Other Cricket
-
-
-
-
@antipodean I mostly agree.
There are some (Sobers) who would be up there - but Kallis has to be in the GOAT conversation.
-
Kallis was one of the best batsmen in history.
Plus as a bowler probably about as good as Chris Martin. That adds up to a true generational cricketer. The only all rounders who compare are Sobers and perhaps Imran Khan. Maybe Kallis suffers a bit by being a bit "boring" compared to Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting etc ?
But at the risk of being boring myself and repeating what I've said already the greatest cricketer ever was Don Bradman.
I think for Kallis to be genuinely compared to him he'd need to take a ridiculous 400 odd wickets at under 25.
Then again, Bradman was never much of a bowler so I guess that argument can possibly be made
-
-
Greatest and best are not the same
-
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
the greatest cricketer ever was Don Bradman.
absolutely agree.
I should have clarified: for allrounders, Kallis is in the GOAT conversation.
Kallis played in an era when other cricketers took it seriously. He's also generally liked by his teammates. That counts IMO.
-
@nzzp said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
the greatest cricketer ever was Don Bradman.
absolutely agree.
I should have clarified: for allrounders, Kallis is in the GOAT conversation.
100%.
We love Paddles but his batting isn't as good as Kallis's bowling was so can't be compared.
Beefy was a monster early on but played about 50 tests too many, his figures went from freakish to merely really good. A personal favourite but I'm not sure quite where he sits.
Kapil Dev was very good but mainly got to where he got through sheer longevity, of course if you ask a billion Indians he was the GOAT.
Imran Khan was a legend, like Kallis possibly underrated ? In the 80s alone he averaged over 50 with the bat and 19 with the ball. Wow. I think he is in the conversation with Kallis and Sobers.
Flintoff, Stokes, Pollock, Ashwin, Jadeja, Cairns, Vettori of recent vintage are/were very good players. None serious challengers to Kallis though. Pollock or Ashwin maybe closest ? All much more "bowling" all rounders though. Shakib Al Hasan is more of a batting all rounder and bloody good, still not close to JK or GS though.
-
Whilst I respect Kallis greatly for his achievements - he feels like a bit of a stats monster to me.
In other words I don't think I'll recall looking back and marvelling at the times I got to see Kallis play live. He wasn't the most exciting of bowlers or batsmen. Rather stoic and felt like an accumulator of stats rather than a swashbuckling match winner.
Just a personal view.
-
If you go onto Statsguru and look at the very crude "difference between batting and bowling average" stat for bowlers with 100 wickets, then the top 4 are
Sobers
Kallis
Imran
Miller
and in my opinion, those are the 4 main contenders - the top 2 near the very best of all time as batsmen and very good bowlers, the next 2 near the very best of all time as bowlers and very good batsmen.Kallis is definitely the dullest of the 4. Sobers was a swashbuckling batsman, could bowl with the new ball and then bowl various flavours of spin. Imran was fearsome with the ball and a classical batsman. Miller was a legendary quick bowler who also liked to buckle his swash.
Lots of very good players underneath those 4 - the next 10 are
Jadeja, Pollock, Goddard, Greig, Shakib, Noble, Botham, Hadlee, Cairns, Davidson. -
@KiwiPie said in Other Cricket:
If you go onto Statsguru and look at the very crude "difference between batting and bowling average" stat for bowlers with 100 wickets, then the top 4 are
Sobers
Kallis
Imran
Miller
and in my opinion, those are the 4 main contenders - the top 2 near the very best of all time as batsmen and very good bowlers, the next 2 near the very best of all time as bowlers and very good batsmen.Kallis is definitely the dullest of the 4. Sobers was a swashbuckling batsman, could bowl with the new ball and then bowl various flavours of spin. Imran was fearsome with the ball and a classical batsman. Miller was a legendary quick bowler who also liked to buckle his swash.
Lots of very good players underneath those 4 - the next 10 are
Jadeja, Pollock, Goddard, Greig, Shakib, Noble, Botham, Hadlee, Cairns, Davidson.Yeah that Keith Miller who I completely forgot about sounded like a gun. He needs to be in the conversation.
As I've whinged on here many times though the term all rounder still gets thrown around far too often especially if a bowler plays a flukey gem of an innings or a batsman turns the arm over and gets some cheeky wickets.
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
-
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
-
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
Interesting point.
The two most dominant teams of my cricketing watching memories ( West Indies of the 80s and Australia of the 2000s ) never had real all rounders consistently. At best they had a few batsmen who could bowl a bit and a few bowlers who could hold a bat.
But in teams with, dare I say it, weaker players across the board all rounders are a godsend. It sure helped that our spin bowling captain was also one of our best batsmen about 15 years ago as one glaring example.
-
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
Spoken like a fan of a national side that almost always has six top batters, four great bowlers, and a good keeper available
-
Yes that's certainly a fair point.
We went through a real all-rounder craze after Andrew Flintoff destroyed us in the 2005 Ashes. And we never found anyone like that (cue three more pages of Shane Watson chat).
Cameron Green looms as the best all-rounder we have had since Miller, but back issues have already struck so maybe he goes the Watto route and bats while bowling only occasionally when his body is right.
-
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
Yes that's certainly a fair point.
We went through a real all-rounder craze after Andrew Flintoff destroyed us in the 2005 Ashes. And we never found anyone like that (cue three more pages of Shane Watson chat).
Cameron Green looms as the best all-rounder we have had since Miller, but back issues have already struck so maybe he goes the Watto route and bats while bowling only occasionally when his body is right.
Jeepers did he lift for that series or what ?
I won't mentioned Shane "DRS" Watson. He's been dealt with already
-
pffft cricket is best when you have 10 guys who average 30, and can roll the arm over (the last guy averages 9 and bowls)
-
@barbarian said in Other Cricket:
@MN5 said in Other Cricket:
Genuine all rounders are pretty rare still.
Partly because you don't really need them in a cricket team. Nice to have, sure, but it's not like Steve Waugh's Australian team was desperate for a #6 who could roll the arm over a bit.
It's like tight forwards who can kick. Great, sure, whatever, but especially these days its a bit redundant if everyone else does their job.
I think a genuine all rounder can be hugely valuable to a team, as it gives you an extra bowler or batsmen compared to the opposition. But, they have to command their place as either a bowler or batsmen (or keeper) first and foremost. Too often teams (particularly the Black Caps) have tried to shoe horn in all rounders that are not really good enough at either discipline to command a spot on its own, but are reasonably handy at both so get selected. That just weakens the team overall. The focus has to be on selecting your best 6 batsmen, your best keeper, and your best 4 bowlers, and then if any of them are good at the other discipline that's a huge bonus.
I take your point though, and I think bowling all rounders are the most valuable for that reason as your bowlers will be called upon to bat in most test matches; a guy coming in at 8 or 9 averaging 30 odd makes your batting lineup that much more formidable. A batting all rounder that can bowl a bit can be useful but at the same time your top 4 bowlers should be able to handle the bulk of the load, so the batting all rounder will often only really get used if the other team is piling it on and your 4 front line bowlers need a bit of a rest.
