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

[mr_mister]

fun fact, Kapil Dev has yet to drop a vote in his 3 matches. He's the odds on favourite to win this thing.


With that said, and going soley by the recent trends in voting(with Klusener's being easily the least convincing victory), i've gone with a 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 set-up for the semi finals



Semi Finals:


Kapil Dev vs Lance Klusener
Andrew Flintoff vs Shane Watson

 

[Red]

Kapil Dev


Shane Watson

 

[honestbharani]

Kapil
Watson

 

[honestbharani]

I have not been involved in a stats argument in a while here and I dont want to start now... Its the weekend dammnit and I wanna enjoy it than argue about two cricketers whom I never really even cared much about...


But I will say this to Watson and RedHill.... Symonds ER is a product of him coming onto bowl on the back of McWarne and other good bowlers. I have seen him play and I felt in EVERY MATCH that if we can see off the good bowlers at the top end, he was the guy we will always cash in off. I have seen many good batsmen take him apart if they survive till he comes on to bowl and I wont be surprised if his ER was a result of him bowling on the back of some devastating spells by the first 4 bowlers. And if a guy bowling less over per game means his bowling skill is not good enough (argument used against Kallis), should we not use the same argument for batsmen who never bat above #4 or #5???


I have seen these two guys in action almost throughout their careers and I feel Kallis is EASILY the better AR irrespective of the format of the game. He is a better bowler, better batsman and a better catcher in the slips FWIW... Symonds is a better outfielder but that does not make him better. Now if I am picking an AT XI though, stacked with 4 great bowlers and 5 great batsmen in the top order, I know I will pick Symonds over Kallis without batting an eyelid but that is a totally different argument than who is the better AR.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's all well and good, but Symonds' fielding provided something that Kallis didn't. He really was that good. Only Jonty and Ponting come close to the value Symonds provides in the field. He was a fantastic cover fielder, brilliant in the outfield and had a rocket arm too. I'd say that more than compensates for any inferiority in his bowling and makes him a better package overall imo. Slip fielding isn't of massive importance in ODIs, but saving runs in the covers and affecting runouts is extremely important.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Klusener
Flintoff

 

[Red]

I have seen these two guys in action almost throughout their careers and I feel Kallis is EASILY the better AR irrespective of the format of the game.

That's great, but once again, this thread is about ODI ARs

He is a better bowler, better batsman and a better catcher in the slips FWIW... Symonds is a better outfielder but that does not make him better.

Urgh. I say they are roughly on par as bowlers IN ODIs (and I'll concede Kallis might be slightly superior). Symonds is a significantly better ODI batsman than Kallis, and Symonds is one of the three/four greatest inner circle fielders in ODI history, and inner circle fielders are possibly more important than slippers in ODIs.

Now if I am picking an AT XI though, stacked with 4 great bowlers and 5 great batsmen in the top order, I know I will pick Symonds over Kallis without batting an eyelid but that is a totally different argument than who is the better AR.

No, it's not a different argument, because you basically just said (without saying) that Symonds is a better all rounder than Kallis in a balanced ODI team and that he brings more to the team than Kallis would.

 

[harsh.ag]

No, it's not a different argument, because you basically just said (without saying) that Symonds is a better all rounder than Kallis in a balanced ODI team and that he brings more to the team than Kallis would.

But in an unbalanced ODI team, Kallis may well be the better pick, and might bring more to the table.

 

[harsh.ag]

Perhaps one could say that Symonds' presence will make a strong side very strong, while Kallis can make a weak side very competitive, more so than Symonds.

 

[Red]

But in an unbalanced ODI team, Kallis may well be the better pick, and might bring more to the table.

Only if the team was unbalanced by having not enough seamers. But if that's the case we should also note that in spinning conditions Symonds is able to bowl decent offies. So I'd say it levels out.

 

[Red]

Perhaps one could say that Symonds' presence will make a strong side very strong, while Kallis can make a weak side very competitive, more so than Symonds.

We could, but this isn't a hypothetical thread about what they might bring to imaginary strong/weak teams. It's a thread about their actual careers for their nations.

 

[harsh.ag]

Kapil
Watto

 

[harsh.ag]

Only if the team was unbalanced by having not enough seamers. But if that's the case we should also note that in spinning conditions Symonds is able to bowl decent offies. So I'd say it levels out.

Batting too. Weak sides usually put a premium on top order stabilizing batsmen.

We could, but this isn't a hypothetical thread about what they might bring to imaginary strong/weak teams. It's a thread about their actual careers for their nations.

Guess we will just have to disagree about this as I think it's important.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Which ones would you think are worthy of more consideration?

Give Santner five years and he'll be worth a shout - betting odi batting ave than KW at the mo & a star with the ball at the World T20 as well as being a gun fieldsman.

personally thought Carl Hooper should've been rated a lot higher in this comp - batting ave of 35 in his era is very good and e/r is still respectable.

 

[StephenZA]

......Symonds is a significantly better ODI batsman than Kallis.....

Ultimately this is where our opinions differ Red Hill.... you put a far greater importance on SR than I do, otherwise Kallis stats are better. And his overall batting and bowling ability, in my opinion, are better, even in ODI`s. I consider Kallis`s lower SR as the part he had to play within the team he played for...

I think what this thread has shown me is that a larger majority of people expect an ODI all-rounder, to be a player who be 5/6th bowler and hit big at the end of an innings a la Symonds/Klusener (Symonds was a bit more than that). Kallis did not play that role so therefore imo appears under-appreciated.... and I think, in particular, Klusener is way overrated.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Just give it to Kapil now

 

[StephenZA]

Kapil
Watson

 

[Red]

Ultimately this is where our opinions differ Red Hill.... you put a far greater importance on SR than I do, otherwise Kallis stats are better. And his overall batting and bowling ability, in my opinion, are better, even in ODI`s. I consider Kallis`s lower SR as the part he had to play within the team he played for...

I'm not sure how you can underestimate SR in assessing ODI batsmen. The quicker you score, the higher the team total. It's really not complicated.

And I'm not really buying the "Kallis had a lower SR because of who he played for". I think the more accurate description is "Kallis was a slower batsman than the elite batsmen of his era". Let's not pretend there weren't criticisms of Kallis' slow batting thru his career…

Chilling, not thrilling | The Cricket Monthly | ESPN Cricinfo

Slow batting put pressure on the rest - Kumble | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Jacques Kallis? career has been overrated | The Roar


When it all boils down, Kallis' ODI SR puts him in the same league as guys like Dravid and Chanderpaul. Brilliant, tough test match batsmen but a long way from being elite ODI batsmen. While it's true that having someone at the top of the order who can anchor things is good, the elite players in Kallis' era have batted at a SR of 80+.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Give Santner five years and he'll be worth a shout - betting odi batting ave than KW at the mo & a star with the ball at the World T20 as well as being a gun fieldsman.

personally thought Carl Hooper should've been rated a lot higher in this comp - batting ave of 35 in his era is very good and e/r is still respectable.

Very big call. Not sure how much support you'd get tbh.

Bookmark this post for future reference as it will look very good if it comes true.

 

[StephenZA]

I'm not sure how you can underestimate SR in assessing ODI batsmen. The quicker you score, the higher the team total. It's really not complicated.

And I'm not really buying the "Kallis had a lower SR because of who he played for". I think the more accurate description is "Kallis was a slower batsman than the elite batsmen of his era". Let's not pretend there weren't criticisms of Kallis' slow batting thru his career…

Chilling, not thrilling | The Cricket Monthly | ESPN Cricinfo

Slow batting put pressure on the rest - Kumble | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Jacques Kallis? career has been overrated | The Roar


When it all boils down, Kallis' ODI SR puts him in the same league as guys like Dravid and Chanderpaul. Brilliant, tough test match batsmen but a long way from being elite ODI batsmen. While it's true that having someone at the top of the order who can anchor things is good, the elite players in Kallis' era have batted at a SR of 80+.

I never said that Kallis was an all time great ODI batsman... if he had a SR of 80+ plus then he would be in the league of Ponting as an ATG. And yes I`m fully aware that he was criticized for his slow batting, I believe unfairly sometimes. Based on his ability he under-performed and could have had a much better SR. Even in Test cricket he did not always dominate as he should potentially have. What I`m saying is that he was a better batsman than Symonds. I cant say anything if you think he had to bat as well as an elite batsman of his era to be a better all-rounder than Symonds....

And the whole SR thing against Kallis is another discussion but I appreciate Kallis a great deal because I watched SA go from 100-1 to 120-5 to often not to have seen the value he placed on his wicket. We had no other batsmen in SA that could have held SA together both in ODI and test cricket. SA were a good/competitive ODI team based on the all-rounder depth and quality of their bowling attack, not based on our batting.