Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[subshakerz]

picked up shane warne's century at an airport book shop today. warne says kallis is not to be rated on par with ponting despite a comparable average because he would need 48 balls more than ponting to score a century. I say, similarly he would need 42 balls more than sobers to score a hundred. taking into consideration approximately the same number of balls played by his batting partner this would mean kallis would reach his century 14 overs after sobers if they started their innings together; that is he would score a hundred about an hour slower than gary. no wonder most cricket fans dont want to accord them same amount of respect.

I dont think any reasonable cricket fan would say Kallis is as good a bat as Ponting, much less Sobers. But I think guys like Warne and others go to the other extreme and simply dismiss Kallis as a worldclass batsman/all-rounder because he bats slowly and appears selfish. Kallis has been the rock of the SA batting lineup pretty much since he made his debut. On top of that, he is more than decent as a fifth bowler in the side. The same goes for Pollock, does not nearly get his due.

My impression is that if Kallis had done better against the Aussies with McWarne, and Pollock as well, they would be hailed as right up there with the top four of the 80s.

 

[Ikki]

Those saying that Sobers and Kallis are in the same class as all-rounders are looking purely at stats. Sobers is a good contender for the no.2 batsman of all-time, Kallis would be hard pressed to make the best 25 or even 30. Sobers was a much better field and slightly better bowler as well.

Having said that, I do feel that Kallis deserves to be ranked higher than he usually is. I may even consider him a potential to be in the top five all-rounders, and a lock for the top ten. Kallis is seriously underrated.

I think it's hard to argue that they're not in the same class as all-rounders. Maybe not as good, but certainly in the discussion. And having said that again, if Sobers is so far ahead, it's hard to believe how underrated Kallis is.

picked up shane warne's century at an airport book shop today. warne says kallis is not to be rated on par with ponting despite a comparable average because he would need 48 balls more than ponting to score a century. I say, similarly he would need 42 balls more than sobers to score a hundred. taking into consideration approximately the same number of balls played by his batting partner this would mean kallis would reach his century 14 overs after sobers if they started their innings together; that is he would score a hundred about an hour slower than gary. no wonder most cricket fans dont want to accord them same amount of respect.

How do you know Sobers' batting SR? Kallis' speed wouldn't look out of place in the 60s or 70s.

 

[bagapath]

How do you know Sobers' batting SR? Kallis' speed wouldn't look out of place in the 60s or 70s.

cricinfo puts sobers' SR at 53, similar to sachin's.

warne does rank kallis in the top 20. considering he ranks waugh at 26, donald at 33 and waqar at 36, kallis' ranking of 17 is very respectable.

 

[bagapath]

Runs don't count double if you score them quickly

of course they dont. and it is not the only criterion, but faster scoring gives your team better options. no wonder lara, sachin, ponting and pietersen are rated higher than their contemporaries who average the same as them. 57 by sobers and 57 by kallis dont mean the same.

 

[Uppercut]

of course they dont. and it is not the only criterion, but faster scoring gives your team better options. no wonder lara, sachin, ponting and pietersen are rated higher than their contemporaries who average the same as them. 57 by sobers and 57 by kallis dont mean the same.

I think that's a fabrication. The approximately 40 balls more Kallis takes to score a century (not 48, as you misleadingly assured us previously) aren't going to be the difference between winning and drawing. Sobers scored his runs less than 20% quicker than Kallis. In the context of a test match, that makes next to no difference to who's going to win.

Where it does make a difference, as you've pinpointed, is in people's heads. The guy who runs down the track and looks to dominate bowlers and succeeds sticks in your head, invokes awe and makes you think, "what a cricketer". He doesn't especially help his side win matches any more than the guy who scores the same amount of runs slightly slower and with a minimum of fuss. Certainly not enough to justify putting cricketers on entirely different planes due to an 18% difference in scoring rate.

 

[bagapath]

I think that's a fabrication. The approximately 40 balls more Kallis takes to score a century (not 48, as you misleadingly assured us previously) aren't going to be the difference between winning and drawing. Sobers scored his runs less than 20% quicker than Kallis. In the context of a test match, that makes next to no difference to who's going to win.

Where it does make a difference, as you've pinpointed, is in people's heads. The guy who runs down the track and looks to dominate bowlers and succeeds sticks in your head, invokes awe and makes you think, "what a cricketer". He doesn't especially help his side win matches any more than the guy who scores the same amount of runs slightly slower and with a minimum of fuss. Certainly not enough to justify putting cricketers on entirely different planes due to an 18% difference in scoring rate.

dude. dont get too serious. i dont have to mislead anyone to make them think kallis is slow as snail. was quoting the numbers from warne's book and didnt do the math myself. i am still not doing it and assuming you to be correct. so relax. "misleadingly assured us" sounds like i have failed to keep up the promises i made before the elections. who are the "us" anyway, uppercut?

18% is a good difference to put people on different planes. it is more than enough to separate the great from the good. this is good enough to make a difference in people's heads - by people i mean the opposition bowlers here. the difference between an innings by richards and one by boycott was worth much more than the 3 point difference in their averages. kallis is yet to score a double hundred despite crossing 10000 runs. his disgraceful SR is the main reason why some of his sleep inducing masterpieces finished in the 150s

as i said before kallis would take an hour more (or may be 45 minutes if warne's math was off) to reach a hundred compared to sobers. imagine if his captain decided to let him go for his hundred before declaration! once kallis raises his bat, his team mates will have to be woken up from their deep slumber and then asked to field immediately. sounds as bad as water torture to me.

 

[Uppercut]

dude. dont get too serious. i dont have to mislead anyone to make them think kallis is slow as snail. was quoting the numbers from warne's book and didnt do the math myself. i am still not doing it and assuming you to be correct. so relax. "misleadingly assured us" sounds like i have failed to keep up the promises i made before the elections. who are the "us" anyway, uppercut?

18% is a good difference to put people on different planes. it is more than enough to separate the great from the good. this is good enough to make a difference in people's heads - by people i mean the opposition bowlers here. the difference between an innings by richards and one by boycott was worth much more than the 3 point difference in their averages. kallis is yet to score a double hundred despite crossing 10000 runs. his disgraceful SR is the main reason why some of his sleep inducing masterpieces finished in the 150s

as i said before kallis would take an hour more (or may be 45 minutes if warne's math was off) to reach a hundred compared to sobers. imagine if his captain decided to let him go for his hundred before declaration! once kallis rasies his bat, his team mates will have to be woken up from their deep slumber and then asked to field immediately. sounds as bad as water torture to me.

This is debateable to say the least. Ask any bowler from the past ten years which international batsman they hate bowling to the most, and I bet the most common answer is Rahul Dravid. Some bowlers hate batsmen going after them, some feel like they're in a game and that they're always in with a chance of picking up a wicket.

I agree that scoring runs quickly is generally better than scoring them slowly. But not by much. No one's falling asleep because Kallis is scoring his runs at 2.64 an over instead of Sobers's thrilling 3.18 an over.

 

[bagapath]

This is debateable to say the least. Ask any bowler from the past ten years which international batsman they hate bowling to the most, and I bet the most common answer is Rahul Dravid. Some bowlers hate batsmen going after them, some feel like they're in a game and that they're always in with a chance of picking up a wicket.

of course they will hate bowling to kallis. it is painful to watch him bat. bowling to him must be a true nightmare. at least when sobers hit you for runs his style mesmerizes you and makes you forget the insult. with kallis scoring runs of you at his own pace, there is always a temptation to screw cricket, take up a banking job and convert to golf.

I agree that scoring runs quickly is generally better than scoring them slowly. But not by much. No one's falling asleep because Kallis is scoring his runs at 2.64 an over instead of Sobers's thrilling 3.18 an over.

well, on an average visit to the crease sobers has the decency to get out after 18 overs scoring 57 runs. kallis on the other hand would have to bat for 22 overs to reach that same mark. i prefer a little nap in that extra time kallis takes.

 

[Uppercut]

Well if you're making the bowler consider giving up cricket you know you're doing something right.

 

[JBH001]

Just briefly, the assessment of Sobers' and Kallis' scoring rates would also have to be assessed relative to their own times. Sobers' SR of 53 (if that is what it is) sounds like it would have had a greater impact in his era, not just on the spectators, but also on the opposing team etc whilst Kallis's SR of sub 50 (I am assuming) would need to be taken into account in the current context of cricket. And that is without figuring in uncovered wickets and the like either.

I do agree though, as I have said before, that Kallis is under-rated in the all-rounder stakes.

 

[Ikki]

cricinfo puts sobers' SR at 53, similar to sachin's

Where? The SR column is blank.

 

[marc71178]

Runs don't count double if you score them quickly

And fortunately for Kallis they don't count double when you score them against better sides.

Does his average still drop from 58 to 50 when you remove minnows?

 

[bagapath]

Where? The SR column is blank.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com


obviously, in some games where they dont have ball by ball info they have used the no. of minutes and bowling rate to arrive at a figure. still, this is the closest we we will ever get to know about overall strike rate of past players. I trust this table because it is from cricinfo.

 

[JBH001]

Those are really interesting stats, bagapath. Thanks.

Kapil, Richards, and Botham really stand out from their era. Richard for the rate of scoring and for his average, and Kapil especially for his phenomenal SR of 81. I had no idea it was that good - thats higher than Sehwag, and just less than Gilly! Damn, and I thought Botham was an aggressive bat.

I had a look at some of the other all-rounders, and Kapil's SR (rounding up a little) is 81, Botham's is 60.75, while Hadlee's is 56.75, Miller's is 50.5. and Imran's is 47.5. I can see why his batting was not rated all that highly.

 

[bagapath]

Well if you're making the bowler consider giving up cricket you know you're doing something right.

when spectators share the same feeling, you know you have to do something about that man in the middle

 

[honestbharani]

Runs don't count double if you score them quickly

they do if you are trying to win games...

 

[honestbharani]

I think it's hard to argue that they're not in the same class as all-rounders. Maybe not as good, but certainly in the discussion. And having said that again, if Sobers is so far ahead, it's hard to believe how underrated Kallis is.



How do you know Sobers' batting SR? Kallis' speed wouldn't look out of place in the 60s or 70s.

Relatvity my friend.. How can you be sure he won't have gone even slower at that time if he could go thsi slow in today's 60+ SR times???

 

[honestbharani]

This is debateable to say the least. Ask any bowler from the past ten years which international batsman they hate bowling to the most, and I bet the most common answer is Rahul Dravid. Some bowlers hate batsmen going after them, some feel like they're in a game and that they're always in with a chance of picking up a wicket.

I agree that scoring runs quickly is generally better than scoring them slowly. But not by much. No one's falling asleep because Kallis is scoring his runs at 2.64 an over instead of Sobers's thrilling 3.18 an over.

Might wanna check the overall SRs of that time and now...

 

[honestbharani]

Well if you're making the bowler consider giving up cricket you know you're doing something right.

still waiting for an answer about his missing double...



When your own captain declares on you when you are 189, you know you are NOT doing something right.

 

[honestbharani]

Any need?

probably not.. Didn't like the tone of that post. Looking back now, was an over reaction on my part. Apologies.