You could argue his name for bowler of the tournament, but off the top of my head I cant actually remember him making any runs in WC matchesWorld Cup matches in last decade: Hogg (sure he can't play Test cricket and his ODI has been erratic but in the last two world cups he has been the all rounder of the tounaments!)
Scored 42 runs @ 8.40 in 2003 and 45 unbeaten runs in 2007. Hardly enough to say he has been the 'all-rounder' of the tournament.You could argue his name for bowler of the tournament, but off the top of my head I cant actually remember him making any runs in WC matches
NO WAY IN HELL.Irfan Pathan.
Well for a start, he is a batsman, not a batter. Secondly, his bowling hasn't been good enough for a few years now and his wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe really skew his statistics. People could look at his bowling average (31.72) and think "Yeah, that's decent" but really, once you take away his performances against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh it backs up the point that Kallis' bowling isn't really that good, with an average of 34.35. Fact is, since 2003 his bowling has been substandard, infact his two worst years with the ball (2004 and 2005) have been his two most productive with the bat, hardly a coincidence IMO. It means he can't really be considered a genuine all-rounder, as his bowling has become less and less effective as of late. So yes, he does fit into the "batsman that can bowl" category, much like a Nathan Astle or Scott Styris.For those who don't vote Kallis, with some reasoning, stating that he is not an 'all-rounder', which is fair enough. But if he is not an all-rounder, is he a batter who can bowl or is there another category?
'Batter who can bowl better than others but not as good as genuine bowlers?'