Kallis best all rounder EVER!

[Bumper]

Good one. :--D I do agree with Andy that his bowling is crap. How he got those wickets, I don't know, don't care. When I see him bowl I just see mediocrity. Regarding Sobers and not having seen him, etc, when you don't get to see someone, you go by what you read. When you can see mediocre bowling, you don't need to rely on what others have to say.

So suddenly the visuals are the most influential decision variable, eh ?:winky: Wonder why this wasn't a criteria for Bradman :haha: Anyways, I think you dismissing Kallis as a mediocre bowler (and therefore weighing down his all rounder status) is a bit preposterous. That tells me that most of you have understood the role of an all rounder incorrectly. Do you expect Kallis to be a strike bowler as well as SAF's premier batsman in his entire career ? Now tell me which all rounder in history has managed and delivered on that kinda responsibility consistently ? Kallis is a useful supporting bowler (much better than a part timer like Sehwag or Tendulkar). He bowls at 130+ kph @ very good economy rate & picks up top order wickets once in a while. I'd think most teams would kill to have a bowler like Kallis in their lineup (given his superlative batting ability). Just for perspective, what do you think of Abdul Razzaq, Angelo Mathews, Shane Watson & the likes, as test bowlers ? Here is the shocker, both Razzaq & Mathews are not even in the same league as Kallis, the bowler (in terms of stats). And if you go by stats, Shane Watson & hold your breadth, even, Andrew Flintoff do not boast a significantly better average than Kallis. Kallis is an effective test bowler. Thats all that matters. His batting stats alone are good enough to earn him a spot in the all timer list. As an all rounder its my opinion that he'd even leave Sobers in the shade.

[The Outsider]

There are tons and tons of footage available of Sobers. Some of it from the last few years of his career is of decent quality as well.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

kallis is amazing. best defensive technique of any batsman u will see, plus awesome consistency in run scoring. he is like a south afrikan tendulkar, just scores stacks of runs all the time. i dont rate his bowling that highly, but as a second suit, it's a really strong skill of his and he has a great record to show for it.

[yoda]

So suddenly the visuals are the most influential decision variable, eh ?:winky: Wonder why this wasn't a criteria for Bradman :haha:

Bradman needs no visuals or articles. 99.94 is enough. :winky:

Anyways, I think you dismissing Kallis as a mediocre bowler (and therefore weighing down his all rounder status) is a bit preposterous. That tells me that most of you have understood the role of an all rounder incorrectly. Do you expect Kallis to be a strike bowler as well as SAF's premier batsman in his entire career ? Now tell me which all rounder in history has managed and delivered on that kinda responsibility consistently ? Kallis is a useful supporting bowler (much better than a part timer like Sehwag or Tendulkar). He bowls at 130+ kph @ very good economy rate & picks up top order wickets once in a while. I'd think most teams would kill to have a bowler like Kallis in their lineup (given his superlative batting ability). Just for perspective, what do you think of Abdul Razzaq, Angelo Mathews, Shane Watson & the likes, as test bowlers ? Here is the shocker, both Razzaq & Mathews are not even in the same league as Kallis, the bowler (in terms of stats). And if you go by stats, Shane Watson & hold your breadth, even, Andrew Flintoff do not boast a significantly better average than Kallis. Kallis is an effective test bowler. Thats all that matters. His batting stats alone are good enough to earn him a spot in the all timer list. As an all rounder its my opinion that he'd even leave Sobers in the shade.

Regarding Kallis it has more to do with watching him bowl. He seems like a guy who just ambles across, using his strength to throw in a few bouncers here and there, managing to keep picking up wickets here and there, which is a mystery to me. I agree that he is a useful all rounder to have in the team cause he can give you wickets for free without using up a spot for a 5th bowler, but as in an all time greatest all rounders list, I would rank Kapil or Imran ahead of him, even leaving Sobers out of the discussion. He is a great bat who can chip in with the ball. On a team with already some great bats, I would take an Imran or a Kapil for their bowling abilities and what they can also do with the bat than a Kallis who ofc can add a ton of runs, but will not be anywhere close to being as effective with the ball.

[Raghav_12]

So suddenly the visuals are the most influential decision variable, eh ?:winky: Wonder why this wasn't a criteria for Bradman :haha: Anyways, I think you dismissing Kallis as a mediocre bowler (and therefore weighing down his all rounder status) is a bit preposterous. That tells me that most of you have understood the role of an all rounder incorrectly. Do you expect Kallis to be a strike bowler as well as SAF's premier batsman in his entire career ? Now tell me which all rounder in history has managed and delivered on that kinda responsibility consistently ? Kallis is a useful supporting bowler (much better than a part timer like Sehwag or Tendulkar). He bowls at 130+ kph @ very good economy rate & picks up top order wickets once in a while. I'd think most teams would kill to have a bowler like Kallis in their lineup (given his superlative batting ability). Just for perspective, what do you think of Abdul Razzaq, Angelo Mathews, Shane Watson & the likes, as test bowlers ? Here is the shocker, both Razzaq & Mathews are not even in the same league as Kallis, the bowler (in terms of stats). And if you go by stats, Shane Watson & hold your breadth, even, Andrew Flintoff do not boast a significantly better average than Kallis. Kallis is an effective test bowler. Thats all that matters. His batting stats alone are good enough to earn him a spot in the all timer list. As an all rounder its my opinion that he'd even leave Sobers in the shade.

I have no doubt about Kallis being very great player. In terms of overall numbers he leaves everybody behind. His only batting numbers are good enough to stake a claim in list of all time greatest and his bowling is total bonus on top of that. But I would say again he is not an all rounder in genuine terms. SA doesn't go in test match couting on Kallis bowling prowess. He is a support bowler nothing more than that. You can go by the bowling average of a support bowler. Watson averages 31 with the ball but that doesn't make him main bowler of Australia - even though it is close to the bowling average of Mitchell Johnson. You can't compare Kallis average with Srinath also. He bowled 43 overs per test (while playing outside India) while Kaliis bowls 20 overs per test. In my earlier posts I had given example of more balanced all rounders. I'll tell that again - C Cairns, Imran Khan (late eighties) and Kieth Miller are examples of most balanced all rounders. As a litmus test I would say - if Kallis' batting form deserts him, he'll be dropped from team no later than if it happens with Graeme Smith or ABDV or Amla.

[zen]

Even if Kallis isn't considered as a better all-rounder than Sobers, who also made it to the cricinfo ATG11, he has a chance of being termed as the best cricketer of 1990-2010 period for the number of runs scored and wkts taken! :P PS For the record, IMO, Sobers is best all-rounder and arguably the greatest cricketer ever, along with being the best batsman after the Don .... Sobers

[Bumper]

I have no doubt about Kallis being very great player. In terms of overall numbers he leaves everybody behind. His only batting numbers are good enough to stake a claim in list of all time greatest and his bowling is total bonus on top of that. But I would say again he is not an all rounder in genuine terms. SA doesn't go in test match couting on Kallis bowling prowess. He is a support bowler nothing more than that. You can go by the bowling average of a support bowler. Watson averages 31 with the ball but that doesn't make him main bowler of Australia - even though it is close to the bowling average of Mitchell Johnson. You can't compare Kallis average with Srinath also. He bowled 43 overs per test (while playing outside India) while Kaliis bowls 20 overs per test. In my earlier posts I had given example of more balanced all rounders. I'll tell that again - C Cairns, Imran Khan (late eighties) and Kieth Miller are examples of most balanced all rounders. As a litmus test I would say - if Kallis' batting form deserts him, he'll be dropped from team no later than if it happens with Graeme Smith or ABDV or Amla.

Keith Miller ? Just curious, have you watched him bat or bowl ? How come his stats have escaped your introspection ? And its apparent to me that you have not followed Imran Khan's career either. I have neither. But i have learnt from the resident ICF experts that Imran throughout his career was either in the team as a bowler or a batsman not both. In the earlier part of his career, he was a very good bowler (would not have found a place in the team as a batsman) and in the latter part, he was a competent batsman (would not have found a place as a bowler alone). If you look at his career stats, it gives you the impression that he can be expected to knock off the top order as a strike bowler and come back later on as a middle order batsman to score a 50. But thats not the case. But you've strictly gone by stats, see the irony ? So going by your narrow definition, none of the conventional all rounders are worthy of an all rounder tag. And that list includes Sobers, Hadlee, Botham, Kapil Dev, Flintoff, Kallis, Pollock & the likes. And Chris Cairns ? Geez! Chris Cairns at his best was a very good player, not a great. He was never a great batsman nor bowler. Nor was he considered an all time great all rounder. So him making your list is a huge surprise for me. Suffice to say that your definition of an "all rounder" would yield a null set. There are hardly many all timers that can pick themselves as either batsman or bowler throughout their career. Most great all rounders were great at one trade and were competent in the other. Thats how i would define an all rounder.

[coffee_rules]

All volume based stats - will make him look better than all.

[Raghav_12]

Keith Miller ? Just curious' date=' have you watched him bat or bowl ? How come his stats have escaped your introspection ? [/quote'] I don't see much problem with Kieth Miller being considered as one of the greatest all- rounder. Nah, I haven't seen him bat or ball but whatever I have heard about him he seems to be really adept both at bowling and batting. Batting average of 38 and bowling average of 23 proves that.

And its apparent to me that you have not followed Imran Khan's career either. I have neither. But i have learnt from the resident ICF experts that Imran throughout his career was either in the team as a bowler or a batsman not both. In the earlier part of his career, he was a very good bowler (would not have found a place in the team as a batsman) and in the latter part, he was a competent batsman (would not have found a place as a bowler alone). If you look at his career stats, it gives you the impression that he can be expected to knock off the top order as a strike bowler and come back later on as a middle order batsman to score a 50. But thats not the case. But you've strictly gone by stats, see the irony ?

I know this truth about Imran's stats. He didn't score a century until 1982 or so, while he had made debut in 1971. But there was some period in late eighties where he was averaging arnd 50 with bat and less than 30 with ball. Though that was for a brief period of time.

So going by your narrow definition, none of the conventional all rounders are worthy of an all rounder tag. And that list includes Sobers, Hadlee, Botham, Kapil Dev, Flintoff, Kallis, Pollock & the likes.

I was looking for more balanced numbers and in terms of balance Kallis comes very late.

And Chris Cairns ? Geez! Chris Cairns at his best was a very good player, not a great. He was never a great batsman nor bowler. Nor was he considered an all time great all rounder. So him making your list is a huge surprise for me.

Cairns was as good a batsman as he was a bowler. Barring millions of injuries he could have been a great all rounder. Still anytime he was able to claim a position in NZ team either thru bat or ball.

Suffice to say that your definition of an "all rounder" would yield a null set. There are hardly many all timers that can pick themselves as either batsman or bowler throughout their career. Most great all rounders were great at one trade and were competent in the other. Thats how i would define an all rounder.

It is not none or all kind of case. My point was that Kallis is too much tilted in favor of batting to be considered as genuine allrounder.

[King Tendulkar]

Kallis was a very good bowler. Why is everyone judging him on last 5 years when in 30s and not same bowler. In his 20s kallis was very good bowler. Do not judge his bowling by his 30s efforts when body is not same. Was Sobers better bowler? No footage I have seen suggests that. He has a variety but not as good pacer imo as Kallis

[Andy]

Kallis' Bowling is over rated as i said before i say it again. I remember Flintoff was more of a Balanced all rounder. Though its an Insult to Kallis to compare him with Flintoff because of his batting, Still i have seen Flintoff wining matches for his side with Bowling and Batting quite number of times. How many times have we seen that from Kallis when he is BOWLING?

[King Tendulkar]

The greatest all rounder ever?

[Old guy]

probably the best cricketer ever!

[Vijay.Sharma]

I agree that if you go by stats alone then Kallis might come out as the greatest AR ever but I don't think its all about stats. To me the best AR and indeed the greatest cricketer ever is Imran Khan on 183 days of the year and Sobers on the other 182 days (leap year both are equal). I am not sure Kallis can be considered one among the great ARs to have graced the game on criteria that are not statistical. Keith Miller, Gary Sobers, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Chris Cairns. All the above could and did single-handedly win games for their teams either with bat or ball. Even though the guys mentioned above were mostly bowlers who could bat a bit their style of play is what made them dangerous for opposition teams. Both their batting and bowling would have come for discussion at the opposition teams' meetings. Not sure how many teams lose sleep over Kallis the bowler but I guarantee many teams lost sleep over the batting of Miller, Botham, Kapil, and Cairns in addition to their bowling. I think Kallis like Rahul's (and like KF Barrington of the past) value will grow years after he retires. It is thru the prism of stats that guys like Rahul, Kallis, etc grow in stature. Ask yourself, would you pay to watch Kallis perform (either as a batsman or a bowler)? I am sure the answer is "yes" for Miller, Sobers, Imran, Hadlee, Botham, Kapil, and Cairns. Not so sure for Kallis though - at least I wouldn't pay to watch Kallis

[Crookbond]

It's a rather strange question to ask - Would you pay to watch Kallis? I don't think this equates to being a better or a worse player. You are clearly judging the better entertainer here and hence, you are going for Miller et al. The worth of Kallis is not in the entertainment value but purely in terms of what he provides to the team - top order batsmen, a wonderful fast bowler and excellent fielder. None of the people you have mentioned in the list were "top order" batsmen. Kallis has been batting at No.3 and No.4 throughout his life.

[Raghav_12]

Kallis - Underrated as Batsman, Overrated as Bowler.

[Vijay.Sharma]

It's a rather strange question to ask - Would you pay to watch Kallis? I don't think this equates to being a better or a worse player. You are clearly judging the better entertainer here and hence, you are going for Miller et al. The worth of Kallis is not in the entertainment value but purely in terms of what he provides to the team - top order batsmen, a wonderful fast bowler and excellent fielder. None of the people you have mentioned in the list were "top order" batsmen. Kallis has been batting at No.3 and No.4 throughout his life.

I think if we were to pick the "greatest ever" then it should also include this aspect of putting bums on seats. Any "greatest ever" kinda thing should not be judged based only on statistics. Statistics can be an initial filter but once you have used objective criteria to shortlist candidates, you must then use subjective criteria to choose further. We must use both objective and subjective criteria while picking ATGs and Greatest Evers. When it comes to batting alone even though guys like Rahul and Kallis might not bring people to the ground (and in fact shoo them away with their boring batting) they ticked other subjective criteria like grit, playing at difficult times, etc. That is why they are batting ATGs. Considering both objective and subjective criteria I don't think Kallis is in the same class as Miller, Sobers, Imran, Hadlee, Botham, Kapil, and Cairns. But pure numbers alone I don't think these seven samurai can claim to be better than Kallis.

[Guest]

I think if we were to pick the "greatest ever" then it should also include this aspect of putting bums on seats. Any "greatest ever" kinda thing should not be judged based only on statistics. Statistics can be an initial filter but once you have used objective criteria to shortlist candidates, you must then use subjective criteria to choose further. We must use both objective and subjective criteria while picking ATGs and Greatest Evers. When it comes to batting alone even though guys like Rahul and Kallis might not bring people to the ground (and in fact shoo them away with their boring batting) they ticked other subjective criteria like grit, playing at difficult times, etc. That is why they are batting ATGs. Considering both objective and subjective criteria I don't think Kallis is in the same class as Miller, Sobers, Imran, Hadlee, Botham, Kapil, and Cairns. But pure numbers alone I don't think these seven samurai can claim to be better than Kallis.

No then you know who will come here and post his fav cricketer have more twittre followers than any other and claim he is greatest ever

[Crookbond]

I think if we were to pick the "greatest ever" then it should also include this aspect of putting bums on seats. Any "greatest ever" kinda thing should not be judged based only on statistics. Statistics can be an initial filter but once you have used objective criteria to shortlist candidates, you must then use subjective criteria to choose further. We must use both objective and subjective criteria while picking ATGs and Greatest Evers. When it comes to batting alone even though guys like Rahul and Kallis might not bring people to the ground (and in fact shoo them away with their boring batting) they ticked other subjective criteria like grit, playing at difficult times, etc. That is why they are batting ATGs. Considering both objective and subjective criteria I don't think Kallis is in the same class as Miller, Sobers, Imran, Hadlee, Botham, Kapil, and Cairns. But pure numbers alone I don't think these seven samurai can claim to be better than Kallis.

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: What next? Someone who encourages more women in the ground than men. :facepalm:

[Guest]

sorry Vijay saaaar ...u r opinion is completely wrong... looks like u are bringing this argument to make Sachin greatest ever :winky: