CW's Ranking of All-Rounders (Tests)

[subshakerz]

Imran is overrated as an allrounder. He is a one rounder with two different disciplines.

I think that get's overplayed. It's not like he wasn't a proper allrounder prior to 1988, after which he became a specialist bat until retirement. In fact, in his bowling peak from 80-88 he was also the best allrounder in the world.

 

[CricAddict]

Imran and Kallis are equals as ATG cricketers. The reason my vote swayed to Kallis is due to him doing both disciplines well in parallel for a long time while Imran did one discipline well in one half and the other better in the second half.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I voted for Kallis, but can definitely understand why so many voted for Imran (don't know how much other variables - Imran's captaincy and 200 catches for big Jacques came into it). Both clearly outstanding but a bit behind Sobers.

 

[Line and Length]

averages are not the be all and end all

So you want aesthetics vs results? What's your alternative?

 

[subshakerz]

Imran and Kallis are equals as ATG cricketers. The reason my vote swayed to Kallis is due to him doing both disciplines well in parallel for a long time while Imran did one discipline well in one half and the other better in the second half.

Kallis in his last 5 years or so also wasn't quite the go-to bowler as he was before that. And I don't think Kallis as a pure bat = Imran as a bowler in terms of standing.

 

[Line and Length]

Imran and Kallis are equals as ATG cricketers. The reason my vote swayed to Kallis is due to him doing both disciplines well in parallel for a long time while Imran did one discipline well in one half and the other better in the second half.

Which was what I was pointing out statistically.

 

[ataraxia]

So you want aesthetics vs results? What's your alternative?

Results/skills. Not aesthetics. Just that using 25 wickets and then 20 batting innings and failing to account for pre-war bowlers, flash-in-the-pan injury-prone ones etc. rather than actually rating players on more factors - is weird.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

So you want aesthetics vs results? What's your alternative?

So are you saying Imran is not in the top 45 test fast bowlers of all time and that guys like Tendulkar/Lara/Richards are not in the top 20 test batsmen of all time? Because if not, then I’m not sure why you would bring up those stats about like 50 people having better averages than Imran.

 

[subshakerz]

Which was what I was pointing out statistically.

Have to also factor that Kallis was a notorious minnow basher. Once you take out Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, his batting average is 52 and bowling average is 35. So it's not like even the raw average difference between him and Imran is that huge either, though I think this is a bogus metric.

 

[Line and Length]

Results/skills. Not aesthetics. Just that using 25 wickets and then 20 batting innings and failing to account for pre-war bowlers, flash-in-the-pan injury-prone ones etc. rather than actually rating players on more factors - is weird.

I'll accept that criticism. If I remove pre WWII stats and have a 20 game qualification then is Kallis ranked 11th in the batting and Imran 16th in the bowling. Not a significant difference - but still a difference.

 

[Line and Length]

So are you saying Imran is not in the top 45 test fast bowlers of all time and that guys like Tendulkar/Lara/Richards are not in the top 20 test batsmen of all time? Because if not, then I’m not sure why you would bring up those stats about like 50 people having better averages than Imran.

Read my response to ataraxia's critique.

 

[subshakerz]

I'll accept that criticism. If I remove pre WWII stats and have a 20 game qualification then is Kallis ranked 11th in the batting and Imran 16th in the bowling. Not a significant difference - but still a difference.

Do you think Kallis is really the 11th best batsman of alltime?

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Read my response to ataraxia's critique.

I don’t see how your stats are relavent though unless you believe Imran is the 16th best fast bowler of all time and that guys like Tendulkar and Lara are not in the top 20 test batsmen?

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'll accept that criticism. If I remove pre WWII stats and have a 20 game qualification then is Kallis ranked 11th in the batting and Imran 16th in the bowling. Not a significant difference - but still a difference.

Bowlers are more valuable than batsmen of comparable rank anyway imo.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

This is getting silly. Most of us (except the odd Miller, young Botham, and Procter fan) would have Imran and Kallis in the top 3 (and probably both either 2nd or 3rd). They were chalk and cheese as cricketers, but both were magnificent.

 

[trundler]

Imran by the length of [something very long]

 

[Line and Length]

Do you think Kallis is really the 11th best batsman of alltime?

That was a Post WWII statistical ranking.
CW have voted him 18th all time best bat with 6 players above him who played mostly pre WWII so 11th is pretty close.
Incidentally, I consider Tendulkar, Lara (and other in that class) better ATGs despite slightly lower averages.

 

[Victor Ian]

The question if you pick Botham is which cricketer will you get, the brilliant first half or mediocre second half? With the others like Imran and Hadlee, you know you will get an ATG bowler and a good/decent lower order bat, or with Kallis a worldclass bat and steady 5th seamer, as this was their modus operandi for most of their careers.

The reasonable assumption is that you would get a composite unpredictable cricketer who can deliver amazing matchturning performances with bat and bowl but not with any consistency.

Nah. I'm taking botham's first half so I know which cricketer I am getting. Was Imran really an all time great in the last half of his career? He morphed into a batsman at the expense of his bowling. Kallis is a fair call.

 

[Line and Length]

This is getting silly. Most of us (except the odd Miller, young Botham, and Procter fan) would have Imran and Kallis in the top 3 (and probably both either 2nd or 3rd). They were chalk and cheese as cricketers, but both were magnificent.

I have no problem with Kallis and Imran at 2 and 3. I'm only justifying my order and enjoying poking a bee hive.

@PlayerComparisons - Re Imran. I would have him in my Top 10 pace bowlers. The Post WWII 16th average ranking included spinners and, as has been pointed out, at his peak he was a wonderful bowler.

 

[Burgey]

One thing about kallis which probably makes me under rate him massively is i never really thought he’d hurt Australia when we played SA.

I was much more worried when the likes of Botham, Kapil or Flintoff were in the game than when Kallis (or pollock for that matter) were. Which isn’t fair on him given his numbers, just the other blokes were more explosive players I suppose