A team of all-rounders, did I see Tony Greig in their, I was just about to make a comment about him being the weak link, but I think even I could play in this team and still no one would come close to knocking them over.C_C said:Eddie Barlow
Vinoo Mankad
Gary Sobers
Jacques Kallis
Keith Miller
Adam Gillchrist(wkt)
Imran Khan (capt)
Ian Botham
Kapil Dev
Richard Hadlee
Ritchie Benaud
I thought you had him their so the Aussies could par-take in some sledgingC_C said:well i had gregie in there due to his batting but decieded that Kallis would be a better bet.
Imran and Miller are about equal, imo. Miller bowled in an era of massively high scores and flat wickets and achieved a phenomenal average, greatest bowler of his era alongside Lindwall and turned matches regularly. Imran was more of a specialised bowler and carried his attack a bit more.C_C said:Imran behind Hadlee ? Yes. Iman behind any other pacer in that group ? No.
Would you not say that Kallis is becoming a 'great' batsman with his career so far? 22 centuries is more than enough in my book to get into the upper echelons of cricketing talent.Adamc said:There's only really one 'great' batsman there, but it wouldn't really matter with that sort of depth.
Imran faced one of the greatest batting lineups in his era and did splendidly.Imran and Miller are about equal, imo. Miller bowled in an era of massively high scores and flat wickets and achieved a phenomenal average, greatest bowler of his era alongside Lindwall and turned matches regularly.
I find a comment like that a little difficult to understand. 383 Test wickets isn't doing too badly.C_C said:And Botham the bowler is nowhere close to Imran-Hadlee-Miller.
He probably will be regarded as 'great', I'm just reluctant to give him that label just yet. The main reason is that a number of his contemporaries are regarded as better than him: Lara and Tendulkar (definitely), Dravid and Ponting (probably), and Inzamam (possibly). If he continues to play well once Lara, Tendulkar and co. are gone in a few years, though, he will probably be regarded as one of the greats of his era.PY said:Would you not say that Kallis is becoming a 'great' batsman with his career so far? 22 centuries is more than enough in my book to get into the upper echelons of cricketing talent.
That's assuming that Sobers is the 'great' you speak of.
I guess that's a large part of it. In fact he was averaging 40 as recently as 2001 - and he had played 50 Tests by that stage. Since then his performances have improved massively though, averaging about 57 now. It will probably be the case that Kallis will be regarded as one of the greats of the '00s' (even though he played a lot in the 90s) while Lara and Tendulkar will be regarded as greats of the 90s (even though they've both played a lot since 2000).PY said:Ah, think I understand, you're only referring to people being great i.e. relatively peerless and talked about as being the batsmen of the 90s/00s, I guess I was just looking at his record and that compares favourably to most of the people you mention. Not sure why he isn't looked at as one of those people you mention though.
Someone to do with the fact he's only been scoring very very heavily in last two years? How long would he have to keep it up to be regarded as great? I wonder if he was from Australia, India or England he'd be regarded as one of them.