Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Or Hobbs
-
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.
Jacques Kallis vs Glenn Mcgrath
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah I would agree with this. I think Tendulkar's longevity make it closer. But if Hadlee is marginally ahead of Tendulkar then Imran should be notably ahead of him by this logic.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
So how I classify allrounders is they have to be batting in the top seven and one of five bowlers in the lineup. Why? Because outside of this you are either a tailender or a part-time bowler.
You can classify their skill level in their secondary discipline based on how much you think they occupied a particular position, you can see how much credit they should get compared to other all-rounders.
Sobers is 4th bowler position level.
Stokes and Kallis are a bit below at 4th/5th bowler level.
Miller is 5th/6th batting position level.
Botham is a 6th batting position level.
Imran is a level below at 6th/7th level.
Kapil is 7th batting position level.
Pollock and Hadlee are 7th/8th batting position level.
You can classify their skill level in their secondary discipline based on how much you think they occupied a particular position, you can see how much credit they should get compared to other all-rounders.
Sobers is 4th bowler position level.
Stokes and Kallis are a bit below at 4th/5th bowler level.
Miller is 5th/6th batting position level.
Botham is a 6th batting position level.
Imran is a level below at 6th/7th level.
Kapil is 7th batting position level.
Pollock and Hadlee are 7th/8th batting position level.
Last edited:
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Yeah, not like it depends on the other 10 guys in the team or anything.
PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
ATG allrounders: Sobers, Imran, Kallis, Miller, Botham, Jadeja, Hadlee, Pollock
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
It does but generally speaking these cricketers have occupied these positions in their careers. There are outliers like Pollock who I think was more of a genuine 7th batsmen than a 7/8th but SA had a lot of all-rounders in that side.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Faulkner and Shakib instead of Jadeja.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Vettori was the 2nd best allrounder in the world for a few years behind Kallis (after Flintoff peaked in the 2005 Ashes) yet he (Vettori) was batting 8. He was also the best batter in the NZ team.
For me equal. Let me explain. There are for me, about six or so people( except Bradman): Tendulkar, Marshall, McGrath, Viv, Hadlee, Hobbs who are absolute masters of their disciplines, courtesy their equal brilliance home/away, and top tier performance in various other parameters of their discipline(for me Sobers and Steyn just miss out due to Sobers poor record in NZ over a decent number of matches and Steyns record in England and Aus leaving something to be desired). Even out of these individuals, to me Tendulkar and Marshall have the most complete records(perhaps out of all cricketers), courtesy in Tendulkar’s case his longevity, long term peak, performances literally everywhere, dominance vs pace and spin alike and in Marshall’s case, that he is literally top tier in every bowling parameter from home/away to average to SR to WPM etc. So for both Tendy and Marshall, the difference between their batting/bowling and Imran’s bowling is the same as the difference between Imran’s batting and Tendy’s bowling/ Marshall’s batting(but just for these two). Adding that this is entirely a subjective way of looking at these things.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah I recall that. I think that was a more unorthodox strategic decision to have a longer batting lineup than Vettori actually being seen as a tailender.
At the end of the day, I would consider him around Kapil level as a bat at 7.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Vettori also seemed to actually bat much better at 8 than when he was tried higher up. I think it was probably just samplesizelol/coincidence, but given the strength of the rest of the lower order he wasn't running out of partners often, so it was a bit of 'if it ain't broke...'
anil1405
International Captain
Nice idea for a new thread....
'if it ain't broke...' moments would be interesting.
At the risk of over-simplifying, there appear to be three groups of Test all-rounder. Qualification 100 wickets and an average of thirty with the bat.
The first group is for top-class batsmen who bowled well enough, and often enough, to be considered all-rounders. There are only two players in this group: Sobers and Kallis. The likes of Macartney, Hammond, Worrell and Steve Waugh did not bowl enough. If the exercise could somehow be extended back to pre-Test days, Grace would be there as well.
Those in the next group, also better batsmen than bowlers, were covered in a previous post: Greig, Shastri, Hooper and Stokes. So far the highest wickets per match is 2.5 by Sobers.
By far the largest group are the bowling all-rounders. All average under forty with the bat. All also have at least 3 wickets per match, with just two (Imran and Jadeja) reaching 4 wpm. The remainder of this group comprises Miller, Mankad, Goddard, Botham, Kapil Dev, Cairns, Shaun Pollock, Vettori, Pathan and Shakib. A couple of these opened the batting, but their bowling was more successful.
That leaves three original qualifiers without a group to join. The wpm of Noble and Flintoff was 2.9 which is near enough to consider them bowling all-rounders. The statistical anomaly is Rhodes, with a batting average of 30 and only 2.2 wickets per match, reflecting an odd Test career when he was either a frontline bowler or an opening bat, but rarely both at the same time. In spite of these numbers, his bowling peak was clearly superior and he belongs with the bowling all-rounders, who now number fifteen. This gives 21 Test all-rounders in total.
Who is missing? Faulkner settled in England, missing three series in South Africa either side of WW1, so doesn't have enough wickets. Neither do Armstrong, Woolley, John Reid, Mushtaq Mohammad or Jayasuriya. Among those averaging under thirty with the bat are Giffen, Bailey, Hadlee, Abdul Razzaq, Ashwin, Moeen Ali and Jason Holder. South Africa's ban may also have cost the likes of Procter, Rice and McMillan a place in the list.
The first group is for top-class batsmen who bowled well enough, and often enough, to be considered all-rounders. There are only two players in this group: Sobers and Kallis. The likes of Macartney, Hammond, Worrell and Steve Waugh did not bowl enough. If the exercise could somehow be extended back to pre-Test days, Grace would be there as well.
Those in the next group, also better batsmen than bowlers, were covered in a previous post: Greig, Shastri, Hooper and Stokes. So far the highest wickets per match is 2.5 by Sobers.
By far the largest group are the bowling all-rounders. All average under forty with the bat. All also have at least 3 wickets per match, with just two (Imran and Jadeja) reaching 4 wpm. The remainder of this group comprises Miller, Mankad, Goddard, Botham, Kapil Dev, Cairns, Shaun Pollock, Vettori, Pathan and Shakib. A couple of these opened the batting, but their bowling was more successful.
That leaves three original qualifiers without a group to join. The wpm of Noble and Flintoff was 2.9 which is near enough to consider them bowling all-rounders. The statistical anomaly is Rhodes, with a batting average of 30 and only 2.2 wickets per match, reflecting an odd Test career when he was either a frontline bowler or an opening bat, but rarely both at the same time. In spite of these numbers, his bowling peak was clearly superior and he belongs with the bowling all-rounders, who now number fifteen. This gives 21 Test all-rounders in total.
Who is missing? Faulkner settled in England, missing three series in South Africa either side of WW1, so doesn't have enough wickets. Neither do Armstrong, Woolley, John Reid, Mushtaq Mohammad or Jayasuriya. Among those averaging under thirty with the bat are Giffen, Bailey, Hadlee, Abdul Razzaq, Ashwin, Moeen Ali and Jason Holder. South Africa's ban may also have cost the likes of Procter, Rice and McMillan a place in the list.
Last edited:
sayon basak
International Captain
Surprising result.
kyear2
International Coach
Will definitely remember this.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Sure. And before you ask, Imran makes it into my ATG XI on primary strength. He is the best third pacer/reverser.
DrWolverine
International 12th Man
Not really.
McGrath as a bowler > Kallis as a batsman
Jacques Kallis is the only great batting all rounder in last 5 decades and even as batsman he would be around Top 10-15 among post war batsmen.
sayon basak
International Captain
Pretty sure McGrath is rated higher in CW. Which is fair, as he is at worst top 3/4 bowlers of all time.
I myself rate Kallis very highly, but it's actually a pretty surprising result to see Kallis win over McGrath in CW.
DrWolverine
International 12th Man
A cricketer like Kallis is more rare to find.
In the history of sport, there have been two great batting all rounders - Sobers and Kallis.