Jacques Kallis vs Jack Hobbs

[subshakerz]

That's the things that's missed, it's the inconsistent and hypocritical argument that is purely based on the personality and favorites rather than philosophy.

Agreed.

 

[subshakerz]

Maybe.

His WPM is not particularly strong evidence of this though, given his overall workload, the fact that he always played in teams with 5-7 viable bowlers, and the fact that he brought value by changing the composition of the side.

You will concede that match by match the other AR we talked about offered more impact than Kallis the bowler. We just debate over whether he evens or exceeds it over a cumulative career.

 

[kyear2]

Because the team combination is a thing. Everybody has different criterias there. So even the 2nd best player of All Time can not make many AT teams. To give you an example, suppose a player comes who averages 55 with bat and 22 with ball over 125 games. A legit contender for GOAT, he will walk into the AT teams. And then, Sobers will no longer be an automatic selection. So will Sobers no longer be the 3rd best cricketer?? He will drop multiple spots for the arrival of one player? Getting my point.....
See, just to put things in perspective of course not everyone rates him at 3rd. I don't rate him at 3rd. But that's not really how you look at a consensus. You know out of those 24, how many voted Imran to be in Top 10? 22. And on average he got a noticeably higher ranking than Sachin and Hadlee who got 20 votes. Just for perspective, at 3rd place Imran had 143 points, 33 clear of Grace and 40 of Sachin. That's a significant portion rating Imran higher. And yes, even with the smaller voter base and wider criteria (which if anything helped Grace, Sachin and Hadlee, the other best contenders); I think my Poll was significantly more conclusive on this matter than Ataraxia's.

I want to address the bolded bit first.

To say everyone has different criteria for a bowling attack is
1. Wild considering a few weeks ago I was told that I was wrong and that everyone believed that batting had to be a significant factor
2. And more importantly, literally nothing compared to criteria for a top 10. @Coronis has been saying of late how frustrated he is with the batsmen vs bolwers comparison because it's near impossible to compare them. I personally just look at where each in ranked in their discipline and go from there. But it's near impossible, then you add all rounders to the list and it's a cluster**** of criteria and perspective.

When one is selecting a bowling attack, there's 3 considerations.
A) best out attack period, just pick the best 3 bolwers
B) to factor in variety and reverse swing or complimenting styles
C) following the bat deep philosophy and go with the most viable batsmen from the top 10 bowlers or so.

That's nothing in comparison to the variables in choosing a top 10

Most here simply go Bradman then a succession of all rounders... Especially Imran, Hadlee, Miller etc. it's a mess, and way more factors than those involved in selecting a bowling attack, I don't think is even arguable. Not to mention there about 10 players maxed when considering a bowling attack and closer to 30 when looking at a top 10.

With regards to the 2nd bit, there's no way the 2nd best player of all time would not make an all time team. Unless he's a wicketkeeper, that's a fallacy and you know this. What you meant to say is that the 2nd best all-rounder may not make the team, and that's also not black and white, and totally up to those selecting.

Again, just focusing on the bolded part for now as I'm rushing.

But what's more likely... that the 2nd best player ever didn't make the team or that the player you want to believe is the 2nd greatest ever, isn't?


Is it at all possible the the 2nd greatest all rounder isn't automatically the 3rd greatest player ever, and that others have just as good or better arguments?

Simple questions..

 

[shortpitched713]

For the absolute advantage guys surely Kallis has to pip Sachin for the spot?

I don't know who you're trying to convince here with that massive tangent. I would agree on picking Kallis over Tendulkar in the vast, vast majority of cases. Only if you already have 5-6 bowlers on your team already I could consider going Sachin if I only had to choose one of these 2.

For the broader point, we have a philosophical disagreement. I think there is a great deal of added value from the top 10-15 allrounders in the history of Test cricket that they add with their flexibility, because it is a given they are there or thereabouts in the quality of their primary attributes. We are not talking about the many part-timers, or bits and pieces players, who may or may not have merited selection in their teams as well due to ability in a secondary skill-set. We're talking about the ATG all-rounders, and it's basically a given that they are ranked higher on a list than they would be found in sequential XIs.

But the circle we keep going around, is that you don't value these secondary skillsets as much, and thus you gravitate towards all-time XIs, which will necessarily have a greater amount of specialists. Why that is, is right there in the name "specialist". That's your prerogative to value that, but many do not agree.

Yes, it is one way, probably the best way.

Saying it many times does not make a falsehood ( or even any subjective statement of opinion ) true.

 

[Bolo.]

You will concede that match by match the other AR we talked about offered more impact than Kallis the bowler. We just debate over whether he evens or exceeds it over a cumulative career.

In terms of their performances in absolute qisolation, I think that the strongest in secondary had more impact.

Overall career needs to be brought into it, because it's clear he would have had an increased impact on a per game basis if this was not a factor. But if we magic this factor away, we still shouldn't look at his performances in isolation. His impact on the performances of other bowlers and allowing players to be selected around him is big, but hard to quantify. I was thinking someone like Imran was still ahead on impact, but I don't think it's the case anymore after looking at the scorecards.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I want to address the bolded bit first.

To say everyone has different criteria for a bowling attack is
1. Wild considering a few weeks ago I was told that I was wrong and that everyone believed that batting had to be a significant factor
2. And more importantly, literally nothing compared to criteria for a top 10. @Coronis has been saying of late how frustrated he is with the batsmen vs bolwers comparison because it's near impossible to compare them. I personally just look at where each in ranked in their discipline and go from there. But it's near impossible, then you add all rounders to the list and it's a cluster**** of criteria and perspective.

When one is selecting a bowling attack, there's 3 considerations.
A) best out attack period, just pick the best 3 bolwers
B) to factor in variety and reverse swing or complimenting styles
C) following the bat deep philosophy and go with the most viable batsmen from the top 10 bowlers or so.

That's nothing in comparison to the variables in choosing a top 10

Most here simply go Bradman then a succession of all rounders... Especially Imran, Hadlee, Miller etc. it's a mess, and way more factors than those involved in selecting a bowling attack, I don't think is even arguable. Not to mention there about 10 players maxed when considering a bowling attack and closer to 30 when looking at a top 10.

With regards to the 2nd bit, there's no way the 2nd best player of all time would not make an all time team. Unless he's a wicketkeeper, that's a fallacy and you know this. What you meant to say is that the 2nd best all-rounder may not make the team, and that's also not black and white, and totally up to those selecting.

Again, just focusing on the bolded part for now as I'm rushing.

But what's more likely... that the 2nd best player ever didn't make the team or that the player you want to believe is the 2nd greatest ever, isn't?


Is it at all possible the the 2nd greatest all rounder isn't automatically the 3rd greatest player ever, and that others have just as good or better arguments?

Simple questions..

Okay, let's go point by point:

1. We all call each other's picks wrong from time to time. The problem with you wasn't taking Steyn, but logical consistency and the idea that batting at 8 isn't important.

2. Comparing All Time players is way tougher than choosing an All Time bowling Attack; but still 100× more objective. Taking Arbitrary ATXIs is half baked, to say the least. Like Coronis can rate Kallis the 3rd best cricketer and still not pick him for his ATXI and it's still completely valid. And I literally gave you a situation of Sobers missing to make many AT teams, with just arrival of one player. You're literally asking the question which takes more variables and taking the answer of the easy one.

And just on a side note, you were talking about Wisden and Cricinfo teams and Imran not making them. While Subz said that Akram made both and was ranked below Imran in Greatest Cricketers Poll of Wisden significantly, you literally said that was made taking all formats in consideration and that could make the outcome in Imran's favour...... As if Akram is not unquestionably better in white ball.

 

[subshakerz]

In terms of their performances in absolute qisolation, I think that the strongest in secondary had more impact.

Overall career needs to be brought into it, because it's clear he would have had an increased impact on a per game basis if this was not a factor. But if we magic this factor away, we still shouldn't look at his performances in isolation. His impact on the performances of other bowlers and allowing players to be selected around him is big, but hard to quantify. I was thinking someone like Imran was still ahead on impact, but I don't think it's the case anymore after looking at the scorecards.

Yeah it's a fairer point on longevity but I agree it's also very hard to quantify, it doesnt fit my standard criteria since I generally consider longevity arguments based on delivering equitable returns but for a longer period. This kind of makes it that each AR has to be assessed by what they impacted for their team dynamics.

 

[subshakerz]

Okay, let's go point by point:

1. We all call each other's picks wrong from time to time. The problem with you wasn't taking Steyn, but logical consistency and the idea that batting at 8 isn't important.

2. Comparing All Time players is way tougher than choosing an All Time bowling Attack; but still 100× more objective. Taking Arbitrary ATXIs is half baked, to say the least. Like Coronis can rate Kallis the 3rd best cricketer and still not pick him for his ATXI and it's still completely valid. And I literally gave you a situation of Sobers missing to make many AT teams, with just arrival of one player. You're literally asking the question which takes more variables and taking the answer of the easy one.

And just on a side note, you were talking about Wisden and Cricinfo teams and Imran not making them. While Subz said that Akram made both and was ranked below Imran in Greatest Cricketers Poll of Wisden significantly, you literally said that was made taking all formats in consideration and that could make the outcome in Imran's favour...... As if Akram is not unquestionably better in white ball.

It's quite simple and goes back to the point by @OverratedSanity

Based on his ATG XI criteria, is he willing to concede that McGrath is by no means the second greatest pacer/bowler of all-time? If not, then he is just being a hypocrite and gaslighting us.

There is one simple reason he doesn't want ATG lists, because in the ones done by ESPN and Wisden end of the century, Marshall didn't appear in the top ten in either, which destroys his own argument that Marshall should be no.3 of all-time.

 

[Coronis]

I want to address the bolded bit first.

To say everyone has different criteria for a bowling attack is
1. Wild considering a few weeks ago I was told that I was wrong and that everyone believed that batting had to be a significant factor
2. And more importantly, literally nothing compared to criteria for a top 10. @Coronis has been saying of late how frustrated he is with the batsmen vs bolwers comparison because it's near impossible to compare them. I personally just look at where each in ranked in their discipline and go from there. But it's near impossible, then you add all rounders to the list and it's a cluster**** of criteria and perspective.

When one is selecting a bowling attack, there's 3 considerations.
A) best out attack period, just pick the best 3 bolwers
B) to factor in variety and reverse swing or complimenting styles
C) following the bat deep philosophy and go with the most viable batsmen from the top 10 bowlers or so.

That's nothing in comparison to the variables in choosing a top 10

Most here simply go Bradman then a succession of all rounders... Especially Imran, Hadlee, Miller etc. it's a mess, and way more factors than those involved in selecting a bowling attack, I don't think is even arguable. Not to mention there about 10 players maxed when considering a bowling attack and closer to 30 when looking at a top 10.

With regards to the 2nd bit, there's no way the 2nd best player of all time would not make an all time team. Unless he's a wicketkeeper, that's a fallacy and you know this. What you meant to say is that the 2nd best all-rounder may not make the team, and that's also not black and white, and totally up to those selecting.

Again, just focusing on the bolded part for now as I'm rushing.

But what's more likely... that the 2nd best player ever didn't make the team or that the player you want to believe is the 2nd greatest ever, isn't?


Is it at all possible the the 2nd greatest all rounder isn't automatically the 3rd greatest player ever, and that others have just as good or better arguments?

Simple questions..

I mean, the second greatest opener won’t be in anyone’s top 10 or 11 players will he? But he’d still make an all time side. Its basically the reverse with AR’s.

 

[kyear2]

Because the team combination is a thing. Everybody has different criterias there. So even the 2nd best player of All Time can not make many AT teams. To give you an example, suppose a player comes who averages 55 with bat and 22 with ball over 125 games. A legit contender for GOAT, he will walk into the AT teams. And then, Sobers will no longer be an automatic selection. So will Sobers no longer be the 3rd best cricketer?? He will drop multiple spots for the arrival of one player? Getting my point.....
See, just to put things in perspective of course not everyone rates him at 3rd. I don't rate him at 3rd. But that's not really how you look at a consensus. You know out of those 24, how many voted Imran to be in Top 10? 22. And on average he got a noticeably higher ranking than Sachin and Hadlee who got 20 votes. Just for perspective, at 3rd place Imran had 143 points, 33 clear of Grace and 40 of Sachin. That's a significant portion rating Imran higher. And yes, even with the smaller voter base and wider criteria (which if anything helped Grace, Sachin and Hadlee, the other best contenders); I think my Poll was significantly more conclusive on this matter than Ataraxia's.

Ok, to the first part. There's no limit to guaranteed spots in an all time team.

For me I have 3 automatics, and I could probably add Gilchrist to that. They are changing unless someone crazy comes along and still that would only impact Gilchrist. If Timmy comes along averaging 55 and 22, that's not going to prevent me from choosing Bradman, Sobers, Marshall or Gilchrist. Sobers is still ahead of the guys he was ahead of and he's still in the team, he may not be needed for his batting, but he's still my 3rd best bat and specialist 2nd slip. Who replaces him there? If the team previously was write down Bradman and Sobers and fill in the rest, how does one person drop Garry below the guys he was already ahead of? Think it was possibly Burgey or Red who said that the crazy part about Sobers is that if he never bowled a ball he would still be in the team. Could we say that about Immy if he couldn't bat? That's the difference between the players.

At this point, for me this isn't even about Imran, this is a philosophical argument, so bear with me.
With regards to your last point, we can agree to respectfully disagree.
If the vast majority or the consensus of the forum members believed sincerely that Imran was the 3rd best player ever, he would also easily male the all time team as well.

Yes, I agree that the vocal and most active members probably go along that road, but explain to me if you believe that Imran is the 2nd or 3rd best player ever, which even Subz says he isn't fully onboard with, why isn't he your 3rd seamer?

If you see him as top 5, which Subz does, I can see it as well.
But for arguments sake and like the last 2 or 3 forum votes that as a bowler he's 8th, and clearly so.... How can he jump that many places over better batsmen and bowlers to 3rd, because he was a decent lower order bat?
To me it's easier to justify him in the AT XI along with Marshall and McGrath), that it is to rate the 8th best bowler and decent lower order batsman 3rd.

I want to digress a bit. I was attacked for placing Sobers 1st in your poll (imagine if I had placed Maco), I have said that my top 3 consists of the best best batsman, best bowler and best all rounder, and when I say the order isn't set, I mean it literally isn't, and as I see it, and I've seen this quoted in an article this week as well, that with his skill set, record and cricketing brain, the ability to test your technique and your will, nevermind your safety, that if there was a draft of every cricketer ever, I would consider taking Maco first (as to quote, so I wouldn't have to face him). I know everyone would say it's insane, but I genuinely don't care, I also have Barry as a lock in my AT XI because of what he showed he could do. Sorry to digress...

I chose Sobers 1st, because one, I grew up hearing it and have heard guys like Miller and Chappell say it as well, but because his combination of skills have never been duplicated in the game. A legitimate candidate for best batsman after Bradman, an elite ATG slip fielder and close catcher and the most versatile bowler the game has ever seen. He filled every role from opener to stop bowler, bowling three varieties along the way. In his best stretch as a batsman he averaged in the 70's for the better part of a decade, his best stretch as a bowler he averaged 27 for about 7 years, all the while keeping his place in the team when he could do neither, because he would catch literally everything.
That's not just two skills, the man mastered all 3 aspects of the game, two at an ATG elite level, and one from a pov of variety that's never been seen. I've heard Chappell repeat Keith Miller saying, best batsman ever, Bradman, best cricketer, Sobers. He would make the all time time if he never bowled a delivery.

Now I'm not saying he's undisputed no 1 even in my mind, Bradman still has a strong and arguably stronger argument, his record is insane.
As great as Sobers was, the team wasn't "great" until that had the fast bowling muscle that Hall and Griffith provided, so yeah, Maco's impact on any team would be immeasurable, even if he isn't as far ahead of his competitors as the other two are, he could do things the others just couldn't.

Anyways, that was longer than expected, but yeah, don't see how an open poll, with 24 voters, with weighted votes, and about 20 options and no criteria, could be more indicative of value, that 54 votes stating which 3 men would make up the best attack, and the guy in question receiving a third of the vote, made up btw, of the same people who voted for him in the top 10 list.

 

[kyear2]

Because the team combination is a thing. Everybody has different criterias there. So even the 2nd best player of All Time can not make many AT teams. To give you an example, suppose a player comes who averages 55 with bat and 22 with ball over 125 games. A legit contender for GOAT, he will walk into the AT teams. And then, Sobers will no longer be an automatic selection. So will Sobers no longer be the 3rd best cricketer?? He will drop multiple spots for the arrival of one player? Getting my point.....
See, just to put things in perspective of course not everyone rates him at 3rd. I don't rate him at 3rd. But that's not really how you look at a consensus. You know out of those 24, how many voted Imran to be in Top 10? 22. And on average he got a noticeably higher ranking than Sachin and Hadlee who got 20 votes. Just for perspective, at 3rd place Imran had 143 points, 33 clear of Grace and 40 of Sachin. That's a significant portion rating Imran higher. And yes, even with the smaller voter base and wider criteria (which if anything helped Grace, Sachin and Hadlee, the other best contenders); I think my Poll was significantly more conclusive on this matter than Ataraxia's.

Sorry, a much shorter version, but to the point.

If your guy is the 3rd best player ever? Are you selecting him in your 3?

I would, so would you? So if that's the consensus, why didn't the other 2/3's of the forum?

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, the second greatest opener won’t be in anyone’s top 10 or 11 players will he? But he’d still make an all time side. Its basically the reverse with AR’s.

Lets take Kallis as an example. Many today would be him in the top five ever if not top three, but he aint making an ATG XI. Same logic applies to Imran.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, I agree that the vocal and most active members probably go along that road, but explain to me if you believe that Imran is the 2nd or 3rd best player ever, which even Subz says he isn't fully onboard with, why isn't he your 3rd seamer?

If you see him as top 5, which Subz does, I can see it as well.
But for arguments sake and like the last 2 or 3 forum votes that as a bowler he's 8th, and clearly so.... How can he jump that many places over better batsmen and bowlers to 3rd, because he was a decent lower order bat?
To me it's easier to justify him in the AT XI along with Marshall and McGrath), that it is to rate the 8th best bowler and decent lower order batsman 3rd.

Bro, I just think you need to acknowledge that many posters here dont perceive the gap in bowlers for Imran as 7th or 8th between the top three as significant as you do. And they give him more points for batting and captaincy than you do.

However to steer the conversation away from Imran, I want to say that I agreed with a more fundamental point you made earlier. That for someone to be no.3, they would need to have a sense of universal acclaim approximating Bradman and Sobers.

I recongize that Imran on points makes the best case on record but he didnt have quite that level of acclaim. Neither did Marshall frankly. Recognized as best of their era as AR and pacers, yes, but not hyped to the extreme.

The only ones I could think having the acclaim to justify it would be Tendulkar, Hobbs, Viv and Warne. Hobbs is too old school for me to put up there. Warne frankly doesnt have the record to justify it. Viv was such a unique package that I find it hard to ignore him. Tendulkar to me has the longevity record as a bat that separates himself from the others distinctly. The complete bat.

So to me its a toss-up for no.3 cricketer of all-time. I dont think there is a clear answer.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Wasim Akram made both XIs over Mcgrath and hadlee. Trust you think he's a superior cricketer to both.

In fact Mcgrath/Hadlee didn't even even make Cricinfo's second xi lol

@kyear2 have you addressed this. Point me tu the post if you have.

.... Still waiting to see what you can come up with.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The only hint Wisden have to their rankings is that they used cricket in general rather than just test cricket, this including first class and odi's. That could have been what pushed Wasim ahead, we have literally no idea, so to keep pushing that narrative is kinda disingenuous, especially to your own countryman

So is the cricinfo xi a credible one to decide the greatest test players or not? You need to decide. You're the one who brought it up in the first place. Do you agree with them that Mcgrath and hadlee aren't worthy of the first two ATG XIs?

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah it's a fairer point on longevity but I agree it's also very hard to quantify, it doesnt fit my standard criteria since I generally consider longevity arguments based on delivering equitable returns but for a longer period. This kind of makes it that each AR has to be assessed by what they impacted for their team dynamics.

Impact is a bit of a dodgy way of measuring quality. Very dependent on the rest of the team. But you are criticising impact more than quality, so I'm addressing it. I reckon Kallis as a bowler had a bigger impact after RSA lost Donald and the ARs, despite bowling less and worse. Not as much need for the extra bowling in a team that usually had 6+ bowling options and 2 greats. But the impact of his later bowling is what you seem to have the biggest issue with.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sorry, a much shorter version, but to the point.

If your guy is the 3rd best player ever? Are you selecting him in your 3?

I would, so would you? So if that's the consensus, why didn't the other 2/3's of the forum?

Let's deal with this first..... No, there's no guarantee I would. I may or I may not depending on combination. For example, I consider Pele the 2nd Greatest player of all time, but he won't make my AT team if I make it with more objectivity than romanticism, as won't Maradona who is 3rd.

 

[subshakerz]

Impact is a bit of a dodgy way of measuring quality. Very dependent on the rest of the team. But you are criticising impact more than quality, so I'm addressing it. I reckon Kallis as a bowler had a bigger impact after RSA lost Donald and the ARs, despite bowling less and worse. Not as much need for the extra bowling in a team that usually had 6+ bowling options and 2 greats. But the impact of his later bowling is what you seem to have the biggest issue with.

Actually, I am willing to acknowledge that Kallis uptil 2003 was fairly close to specialist level in terms of impact. Even with Donald he was taking 2 wickets a test @28. But that's 40 percent of his career hence harder to give an overall estimate of where he stands as a bowler.

I also grant your point that expecting him to perform that same level for 166 tests is unreasonable. Normally we rank bowlers on their average output, where Kallis doesn't do as well, but I can concede his numbers were affected by his last 1/3rd, but also boosted by minnows significantly too. Hard bowler to place but I think you would agree he is not Sobers' level as a bowler? I see him around Stokes level as a bowler. Very useful, a good boost for the attack.

In batting terms, I may put him Hadlee or at best Kapil level.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Ok, to the first part. There's no limit to guaranteed spots in an all time team.

For me I have 3 automatics, and I could probably add Gilchrist to that. They are changing unless someone crazy comes along and still that would only impact Gilchrist. If Timmy comes along averaging 55 and 22, that's not going to prevent me from choosing Bradman, Sobers, Marshall or Gilchrist. Sobers is still ahead of the guys he was ahead of and he's still in the team, he may not be needed for his batting, but he's still my 3rd best bat and specialist 2nd slip. Who replaces him there? If the team previously was write down Bradman and Sobers and fill in the rest, how does one person drop Garry below the guys he was already ahead of? Think it was possibly Burgey or Red who said that the crazy part about Sobers is that if he never bowled a ball he would still be in the team. Could we say that about Immy if he couldn't bat? That's the difference between the players.

At this point, for me this isn't even about Imran, this is a philosophical argument, so bear with me.
With regards to your last point, we can agree to respectfully disagree.
If the vast majority or the consensus of the forum members believed sincerely that Imran was the 3rd best player ever, he would also easily male the all time team as well.

Yes, I agree that the vocal and most active members probably go along that road, but explain to me if you believe that Imran is the 2nd or 3rd best player ever, which even Subz says he isn't fully onboard with, why isn't he your 3rd seamer?

If you see him as top 5, which Subz does, I can see it as well.
But for arguments sake and like the last 2 or 3 forum votes that as a bowler he's 8th, and clearly so.... How can he jump that many places over better batsmen and bowlers to 3rd, because he was a decent lower order bat?
To me it's easier to justify him in the AT XI along with Marshall and McGrath), that it is to rate the 8th best bowler and decent lower order batsman 3rd.

I want to digress a bit. I was attacked for placing Sobers 1st in your poll (imagine if I had placed Maco), I have said that my top 3 consists of the best best batsman, best bowler and best all rounder, and when I say the order isn't set, I mean it literally isn't, and as I see it, and I've seen this quoted in an article this week as well, that with his skill set, record and cricketing brain, the ability to test your technique and your will, nevermind your safety, that if there was a draft of every cricketer ever, I would consider taking Maco first (as to quote, so I wouldn't have to face him). I know everyone would say it's insane, but I genuinely don't care, I also have Barry as a lock in my AT XI because of what he showed he could do. Sorry to digress...

I chose Sobers 1st, because one, I grew up hearing it and have heard guys like Miller and Chappell say it as well, but because his combination of skills have never been duplicated in the game. A legitimate candidate for best batsman after Bradman, an elite ATG slip fielder and close catcher and the most versatile bowler the game has ever seen. He filled every role from opener to stop bowler, bowling three varieties along the way. In his best stretch as a batsman he averaged in the 70's for the better part of a decade, his best stretch as a bowler he averaged 27 for about 7 years, all the while keeping his place in the team when he could do neither, because he would catch literally everything.
That's not just two skills, the man mastered all 3 aspects of the game, two at an ATG elite level, and one from a pov of variety that's never been seen. I've heard Chappell repeat Keith Miller saying, best batsman ever, Bradman, best cricketer, Sobers. He would make the all time time if he never bowled a delivery.

Now I'm not saying he's undisputed no 1 even in my mind, Bradman still has a strong and arguably stronger argument, his record is insane.
As great as Sobers was, the team wasn't "great" until that had the fast bowling muscle that Hall and Griffith provided, so yeah, Maco's impact on any team would be immeasurable, even if he isn't as far ahead of his competitors as the other two are, he could do things the others just couldn't.

Anyways, that was longer than expected, but yeah, don't see how an open poll, with 24 voters, with weighted votes, and about 20 options and no criteria, could be more indicative of value, that 54 votes stating which 3 men would make up the best attack, and the guy in question receiving a third of the vote, made up btw, of the same people who voted for him in the top 10 list.

For me, Timmy would be ahead and Sobers may or may not make the team. His batting is close enough that he probably will still, but with such a 5th bowler's arrival, it will be no longer automatic.
As for the second bolded part, dude are you really this dense. I am going to say for the last time, evaluating a player by the value they bring to a median or below median team over career is a better measure. Coronis ranks Kallis the 3rd best cricketer and he definitely have arguments and he still doesn't makes his AT team, as he shouldn't. How good a cricketer was and including them in All Time teams are two very different things with widely different criterias. Don't be so condensating about it.

 

[howitzer]

Ok, to the first part. There's no limit to guaranteed spots in an all time team.

For me I have 3 automatics, and I could probably add Gilchrist to that. They are changing unless someone crazy comes along and still that would only impact Gilchrist. If Timmy comes along averaging 55 and 22, that's not going to prevent me from choosing Bradman, Sobers, Marshall or Gilchrist. Sobers is still ahead of the guys he was ahead of and he's still in the team, he may not be needed for his batting, but he's still my 3rd best bat and specialist 2nd slip. Who replaces him there? If the team previously was write down Bradman and Sobers and fill in the rest, how does one person drop Garry below the guys he was already ahead of? Think it was possibly Burgey or Red who said that the crazy part about Sobers is that if he never bowled a ball he would still be in the team. Could we say that about Immy if he couldn't bat? That's the difference between the players.

At this point, for me this isn't even about Imran, this is a philosophical argument, so bear with me.
With regards to your last point, we can agree to respectfully disagree.
If the vast majority or the consensus of the forum members believed sincerely that Imran was the 3rd best player ever, he would also easily male the all time team as well.

Yes, I agree that the vocal and most active members probably go along that road, but explain to me if you believe that Imran is the 2nd or 3rd best player ever, which even Subz says he isn't fully onboard with, why isn't he your 3rd seamer?

If you see him as top 5, which Subz does, I can see it as well.
But for arguments sake and like the last 2 or 3 forum votes that as a bowler he's 8th, and clearly so.... How can he jump that many places over better batsmen and bowlers to 3rd, because he was a decent lower order bat?
To me it's easier to justify him in the AT XI along with Marshall and McGrath), that it is to rate the 8th best bowler and decent lower order batsman 3rd.

I want to digress a bit. I was attacked for placing Sobers 1st in your poll (imagine if I had placed Maco), I have said that my top 3 consists of the best best batsman, best bowler and best all rounder, and when I say the order isn't set, I mean it literally isn't, and as I see it, and I've seen this quoted in an article this week as well, that with his skill set, record and cricketing brain, the ability to test your technique and your will, nevermind your safety, that if there was a draft of every cricketer ever, I would consider taking Maco first (as to quote, so I wouldn't have to face him). I know everyone would say it's insane, but I genuinely don't care, I also have Barry as a lock in my AT XI because of what he showed he could do. Sorry to digress...

I chose Sobers 1st, because one, I grew up hearing it and have heard guys like Miller and Chappell say it as well, but because his combination of skills have never been duplicated in the game. A legitimate candidate for best batsman after Bradman, an elite ATG slip fielder and close catcher and the most versatile bowler the game has ever seen. He filled every role from opener to stop bowler, bowling three varieties along the way. In his best stretch as a batsman he averaged in the 70's for the better part of a decade, his best stretch as a bowler he averaged 27 for about 7 years, all the while keeping his place in the team when he could do neither, because he would catch literally everything.
That's not just two skills, the man mastered all 3 aspects of the game, two at an ATG elite level, and one from a pov of variety that's never been seen. I've heard Chappell repeat Keith Miller saying, best batsman ever, Bradman, best cricketer, Sobers. He would make the all time time if he never bowled a delivery.

Now I'm not saying he's undisputed no 1 even in my mind, Bradman still has a strong and arguably stronger argument, his record is insane.
As great as Sobers was, the team wasn't "great" until that had the fast bowling muscle that Hall and Griffith provided, so yeah, Maco's impact on any team would be immeasurable, even if he isn't as far ahead of his competitors as the other two are, he could do things the others just couldn't.

Anyways, that was longer than expected, but yeah, don't see how an open poll, with 24 voters, with weighted votes, and about 20 options and no criteria, could be more indicative of value, that 54 votes stating which 3 men would make up the best attack, and the guy in question receiving a third of the vote, made up btw, of the same people who voted for him in the top 10 list.

How many WPM is Timmy taking?