-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Greatest Limited Overs All-rounder of all time, tournament/voting thread
- Thread starter mr_mister
- Start date
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
I love you for doing this smali.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Just saying something doesn't make it true.
Better at hitting big, better strike rate, better at not letting his team get bogged down, better at having a modern SR than a SR from the 80s, more situational awareness, less selfish….
Just saying something doesn't make it true.
viriya
International Captain
I can't understand how a person that has watched both Kallis and Symonds bowl could possibly think they are in similar planes. Their records confirm that they are not, the eye test (Symonds looked like he was bowling close to rubbish) confirms that they are not.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
I like the fact that you are coming around to watching some of the players and making a judgment.
I quite agree. Symonds was a pretty ordinary bowler playing in an awesome team.
viriya
International Captain
So I guess we can't ever judge players we haven't seen live anymore?
smash84
The Tiger King
You can't usually judge a player better on stats alone compared to somebody who has followed the player closely and also uses stats. You seem to make too many judgements based on stats with no weight for context
viriya
International Captain
My argument wasn't made solely on stats. I focused on the numbers because you started with the home-away records.
Your argument was based on "he has the skills of a frontline batsman" which doesn't matter if he doesn't deliver. You were conflating his Test accomplishments into ODIs.
smash84
The Tiger King
Lol
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I agree about the selfish bit on Kallis but inspite of that, he has played enough innings that mattered to easily be considered a better all-round batsman than Symonds, even in ODIs. And I didn't say anything that was not true, so that does make it true.
watson
Banned
Symonds (1998 - 2009)
Matches = 198
Runs = 5,088
Ave = 39.75
Strike Rate = 92.24
100s = 6
Player of the Match Awards = 22 (11%)
Player of the Series Awards = 4
Wickets = 133
Ave = 37.26
Strike Rate = 44.62
Economy Rate = 5.01
Best Bowling = 5/18
Completed 10 overs = 27 (14%)
Kallis (1996 - 2014)
Matches = 328
Runs = 11,579
Ave = 44.36
Strike Rate = 72.89
100s = 17
Player of the Match Awards = 33 (10%)
Player of the Series Awards = 5
Wickets = 273
Ave = 31.79
Strike Rate = 39.38
Economy Rate = 4.84
Best Bowling = 5/30
Completed 10 overs = 35 (11%)
This is simply not true. Generally speaking Kallis was the better bowler and certainly so in Test matches. But in ODIs the stats show that Symonds was just as effective as Kallis
An important factor is that neither bowler bowled 10 overs that often in an innings because neither were good enough. If Symonds required the help of a 6th bowler then so did Kallis.
Symonds should have won this two horse race relatively easily because of his superior batting Strike Rate.
Last edited:
watson
Banned
Easily.
The most important stat for a 4th or 5th change bowler is their Economy Rate. I don't see a difference of 0.17 as a big deal.
Last edited:
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
I'm not arguing that Symonds was a better batsman than Kallis. Kallis is an ATG batsman in test cricket, and a good batsman in ODI cricket. However, Kallis' batting in ODIs was way too slow. Symonds was a weapon in ODIs. Kallis was significantly slower scoring than his contemporaries, and surely you can agree that's a liability in ODI cricket. There is no basis to say that Kallis should be considered a better "all round batsman than Symonds" in ODIs. None at all. In tests, of course. In ODIs, just no.I agree about the selfish bit on Kallis but inspite of that, he has played enough innings that mattered to easily be considered a better all-round batsman than Symonds, even in ODIs. And I didn't say anything that was not true, so that does make it true.
This is just unsubstantiated bullshit mate. Their ODI bowling records actually reveal they were similar in effectiveness in ODIs as bowlers. And as for your "eye test (Symonds looked like he was bowling close to rubbish)", please. Symonds wasn't the greatest bowler ever, and no one is saying that he was. But had you actually watched him (and if you want to look at his record) you'd realise there were very few occasions that he got taken apart as a bowler, and that he was nearly always economical and tidy, which is exactly what you want your 5th bowler in an ODI to be.viriya said:
StephenZA
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Genuine question do you guys rate Klusener a better ODI bat than Kallis (I note that Watson has just voted for Klusener over Kallis)?
The reason I ask is that Klusener and Symonds have similar statistics (I rate Symonds higher though). And I know from a SA perspective (at least mine) the importance that we placed on Kallis in the top order was far greater than anything Klusener accomplished. I personally think Klusener is highly overrated based almost purely on his WC exploits.
The reason I ask is that Klusener and Symonds have similar statistics (I rate Symonds higher though). And I know from a SA perspective (at least mine) the importance that we placed on Kallis in the top order was far greater than anything Klusener accomplished. I personally think Klusener is highly overrated based almost purely on his WC exploits.