Jacques Kallis vs Glenn Mcgrath

[shortpitched713]

I made this point in a thread about Chris Cairns, that being decent/good in two disciplines doesn't translate to the value of world class specialist, at least in tests, though on this board some are convinced by that.

What's your thoughts on Ian Botham?

 

[Coronis]

What's your thoughts on Ian Botham?

He’s Beefy.

 

[Flem274*]

I was going to make an effort post about my contentions but I see some good work has been done in this thread already. I'll say this though, the woe is Kallis narrative is simply a different iteration of Tendulkar being under a lot of #pressure, Ponting never playing in India in his prime and Smith being too tired from scoring runs to score tons in the second innings. Kallis's retirement did leave a gaping prolapse in SA's middle order and he's easily in the top dozen odd batsmen for me despite being relatively slow.



Get the **** out of here with this though. Questioning motives when someone has a fundamentally different way of looking at things than you is the coward's copium. This is especially annoying coming from you because you've coupled this with a healthy dose of sanctimony of late to unlock a new level of tiresome. You know damn well that the way I rate all rounders has everything to do with this because I rate blokes like Miller and even Cairns very highly relative to the rest of the forum. Do better.

Normally I wouldn't call you on misrepresentation because I'm fully aware I also hold some heretical opinions and I love reading others but I'm battling to see how you came to this 'batsman who bowled, basically Hammond or a premium Andrew Symonds' (my example not yours) conclusion based on any cricketing theory.

If you think a genuine allrounder must go along at a similar wpm to a specialist bowler along with meet certain standards with the bat then okay, sure, but gg Andrew Flintoff, Jacob Oram, Keith Miller and Abdul Razzaq who (without running to check) all had a wpm well under 4. Off the top of my head Stokes, Cairns and Kallis himself have had their wpm affected by being good enough to play as specialist batsmen for their sides while injured or half good to bowl. I imagine Sobers faced this situation himself as well.

I have no idea how you rate allrounders in general because I usually avoid or skim comparison and ATG threads. They are often cancer.

 

[Prince EWS]

Normally I wouldn't call you on misrepresentation because I'm fully aware I also hold some heretical opinions and I love reading others but I'm battling to see how you came to this 'batsman who bowled, basically Hammond or a premium Andrew Symonds' (my example not yours) conclusion based on any cricketing theory.

If you think a genuine allrounder must go along at a similar wpm to a specialist bowler along with meet certain standards with the bat then okay, sure, but gg Andrew Flintoff, Jacob Oram, Keith Miller and Abdul Razzaq who (without running to check) all had a wpm well under 4. Off the top of my head Stokes, Cairns and Kallis himself have had their wpm affected by being good enough to play as specialist batsmen for their sides while injured or half good to bowl. I imagine Sobers faced this situation himself as well.

I have no idea how you rate allrounders in general because I usually avoid or skim comparison and ATG threads. They are often cancer.

"Cancer"

 

[Coronis]

I think all threads in CC are equally cancer.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think all threads in CC are equally cancer.

What does a surgeon do when he sees a malignant cancer?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

As mentioned previously, Kallis was a batting all-rounder. There is not much point comparing him with bowling all-rounders like Imran.

Test wpm of the batting all-rounders with 100 wickets: Sobers 2.5, Greig, 2.4, Stokes 2.2, Shastri 1.9, Kallis 1.8, Hooper 1.1.

Shows how good Shakib is/was. As good with the bat as all except Sobers and Kallis yet with 3.5 WPM.

 

[shortpitched713]

Shows how good Shakib is/was. As good with the bat as all except Sobers and Kallis yet with 3.5 WPM.

Tony Greig would beg to differ.

 

[Prince EWS]

Tony Greig would beg to differ.

Plenty of better batsmen than Shakib among the allrounders IMO.

Miller, Reid, Stokes, Faulkner, Worrell, Armstrong, Goddard.

Not to mention peak Imran.

 

[Coronis]

What does a surgeon do when he sees a malignant cancer?

I dropped out of med school before the cancer part…

 

[Prince EWS]

I dropped out of med school before the cancer part…

He disendorses the lead candidate on Boxing Day and calls the party membership sewer rats.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Plenty of better batsmen than Shakib among the allrounders IMO.

Miller, Reid, Stokes, Faulkner, Worrell, Armstrong, Goddard.

Not to mention peak Imran.

I was referring to those listed in peterhrt's post.

 

[Prince EWS]

I was referring to those listed in peterhrt's post.

Fair enough.

 

[shortpitched713]

I dropped out of med school before the cancer part…

At least you got into med school, fam!

 

[subshakerz]

Sobers is ahead yes. In Hadlee’s case, sure one of the top 10/11 test cricketers sure, but because while Hadlee is a top three bowler his batting is overrated, and Sachin’s benchmark as a batsmen was Bradman(the only test batsmen ahead of Sachin for me)while the guys(Marshall, McGrath) ahead of Hadlee weren’t as dominating in their disciples to be as unreachable as Bradman. Plus Sachin was a handy part time bowler. Imran and Sachin are touch and go, and tied as the 3rd greatest test cricketers(Bradman and Sobers 1 and 2 respectively).

Bradman is so ahead of Tendulkar it's not a meaningful comparison.

Tendulkar is not clearly ahead of Sobers or Smith even.

Hadlee then is around his level as a bowler. Once you factor in him being a capable lower order bat he should be ahead tho I agree it seems odd.

 

[subshakerz]

What's your thoughts on Ian Botham?

Botham is hard to classify but I rate him behind all the allrounders who were worldclass in at least one discipline like Sobers, Imran, Hadlee, Kallis and Miller.

 

[shortpitched713]

If you absolutely had to classify him, I'd say "bowling allrounder", but he was the best at his weaker disclipline than any other allrounder ever, I'd say.

 

[Prince EWS]

If you absolutely had to classify him, I'd say "bowling allrounder", but he was the best at his weaker disclipline than any other allrounder ever, I'd say.

Miller?

 

[shortpitched713]

Miller?

It depends when you got Botham. The first half of his career, I'd say both a better batsman, and all rounder overall, the greatest all round run of all time. The second half, not so much.

 

[Godard]

Bradman is so ahead of Tendulkar it's not a meaningful comparison.

Tendulkar is not clearly ahead of Sobers or Smith even.

Hadlee then is around his level as a bowler. Once you factor in him being a capable lower order bat he should be ahead tho I agree it seems odd.

Bradman is ahead of Sachin and every cricketer very clearly and Sobers overall is ahead of Sachin easily as well. But I would argue Sachin’s achievements as a batter are slightly better than Hadlee as a bowler since he has a marginally even more complete home/away record, longevity and a long term peak unmatched by any cricketer not Bradman. Considering Hadlee’s achievements as a lower order bat(which are clearly better than Sachin as a part time bowler) even if I say that he is ahead of Sachin, it is marginally. That’s why I said touch and go.