There's a double standard that we propagate when discussing all rounders.
Why Steyn?
Because we rate him lower, i.e we underrate him?
lol. Which non-Sobers top batsmen are anywhere near the bowler Kallis was?
I thought I answered that earlier when I posted this:
He did play more than 3 series and in more than Australia and England, shockingly.
This is the definition of cherrypick. McGrath has similar stats in Pak and SL. Can we call him overrated?
Kallis as a bowler is "useful" at best. Hammond, Steve Waugh and Dexter I would rank in that category. Not quite as good but, looking at averages, close.
Rubbish. It's not cherry picking. It's based on what I have seen live. Almost ordinary in Australia and, to support my observations, very ordinary in England.
I've never seen Keith Miller in an all time XI ot called the greatest all rounder, even he says it's Sobers (at that time)
What a joke. When did Ted Dexter become a “top” batsman? And you’re calling blokes who averaged more, bowled significantly less (~1 WPM for Hammond/Dexter, closer to 0.5 WPM for Waugh) close to Kallis in bowling quality? Take a break mate.
Try rereading this.
Hammond was decent (and in my mind did enough to be seen as an all rounder), but not close to Kallis
Yeah I don't rate Steyn as highly as some here but the idea that he was somehow meh in Australia is insane and totally devoid of context. Even just on the numbers alone his record here is awesome when you account for the pitches during that period that probably should have be illegal.
I think Imran's bowling as a little bit overrated...... He had a magnificent peak from '80-'86; but outside of that, he had spells of brilliance mixed bit a fair few decent ones. Also, no one almost talks about his batting here. I think most all-rounders are a bit overrated in CW; like Imran, Keith, Kallis, Shakib, Jadeja, Ashwin etc. The only ones I could think of as underrated are Wilfred Rhodes, Tony Greg and probably Shaun Pollock, Richie Benaud and a little bit Kapil Dev.
Ted Dexter averaged 47.89 in 62 Tests. I've seen batsmen with less impressive averages ranked as "top" (eg Boycott, Greenidge, Kanhai, May). With regard to wickets, quantity doesn't always mean quality.
That would have been his match figures of 10-154 at the MCG. I watched that on TV and it was first class. On the other hand, over here in the West he disappointed with 4-162 at the WACA.
Hammond more than matches Kallis in the batting and fielding departments.
I actually agree with all of these names except Barrington where I think people see the average without context. Don’t get me wrong he was a fine player and from what I hear a wonderful man, just wasn’t in that elite level.
