Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[bagapath]

I disagree, as I've mentioned here before: giving Sobers the ball in a dream team is a complete waste of overs and runs. In an all-time Aussie XI (could be the world XI TBH ) I would have Miller, Warne, Lillee and McGrath. Miller bowls absolute high quality stuff and only his quota lets him down somewhat in this company, but having Warne negates that. These 4 can easily handle the load and there is no need to give Sobers a bowl. And if we are talking a few overs only, then that is a part-timer not an all-rounder.

Purely as bowlers Imran and Hadlee were miles ahead of Miller. There are so many better options for a fourth bowler. Even from Australia, Lindwall and Spofforth were superior pace bowlers. Among spinners Oreilly and Grimmett would be more useful. Without either batting or bowling Miller and Botham would not be the same cricketers. Their charm was that they were not the best in either department but with them the combination of both faculties was absolutely devastating. As devastating as the combination of Sobers' great batting and useful bowling or Hadlee's fantastic pace bowling and competent batting skills.

There are a few shoo-ins from australia in a world xi, I agree. one batted at no. 3. the other one batted at 7 at a SR of 80+ and also kept wickets superbly. There is a strong possibility of a text-messaging leg spinner getting in at 9 or 10. But every other slot is very very difficult to get in. The bowling attack you have given is far far away from what a dream xi's attack could be.

ITrue, but isn't that part of the problem? Kallis does so much, as much as Sobers even, and yet because of aesthetic reasons he'll not be mentioned in the same breath.

At this level, that is how it should be. We can argue till our last breaths about the numbers and never split these cricketers. Flair and aggression would be the separating factors, ultimately.

 

[Ikki]

Purely as bowlers Imran and Hadlee were miles ahead of Miller. There are so many better options for a fourth bowler. Even from Australia, Lindwall and Spofforth were superior pace bowlers. Among spinners Oreilly and Grimmett would be more useful. Without either batting or bowling Miller and Botham would not be the same cricketers. Their charm was that they were not the best in either department but the combination of both faculties was absolutely devastating. As devastating as the combination of Sobers' great batting and useful bowling or Hadlee's fantastic pace bowling and competent batting skills.

That's the thing, they weren't miles better. Miller was one of the cheapest bowlers around and his SR for his day is phenomenal. If you compare his SR to his era and Imran's to his, Miller's is actually superior IIRC. Miller just bowled less per match and suffered with his back during the latter part of his career. He was one of the best bowlers in the world much like Imran was at his time. Spofforth you can't compare with because he was playing cricket in a completely different era but Lindwall (who probably was the best bowler of his time) bowled with Miller.

           [B]AVG    SR[/B]
[B]Lindwall[/B]: 23.03  59.8
[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Miller:[/COLOR][/B]    22.97  61.5

At this level, that is how it should be. We can argue till our last breaths about the numbers and never split these cricketers. Flair and aggression would be the separating factors, ultimately.

It can be something to differentiate them, a little, but a lot? Come on. I agree with Slippy's point; how is Sobers so universally heralded and Kallis so supremely unappreciated? If it's simply flair and aggression, then that's sad to say the least and questionable also.

 

[Migara]

They also never got to slaughter Sri Lanka. The Pakistan line-up was pretty good towards mid-to-late 90s but not as good as one of the greatest batting line-ups of all time.

They had there opportunities with India and New Zealand. 2 out of poor sides for the said team is no where a bigger deal than 1 out of 6 faced by Pakistan.

 

[JBH001]

But Miller's comparatively lesser workload tells against him a little, I think. At least in the comparison.

 

[bagapath]

Of course, Miller was a terrific bowler. But Hadlee, Imran and countless other bowlers achieved the same average (I agree Miller's low SR was good for his era) but bowled many more overs per innings and got more wickets per test. I know, he could not bowl enough because of his bad back. But there are many others who did and maintained the same standard despite more workload and that should count. And, 3 wickets a test is not good enough at all for a main bowler. He will always be bowler no.5 in my all-time xi and, hence, his batting is needed to get him in as the all-rounder. If I have 4 bowlers who could manage 20 wickets between them then I wont need Miller and have an extra batsman instead using Sobers to bowl the odd over whenever needed.

This thread is not about the argument we are having, though. That is why I voted for Miller and Botham as the greatest all rounders in my book. But please let us not rate him along with imran or hadlee purely as a bowler.

It can be something to differentiate them, a little, but a lot? Come on. I agree with Slippy's point; how is Sobers so universally heralded and Kallis so supremely unappreciated? If it's simply flair and aggression, then that's sad to say the least and questionable also.

Why is it questionable? Sobers and Kallis score the same amount of runs. One is interesting to watch and the other one is boring. Why cant this make a difference? Sutcliffe is the highest averaging opener of all time. He averages 9 runs more than gavaskar, 4 more than hobbs and hutton and a whopping 21 runs more than trumper. Still he would barely make the top 5 if players of his ilk were to be ranked. And that is only because he was a dead bat merchant.

Kallis actually averages less than sobers and he is boring. He should not even be mentioned alongside the great man as a batter alone. Sorry to sound dismissive here. Please dont insult sir gary with these comparisons anymore. he deserves a better treatment at his advanced age. kallis can be compared with sutcliffe, boycott, barrington and dravid. great players all but one plane below the greatest of the greats. that is where he belongs.

Anyways, I expected Sobers to get more than 95% of the votes in this poll. Very surprised to see that has not been the case.

 

[Migara]

And one of the reasons Sobers did so much bowling was because during his time West Indies didnt have that many great bowlers. Sure they had Gibbs and Hall but even with those 2 sobers would still have plenty of opportunities to bowl.

Case is not that straight forward. Sobers was a true all rounder in the sense that he is la batting legend and a fielding legend at shortleg. His bowling was also not of one type. Fast medium, slow left arm and chinaman what ever you called he bowled it. He bowled pace as a seamer on spin friendly tracks so another spinner could be added, and as a spinner on green tracks so another pacemen can be added. his average of 34 is probably the best among bowlers who average 34, because he bowled every thing in unfavorable conditions. It's like comparing paceman's average in subcontinent.

 

[Ikki]

But Miller's comparatively lesser workload tells against him a little, I think. At least in the comparison.

Yeah, it certainly does. He has all-time bowling averages but bowled much less than all-time bowlers. That's why I think he doesn't hinder a team with 4 bowlers if you have a spinner like Warne or Murali because they effectively cover him.

 

[bagapath]

Yeah, it certainly does. He has all-time bowling averages but bowled much less than all-time bowlers. That's why I think he doesn't hinder a team with 4 bowlers if you have a spinner like Warne or Murali because they effectively cover him.

no one should have the need to be covered in a dream xi

 

[Uppercut]

Why is it questionable? Sobers and Kallis score the same amount of runs. One is interesting to watch and the other one is boring. Why cant this make a difference? Sutcliffe is the highest averaging opener of all time. He averages 9 runs more than gavaskar, 4 more than hobbs and hutton and a whopping 21 runs more than trumper. Still he would barely make the top 5 if players of his ilk were to be ranked. And that is only because he was a dead bat merchant.

Kallis actually averages less than sobers and he is boring. He should not even be mentioned alongside the great man as a batter alone. Sorry to sound dismissive here. Please dont insult sir gary with these comparisons anymore. he deserves a better treatment at his advanced age. kallis can be compared with sutcliffe, boycott, barrington and dravid. great players all but one plane below the greatest of the greats. that is where he belongs.

Anyways, I expected Sobers to get more than 95% of the votes in this poll. Very surprised to see that has not been the case.

Completely disagree with you incidentally, and if the only reason you can find for Sobers being in a different league to Kallis is aesthetics then it's purely a matter of opinion. I find him excellent to watch. So technically perfect.

He's every inch a great cricketer in my book. There might be something unfashionable about simply churning out masses and masses of runs, wickets and catches for your entire career with a minimum of fuss. But I don't care.

The guy's superhuman. It's beyond me how anyone can play cricket at the very highest level for fifteen years- 131 tests and 291 ODIs- as his side's most important batsman, a front-line bowler and a fantastic slip-fielder. If he didn't exist there would be people claiming it wasn't possible.

 

[bagapath]

If he didn't exist there would be people claiming it wasn't possible.

Unfortunately for Kallis someone else existed before him who did all of it and more (131 tests and the first double century is still awaited) and also in great style. So he is not that superhuman to me.

 

[Uppercut]

Unfortunately for Kallis someone else existed before him who did all of it and more (131 tests and the first double century is still awaited) and also in great style. So he is not that superhuman to me.

Sobers didn't do half of what Kallis did. That's not to say he's not better, as I've said before I think Sobers is marginally but clearly ahead. But from a physical point of view he played a lot less tests, didn't have to cope with bollockloads of ODI cricket, and played in an era not quite so intense in terms of fitness. And even then his bowling fell away later in his career quite badly in comparison to Kallis.

No one in cricket has ever gone through what Kallis has. I seriously think if it weren't for his existence people would be questioning whether an all-rounder who plays every game in all formats for his side (as a crucial batsman and front-line bowler) could exist sustainably today.

 

[bagapath]

Sobers didn't do half of what Kallis did. That's not to say he's not better, as I've said before I think Sobers is marginally but clearly ahead. But from a physical point of view he played a lot less tests, didn't have to cope with bollockloads of ODI cricket, and played in an era not quite so intense in terms of fitness. And even then his bowling fell away later in his career quite badly in comparison to Kallis.

No one in cricket has ever gone through what Kallis has. I seriously think if it weren't for his existence people would be questioning whether an all-rounder who plays every game in all formats for his side (as a crucial batsman and front-line bowler) could exist sustainably today.

sobers didnt do half of what kallis did???? what are you talking about? if you want to bring in his ODI achievements then Sobers' first class records (six sixers!) should be brought into the mix as well I guess. i think we should stick to test cricket.

IMO, one of the main reasons kallis has still not scored a double hundred is that he takes so much time to score his runs. Otherwise a technically solid player like him who can concentrate for hours should have managed at least one by now.

kallis is an all-time great, i agree. great enough to be ranked with, say, herbert sutcliffe (who averaged 70 after 40 tests). and his achievements are nothing short of phenomenal when you consider his ODI record. I agree with that as well. we disagree only when you say you like his style and I say he has none.

 

[morgieb]

Sobers & Miller. Imran hard done by though.

 

[honestbharani]

I never quite know what to make of these "averages when the team wins" type stats. It's logical that players will tend to do better when their team wins, for a number of obvious reasons. Very often it means cashing in against a demoralised opponent. Whereas performing well in defeats may well mean standing alone on the burning deck against a rampaging opponent that's too good for your peers. Allan Border in the 1980s springs to mind. Personally I wouldn't mark him down for performing whilst others failed, I would mark him up for it.

Lara for the Windies too, for that matter. Having watched the games, I do think it is right.


For instance, Hussey's hundred at the Oval was a real great knock... As long as he was there (with a decent partner, of course), the Aussies always threatened to win the game... Why should it mean lesser just because he ran out of partners and the game was lost????

 

[honestbharani]

i dont really know how else to assess the contribution of a player in successful matches - afterall the sport is played to win so this should matter a lot. i know botham contributed towards a lot of victories the england teams he played achieved. he made significant contributions both as a batsman and a bowler in these games. around the same time imran was far far superior to him as a bowler and, towards the end of the career, was a more reliable bat too. but i dont think he set up victories for his team enough as a batsman to be considered above botham. his best batting efforts were, mostly, in boring draws. miller, like botham, seems to have had a significant hand in his teams' wins as an all-rounder most of the time. if i expect my all rounder to come good either way i think i have to turn to these guys more than a batting all-rounder like sobers or a predominantly bowling allrounder like imran.

sport is played to win... But then every team does play to win, even when they end up losing!!!!



Unless there is any real clear cut way to say that the team won BECAUSE of them and to also show that they DID NOT perform well BECAUSE their team was winning, it is clearly just not much of a thing to go by.

 

[kingkallis]

sobers didnt do half of what kallis did???? what are you talking about? if you want to bring in his ODI achievements then Sobers' first class records (six sixers!) should be brought into the mix as well I guess. i think we should stick to test cricket.

IMO, one of the main reasons kallis has still not scored a double hundred is that he takes so much time to score his runs. Otherwise a technically solid player like him who can concentrate for hours should have managed at least one by now.

kallis is an all-time great, i agree. great enough to be ranked with, say, herbert sutcliffe (who averaged 70 after 40 tests). and his achievements are nothing short of phenomenal when you consider his ODI record. I agree with that as well. we disagree only when you say you like his style and I say he has none.

Disagree!

I would put him right there with Sobers, Miller and Imran! Infact aheas of Miller and Imran...

You yourself said that GREATS like Sutcliffe, Boycs and RD were one plane below the greats then how can you consider them being greats? Strange!

 

[Uppercut]

IMO, one of the main reasons kallis has still not scored a double hundred is that he takes so much time to score his runs. Otherwise a technically solid player like him who can concentrate for hours should have managed at least one by now.

Don't think double hundreds particularly matter, but I propose that Shaun Pollock declaring when he was on 189* is the main reason he's never reached one.

 

[Ikki]

no one should have the need to be covered in a dream xi

If need be, Miller can bowl long spells and has proved himself doing so. But I was speaking in general, over a long career.

It's quite ironic to hear a player not needing a bit if cover especially when you hear Sobers being proposed as a 5th bowler. Further so, that because of his bowling you can pick another specialist batsman. 7 batsmen and 4 bowlers.

 

[honestbharani]

Good point. His stats are similar to Sobers but Kallis doesnt get 0.00000001% of the adulation Sobers get.

Maybe when we are very old and sitting in our rocking chairs we can go on about Kallis to our grand kids and they will grew up thinking he was the best thing on the planet.

nah... I don't think I will ever say that about Kallis... For starters, he has had a very torrid time against McWarne...

 

[honestbharani]

That's the thing, they weren't miles better. Miller was one of the cheapest bowlers around and his SR for his day is phenomenal. If you compare his SR to his era and Imran's to his, Miller's is actually superior IIRC. Miller just bowled less per match and suffered with his back during the latter part of his career. He was one of the best bowlers in the world much like Imran was at his time. Spofforth you can't compare with because he was playing cricket in a completely different era but Lindwall (who probably was the best bowler of his time) bowled with Miller.

           [B]AVG    SR[/B]
[B]Lindwall[/B]: 23.03  59.8
[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Miller:[/COLOR][/B]    22.97  61.5

It can be something to differentiate them, a little, but a lot? Come on. I agree with Slippy's point; how is Sobers so universally heralded and Kallis so supremely unappreciated? If it's simply flair and aggression, then that's sad to say the least and questionable also.

Record against the Ws, Ambit and Walsh and McWarne perhaps? You need to perform against the best.. And Sobers only failed against NZ who were not really that much of a force at that point..


And if you add in the super tests, his stats are even better. And those matches were just as good, if not better, than any tests at that point.