Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[honestbharani]

Sobers didn't do half of what Kallis did. That's not to say he's not better, as I've said before I think Sobers is marginally but clearly ahead. But from a physical point of view he played a lot less tests, didn't have to cope with bollockloads of ODI cricket, and played in an era not quite so intense in terms of fitness. And even then his bowling fell away later in his career quite badly in comparison to Kallis.

No one in cricket has ever gone through what Kallis has. I seriously think if it weren't for his existence people would be questioning whether an all-rounder who plays every game in all formats for his side (as a crucial batsman and front-line bowler) could exist sustainably today.

Your first line of the post says how much you know about cricket, tbh...

 

[Ikki]

Of course, Miller was a terrific bowler. But Hadlee, Imran and countless other bowlers achieved the same average (I agree Miller's low SR was good for his era) but bowled many more overs per innings and got more wickets per test. I know, he could not bowl enough because of his bad back. But there are many others who did and maintained the same standard despite more workload and that should count. And, 3 wickets a test is not good enough at all for a main bowler. He will always be bowler no.5 in my all-time xi and, hence, his batting is needed to get him in as the all-rounder. If I have 4 bowlers who could manage 20 wickets between them then I wont need Miller and have an extra batsman instead using Sobers to bowl the odd over whenever needed.

Which is why I stated explicitly that his quality was the same as Imran's pretty much. He just didn't bowl as much. Miller doesn't have to be the main bowler, even though he can be. He will be up first change as would someone like Imran who wouldn't be bowled ahead of McGrath or a Marshall. With respect to this, it's negligible. Especially so when you have a spinner, as previously mentioned, with the quality of Warne or Murali. I'd say then there is very little if anything that separates them. But with the bat, there is quite a bit to separate them and again in the field Miller is Imran's superior. So I would keep Miller as my 4th bowler since it'd be a waste to include more. A line-up of Miller, Marshall, McGrath and Warne would be more than enough to take 20 wickets and free up another spot to play a specialist bat.

This thread is not about the argument we are having, though. That is why I voted for Miller and Botham as the greatest all rounders in my book. But please let us not rate him along with imran or hadlee purely as a bowler.

It's not my intention to argue him as good as them purely as a bowler. But the simple fact is that even Imran is inferior to Hadlee and I would say although close, that is distinctly the case. The same thing I would say for Imran and Miller - but with Miller it was not about his quality, rather his quantity.

Why is it questionable? Sobers and Kallis score the same amount of runs. One is interesting to watch and the other one is boring. Why cant this make a difference? Sutcliffe is the highest averaging opener of all time. He averages 9 runs more than gavaskar, 4 more than hobbs and hutton and a whopping 21 runs more than trumper. Still he would barely make the top 5 if players of his ilk were to be ranked. And that is only because he was a dead bat merchant.

As long as the difference made is on aesthetics, that's fine. When you are arguing why one is a better all-rounder or cricketer than the other, I think we are taking aesthetics to mean more than they actually are.

Kallis actually averages less than sobers and he is boring. He should not even be mentioned alongside the great man as a batter alone. Sorry to sound dismissive here. Please dont insult sir gary with these comparisons anymore. he deserves a better treatment at his advanced age. kallis can be compared with sutcliffe, boycott, barrington and dravid. great players all but one plane below the greatest of the greats. that is where he belongs.

Both Kallis' and Sobers' averages are affected by weaker teams in their time. I'd be wary of rating them on their face-value averages. They'd probably average similarly but Sobers stepped up against the best teams of his time and thus puts him on another plane.

Still, as all-rounders, Kallis was probably a bit better than Sobers with his bowling and when the differences are this small you'd expect him to be lauded to the high heavens. If Sobers is undisputed #1 in the eyes of many, you'd think Kallis would be touted as easy 2nd by the same people.

 

[honestbharani]

Don't think double hundreds particularly matter, but I propose that Shaun Pollock declaring when he was on 189* is the main reason he's never reached one.

The main reason Pollock declared on him was because he was given a time frame within which he could go for the 200 but he decided the N.O was more important and didn't give it a go...


Says a lot about his attitude... Geoff Boycott once mentioned it on commentary that Kallis always bats with an eye on his average because he wanted to make up for his bad start in international cricket... And having seen enough of him, I have to agree.


And about Sobers not doing half of what Kallis did... Sobers played county and sheffield shield cricket and the Windies FC stuff when FC games meant a lot more than they do now... He played super tests and he played games just about every day of the week during the English season and still maintained his superiority for over 20 years... Let us talk in 2016 if Kallis is still around then..


Comparing cricketers is one thing but this is bloody denigrating for one of the greatest cricketers (if not THE greatest cricketer) of all time....

 

[bagapath]

You yourself said that GREATS like Sutcliffe, Boycs and RD were one plane below the greats then how can you consider them being greats? Strange!

I also made the distintion "greatest of the greats" in an earlier post to create a more exclusive tier within the greats; to distinguish the marshalls and hadlees from the donalds and waqars and separate the laras and tendulkars from the kallises and dravids. if you had read that line this would not sound too strange.

 

[bagapath]

If need be, Miller can bowl long spells and has proved himself doing so. But I was speaking in general, over a long career.

It's quite ironic to hear a player not needing a bit if cover especially when you hear Sobers being proposed as a 5th bowler. Further so, that because of his bowling you can pick another specialist batsman. 7 batsmen and 4 bowlers.

of course, the idea of a dream team is to have 11 players who would be the best at whatever they do. you dont select anyone who needs a cover. this is not a real situation where you have to compromise.

miller is not a top 5 batsman nor is he a top 5 bowler of all time. hence he wont make the cut. in fact, in such a team, sobers would have made it to the team as a batter anyway. so there is no need to justify his selection. and he need not be used as the fifth bowler at all. that is the point of selecting 4 bowlers who could take 20 wickets. miller cannot lend that balance to a tight bowling attack. he is not among the 5 greatest fast bowlers of all time. there are superior bowlers for one to choose. he is a great all rounder. i voted for miller in this thread, remember. he is, for my money, along with botham the best all rounder the game has ever seen. but that doesnt make him a more valuable cricketer than sobers.

anyway, ikki, i dont want to stray too far away from the thread anymore.

 

[Uppercut]

Your first line of the post says how much you know about cricket, tbh...

Thanks for your input.

 

[kingkallis]

Thanks for your input.

How dare you supported someone "THEY" dont like?

 

[honestbharani]

How dare I say the truth, huh?

 

[kingkallis]

How dare I say the truth, huh?

On the basis of what? Flair and aggression?

 

[honestbharani]

On the basis of what? Flair and aggression?

no.. the stuff you seem to love the most.. stats..


What is Kallis' record against the Ws, Ambrose and Walsh and McWarne again????????????

 

[bagapath]

How dare you supported someone "THEY" dont like?

who are "they" my friend?

 

[kingkallis]

no.. the stuff you seem to love the most.. stats..


What is Kallis' record against the Ws, Ambrose and Walsh and McWarne again????????????

Are you sure we are talking about the GREATEST ALL-ROUNDER OF ALL TIME?

How many MOMs did Sobers manage?

How many runs did he score against poor bowling attacks back in his days?

You cant win on the basis of STATS mate!

 

[kingkallis]

who are "they" my friend?

The ones who does not rate Jacques Kallis that high, including yourself

 

[honestbharani]

Are you sure we are talking about the GREATEST ALL-ROUNDER OF ALL TIME?

How many MOMs did Sobers manage?

How many runs did he score against poor bowling attacks back in his days?

You cant win on the basis of STATS mate!

why does scoring runs against poor attacks become a criteria?



And isn't Mo Yo the top of the mountain in that regard????



And MoMs weren't given out in his days, were they? could be wrong though.



And yes, of course we are talking about the greatest all rounder of all time.. We are talking about Sobers afterall...



(I know it is just my opinion but the same holds true for you. Kallis maybe the greatest in your opinion, but don try to parade that as fact)

 

[silentstriker]

Sobers and Imran, since they would be first in my all time side. Botham better than either if I get to pick people only during their peaks.

Since some people only picked one, can I pick 3?

 

[jondavluc]

why does scoring runs against poor attacks become a criteria?



And isn't Mo Yo the top of the mountain in that regard????



And MoMs weren't given out in his days, were they? could be wrong though.



And yes, of course we are talking about the greatest all rounder of all time.. We are talking about Sobers afterall...



(I know it is just my opinion but the same holds true for you. Kallis maybe the greatest in your opinion, but don try to parade that as fact)

No you're right

 

[weldone]

Again with the double standards. You, and others, are saying that Sobers' greatness with the bat lifts up his bowling. But why cant you do that with someone like Hadlee whose batting was only handy but an absolute brillitant bowler?

People say that Sobers could walk into any team in any era as a batsman alone. Factor in his bowling and that makes him the greatest all rounder of all time

Ok, lets flip this

Hadlee would walk into any team in any era as a bowler. Factor in his batting and that makes him the greatest all rounder of all time.

Wait, what? No? Again, double standards. But I'm not going to change hundreds of years of bias towards batting over bowling in cricket.

Wait, this might not be double standards ... there is another possibility ... Those who voted for Sobers over Hadlee might (this 'might' may be removed, I think) have the opinion that -

Sobers' batting > or = Hadlee's bowling

and,

Sobers' bowling > Hadlee's batting

Now, you might or might not agree with this opinion, but you can't call this double standards...

 

[weldone]

sport is played to win... But then every team does play to win, even when they end up losing!!!!



Unless there is any real clear cut way to say that the team won BECAUSE of them and to also show that they DID NOT perform well BECAUSE their team was winning, it is clearly just not much of a thing to go by.

Agree With The Above...

 

[Fusion]

Since some people only picked one, can I pick 3?

Hard to justify that since you haven't even voted for one!

 

[slippyslip]

Wait, this might not be double standards ... there is another possibility ... Those who voted for Sobers over Hadlee might (this 'might' may be removed, I think) have the opinion that -

Sobers' batting > or = Hadlee's bowling

and,

Sobers' bowling > Hadlee's batting

Now, you might or might not agree with this opinion, but you can't call this double standards...

But people dont think that way. They only think great batting + average bowler = greatest all rounder. Show me one person ever, anywhere, making the argument that players like Hadlee or Imran's great bowling + handy batting make them the greatest all rounder.

And lets not forget that Sobers as a batsman is nowhere in the league of Bradman.

Hadlee is one of the greatest bowlers of all time. It wouldnt matter if his batting average was 0.00.

Now Sobers was one of the greatest batsman of all time. It wouldnt matter if he never took a test wicket.

But in this thread are saying "Sobers is one of the greatest batsman ever and with his 235 wickets he is the greatest all rounder." They are using his batting credentials to strengthen his claim as an all-rounder

But the double standard is that people dont look at a bowler's record and say "Oh, he was great bowler and a handy batsmen therefore he is the greatest all rounder"