bagapath
International Captain
yeapShould we not save this discussion of Imran and Botham for another poll?
yeapShould we not save this discussion of Imran and Botham for another poll?
Yeah this is all true. Miller was cut short in his prime really. He could have been so much better statistically if he hadn't got the injury. Oh well at least he survived the war and came back and showed us what he did.These are both true. Competition for wickets was fierce particularly with Lindwall and the hugely-underrated Bill Johnston, with a supporting cast including - at various times and to varying degrees - the likes of Johnson, Toshack, McCool, Archer, Benaud and Davidson.
You're absolutely right that he didn't do as much bowling as he might have, and this was due to the back injury he suffered when he crash landed his Mosquito during WWII. While he played 55 Tests, he didn't do what most people would consider 55 Tests worth of bowling. Hence the relatively ordinary wpm ratio.
I don't think I'd put Hadlee in the "average" batsmen category. It depends who you think is average though.It's the difference of a good batsman vs. an average batsman against an all-time great bowler vs. a good bowler
My approach to raw figures:Well, Botham and Imran offer a perfect example why I think that way. Go by the raw figures. Imran scored 30.2 runs per innings, Botham scored 32.3 runs per innings. Yet their averages of 37 and 33 respectively suggests that Imran contributed a lot more to his team with the bat than Botham did. What good are not outs if you're still contributing less to a team than the guy who did get out?
So by this reasoning Kallis is as good as Sobers? Botham worse than pretty much everyone else?My approach to raw figures:
Batting average
- Divide runs scored by number of times dismissed.
For all-rounders
- Where a batsman happens to bat for 5 minutes and makes 2 not out, do not treat it as effectively 2-and-out, because that would quite obviously produce an unfairly distorted batting average.
Subtract bowling average from batting average.
Simple!
Same ground 8 years earlier was just as good a spell of bowling overall. Difference is, he was threatening all day back then. 2005 his opening spell was sheer awesome but afterwards, was okay.By the way, if we pick McGrath then we should play at Lords.
YouTube - Ashes 2005 | 1st Test (Lords) Day 1, 3rd Session Highlights
Just watched it again. What a venemous spell of bowling.
He really exploited that ground better than anyone else. Picked up a Michelle there every test he played.Same ground 8 years earlier was just as good a spell of bowling overall. Difference is, he was threatening all day back then. 2005 his opening spell was sheer awesome but afterwards, was okay.
Lord = McGrathville.
Kallis is overtly underrated.So by this reasoning Kallis is as good as Sobers? Botham worse than pretty much everyone else?
So by this reasoning Kallis is as good as Sobers? Botham worse than pretty much everyone else?
Yep. How does someone possibly, in this era, become such a quality batsman and bowler? It was different in Sobers's day, cricket was so much less professional and occasionally you would come across exceptional talent in two areas. But with the amount of training and work people do today in order to be as good as they can in sport, I find it incredible that someone can be SO good at batting, bowling and slip catching. Kallis is probably in my all-time XI.Kallis is overtly underrated.
Being underrated and being as good as Sobers aren't the same thing though.Kallis is overtly underrated.
Obviously it's not the only way of analysing a player's ability or his contribution.So by this reasoning Kallis is as good as Sobers? Botham worse than pretty much everyone else?
Dead set awful maths right there.18 more with the bat than ball. (40 v 18 IIRC).
Oops!Dead set awful maths right there.
No, you should hope that we do run out of steam...I hope you guys dont run out of steam before we start the no.6 poll where precisely these same issues will be raised
I don't know whether Kallis was as good as Sobers, but I definitely think he belongs in the debate. When Sobers played, the standard you needed to push yourself to in order to play international cricket to a good standard was lower- there was still an amateur ethos, fitness wasn't so vital, fielding was less intense. This is the case for all players compared across eras- it's generally not fair to hold it against players from earlier eras.In Kallis' case, the similarity between his stats and Sobers' are striking. Sobers is in my view the greater player because he was a better and more attacking batsman, and this was both players' primary suit. Kallis as a bowler didn't have Sobers' versatility but his record is nonetheless highly impressive and his bowling is often, as W might say, misunderestimated.