If you were that old, and that kind, and the very last of your kind, you couldn't just stand back and watch children cry.
Judging on his FC record as well as Tests, I'd struggle to argue against a bloke who scored 199 tons and played tests till he was 47 missed some serious cricket during the war years and was still playing at FC level until he was 52.
If Kallis had been around in the 60's or 70's he would have been given far more kudos than he is. But in an era when scoring rates soared amongst the great (and some not so great) batsman he remained Mr Plod.
Has to be said I think some people see a bit of Boycott in Kallis, he's not too flashy and appears to bat well within his limits while he's evidently got the talent to play flashily and play well.
Would add Warne because of what he adds with his batting and slip fielding, Marshall as the greatest fast bowler and match winner deserves a place. Gilchrist changed the game and was a demoralising sight coming in at seven either to crush the oppsition or to stage the recovery. Kept brilliantly to Warne and Mcgrath as well.
Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2
Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4
Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2
Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3
Hobbs was a good batsman, but there are other batsmen who are better than him. Gilchrist has Flower who has a better record than him and Flower batted at number 3 for a weak team. Then you have Kumar, Prior and AB who are proving that its possible to do what Gilly did. Miller and Khan are decent but not better than Sobers and Kallis.
Andy Flower at 3
39 runs @ 16.5
There seems to be a growing myth about Flower being a top order batsman in Test cricket, and I have no idea where it's coming from, but it's not true. He batted primarily at number five.
~ Cribbertarian ~
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009
Have alrady explained my issues with calling Imran the greatest cricketer of all time, unlike Imran though Miller was a legitimate top order batsman, but not an exceptioanl one (about equivalent to Sobers bowling) and as a bowler he was never a work horse bowler, he was used more purely as a new ball shock bowler and his three wickets a match (despite for one series receiving the new ball every 55 overs) is testament to this and his strike rate is less than stellar. So as a bowler he is not as good as Sobers was as a batsman though his slip fielding added additional to his game and elevates him to just above Imran, but since Imran was the better bowler and that is their main function in any team and would be batting at 8 anyway, Imran makes my first team and we could hide him at mid on or mid off when not bowling or at fine leg.
Botham's peak was incredibily short and never performed vs the W.I as Richards constantly caned him, also neither his bowling or batting average is exceptional. Good enough for an ATG All Rounder, not as a candidate for greatest ever player.
You cannot just discount Andy Flower by the mere mention of his strike rate..You also need to understand the context in which he was batting..Flower always was trying to rebuild Zimbabwe's innings, trying to give them a respectable score, coming in at single digit score for 2 wickets..With Gilly, great and revolutionary as he is, came in to bat most of the time atleast at 300 or 400/4 so it was easy to come in and tonk the bowlers when they were already at their lowest..Don't get me wrong he is a revolutionary player and that can be said of very very few players in any sport..Andy Flower considering he played for Zimbabwe and amount of pressure he had to endure is right up there..
Last edited by doesitmatter; 01-04-2013 at 05:54 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)