Greatest Limited Overs All-rounder of all time, tournament/voting thread

[harsh.ag]

Easily.

The most important stat for a 4th or 5th change bowler is their Economy Rate. I don't see a difference of 0.17 as a big deal.

The difference being that Kallis could play as a third bowler if need be, while Symonds couldn't.

 

[viriya]

So a similar economy rate trumps the fact that Kallis took 15% more wickets per innings and a struck almost an over earlier (-5 SR)? Not to mention that he took more than double the wickets Symonds did.

 

[Red]

Genuine question do you guys rate Klusener a better ODI bat than Kallis (I note that Watson has just voted for Klusener over Kallis)?

The reason I ask is that Klusener and Symonds have similar statistics (I rate Symonds higher though). And I know from a SA perspective (at least mine) the importance that we placed on Kallis in the top order was far greater than anything Klusener accomplished. I personally think Klusener is highly overrated based almost purely on his WC exploits.

It's incredibly difficult to compare players who bat in the top 3 to those who bat 5/6/7. But as said above, Kallis batted significantly slower than the elite #3s of his generation, while Symonds and Klusener are about as good as they come in terms of lower order power hitters. So yeh, I'd rate Klusener above Kallis as an ODI batsman.

 

[Red]

The difference being that Kallis could play as a third bowler if need be, while Symonds couldn't.

I don't really see why that matters. Both were top 6 batsmen which means that as ARs they don't have to play as third seamers. This is about all rounders, not who is the best third bowler in ODIs

So a similar economy rate trumps the fact that Kallis took 15% more wickets per innings and a struck almost an over earlier (-5 SR)? Not to mention that he took more than double the wickets Symonds did.

Working backwards, of course he took double the wickets. He played heaps more games. And I won't even argue that he is a lesser bowler than Symonds, because I'd rate him slightly higher as a bowler than Symonds. But only very marginally, perhaps he is about 15% better. Once again though, this is about the all round package, and Symonds batting was elite in ODIs, and Kallis' wasn't.

 

[harsh.ag]

I don't really see why that matters. Both were top 6 batsmen which means that as ARs they don't have to play as third seamers. This is about all rounders, not who is the best third bowler in ODIs.

Absolute level of skill matters when comparing all-rounders. For example, if they were both drafted to play for Kenya, Kallis would be quite a bit more valuable as a bowler than Symonds.

 

[StephenZA]

It's incredibly difficult to compare players who bat in the top 3 to those who bat 5/6/7. But as said above, Kallis batted significantly slower than the elite #3s of his generation, while Symonds and Klusener are about as good as they come in terms of lower order power hitters. So yeh, I'd rate Klusener above Kallis as an ODI batsman.

See this is interesting to me as I only ever had confidence in the SA team when Kallis (or Gary Kirsten) used to be out in the middle. If Kallis got out early I hoped our long batting line-up would get us a to a defendable target. If Kallis played the majority of the innings then I knew our lower order big hitters tended to do overcome Kallis`s lower SR. I think it was almost a case of SA having few solid batsmen that could get through an innings consistently but lots of lower order batsmen that could hit the ball for six.
As for their bowling ability Kallis was as good a bowler as Klusener. So for me the importance of Kallis >> Klusener, and also in my mind Kallis was a better all rounder than Klusener.

Just interesting to hear different takes.

PS: Just to be clear I`m talking about 90 mid 00`s, not current SA team. That is a different monster.

 

[Red]

Absolute level of skill matters when comparing all-rounders. For example, if they were both drafted to play for Kenya, Kallis would be quite a bit more valuable as a bowler than Symonds.

Sadly neither will be drafted to Kenya so we will never know.

What we can compare is their actual ODI careers as all rounders, which is what this thread is about.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sadly neither will be drafted to Kenya so we will never know.

What we can compare is their actual ODI careers as all rounders, which is what this thread is about.

This thread is also about their actual ODI skills, or would you say I am wrong about that?

 

[watson]

Genuine question do you guys rate Klusener a better ODI bat than Kallis (I note that Watson has just voted for Klusener over Kallis)?

The reason I ask is that Klusener and Symonds have similar statistics (I rate Symonds higher though). And I know from a SA perspective (at least mine) the importance that we placed on Kallis in the top order was far greater than anything Klusener accomplished. I personally think Klusener is highly overrated based almost purely on his WC exploits.

This is an allrounder thread, not just about batting. So you have to put both batting and bowling achievements on the scale and see who comes out heavier.

I agree that Kluenser is probably overrated because his 1999 World Cup sticks in the memory. But he still leaves a big ODI legacy just the same.

 

[Red]

This thread is also about their actual ODI skills, or would you say I am wrong about that?

What do you even mean by that? Of course, I guess. We are comparing their careers as showcased by their skills. You're just heading into bullshit semantic territory.

 

[StephenZA]

This is an allrounder thread, not just about batting. So you have to put both batting and bowling achievements on the scale and see who comes out heavier.

I agree that Kluenser is probably overrated because his 1999 World Cup sticks in the memory. But he still leaves a big ODI legacy just the same.

Kallis was a better bowler than Klusener by a long way. However Kallis was quite often not bowled his 10 overs (particularly late in his career) because he was so important to SA in Tests and ODI`s and put in cotton wool. Kallis was a genuine first change swing bowler.

 

[harsh.ag]

What do you even mean by that? Of course, I guess. We are comparing their careers as showcased by their skills. You're just heading into bullshit semantic territory.

As showcased by their careers, Kallis is, on an absolute level, a better ODI bowler who could play as the first change seamer if need be, while Symonds couldn't. But you're hell bent on ignoring that because it devalues your argument.

 

[mr_mister]

Closing in an hour:

Dev leads 13-0
Watson leads 11-2
Flintoff leads 10-3
Klusener leads 8-5

 

[mr_mister]

notice they're all pace bowlers and six hitters

 

[Red]

As showcased by their careers, Kallis is, on an absolute level, a better ODI bowler who could play as the first change seamer if need be, while Symonds couldn't. But you're hell bent on ignoring that because it devalues your argument.

I'm not hell bent on ignoring it at all. I stated clearly in a post above that I consider Kallis a better bowler than Symonds. However, their actual bowling output in ODIs was similar enough to consider them fairly evenly matched as bowlers, and we are comparing them as all rounders. I haven't ignored anything except your ridiculous hypothetical that Kallis would be a more valuable bowler for Kenya. Because it has nothing to do with this conversation and is patently absurd.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

This is an allrounder thread, not just about batting. So you have to put both batting and bowling achievements on the scale and see who comes out heavier.

I agree that Kluenser is probably overrated because his 1999 World Cup sticks in the memory. But he still leaves a big ODI legacy just the same.

Well Harris is a better bowler and much much better fielder than Watson (and a better runner between the wickets!), not to mention bloke so Watto is winning that duel just on batting and ability to grow hair.

 

[viriya]

This thread has generally underrated spin-bowling all-rounders, not surprising tho.

 

[Red]

This thread has generally underrated spin-bowling all-rounders, not surprising tho.

Which ones would you think are worthy of more consideration?

 

[watson]

Closing in an hour:

Dev leads 13-0
Watson leads 11-2
Flintoff leads 10-3
Klusener leads 8-5

Kinda glad that Richards picked up 3 votes because it's not entirely clear that Flintoff's lead in bowling compensates for Richards' lead in batting. Richards really was that good.

But realistically I'm not sure that we can classify Richards as a 'batting allrounder' in all seriousness. He did have some good successes with the ball, but I think that they were exaggerated by the combined pressure of Garner, Holding, Roberts, and Marshall bowling at the other end. As part of a more conventional attack Richards lack of skill with the ball would be more exposed.

 

[mr_mister]

Which ones would you think are worthy of more consideration?

I'm guessing Shakib, Sanath @ Shahid Afridi