• 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.

Bowling All Rounders or Batting All Rounders +

Which is more important to a team

  • Total voters
    22
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
To me Kallis barely makes top 20 bats, whereas Wasim is in the top 10 bowlers ever. So a notable improvement in primary makes much more difference than Kallis having better secondary skills, especially as Wasim could bat. Kallis would be a better cricketer maybe if Wasim couldn't bat at all.

Do you rate Kallis as better than Steyn given his batting, bowling and slip combo?
Click to expand...
I have Kallis 14th and Wasim 11th, so yeah, way closer than you do. So Kallis fairly easily for me.

I still have Steyn higher. Steyn is a top 4 bowler, that's hard to beat. But yeah, closer than Wasim and Kallis.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
kyear2 said:
I have Kallis 14th and Wasim 11th, so yeah, way closer than you do. So Kallis fairly easily for me.

I still have Steyn higher. Steyn is a top 4 bowler, that's hard to beat. But yeah, closer than Wasim and Kallis.
Click to expand...
I guess I tend not to rate secondary skills as high as you do unless they reach a threshold of being specialist level like Imran or Sobers that can potentially allow you an extra space in a regular team.

The difference between Steyn and Wasim is higher in ranking but in real game play is minor. It's just that these minor differences in primary ability matter so much more. Hence why Wasim being ahead of Kallis in primary plus his batting overtakes him.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
I guess I tend not to rate secondary skills as high as you do unless they reach a threshold of being specialist level like Imran or Sobers that can potentially allow you an extra space in a regular team.

The difference between Steyn and Wasim is higher in ranking but in real game play is minor. It's just that these minor differences in primary ability matter so much more. Hence why Wasim being ahead of Kallis in primary plus his batting overtakes him.
Click to expand...
You have always underestimated Kallis's batting and hold him overall in low regard.

I have them very close in primary skill, very. Almost equal in fact.

Kallis is the considerably better bowler and again, one of the ATGs at slip.

Kallis is just one of the guys you don't like.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
kyear2 said:
You have always underestimated Kallis's batting and hold him overall in low regard.

I have them very close in primary skill, very. Almost equal in fact.

Kallis is the considerably better bowler and again, one of the ATGs at slip.

Kallis is just one of the guys you don't like.
Click to expand...
You're right I am not going to put a universally praised bowler like Wasim the same level with Kallis.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
You're right I am not going to put a universally praised bowler like Wasim the same level with Kallis.
Click to expand...
Hey, I'm all for peer review.

But for the sake of argument where does Wasim's record excellent over Kallis's?

Even looking at peer review, for a healthy part of Wasim's career, Sir Curly was ahead of him, and at the end McGrath.

And regarding bowler ratings and Wasim being top 10, I have
Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Steyn, Ambrose, Warne, Murali, Lillee over him and it's close between him and Donald and more often than not I have Donald ahead.

With Kallis, I have over him.
Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Richards, Hobbs, Lara, Smith, Hutton, Richards*, Gavaskar, Chappell, Hammond, Ponting, that's it, then it's him and Border.

Then we had an entire conversation where Wasim wasn't even considered all rounder level, while Kallis is seen as one of the top 3 all rounders ever. There no universe where Wasim is a better batsman than Kallis was a bowler.

Then we have a top 10 ever slip fielder who was indispensable to his team and instrumental to his pacers at home and away.

Yeah.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Don't care about slip. Opportunity cost is small for a replacement. And it's not like others in the field are just twiddling thumbs.

So on skills that truly stand out, I think there is a strong case to be made for batting all-rounders who strengthen the team balance better than bowling all-rounders.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
ankitj said:
Don't care about slip. Opportunity cost is small for a replacement. And it's not like others in the field are just twiddling thumbs.

So on skills that truly stand out, I think there is a strong case to be made for batting all-rounders who strengthen the team balance better than bowling all-rounders.
Click to expand...
Ignoring the first bit...

Exactly. Even if you have a Hadlee, that doesn't helping your quest for a 5th bowling option. You still need the batting all rounder. Hence greater inherent value.

And re your first point the difference between a Kallis and a Root or Smith is more than obvious and adds further value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top