I has been drinking...

[The Sean]

Best of all time though, I'm not so quick to let people into the club. Anyways, it's how he will be perceived, rightly or wrongly and I don't think he'll be seen that way by the populous.

AWTA

Certainly in Australia I don't think he'll be rated among the greats by the masses until he dominates and imposes himself on a series against us in a way he has never done to date. Whether this under-rating by the general public is correct or not is another matter, but as you say it's so often about perception.

FWIW, my personal (and frequently revised and updated) ranking of the greatest cricketers of all time now has JH Kallis appearing in the top 50 for the first time.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Basing your argument on statistics doesn't work buddy

Properly analyzed stats,thats all what matters IMO.Stats are not ideal but best possible way of rating and judging quality of players,especially in case of those whom you've never seen playing.

 

[Richard]

I also think the fact that batsmen score faster these days obviously helps batsman score more runs, which is why the good players are averaging 55 + rather then 45 - 50 +

I'm pretty sure that the higher averages are mostly down to the quality of the pitches though, not the rate of the scoring.

Heck, the rate and weight of scoring has pretty well indisputably increased due to the decrease in both bowlers of calibre and bowler-friendly pitches of the last 6 years. Batsmen can't score so ridiculously heavily and be so stupidly dominant (unless they're cut from the very best cloth) without such factors.

 

[Richard]

I'm talking about something like 6 months of averaging 100+. I'm sure Ponting and Hayden have done it. Batsmen like that who are so dominant for a period of time tend to get more attention than ones who might be more consistent but do not have such runs of form. No doubt someone's now going to dig up a period where Kallis has done that.

Well he averaged 87 for the best part of 18 months, which is certainly pretty damn close.

 

[Perm]

All top quality bowlers should be doing that. Just shows that Kallis always takes playing for his country seriously regardless of the opposition, and thats something for which he should be commended, tbh.

Yes, but those statistics make a big change to Kallis's overall bowling average, which is the point I was trying to make.

 

[NUFAN]

Heck, the rate and weight of scoring has pretty well indisputably increased due to the decrease in both bowlers of calibre and bowler-friendly pitches of the last 6 years. Batsmen can't score so ridiculously heavily and be so stupidly dominant (unless they're cut from the very best cloth) without such factors.

Cricket like everything in life is faster these days. Batsmen were happier to plod around in the 70s because that's how life was compared with today. Look at bowling Strike Rates they aren't any different.

It's a batsmens game and they get there averages higher as a result of looking for runs faster..

 

[Richard]

They don't, though - they get more runs, and they get them faster, because the bowlers are not good enough to stop them at the current time.

It's nothing to do with what's happening elsewhere in life - there's no way the high-street can impact on how a game of cricket is played.

The bowler has the ball in his hand; if he doesn't let the batsman score quickly, he can't score quickly. And if he's good enough to get the batsman out, there's nothing the batsman can do about it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Oh, no, quite, but I wasn't talking about the rabble, I was talking about those who actually know how to properly analyse cricket.

Do you know someone who does?

 

[Richard]

Yes, me.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yes, me.

ok.

 

[Richard]

Glad you agree.

 

[Son Of Coco]

 

[The_Bunny]

They don't, though - they get more runs, and they get them faster, because the bowlers are not good enough to stop them at the current time.

It's nothing to do with what's happening elsewhere in life - there's no way the high-street can impact on how a game of cricket is played.

The bowler has the ball in his hand; if he doesn't let the batsman score quickly, he can't score quickly. And if he's good enough to get the batsman out, there's nothing the batsman can do about it.

Actually its a batsmen who controls the game, a bowler can only do so much, as in no matter where a bowler buts the ball, if the batsmen is good enough he can still hit it for 6 (the best a batsmen can acive off a single ball).

The batsmen has to make a mistake before a bowler can get him out, the best a bowler can do is to make it very hard for a batsmen to read the situation, therefore hopefully inducing a mistake

 

[chaminda_00]

You yourself said Miller was well capable of averaging 50 if he put his mind to it. He didn't, therefore somebody who did and scored heavily, like Sobers, is a better batsman and all-rounder.

So Sobers is a better batsmen cus he scored more runs when his team didn't need to score heavy and dominated already beaten attacks batting down low at 6. Don't get me wrong Sobers was a great batsmen and his consistency was awsome. But I rather a match winner anyday of the week, who when the chips were down would step up and win you matches.

Miller averaged 45 when Australia were chasing totals to win matches. The guy averaged 53 against the best bowling attack of his era (West Indies).

Sobers dominated the fairly weak bowling attacks of his era 80 odd against India and Pakistan. Yeah he still averaged 60 odd against England and 40 odd against Australia. But like most batsmen of this era he made the most of some weakess bowling attack of his era. And lets not get into his bowling, as compared to Miller he was extremely poor.

Overall Sobers is a better batsmen, but not that much better then Miller. As a bowler Miller was significant clas above and overall a better all rounder.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Overall Sobers is a better batsmen, but not that much better then Miller. As a bowler Miller was significant clas above and overall a better all rounder.

Miller was not a better allrounder than Imran Khan & Ian Botham.And Sobers was hardly an allrounder.

 

[Matt79]

Miller was not a better allrounder than Imran Khan & Ian Botham.And Sobers was hardly an allrounder.

Just won a five dollar bet with myself made when I saw that you had posted in a thread regarding allrounders but before opening it to see.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Just won a five dollar bet with myself made when I saw that you had posted in a thread regarding allrounders but before opening it to see.

Congratulations on winning the bet .I love allrounders more than specialists,provided they are good ones.

 

[Matt79]

Miller was not a better allrounder than Imran Khan & Ian Botham.And Sobers was hardly an allrounder.

Although, Miller was AS good as Imran and better than Beefy over the course of his career IMO.

Miller, 3.1 wickets per match at 22.97, 53 runs per match at 36.97 (inc. 7 centuries, 7 NOs)
Khan, 4.1 wickets per match at 22.81, 43 runs per match at 37.69 (inc. 6 centuries, 25 NOs)

Pretty even for mine - Khan the better bowler, but by no more than Miller was a better batsman.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Although, Miller was AS good as Imran and better than Beefy over the course of his career IMO.

Miller, 3.1 wickets per match at 22.97, 53 runs per match at 36.97 (inc. 7 centuries, 7 NOs)
Khan, 4.1 wickets per match at 22.81, 43 runs per match at 37.69 (inc. 6 centuries, 25 NOs)

Pretty even for mine - Khan the better bowler, but by no more than Miller was a better batsman.

I'd put Imran just above Miller because I rate bowling better than batting(based on personal liking) & due to pressure of captaincy on Imran's shouders.And I also think the difference between 3.1 & 4.1 is bit more than what was in their batting.So,Top 5 have to be:

1.Imran Khan
2.Keith Miller
3.Ian Botham
4.Shaun Pollock
5.Kapil Dev

Chris Cairns would be a close 6th.

 

[Sanz]

I rate Imran Khan as the worst allrounder, because I rate fielding better than batting and bowling.