Would Jacques Kallis and Imran Khan get more respect if they weren't all-rounders?

[G.I.Joe]

To add some context, Miller is basically a combination of Mark Waugh (bat) and Dennis Lillee (ball). Most unreal cricketer ever,

Sure, if Mark Waugh was a slightly worse batsman and Dennis Lillee was a slightly worse bowler.

 

[hendrix]

Mark Waugh is not good enough to bat 5 against the Martian bowling attack.

 

[Days of Grace]

What's the obsession of batting Sobers at no.6 below Miller anyway?

 

[Prince EWS]

What's the obsession of batting Sobers at no.6 below Miller anyway?

He's got this thing about Miller being more likely to score runs at five than anywhere else I think.

 

[kyear2]

Miller is not good enough to bat in the top 6 on an ATG XI and Shaun Pollock has no right even being mentioned in a first XI. By doing this you are excluding arguably the 2nd and third best batsmen of all time to play a 6th or 7th bowler, who will not bowl more than 3 overs an innings. You are also excluding the three bowlers who are genuinely in the discussion for the best ever to have extra batting at no. 11.
This is what happens when one gets caught up with fitting in all rounders, quantity over quality.

 

[kyear2]

What's the obsession of batting Sobers at no.6 below Miller anyway?

With Miller and Kallis in the top order (where I not sure they should be), Sobers has to bat at 4. He is a superior batsman to both so no point in burying him at 6.

 

[Gowza]

miller was a ridiculous talent, not many players have ever had the talent to be an ATG as both a batter and as a bowler. for a player to have ATG talent in one suit is rare, for them to achieve ATG great status in that suit is rarer again. then for them to have ATG talent in 2 suits (specifically batting and bowling) well that is even rare again, and for someone to achieve the career performance of both an ATG batsman and an ATG bowler, well it's never been done. having the talent to achieve it, and actually achieving it, they are two different things.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

With Miller and Kallis in the top order (where I not sure they should be), Sobers has to bat at 4. He is a superior batsman to both so no point in burying him at 6.

He was a superior batsman to everyone who even batted with him. I think it's based on that Sobers batted 6 for WI,

 

[kyear2]

He mainly batted at 6 later in his career and because of his bowling load. It was also after the emergence of Kanhai and Hunte. But yes he did bat at 6 a bit but he was successful everywhere.

 

[Riggins]

miller was a ridiculous talent, not many players have ever had the talent to be an ATG as both a batter and as a bowler. for a player to have ATG talent in one suit is rare, for them to achieve ATG great status in that suit is rarer again. then for them to have ATG talent in 2 suits (specifically batting and bowling) well that is even rare again, and for someone to achieve the career performance of both an ATG batsman and an ATG bowler, well it's never been done. having the talent to achieve it, and actually achieving it, they are two different things.

marto a good shout for both on these criteria.

 

[marc71178]

So some of the best cricketers of all time have done it a few times.
I bet we can find some less impressive cricketers who have also done it.

I'd be surprised if you can find any less impressive cricketer who's done it - this is the list I looked at: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/51374-best-against-best-7.html#post2556222

 

[Riggins]

Marto had a series where he averaged 149.5 with the bat and 4 with the ball. Does that qualify?

 

[viriya]

Shaun Pollock has no right even being mentioned in a first XI. .

Comparing Pollock and McGrath average innings performances:
Batting: 32 avg vs 7 => 25 more runs per innings with Pollock
Bowling: 2/46 vs 2/36 (adjusting McGrath's 0.3 more wkts/innings to equate to less runs) => 10 less runs per innings for opposition with McGrath

Obviously McGrath was a better bowler, but Pollock was a significantly better bat and holds his own in the bowling department (with a similar bowling style). So Pollock over McGrath is actually not that much of a stretch to make.

Miller at #5 I don't agree with either, he may bring quality bowling, but once you have 6 quality bowling options any more don't really add much - I would take 15+ runs more per innings from a 50+ average bat over him. I would never pick a #5 who has never made even a 150+ score in Tests in my ATG XI.

Sunil Gavaskar
Matthew Hayden
Don Bradman
Jacques Kallis
Kumar Sangakkara+
Garry Sobers
Imran Khan*
Shaun Pollock
Richard Hadlee
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralidaran

This XI's averages adds up to ~500 runs/innings, with 5 ATG bowlers and 2 quality support acts to clean-up the opposition twice.

 

[kyear2]

Comparing Pollock and McGrath average innings performances:
Batting: 32 avg vs 7 => 25 more runs per innings with Pollock
Bowling: 2/46 vs 2/36 (adjusting McGrath's 0.3 more wkts/innings to equate to less runs) => 10 less runs per innings for opposition with McGrath

Obviously McGrath was a better bowler, but Pollock was a significantly better bat and holds his own in the bowling department (with a similar bowling style). So Pollock over McGrath is actually not that much of a stretch to make.

Miller at #5 I don't agree with either, he may bring quality bowling, but once you have 6 quality bowling options any more don't really add much - I would take 15+ runs more per innings from a 50+ average bat over him. I would never pick a #5 who has never made even a 150+ score in Tests in my ATG XI.

Sunil Gavaskar
Matthew Hayden
Don Bradman
Jacques Kallis
Kumar Sangakkara+
Garry Sobers
Imran Khan*
Shaun Pollock
Richard Hadlee
Shane Warne
Muttiah Muralidaran

This XI's averages adds up to ~500 runs/innings, with 5 ATG bowlers and 2 quality support acts to clean-up the opposition twice.

Pollock averaged 3.89 WPM, a strike rate over 57 and only 16 fivers in 108 Tests. He is not a top tier fast bowler in the vein of Marshall and McGrath, and cannot be selected before either. This is literally the first time I have seen anyone name Pollock in an ATXI, or Hayden btw.

 

[Red]

Sure, if Mark Waugh was a slightly worse batsman and Dennis Lillee was a slightly worse bowler.

Yeh, sure, if you want to be absolutely factual. The point remains though, he's basically a combination of a top shelf batsman (without a massive average- which is why I mentioned M.Waugh) plus one of the best frontline bowlers in the history of the game. Unique talent. Even if we said he was a combination of Greg Blewett and Craig McDermott, teams would fall over themselves to have him in their top six.

Mark Waugh is not good enough to bat 5 against the Martian bowling attack.

That's just silly. Mark Waugh can do anything, everyone knows that. He is a batting wizard.

What's the obsession of batting Sobers at no.6 below Miller anyway?

Sobers spent the majority of his career batting at 6. Miller spent the majority of his batting at 5.

He's got this thing about Miller being more likely to score runs at five than anywhere else I think.

Kinda....but mostly I like people batting in the spot they usually batted in.

Miller is not good enough to bat in the top 6 on an ATG XI and Shaun Pollock has no right even being mentioned in a first XI. By doing this you are excluding arguably the 2nd and third best batsmen of all time to play a 6th or 7th bowler, who will not bowl more than 3 overs an innings. You are also excluding the three bowlers who are genuinely in the discussion for the best ever to have extra batting at no. 11.
This is what happens when one gets caught up with fitting in all rounders, quantity over quality.

It was a team of all rounders in an all rounders thread. Not an out and out ATG team.

 

[viriya]

Pollock averaged 3.89 WPM, a strike rate over 57 and only 16 fivers in 108 Tests. He is not a top tier fast bowler in the vein of Marshall and McGrath, and cannot be selected before either. This is literally the first time I have seen anyone name Pollock in an ATXI, or Hayden btw.

Statistically he adds 15 more runs over the opposition than McGrath like I showed. He only takes 0.3 wickets/innings less than McGrath (who got to bowl in more innings because Aus usually bowled twice everytime).

Hayden - I probably would replace him with Hutton actually, but he is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[viriya]

That's just silly. Mark Waugh can do anything, everyone knows that. He is a batting wizard.

Except average higher than 42 apparently.. I get where you're coming from though.. It's like Aravinda - I'd like to compare him with other Test greats but his stats are just way too inferior.. They both just looked good in Tests without actually delivering enough. Too much style not enough substance.

 

[Dan]

Or, y'know, cricket is played on fields and not spreadsheets.

And I swear this is about the 872638492376453th time this discussion has been held now.

 

[viriya]

Or, y'know, cricket is played on fields and not spreadsheets.

Pointing out that Mark Waugh averages much lower per innings than any other ATG batsman at his position doesn't mean I'm bringing out the spreadsheets.. average is the simplest stat there is and 10-15 runs more each innings is actually very relevant on the field.

If you're saying that with regards to Pollock vs McGrath, I can understand - obviously McGrath is a better bowler, but as a complete package Pollock brings a lot to the table and I just tried to quantify it a bit.

 

[Dan]

It just struck me as "Oh I would rate Aravinda, but he only averaged 42 so I can't, even though he was a gun and incredibly like-able and better than the stats would suggest".