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

[marc71178]

He batted 5 times in 6 matches - that is not a major effort.

The true test of an all round performer is being able to shoulder a large burden with both bat and ball at the same time. Batting 5 times in 6 matches is not a large burden and save for one 3 match series Imran hasn't done both at the same time but other players have done both at the same time, so I'll always rate them as better all rounders.

It's funny how you're arguing this logic when you apply a similar method to your own ratings.

 

[viriya]

He batted 5 times in 6 matches - that is not a major effort.

The true test of an all round performer is being able to shoulder a large burden with both bat and ball at the same time. Batting 5 times in 6 matches is not a large burden and save for one 3 match series Imran hasn't done both at the same time but other players have done both at the same time, so I'll always rate them as better all rounders.

It's funny how you're arguing this logic when you apply a similar method to your own ratings.

I'm fine if you don't consider him a pure all-rounder in terms of his career (as you point out I agree on that point), but you claimed he never had a single series where he performed with both bat and ball.. It's unfair to say that and I think there's enough examples to show that he did have 2-3 series where he performed with bat and ball.

It's unfair on a lower order batsman to require him to have batted X amount of times in a series - he got ~250 runs (not an insignificant number) at an average of 61 - I don't see how you can disqualify a 6 test series just because he didn't bat enough times to satisfy your conditions.

 

[marc71178]

Simply put, if he's a lower order batsman then he's not under pressure to perform with the bat.

For starters, batting 5 times in 6 matches means in one match he didn't even have to bat so how does that make him an all round performer?

No matter how good an overall record he has, it still cannot be said that he performed with bat and ball at the same time and had to deal with the dual efforts required whereas others conclusively have done.

 

[kyear2]

Agreed. And that is no way a slight against Imran.

 

[akilana]

This really isn't true. Kallis frequently bowled in the first hour of a Test match. In matches where Kallis bowled well, he'd bowl more overs. In the games where he was ineffectual, he wouldn't bowl as much, thus protect his figures more than a front liner. He obviously performed superbly with the ball against the two weakest batting lineups too, which isn't his fault but flatters his overall bowling careers a little bit. This makes me think that a 26-27 career bowling average is better than what Kallis was capable of.

It's not true though. Kallis has bowled in the first hour on occasions but never consistently. Most of the times he was asked to bowl was when there were set batsmen or on flat pitches because the team wasn't able to get wickets. Why would they bowl Kallis when Donald or Steyn or Pollock would take advantage of the new bowl more than Kallis would. The team also won't like to bowl him to the ground on flattest of pitches as he's their main batsman. He got a lot of good batsman out and if you see his wicket column it's full of good players.

 

[akilana]

Something he was keen on at other times, especially when he was too injured to bowl when England were racking up a load but 2 weeks later was fine when Zimbabwe came to play...

LOL. If he wasn't a batsman he wouldn't have played. When the team can make use of his batting why would they bowl him when he was unfit? In 2012, he came on to bowl when the openers were blazing away, and took 2 or 3 wickets and got injured. The next match he only played as a batman but did not bowl so you can also interpret that as he was trying to protect his average. The problem is if he is fit to bat, he would play and not bowl which would be interpreted by people like you as not willing to bowl.

 

[akilana]

He doesn't make my top 5 (Bradman, Marshall, Sobers, Gilchrist, Hobbs/ Richards/ Warne), but around my top 10- 15 (Murali, Tendulkar, Lara, Imran, McGrath, Hadlee, Headley, Hutton)

7 players make your top 5. That's great.

 

[marc71178]

LOL. If he wasn't a batsman he wouldn't have played. When the team can make use of his batting why would they bowl him when he was unfit? In 2012, he came on to bowl when the openers were blazing away, and took 2 or 3 wickets and got injured. The next match he only played as a batman but did not bowl so you can also interpret that as he was trying to protect his average. The problem is if he is fit to bat, he would play and not bowl which would be interpreted by people like you as not willing to bowl.

If he had a recent injury that meant he couldn't bowl when his team really needed him to have a go to spell the other bowlers, why would you risk his fitness bowling against Zimbabwe when the other bowlers could get it done very simply? Might it be because it was against one of the only 2 teams he got his wickets against at less than 30? Can you guess who the other team are?

 

[viriya]

If he had a recent injury that meant he couldn't bowl when his team really needed him to have a go to spell the other bowlers, why would you risk his fitness bowling against Zimbabwe when the other bowlers could get it done very simply? Might it be because it was against one of the only 2 teams he got his wickets against at less than 30? Can you guess who the other team are?

I'm not sure what we're trying to prove by picking apart Kallis's bowling like this. Of course he's going to have a lower average against Zim and Ban.

Garry Sobers only had a <30 bowling average against India - the minnows of his time.. so what do we want to prove from that? I don't hear anyone claiming he was some sort of minnow-feeder...

I think there's a danger in overanalyzing here.

 

[kyear2]

7 players make your top 5. That's great.

Those are my Elite 7, the last member of the five then is interchangeable. Not that big of a reach those names, 5 of them are the Wisden 5 of the Century and the two additional ones are certainly in my top 4.

Thanks for noticing though.

 

[harsh.ag]

Some sad commentary on this thread.

That aside, yes, Imran was less of an "all-rounder's all-rounder" than the likes of Botham and Miller. However, this doesn't throw much light on whether he would get more respect had he not been an all-rounder. In fact, had he been just a bowler, the last quarter of his career might have been far less illustrious than it was (he might not even have played), and we might think lesser of him as a result.

Kallis' bowling stats were not protected more than any other 5th bowler's. Had he been just a batsman, I am pretty sure he would have been ranked pretty much at the same place he is right now in the modern batting pantheon, and therefore in total I would have thought lesser of him as a player.

 

[marc71178]

I'm not sure what we're trying to prove by picking apart Kallis's bowling like this. Of course he's going to have a lower average against Zim and Ban.

Yes a lower average is to be expected, but an average of less than half what he managed against any semi-decent side?

 

[BeeGee]

He doesn't make my top 5 (Bradman, Marshall, Sobers, Gilchrist, Hobbs/ Richards/ Warne)

Your top 5 has 7 players in it.

Hobbs/ Richards/ Warne isn't one player, ffs.

Those are my Elite 7, the last member of the five then is interchangeable. Not that big of a reach those names, 5 of them are the Wisden 5 of the Century and the two additional ones are certainly in my top 4.

Thanks for noticing though.

Math not your strong subject, ya?

 

[kyear2]

Bradman, Marshall, Sobers, Gilchrist, Hobbs.

Regards

 

[viriya]

Yes a lower average is to be expected, but an average of less than half what he managed against any semi-decent side?

that's more to do with how weak Zim/Ban are than anything. What is he supposed to do? Do worse so that he won't be called a minnow-basher?

 

[marc71178]

So it isn't at all telling to you that his average is that much lower against them then any other side? Under 15 compared with over 30 is a massive discrepancy.

 

[Red]

Your top 5 has 7 players in it.

Hobbs/ Richards/ Warne isn't one player, ffs.



Math not your strong subject, ya?

Who cares?

 

[hendrix]

He batted 5 times in 6 matches - that is not a major effort.

The true test of an all round performer is being able to shoulder a large burden with both bat and ball at the same time.

Pretty much noone does this and when they do it's an anomaly. Allroundedness isn't going to with a team matches. Scoring runs or taking wickets is.

 

[viriya]

So it isn't at all telling to you that his average is that much lower against them then any other side? Under 15 compared with over 30 is a massive discrepancy.

He also only played 12 of his 166 tests vs Zim/Ban.. It's not even 10% of his matches. I don't see the point of focusing on the fact that he did well vs teams he's expected to do better against (even if it's much better). Anyway, I'm not sure this is going anywhere so I'll leave it at that.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Something to consider re: matchwinning performances is that there are 22 players on the field and if almost half of matches are draws that means that roughly, on average, a player puts in a match-winning performance in 1 out of 40 matches. Even this assumes that there is always a standout matchwinner.

So it isn't really fair to make as a criterion that Imran had to win a match/series with both bat and ball. As was pointed out above this is much harder in stronger teams - probably Richard Hadlee, Daniel Vettori, Jacob Oram, Player X etc. did it more often.