Kallis vs. Botham as an allrounder

[short shorts]

And the explanation is?....

 

[Engle]

ITB is more likely to change the course of a match than JK, so aggression is relevant.

Aussie Tragic has it close to my thinking. A great AR is one who could be picked in either discipline. IMO Sobers, Imran, Botham, Miller, Faulkner, Greig
Hadlee w/n be picked for his batting.

 

[Prince EWS]

ITB is more likely to change the course of a match than JK, so aggression is relevant.

And Kallis is more likely to save one for you, or bat for extended periods in tough conditions. I voted for Botham as well, but to do so because he's more aggressive is just crap, really.

 

[silentstriker]

Aggressive batsman are totally overrated in Tests. Sir Viv was probably the best ODI batsman of all time, but he is a little overrated in Tests.

 

[aussie tragic]

Aggressive batsman are totally overrated in Tests. Sir Viv was probably the best ODI batsman of all time, but he is a little overrated in Tests.

Blasphemy....post reported

Nice avatar btw, glad to see I finally convinced you that Lillee > McGrath

 

[silentstriker]

Blasphemy....post reported

Nice avatar btw, glad to see I finally convinced you that Lillee > McGrath

Overrated not in the sense that he wasn't any good. But overrated in the sense that he was the 2nd or 3rd best Test batsman in history, which I dispute. There are others who are just as good or better, but get unfair crap because they scored slowler.

The point of the game is to win before five days are up, it is rare that a batsman scores so slow that five days are not enough. Any reasonable career strike rate (30+) over a career is good enough for me. Being fast and mighty helps in a situation, but being the other way helps sometimes too...in the end over a long career it evens out and I don't really use that as one of the criteria in judging a player, unless someone is scoring at an S/R of 10 to the obvious detriment of his team.

 

[Swervy]

Aggressive batsman are totally overrated in Tests. Sir Viv was probably the best ODI batsman of all time, but he is a little overrated in Tests.

that is classic

 

[Swervy]

Overrated not in the sense that he wasn't any good. But overrated in the sense that he was the 2nd or 3rd best Test batsman in history, which I dispute. There are others who are just as good or better, but get unfair crap because they scored slowler.

The point of the game is to win before five days are up, it is rare that a batsman scores so slow that five days are not enough. Any reasonable career strike rate (30+) is good enough for me.

Name one batsman better than Viv Richards in the last 30 years!

 

[silentstriker]

In Tests, I would probably take Lara and Sachin over Richards. I think Chappell was better too. Viv Richards is top ten all time, but people put him in the top three too often for mine.

 

[Engle]

And Kallis is more likely to save one for you, or bat for extended periods in tough conditions. I voted for Botham as well, but to do so because he's more aggressive is just crap, really.

I said aggression was relevant. I did not say it was THE reason for deciding.
Historically, far more ppl will remember ITB's wins over JK's draws.

Aussie dominance now and WIndies of 80's were in large part due to aggresive tactics.

 

[Swervy]

And Kallis is more likely to save one for you, or bat for extended periods in tough conditions. I voted for Botham as well, but to do so because he's more aggressive is just crap, really.

Botham could bat for extended periods in tough conditions though. Seriously, Botham batted in a way that that was best for the team, something I think Kallis isnt overly known for. Botham was an aggressive batsman, but technically very very good, even in defense.

Kallis for me is a batsman who bowls, Botham was a genuine allrounder. I actually still think Flintoff as an all rounder is better than Kallis.

 

[silentstriker]

I said aggression was relevant. I did not say it was THE reason for deciding.
Historically, far more ppl will remember ITB's wins over JK's draws.

Aussie dominance now and WIndies of 80's were in large part due to aggresive tactics.

I love how you switched up the argument there. Of course people will remember ITB's wins over JK's draws. That's because people will remember most wins over most draws, period.

How many people will remember ITB's draws?

 

[Swervy]

In Tests, I would probably take Lara and Sachin over Richards. I think Chappell was better too. Viv Richards is top ten all time, but people put him in the top three too often for mine.

so I take it you didnt see Richards bat then?

 

[silentstriker]

so I take it you didnt see Richards bat then?

I've seen plenty of RIchards, actually. But Tests of that era are hard to find unfortunately and when I do, its usually the highlights and not the whole thing. So my viewing of him has been 90% in ODIs.

 

[short shorts]

I said aggression was relevant. I did not say it was THE reason for deciding.
Historically, far more ppl will remember ITB's wins over JK's draws.

Aussie dominance now and WIndies of 80's were in large part due to aggresive tactics.

Kallis has 17 Man of the match awards in 107 tests. Botham had 12 in 102.

 

[Prince EWS]

I said aggression was relevant. I did not say it was THE reason for deciding.
Historically, far more ppl will remember ITB's wins over JK's draws.

Aussie dominance now and WIndies of 80's were in large part due to aggresive tactics.

Again though, having flair, or being exciting, or being remember - all means squat in terms of how good you are. The fact that Botham was an aggressive batsman is not a factor is making him a better allrounder than Kallis.

 

[Swervy]

Kallis has 17 Man of the match awards in 107 tests. Botham had 12 in 102.

please don't use the arguement

 

[Swervy]

I've seen plenty of RIchards, actually. But Tests of that era are hard to find unfortunately and when I do, its usually the highlights and not the whole thing. So my viewing of him has been 90% in ODIs.

trust someone who did see him play alot, no-one compares, not Lara, not Tendulkar, to Richards in full flow.

Even when he had lost his edge a bit, he was awesome.

 

[silentstriker]

trust someone who did see him play alot, no-one compares, not Lara, not Tendulkar, to Richards in full flow.

Even when he had lost his edge a bit, he was awesome.

But in full flow is a bit of a loaded term, no? I am not disputing if Richards was the best to look at, or the most destructive 'when in full flow', but that does not make him better.

Really, the amount of the runs you score, where you score them, and who you score them against make you a batsman. How fast you score them, or how you look while doing it, is really not a concern for me.

 

[short shorts]

please don't use the arguement

Excuse me? If anything it is perfectly valid in disproving the ridiculous "ITB = win!, Kallis = Draw : ( and therefore ITB > Kallis" argument.