JH Kallis v SM Pollock

[Craig]

It would in fact.

 

[SquidAU]

It is hard to say who would the the best all rounder out of Kallis and Pollock, so I will go with this....They are both the best at what they do ie Kallis' batting and Pollock's bowling...

 

[Richard]

Hmm, let me see.

Khan has scored more runs at a higher average than Miller, whilst simultaneously taking more than twice as many wickets at a cheaper cost.

He also had to cope with the pressure of captaining and representing a nation that is far more fanatical about its cricket than Australia ever will be.

That enough for you?

Keith Miller in First-Class cricket: bat ave 48.9; bowl ave 22.3
Keith Miller in Test cricket: bat ave 36.97; bowl ave 22.97
I suggest you check Imran Khan and the rest again, and then reconsider.
Keith Miller's record is second only to Sobers' in the First-Class game. OK, he never had the chance to play the one-day game, but I'm pretty sure he'd have done rather well there, too.
As for captaincy, if you'd played cricket to an especially high level or listened to those who had, once you're on the field everything disappears. It doesn't matter how many hollering fans or anything are around - this simply doesn't affect the best players.

 

[Richard]

what are you on about? 'Where on earth do you pull those names from' gives the impression you have never heard of Botham,Imran,kapil Dev and Hadlee.

Each one of those 4 players has certainly had a bigger impact on test and ODI cricket than Kallis or Pollock as ALLROUNDERS...although Hadlee made a bigger impact with the ball than with the bat.

I have heard of them all...
All of their achievements pale when compared to those of Keith Miller.

 

[Swervy]

Keith Miller in First-Class cricket: bat ave 48.9; bowl ave 22.3
Keith Miller in Test cricket: bat ave 36.97; bowl ave 22.97
I suggest you check Imran Khan and the rest again, and then reconsider.
Keith Miller's record is second only to Sobers' in the First-Class game. OK, he never had the chance to play the one-day game, but I'm pretty sure he'd have done rather well there, too.
As for captaincy, if you'd played cricket to an especially high level or listened to those who had, once you're on the field everything disappears. It doesn't matter how many hollering fans or anything are around - this simply doesn't affect the best players.

yes and there was Wally Hammond as well, and a whole host of other great allrounders, but as we werent around then, it is pretty hard to judge really how great these players were.

i have no doubts at all that Miller was one of the greats, but you seem to be completely dismissing the 'big 4' of the 70's and 80's, infact you even said that Pollock and Kallis are better, when for people who actually saw Both,Imran,Dev and hadlee playing in their prime,that is pretty hard to swallow.

kallis is no doubt a top batsman, but he doesnt compare to Botham in his prime,Imran,or hadlee or even Dev at his best.

Pollock is a great bowler, but his batting is nowhere near as good as Botham(again in his prime),Imran or probably Kapil Dev's, and is probably around the same level as Hadlees.

the of course you have the fielding, Botham was one of the great slip fielders you would ever want to see

 

[Rik]

I'm beginning to wonder about some of richard's motives here as he just seems to be out to wind everyone up( notably marc ), with the endless smart **** drivel that he comes up with, just keep it to yourself sometimes.

Wrong thread there...

 

[twctopcat]

Wrong thread there...

Sorry bout that, only found out bout the marc/richard thread after i had written it!
Just annoys me that richard discards botham,kapil dev,imran and hadlee before miller,pollock and kallis. They're all good in different ways, and that is that.

 

[Swervy]

I have heard of them all...
All of their achievements pale when compared to those of Keith Miller.

all of their achievements pale when compared to Millers...ok...

miller played 55 tests...taking each players figures after each had played 55 tests....

Miller
Batting 2958 runs at 36.97 7 100's 13 50's
Bowling 170 wickets at 22.97 econ 2.24 SR 61.5 7 x 5 wicks 1x10wick

absolutely agree, a legend, one of the all time greats

Botham (after 55 tests)
Batting 3008 runs at 37.13 11 100's 12 50's
Bowling 255wickets at 23.68 econ 2.73 SR 51.1 20x5wicks 4x10wickets

now by this point Botham had lost his edge, but his stats more than hold up in comparision to Millers.

Imran Khan (after 55 tests)
Batting 2099 runs at 30.86 2 100's 8 50's
Bowling 252wickets at 22.18 econ 2.51 SR 52.8 17x5wicks 4x10wickets

but Imran actually got better from this point on, his batting became one of the strongest in the world (over the next 33 matches, he increased his batting ave to around 38,scored another 4 100's and 10 50's) and his bowling improved as well.So on the whole Imran hold up vs Miller as well

Hadlee (after 55 tests)..pointless quoting his batting coz he really was more known for the bowling, his batting was the weakest of the lot, his bowling the strongest.

Bowling: 259wickets at 23.88 econ 2.66 SR 53. 8 19 x5wicks 4x10wickets

Hadlee became even more effective the older he got,his last 31 tests yielded 172 wickets 17 five wicket hauls, and 5 ten wicket matches at an average of 19.9...so his bowling was more than a match for Millers.

kapil Dev (after 55tests)
Batting:2257 runs at 31.78 3 100's 12 50's
Bowling: 215wickets at 29.01 econ:3.13 SR:55.58 16x5wick 1x10wickets

Not bad bowling figures when you consider where he had to bowl for a lot of his games,and with basically no fast bowling supporting him.

Shaun Pollock (after 55 matches)
Batting: 1988 runs at 32.06 2 100's 8 50's
Bowling:222wickets at 20.72 econ 2.28 SR: 54.33 11x5wickets 0x10wickets

Pollocks batting as got better,and his bowling is brilliant.

Kallis (after 55matches)
Batting:3612 runs at 48.16 9 100's 19 50's
Bowling: 105 wickets at 28.58 econ 2.46 SR:69.9 2x5wickets 0x10wickets

Kallis' batting is going from strength to strength...but he isnt overly used in tests as a bowler and now averages over 30 with the ball.


So richard, your dimissal of Botham,Imran,Dev,hadlee seems a bit misplaced..these four turned games on there heads in the matter of an hour or a session with amazing regularity, and their figures easily compared to those of Miller......Kallis to me is a great batsman who bowls well and isnt up there amongst the GREAT allrounders,Pollock is a great bowler who bats well, and again I dont think has yet proved to be up there with the Sobers,or the Bothams of world cricket

 

[marc71178]

Keith Miller in First-Class cricket: bat ave 48.9; bowl ave 22.3
Keith Miller in Test cricket: bat ave 36.97; bowl ave 22.97
I suggest you check Imran Khan and the rest again, and then reconsider.

Why, because Imran's Test record is better than Miller's?

Keith Miller's record is second only to Sobers' in the First-Class game.

But where it really counts (ie Tests), it is worse than Imrans, particularly with the ball.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I suggest you check Imran Khan and the rest again, and then reconsider.

The record books have been checked and rechecked and Miller certainly doesn't smoke Imran as you seem to think.

 

[thierry henry]

I got booed out of another forum for saying this, but Kallis' figures really match up pretty nicely with Sobers'. From memory Kallis averages 53 with the bat to Sobers' 57, while Sobers averaged 34 with the ball to Kallis' 30. As you can see, a difference of 4 either way, and it won't be long before Kallis, who is still remarkably young, eclipses Sobers in terms of longevity, runs, and wickets. What will we say then???

Pollock probably ranks just behind Khan atm. Khan is ahead of him by a few runs average with the bat, and slightly behind with the ball. Botham is up with Khan with the bat, but a bit behind with the ball. Hadlee is up with Khan with the ball, but far enough behind with the bat to put him behind Botham. Dev rounds out the field. Miller is hard to compare because he didn't play as many tests, but on averages he's probably alongside Botham.

 

[thierry henry]

Ok, slight rethink. Miller goes just below Khan and just above Botham. So here we go, the official list:P

1. Sobers (cos everyone says so)
2. Kallis (cos his stats are so close to Sobers')
3. Khan
4. Miller
5. Botham
6. Pollock (very close to Botham, I struggled to separate them)
7. Hadlee
8. Dev

 

[Swervy]

Ok, slight rethink. Miller goes just below Khan and just above Botham. So here we go, the official list:P

1. Sobers (cos everyone says so)
2. Kallis (cos his stats are so close to Sobers')
3. Khan
4. Miller
5. Botham
6. Pollock (very close to Botham, I struggled to separate them)
7. Hadlee
8. Dev

Dont base it just on the figures....some of us had the honour of seeing Botham, Khan,Dev and hadlee at their peaks.

When Botham was at his peak,he was the most successful bowler in the world,and regularly tore opposition bowling to shreds,and during that time (5 years roughly) he was more of a game winner for England than Sobers was....his success will probably never be attained in the next 50 or so years..a truely once in a life time player...who lost his edge when he put on weight and also developed back trouble.He was also an astonishing slip fielder.Botham during 1977 to 1982 period would have made the team on batting alone or bowling alone.

Sobers has got to be up there...his batting performance was astonishing, but he rarely turned games with his bowling...however he could bowl spin and quite fast and was electric in the field (by all accounts).

Imran developed into a very classy batsman, and at his peak, he was extremely fast with the ability to seam and swing the ball.He changed games more with the ball...but he could easily get into the Pakistan team on batting ability alone he did a hell of a lot for Pakistan cricket.

Hadlee in my book is the best bowler I have seen...his batting wasnt always successful but he did have some games where he did bat brilliantly (one i remember when he bowled England out for under 100 in both innings,and scored 99 runs himself in NZ only innings of 300)

Dev at his peak was a great bowler, who could be pretty quick and could turn games with his bowling. He could also do it with his batting (175 vs Zimb in 83 WC,after India were 17 for 5 )


Pollock is a great bowler, but you do feel you can get him out as a batter..I dont think he is up there with the likes of Botham,Imran or Dev in that.Overall I dont think he is quite up there as an all rounder.

Kallis is developing into a dominant batsman, who in my opinion is a good bowler, but he will rarely change a match with his bowling...thats why i dont yet think he can be classed up there with the big boys

Miller was obviously a ground breaking player,who people paid good money just to see play. I think he will probably be remembered by those around then as a bowling allrounder who was pretty damned good with the bat.

But what about the likes of Proctor,Eddie barlow,Clive Rice.
i think out of those, Proctor was as good as any and deserves to be up in the top 3 or 4 of all time.

Then you have others like Hammond etc...Kallis (at number 2 all time in your list) has a fair bit of improving bowling wise until he gets to the levels of the all time greats

 

[Swervy]

maybe someone we should forget about in the allrounders stakes is Heath Streak...not saying is one of the all time greats but i think everyone forgets about him,and his batting has come on so much recently, and he is still the class bowler for Zimbabwe..if he still had the pace he did when he was younger he would be right up there

 

[ankitj]

Fair to say that nearly 10 years later, Kallis is firmly ahead in this comparison?

 

[SeamUp]

Totally different all-rounders who didn't take their other suit seriously enough ?

Kallis when he first started bowled as quick as anyone when he wanted to and bowled big away swingers. Then he had a quiet period and then found himself again and always chipped in with wickets.

Polly definitely didn't take his batting seriously enough but even then a test average of 32 was decent as an attacking batsman and risk taker because of the depth we had in our batting. He could easily have batted higher if he gave it more time. Helluva classy.

Nice little insert about his first test century.

 

[Dendarii]

Polly definitely didn't take his batting seriously enough but even then a test average of 32 was decent as an attacking batsman and risk taker because of the depth we had in our batting. He could easily have batted higher if he gave it more time. Helluva classy.

Perhaps that depth was the reason that both of them didn't take their secondary skill as seriously - there just wasn't the need. Pollock coming in so low down meant that any runs he scored were generally seen as a bonus rather than the main part of posting a total, and playing alongside the likes of Donald, Pollock, Ntini, and Steyn meant Kallis never had to lead the bowling attack. If they'd been required to take more responsibility would they have done better, or could it have had the opposite effect with their primary discipline being affected negatively?

 

[SeamUp]

Perhaps that depth was the reason that both of them didn't take their secondary skill as seriously - there just wasn't the need. Pollock coming in so low down meant that any runs he scored were generally seen as a bonus rather than the main part of posting a total, and playing alongside the likes of Donald, Pollock, Ntini, and Steyn meant Kallis never had to lead the bowling attack. If they'd been required to take more responsibility would they have done better, or could it have had the opposite effect with their primary discipline being affected negatively?

Agree. It bugs me when people don't consider that an all-rounder. They don't have to be the centre-point to be an all-rounder because as it is a team sport. If you can bat and bowl to high standard for your teams role then you are an all-rounder to me. Just that there are different types of all-rounders.

We've been lucky to be in this situation in SA cricket.

Batting all-rounder : Goddard, Barlow, Kallis, McMillan, Rice, Lance, Greig (even guys like Kuiper, R.Ontong, R.Pienaar, Kemp) - always felt Cronje/Callaghan were tricky one's though if you saw them bowl.
Bowling all-rounder : Procter, S.Pollock, Klusener (even guys like Ferreira, Simons, Hall, vd Wath, A.Morkel, McLaren & numerous recent guys)

The spinners :

Batting : Faulkner
Bowling : J.du Preez, de Vaal, Kourie, Symcox, Boje, Shaw, Rundle, Crookes, Peterson, Botha , "Maharaj"

Basically to me if your batting average is above your bowling average then you have to be in consideration for an all-rounder. There is that thin line though.

Take Starc, Cummins, Pattinson and their batting ability vs Philander's career. Can we differentiate between them ? It is interesting to see where we consider them. Because this where there are the question marks. Just taking a certain era of SA cricket but guys like Le Roux, Jefferies averaged 25+ as well batting low down the order. They a bit more than handy runs down the order with a 15-20 average for example.

 

[mr_mister]

recently i realised that batting over bowling rule for all-rounders goes out the window a bit when youre talking about elite batsman. if you average 47 with the bat and 43 with the ball are you an effective all-rounder? food for thought

 

[SeamUp]

recently i realised that batting over bowling rule for all-rounders goes out the window a bit when youre talking about elite batsman. if you average 47 with the bat and 43 with the ball are you an effective all-rounder? food for thought

True. I suppose that is where discretion has to be involved. I actually remember that conversation on here recently.