashes series virtually single handed) were performed against Lillie, Lawson and a 41 wicket Alderman. He has 8 more centuries, 21 more wickets and over 1200 more runs than Imran.

To dismiss world class cricketers such as Kallis, Pollock, Gilchrist and Flintoff in such a way is utter nonsense - for goodness sake take this seriously and show some cricketing knowledge!

Excuse me, but who dares leaving out players like Kapil Dev and Richard Hadlee

These two should be in contention for allrounder in the 1980's....!
Hadlee being such an allroundplayer that he hit (double) centuries and took a worldrecord of 5's in testmatches, and not to be forgoteen worldrecord no. of wickets, esp. at the time that NZ didn't play that many testmatches!
I am Dutch, but lived in NZ, and thoroughly enjoyed the NZ team that Hadlee played in, he gave so much to this game, not only in NZ, but also for Nottinghamshire county cricket.
I agree on Imran though!

Imran Khan edges out Sir Gary Sobers on captaincy....and the change he brought to a country of 140 million....he made the game the nation's favorite sport...and while his statistics speak for themselves,the mark he left on Pakistan cricket and cricket in general is huge.He deserves the greatest all-rounder tag!

My cricket watching has been mainly from an earlier era, so many recent all-rounders such as Richard Hadlee are known only through Internet.
Of the players being discussed, I have personally seen Gary Sobers, Freddie Flintoff, Clive Rice and Ian Botham. As a youth I did also see the remarkable 'Barnacle Bill' Trevor Bailey graft away to make 70-plus at Trent Bridge!
From the stats and from observation, I have to give Sobers the nod. Many people think of him today as a great batsman, which he was.
But on bowling alone he would have been selected on almost all Test teams of his era. Not only did he smite the famous 6 sixes, but he also ( I read) took five wickets of success balls, albeit not in a first class game.

Sobers had the classic all-round athlete gifts, physically like Tiger Woods. His style was not to smash and club the ball, but to stroke with amazingly smooth power and timing.

I consider it a privilege to have seen him play both in his prime and at the end of his career. So maybe he was no Steve Fleming as a Captain ( another Cricinfo contest?) but he didn't need to be where West Indies were concerned. It did however prevent him from leading the somewhat less talented Notts side out of the wilderness.
It took the skills of Clive Rice to start that process!

Who says Imran did not perform with both bat and ball at one time or he can get a place worth as a batsman in Pakistan team. Go and look the 1983 World Cup where Imran played as a specialist batsman and also captained Pakistan. He also toped the Batting averages for pakistan in the same tournament. He is undoubtedly the greatest ever allrounder this game has seen and will see.

Everyone keeps goin on about stats. If you look at most of there stats they a very similar for first class as test match. Therefore on that basis Mike Procter has to come out on top or very near it.

He scored 48 hundreds including 6 in 6 innings (only Bradman and Fry have done that)over 1400 wkts and 325 catches.

If I was paying to go and watch a cricketer in his prime it would be Procter every time.

Might not be the right place for this, but I think Daniel Vettori might be able at the end of this decade to lay claim to being the best all rounder of the 2000's.
His batting isn't smooth and flowing, its more niggling and annoying but is effective enough to have two test centuries and a respectable average around 25. I think he may also have the best chance out of all current all-rounders to be able to achieve the 5000 run 500 wicket club. Hes only 28 (with possibly his best years ahead) and has almost half the runs and just over half the wickets. Barring injury there is a real chance for him to become the first to join the 5000/500 club. Add to that he is likely to become NZ's next test/odi captain and will have had tens year or more under Stephen Fleming tutelage i think he could lay a serious challenege to all rounder of the 2000's.

I read Imran's profile on cricinfo which points out an interesting fact. 51 tests in his last 10 yrs in international cricket. He averaged 50 plus with the bat and 19 with the ball!!!

That should be enough to merit him greatness. If you add the leadership, will-power and indomitable attitude then there is none that comes close.

A colossus who left a great legacy on Pakistan cricket, Imran is truly the best all rounder there was in cricket.

None of the other contenders had all these qualities.

Cricket is a statistical game, and if we take test cricket to start with here is how it reads:

Bat Avg Bow Avg
1. Imran Khan 37.69 22.81
2. Garry Sobers 57.78 34.04
3. Ian Botham 33.55 28.40
4. R. Hadlee 27.17 22.30
5. Kapil Dev 31.05 29.65

Here is the reading for ODI's

Bat Avg Bow Avg
1. Imran Khan 33.41 26.62
2. R. Hadlee 21.62 21.56
3 Kapil Dev 23.79 27.45
4. Ian Botham 23.22 28.54
5. Pollock/Kallis/Flintoff

Greatest all rounder MUST be measured on performances both in TEST and ODI.

There is a difference between a genuine bowler who can bat a bit and vice versa, and a genuine all rounder. Only Imran, Botham and possibly Kapil strike out in both forms of the game as genuine all rounders. Sobers was a great test batsman who could bowl very well, it ends there.

Sometimes patriotism can get in the way of impartial thinking. Even if we see some of the other statistics, like averages home and away, win/loose percentages, captaincy records etc. we all will have to agree that the greatest all rounder of all time is - Imran Khan