• 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.

Would Jacques Kallis and Imran Khan get more respect if they weren't all-rounders?

viriya

International Captain
I've often said that Imran's so-called batting ability (and hence his perceived status as an all-rounder) seems to detract from his rating as a bowler.

Kallis on the other hand is a true FTB and it is a farce that so many people rate him anywhere near Sobers, let alone people who think him a better all rounder.
Calling Kallis a FTB doesn't seem right - he was one of the most technically proficient batsmen in world cricket and has decent records wherever he played. I would like to know your reasons for claiming that he is..

Sobers obviously was a great batsmen - but he averaged just 15 over 7 tests in NZ - if anything you could argue that he was more of a FTB than Kallis (imo probably just a bout of bad form but I wasn't alive when Sobers batted so I have no opinion on the matter).

Either way, Kallis's batting is hugely underrated - even more than Dravid. Kallis's strike rate was 3-4 points higher while having to bat in home conditions that were generally tougher than India.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
There's no way in the world Kallis was a FTB. ****ing absurdity.
 

viriya

International Captain
Just looking at some stats.

Kallis averages 55 with the bat, Imran 22 with the ball (better than both Wasim and Waqar). Yet neither player features all that often in World XIs. Can't figure this out, other than to think that if they weren't allrounders they would have been judged on their primary skill alone and would so have been regarded much higher.

Imran averages a run more per wicket than Glenn McGrath with the ball yet would offer 60 runs a match more with the bat. Yet McGrath is in more ATG teams. And Kallis averages more than Tendulkar with the bat despite being vastly superior as a 5th option. Yet Tendulkar is in more ATG teams. WTF.
I tend to agree that their all-round careers took away from how good they were with the bat (Kallis) and ball (Imran). This affects their selection in ATG teams because (in Imran's case), he would not be selected as a No 9/10/11 batsman - so people tend to pick one of Kallis/Sobers or him in the team. In Kallis's case, even though I rank Tendulkar slightly higher than him in Test batting (but not significantly), taking into account the additional bowling option (potent in short spells) he brings, he should be an automatic selection over Tendulkar. It could be argued that if you have 4-5 of the greatest ever bowlers in your team there would not be a requirement for another bowling option, but other than that argument I don't see any other reason to pick a pure batsman over him in the middle order (ignoring Bradman of course).
 
Last edited:

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
It could be argued that if you have 4-5 of the greatest ever bowlers in your team there would not be a requirement for another bowling option, but other than that argument I don't see any other reason to pick a pure batsman over him in the middle order (ignoring Bradman of course).
Agree with this - even if you ignored his bowling entirely, you still have a guy who scored mountains of runs at more than 55. If picking a pure batsman at 4/5 for an ATG side there couldn't be many with a better claim than this.

And no matter how good the other bowlers are, there's always scope for another guy if the conditions aren't helping the others/they're tired/the batsman has their eye in against them/you're saving them for the new ball/just to break the batsman's rhythm (i.e. the situations in which Kallis got many of his 300+ wickets).
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Imran legitimately would be rated higher as a bowler if he couldn't bat, for mine.

Kallis definitely not. I personally disagree with the importance even if not the substance of virtually all the criticisms of his batting, but these criticisms are the reasons for the under-rated nature of his batting, and not the fact that he could bowl.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Over 88 tests Imran took 362 wickets at over four per test match at an average of 22. He averaged nearly 38 with the bat over 88 tests.

Regardless of when he did or didn't do it all together, the guy is a phenomenal cricketer, and the fact that he sustained these numbers when he sometimes played primarily as a batsman or a bowler is even more remarkable. And, as someone said, for a period of time he was possibly the greatest fast bowler ever.

Kallis is unreal too. Batting average of 55 (higher than Tendulkar). Averaged nearly 50 against Australia in Australia in the Warne/McGrath/Gillespie era. Average of 58 in India. Added to that he took over one wicket per innings. His fast bowling is vastly underrated. If he was an Indian, he would be their second greatest quick of all time. I get the feeling if Kallis had've just been a bowler, he probably would've taken 6-700 test wickets. In addition to all this, he is one of the greatest slip fielders of all time.

Both men are unbelievable, and should never be underrated/disrespected by anyone.
No one is disputing that they were both ATG's and both among the 5 best all rounder to play the game. They both are in my first two teams. My argument is towards the OP and I don't think they are under rated because they are all rounders, additionally no one holds it against Sobers and Gilchrist and it is used (along with his slip fielding) to push Warne over Murali.
I personally use the primary skills to rate players and for mine, Sachin, Lara, Viv, Sobers and even Ponting are better batsmen than Kallis and would merit higher selections as batsmen. Kallis makes my second team because he is a bowler and a great slip fielder, so it does help him.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
Simply put, most teams only have the need for 5 bowlers. Kallis's bowling just isn't a factor, because either he is taking overs away from the premium bowlers, or taking overs of a bowler of similar quality. Similarly with Imran, runs in the tail don't often win you games; runs in the tail are a whole lot less influential on the game middle/top order bats. Which is why the likes of Kallis are often over looked for batsmen who are more likely to win games even if they can't bowl.
Actually, although I agreed with this post, I just thought of a counterargument.

Because of their allround skills, neither Kallis nor Imran got the best conditions in which to use their secondary skill. Kallis, for example, was more often used against set batsmen without a new ball in his arsenal - otherwise he may have averaged 26-27 with the ball, and if Imran had never bowled he may have batted 4/5 much more often, plundering an older ball instead of facing the second new one.

This is doubly true of Sobers, who mostly bowled when there was nothing in it for the frontline pacemen.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Imran legitimately would be rated higher as a bowler if he couldn't bat, for mine.

Kallis definitely not. I personally disagree with the importance even if not the substance of virtually all the criticisms of his batting, but these criticisms are the reasons for the under-rated nature of his batting, and not the fact that he could bowl.
I reiterate that in the same way that Kallis isn't selected because of the style of his batting and the associated presumptions rather than because of his bowling, that Imran probably isn't selected because of his road performances and the associated presumptions rather than because of his batting. Most fans back in the day see and rate you when you travel and likewise journalists probably do as well, and while he was great, he wasn't the "best ever" when he toured.
That's my opinion. It makes no sense to punish someone of all round greatness, but at the end of the day you are primarily rated on your day job.
 

viriya

International Captain
No one is disputing that they were both ATG's and both among the 5 best all rounder to play the game. They both are in my first two teams. My argument is towards the OP and I don't think they are under rated because they are all rounders, additionally no one holds it against Sobers and Gilchrist and it is used (along with his slip fielding) to push Warne over Murali.
Not to distract from the OP, but picking Warne over Murali for <6 more runs/innings and supposed better fielding (how do you compare slip fielding with ground fielding anyway) seems to be stretching the definition of an all-rounder a tad bit.
 

viriya

International Captain
On another note, this got me thinking about Shaun Pollock vs Glenn McGrath. McGrath is picked in a lot of ATG teams (with good reason) for his better bowling record (albeit not significantly), but Pollock has a significantly better batting record (32.31 vs 7.36 batting average!).

You could come up with a ATG team that has great bowling but still bats at a 30+ average to 10/11 if you picked Sobers, Kallis, Imran, Pollock, and Hadlee.. interesting.
 
Last edited:

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Actually, although I agreed with this post, I just thought of a counterargument.

Because of their allround skills, neither Kallis nor Imran got the best conditions in which to use their secondary skill. Kallis, for example, was more often used against set batsmen without a new ball in his arsenal - otherwise he may have averaged 26-27 with the ball, and if Imran had never bowled he may have batted 4/5 much more often, plundering an older ball instead of facing the second new one.

This is doubly true of Sobers, who mostly bowled when there was nothing in it for the frontline pacemen.
I might buy into the bowling argument, and even that's just based on using the new ball more often, but then again if he was good enough they still would have given him the new ball. But that's another story. On the batting front, the higher you bat the more difficult it is, period. There is no assurances, especially in a less than stellar Pakistan batting lineup that if he had batted higher he would have been more successful, to the contrary he may have struggled more, especially against better competition.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
I'm not sure how this stacks up statistically, but I think you could say that you're not losing much bowling ability between Marshall, Imran, Hadlee and McGrath - they're all top tier bowlers, and thus are relatively interchangeable depending on either batting ability or conditions or both. However, Pollock is not seen as part of this elite group.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
On another note, this got me thinking about Shaun Pollock vs Glenn McGrath. McGrath is picked in a lot of ATG teams (with good reason) for his better bowling record (albeit not significantly), but Pollock has a significantly better batting record (32.31 vs 7.36 batting average!).

You could come up with a ATG team that has great bowling but still bats at a 30+ average to 10/11 if you picked Sobers, Kallis, Imran, Pollock, and Hadlee.. interesting.
I wouldn't speak for anyone, but I would never select Pollock as one of my four main bowlers ahead of McGrath, they are chosen to bowl, that should be the basis of the selection. The better bowler gets selected, no matter how much better or if they might be the better batsman.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
While Imran did become more of a batsmen later in his career and didn't bowl as much (early in his career it was the opposite), what you're claiming is just plainly not true. He had a 2 year period (1982-83) where he dominated with both bat and ball - arguably the most complete period of dominance by a player with both bat and ball in the history of Test cricket:

Batting Average: 65.18
Bowling Average: 14.03
over 14 Tests!

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
And in spite of all these wonderful numbers he never once had an all round series where he performed with both bat and ball, so regardless of what numbers someone shows, you'll never convince me he was an all round performer of the highest class.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
And in spite of all these wonderful numbers he never once had an all round series where he performed with both bat and ball, so regardless of what numbers someone shows, you'll never convince me he was an all round performer of the highest class.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no "allrounder's slot" in a Test 11. We select batsmen at number 6 and bowlers and number 8. No one, not even Sobers makes the test 11 as an "all rounder".
You want someone at 6 who can bowl a bit, and someone at 8 who can bat a bit.

I don't know of any successful selection policy that deemed "5 batsmen, 4 bowlers, a wicket keeper and an all rounder".

All the best batsman batted in the top 6, and all the best bowlers batted from 8-11. Keith Miller is the only exception.
 
Last edited:

viriya

International Captain
And in spite of all these wonderful numbers he never once had an all round series where he performed with both bat and ball, so regardless of what numbers someone shows, you'll never convince me he was an all round performer of the highest class.
India vs Pakistan 1982/83 disagrees with you:
Cricket Records | Records | India in Pakistan Test Series, 1982/83 | Most runs | ESPN Cricinfo
Cricket Records | Records | India in Pakistan Test Series, 1982/83 | Most wickets | ESPN Cricinfo

I get where you're coming from though - Imran was more of a bowler early in his career and more of a batsman late in his career, but you can't claim that he never did both together - he did have his all-round days in the sun.
 
Last edited:

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
I just don't rate bowling all rounders as highly as many on here does as if you are consistently relying on your number 8 batsman to win you games you have bigger problems. History tells us one needs two ATG bowlers, a ATG no. 3 (or 4), some solid openers and an reliable to great cordon and you are pretty much set.

I have been constantly criticized and derided for saying this, but as secondary skills go I would rather have my batsmen (at least 2) be brilliant slip fielders than my bowlers be decent batsmen as I (and I alone I know) believe they offer better value. Catches win matches as they say and dropping them can quickly help you loose them. The West Indies and Australia managed to make do with Marshall and Warne at No.8, it didn't seem to hurt either team that they lacked the bowling all rounder.

Sorry if I went slightly off topic.
 
Last edited:

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
As far as I'm concerned, there is no "allrounder's slot" in a Test 11. We select batsmen at number 6 and bowlers and number 8. No one, not even Sobers makes the test 11 as an "all rounder".
You want someone at 6 who can bowl a bit, and someone at 8 who can bat a bit.

I don't know of any successful selection policy that deemed "5 batsmen, 4 bowlers, a wicket keeper and an all rounder".

All the best batsman batted in the top 6, and all the best bowlers batted from 8-11. Keith Miller is the only exception.
Think I agree with that.
 

Top