Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[zaremba]

Theres plenty of ranting and raving in mental hospitals.

If Sobers was such a great bowler why did he only have an average of 34, and more important a strike rate of 92?

Yeah, yeah. I know what you're saying to say "stats dont tell everything". And that is true ... to a degree.

No one doubts Sobers was a handy bowler. But he never took 10 wickets in a match at test level. People are pointing out that Flintoff only took 3 wickets in a innings 5 times to discredit him as a great all rounder. Sobers only took 5 wickets in an innings 6 times during 93 tests. But wait, does that discredit his all rounder greatness? Nope.

Double standards and mythological revisionism while wearing rose coloured glasses. Thats what "celebrating" is.

Richard Hadlee took 5 wickets in an innings 36 times and 10 wickets in a match 9 times. He took 196 more wickets in 7 less tests. . Why cant Hadlee's absolute greatness with the ball boost his batting the way people use Sobers' batting to raise his bowling greatness?

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.

I wasn't looking to get involved in the debate. Clearly, Australia's Keith Miller is the greatest all-rounder of all time so there was no need for me to. All I was doing was responding to your frank admission that "I've never heard anyone rave on about [Sobers'] bowling" and providing you with some high-quality material that you might want to read if you're interested in broadening your horizons. Did you bother to read it?

 

[bagapath]

ikki... all you have to do is go back and take another look at my earlier posts. they will explain all you need to know about my stance. since you seem to have nothing more to add this is the perfect time for both of us to stop.

i am actually looking forward to some debate in which we agree and take on someone else together. should be good fun. even this was. but we have been through a lot of this stuff before in sachin vs ponting, oreilly vs warne, sobers in the all time xi as a batsman vs why kallis got rejected, imran vs miller for last bowling spot etc. etc. probably been through a warne vs murali debate as well. i dont know how tired others are or whether they even bother to read our posts.

 

[Ikki]

I think we have reached the end too. Please don't take my comments, when I say laughable or ridiculous, (anything like that) as a slight on you personally - I never mean it in that way. Maybe we are coming from such different viewpoints that we can't fathom the other side's stance. Regardless, I think it's beyond question you're a man of class and one of the few people I enjoy discussing things with.

 

[bagapath]

I think we have reached the end too. Please don't take my comments, when I say laughable or ridiculous, (anything like that) as a slight on you personally - I never mean it in that way. Maybe we are coming from such different viewpoints that we can't fathom the other side's stance. Regardless, I think it's beyond question you're a man of class and one of the few people I enjoy discussing things with.

thanks mate. will try to live up to your compliments in future debates. i hope kallis scores a double soon and shuts me up.

 

[honestbharani]

It couldn't be much faster; think about it. Because even if he were much faster in the 2nd half of his innings (100-199) it would reflect in his overall SRs in scores from 100-199. His career SR is 42 (let's say that is his normal rate), his SR when scoring 100-199 is 48, that's only 6 runs per 100 balls.

Speed is simply not a real issue here. And anyway, as I've said, if speed was necessary it'd be scored in the first 100. Often players get to 100 or 150 or 200 and then start letting loose for they've already made a hefty contribution.

I am not really disagreeing with you.. I believe 150 to be like a cut off point for a big score in test cricket... But I just find it strange that he has had so many opportunities and not had a 200.


TBF, even if a certain player IS incapable of getting a 200, I would not hold it completely against him as I feel 150s are significant enough scores in test cricket. Still, between a guy who have the same averages, if the guy can score bigger, I would always consider that an added bonus... He would be more likely to score big at any time, right?

 

[honestbharani]

Probably because they'd have to play themselves in, unless they're Sehwag or Gilchrist. But that's also countered as the scores of 100-199+ wouldn't have that problem and their SRs would be a fair bit more, for simply not having to have done that*. So that's why I kept the SRs of 42 and 48 as that's more or less it anyway.

*I should clarify, I mean they'd of course have done that early in their innings, but once scoring a big amount, they'll not need to play themselves in to score at an even higher rate as they're already well and truly "in".

depends on other factors like starting off again on a new day and stuff too, though, right?

 

[honestbharani]

I've had a few rants about this before, but I like how you've given it a name.



Is it really though? The impressive statistic for me here is taht Bradman averaged 99.94. Now if he did that with no double centuries, that average would imply that he was scoring a century nearly every time he came to the crease. That would be incredible; for me, that'd be every bit as incredible as doing it with 12 test double-centuries. If you were to tell me that Bradman scored 6996 runs @ 99.94 with no double centures, I'd be just as impressed as I am when you tell me that he did it with twelve double centuries. Hence the number 200 in itself is rather irrelevant.

Yes, if you can ignore the fact that 200s set you up for potentially winning totals more than 100s do, it is the same...

 

[honestbharani]

Comparing Kallis and Dravid's strike rates after reaching 100 is to miss the point though, bagapath. If you're trying to say that a player can't score a double-century with a strike rate of 44 you're coming up against a hell of a lot more than just ikki's one example. Jason Gillespie has a strike rate of 31.

You are missing the point completely. Career SRs are one thing. But batsmen generally accelerate a decent amount after reaching a 100... His point is that Kallis doesn't do it as much as a guy like Dravid, who actually has a lesser SR to him..

 

[honestbharani]

The reason S.Africa declared was because they were looking to bowl out Zimbabwe, since they had lost a day with no cricket.

Kallis was given a time of the day when they ll declare.. He could have accelerated to get 200 but he did not.. He decided to play for the NO so that his average would be bumped...

 

[honestbharani]

Off the top of my head, Sutcliffe and Kallis. There may be others, I don't know. It doesn't prove anything though. Clearly the fact that you're a great player increases your chances of making big scores. It doesn't follow, however, that because your highest score happens to be 189no that you're a lesser player than one with a highest score of 200.



1) I don't consider 50 to be a touchstone for greatness. Plenty of recent players average over 50 who wouldn't be considered "great". If you're looking for a numerical touchstone for greatness, which I think is a foolish aim in the first place, you'd look to set the bar nearer to the mid-50s for a modern player.

(2) A batting average is however a measure of a player's performance and ability over the course of his career. It's a far more reliable guide in those respects than whether your top score happens to be 189no or 200.




No, that's a false comparison.

Bradman has 12 double hundreds (or better). You are however talking about a bright dividing line between players with no double hundreds, and those with one. As you put it, "all great batsman have made at least one, except Sutcliffe". Your argument therefore appears to be that Kallis needs to tick the "double hundred" box on his CV by scoring one. And for the reasons I've given, I don't think any weight should be given to scoring a one-off double hundred.

If, however, you were to say that Bradman is a greater player than Kallis because, among other things, he scored 12 double hundreds to Kallis' none, then I'd agree with you.

Actually agree with Zaremba on this one... There is no difference between 189* highest score and a 201* highest score, TBF.. But the thing is, the lack of double centuries for Kallis is a bit of a direct result of the fact that he scores slower than most other greats, esp. comparing them relative to their eras... The lack of double centuries is a by product of his slow scoring and was brought up to illustrate that fact. To that end, I think it has served its purpose in this thread.


If you are talking in general, then I completely agree that 50+, 200+, ticking of boxes etc. is not the way I would rate someone as a great... There is a lot more to it than just that.

 

[bagapath]

"This hasn't always been the case with Kallis, which is why he is yet to join Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar and Ricky Ponting in the elite group of modern batting greats. Instead he has been relegated to another, less illustrious group of batsmen, who have superb international records but haven't quite done enough to earn godlike status. The best of the rest, you could call them. "

"Much has been made of Kallis' failure to score a Test double-century, yet he could have easily reached that mark as long ago as September 2001 against Zimbabwe in Bulawayo. When South Africa declared their first innings closed on 519 for 8, Kallis had reached 189 not out in a 443-ball knock that lasted over nine-and-a-half hours. Had he batted at a strike-rate of 45.10, instead of 42.66, he'd have reached 200 and got that monkey off his back early in his career. And he should have, considering Heath Streak was the only world-class bowler he faced during that innings and rain over the first two days meant the Test was always going to end in a draw."

Jacques of all trades | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

I am so glad to see someone echoing my views here.

 

[zaremba]

"This hasn't always been the case with Kallis, which is why he is yet to join Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar and Ricky Ponting in the elite group of modern batting greats. Instead he has been relegated to another, less illustrious group of batsmen, who have superb international records but haven't quite done enough to earn godlike status. The best of the rest, you could call them. "

And immediately after these words, the author admits that this very assessment may be unfair on Kallis...

Anyhow yes there's no doubt that Kallis has often struggled to find a different gear and to accelerate the scoring rate.

 

[bagapath]

And immediately after these words, the author admits that this very assessment may be unfair on Kallis...

Sure he does. But he he doesn't make a case for him to be ranked higher, though. In the absence of such an argument the "unfair" comment is not to be taken as his support for kallis' elevation to the higher ranks. The article is about how kallis' slow batting has not helped him, exactly my point.

He also says the zim match in which kallis missed a double (and put the spectators to coma) was heading towards a draw after two days were rained out. Ikki! Are you reading this?

 

[Ikki]

He also says the zim match in which kallis missed a double (and put the spectators to coma) was heading towards a draw after two days were rained out. Ikki! Are you reading this?

IIRC only one day was rained out and it was the 2nd day. Zimbabwe scored 400+ too.

Here's the scorecard: 2nd Test: Zimbabwe v South Africa at Bulawayo, Sep 14-18, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

 

[Uppercut]

Only Kallis could score a monster innings of 189*- the only century of the match- and come away with all kinds of criticism thrown at him. What bollocks.

 

[bagapath]

Only Kallis could score a monster innings of 189*- the only century of the match- and come away with all kinds of criticism thrown at him. What bollocks.

Yeah. What can one do? We live in a cruel world. Dark forces of this universe created the atom bomb, gas chambers, suicide bombers and Kallis hatred. Otherwise, why would anyone hate a great knock like this and call it boring, selfish etc? It is a masterpiece and should be ranked higher than Laxman's 281 and Gooch's 154.

I wish Jacques' great contribution to the craft of batting is recognized in his life time. He is, for this innings alone, worthy of all the awards in the world.

 

[Uppercut]

Oscar Wilde enters the room to great applause.

 

[bagapath]

Oscar Wilde enters the room to great applause.

Hey, thanks dude. If Kallis can be compared with Sachin and Lara, I don't see anything wrong in someone equating me with Wilde.

 

[subshakerz]

To quote Kanye West, "Yo Kallis, I'm really happy for you, Ima let you finish, but Sobers is the greatest all-rounder of all-time."

 

[Athlai]

To quote Kanye West, "Yo Kallis, I'm really happy for you, Ima let you finish, but Sobers is the greatest all-rounder of all-time."

[/thread]