Kallis best all rounder EVER!

[Crookbond]

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

+1

[Vijay.Sharma]

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

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

I don't think you guys have read my post properly...and you have misunderstood me. You have just read the first sentence and decided that that is what I have to say in entirety. I qualified it very well. I said the following -

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.

Dexter, if you cannot read the post in entirety and understand it then ask for clarification instead of going overboard with ridicule...that doesn't help in having a decent conversation for sharing opinions.

[Guest]

I don't think you guys have read my post properly...and you have misunderstood me. You have just read the first sentence and decided that that is what I have to say in entirety. I qualified it very well. I said the following - Dexter, if you cannot read the post in entirety and understand it then ask for clarification instead of going overboard with ridicule...that doesn't help in having a decent conversation for sharing opinions.

saar popularity argument shouldnt even come.. team success and effect of individuals stats on those results , are the 2 factors should decide who is great

[Crookbond]

I don't think you guys have read my post properly...and you have misunderstood me. You have just read the first sentence and decided that that is what I have to say in entirety. I qualified it very well. I said the following - Dexter, if you cannot read the post in entirety and understand it then ask for clarification instead of going overboard with ridicule...that doesn't help in having a decent conversation for sharing opinions.

Vijay - I hope you understand that "subjective criteria" can't be according to your and mine whim & fancy. It has to be cricketing related. Number of people bought to the ground, Number of advertising money generated to the boards etc. are not cricketing subjective criteria to judge the best ever. It may be a criteria to judge the best entertainer but not the best cricketer. The best cricketer is judged by cricketing skills not entertainment or financial value.

[prinzo]

Kallis takes good wickets, he gets the ball to swing a lot, so open your eyes

[Vijay.Sharma]

Again both of you did not understand my perspective

saar popularity argument shouldnt even come.. team success and effect of individuals stats on those results , are the 2 factors should decide who is great

Team success and effect of individuals stats on those results is already taken care of when I say that first shortlist the individuals based on stats then you will get a list of elite all-rounders. Let's run this - Step 1: first use stats and make a shortlist of the best ARs. This yields names like (maybe others too) - Botham, Cairns, Faulkner, Flintoff, Goddard, Hadlee, Imran Khan, Kallis, Kapil Dev, Miller, Mushtaq Mohd, Noble, Pollock, Wilfred Rhodes, Shakib, Sobers, Vettori, Wasim Step 2: Then from this set you can make one more shortlist based on stats which might yield Botham, Cairns, Goddard, Imran, Kallis, Kapil, Miller, Noble, Pollock, Rhodes, Shakib, Sobers, and Vettori as an even more elite list. Step 3: Now in the above list it is pretty meaningless to use stats to differentiate the players. Each of those buggers was a deadly AR. Stats are meaningless from this point onward. Do you get it?

Vijay - I hope you understand that "subjective criteria" can't be according to your and mine whim & fancy. It has to be cricketing related. Number of people bought to the ground' date=' Number of advertising money generated to the boards etc. are not cricketing subjective criteria to judge the best ever. It may be a criteria to judge the best entertainer but not the best cricketer. The best cricketer is judged by cricketing skills not entertainment or financial value.[/quote']"Putting bums on seats" is meant in a cricket related way. I mean it in the way that makes people want to come and watch the skills of the player not in the way when people want to go to a zoo to watch Sreesanth. Yes, all subjective criteria will be under the context of cricket skills and ability/capability displayed on the field. For ex - ability to take the game away from the opposition (you can't make a stat for that), ability to intimidate the opposition, ability to turn the match around its head, ability to disrupt the opposition's plans, ability to dig out of trouble, ability to counter attack, influence on other players, influence on dressing room confidence, influence on opposition morale and own team's morale, etc. These things are subjective and these thigns are as important as objective criteria to determine an ATG / Greatest Ever.

[Guest]

Again both of you did not understand my perspective Team success and effect of individuals stats on those results is already taken care of when I say that first shortlist the individuals based on stats then you will get a list of elite all-rounders. Let's run this - Step 1: first use stats and make a shortlist of the best ARs. This yields names like (maybe others too) - Botham, Cairns, Faulkner, Flintoff, Goddard, Hadlee, Imran Khan, Kallis, Kapil Dev, Miller, Mushtaq Mohd, Noble, Pollock, Wilfred Rhodes, Shakib, Sobers, Vettori, Wasim Step 2: Then from this set you can make one more shortlist based on stats which might yield Botham, Cairns, Goddard, Imran, Kallis, Kapil, Miller, Noble, Pollock, Rhodes, Shakib, Sobers, and Vettori as an even more elite list. Step 3: Now in the above list it is pretty meaningless to use stats to differentiate the players. Each of those buggers was a deadly AR. Stats are meaningless from this point onward. Do you get it?

then let us not attribute greatest ever to single Individual ... the moment u bring porpularity into seperate the greatest from above list [the elitest elite] u will also bring nationality into picture...in India definittely majority will vote for Kapil ..we know whom Paki's will vote

[Crookbond]

"Putting bums on seats" is meant in a cricket related way. I mean it in the way that makes people want to come and watch the skills of the player not in the way when people want to go to a zoo to watch Sreesanth. Yes, all subjective criteria will be under the context of cricket skills and ability/capability displayed on the field. For ex - ability to take the game away from the opposition (you can't make a stat for that), ability to intimidate the opposition, ability to turn the match around its head, ability to disrupt the opposition's plans, ability to dig out of trouble, ability to counter attack, influence on other players, influence on dressing room confidence, influence on opposition morale and own team's morale, etc. These things are subjective and these thigns are as important as objective criteria to determine an ATG / Greatest Ever.

List down your subjective skills and I will tell you why such an evaluation is not possible by you and me sitting here. Hence, ATG is a pointless exercise specially across eras.

[Debutant]

saar popularity argument shouldnt even come.. team success and effect of individuals stats on those results , are the 2 factors should decide who is great

How come team success decide if a player is good or not. Zimbabwe and West Indies at the time of Lara didn't had any success but still Andy Flower and Lara are considered greats.

[Guest]

How come team success decide if a player is good or not. Zimbabwe and West Indies at the time of Lara didn't had any success but still Andy Flower and Lara are considered greats.

i wrote the players impact on team results...in case of weak teams you can still get the impact players made..even though team loses there will be huge difference they made ...

[Vijay.Sharma]

then let us not attribute greatest ever to single Individual ... the moment u bring porpularity into seperate the greatest from above list [the elitest elite] u will also bring nationality into picture...in India definittely majority will vote for Kapil ..we know whom Paki's will vote

That is why I tend to leave it at ATG when it comes to stats beyond that it becomes personal choice. When you ask someone to vote for a greatest ever then you must understand that it is a personal choice. If Greatest Ever was totally based on stats then why do you even need a discussion?

[Vijay.Sharma]

List down your subjective skills and I will tell you why such an evaluation is not possible by you and me sitting here. Hence' date=' ATG is a pointless exercise specially across eras.[/quote']You are trying to evaluate objectively something that is subjective - it doesn't make sense. Like I said get to an elite list with objective criteria, beyond that it is totally based on an individual's reading of any subjective criteria. ATGs are always across eras that is why they are called "All Time Greats". What is very tricky is to pick out the best in them. Stats will say Azza = Lax = Vengsarkar = Vishy. But I'd rate Vishy and Lax above Azza and Veng. Why? Subjective reading of the game and their accomplishments. Stats will tell you Gavaskar < Sutcliffe. I know I rate Gavaskar > Sutcliffe. Why? Subjective criteria. Stats can get you a shortlist, beyond that it is always subjective. If you still want to use stats then why even have a discussion in the first place on who the greatest is? Stats has already answered that question, isn't it? But is the answer right? If not right, then why not? Now comes the subjective aspect. And every individual has a different opinion. I don't think the intention of this thread or for that matter any discussion on "greatest ever" kinda things is to arrive at an absolute best. I view the discussion as a way to share and know others' opinions...some of which may be informed, some uninformed. You can provide information to the people who are uninformed and provide facts. Beyond that each individual needs to understand that his choice is just one among many opinions and that there is no one absolute right opinion. Per me, Imran Khan is the greatest AR, indeed greatest cricketer ever to play the Test game, extremely closely followed by Sobers. And I am not going to use stats to argue my point.

[Crookbond]

Stats can get you a shortlist, beyond that it is always subjective. If you still want to use stats then why even have a discussion in the first place on who the greatest is? Stats has already answered that question, isn't it? But is the answer right? If not right, then why not? Now comes the subjective aspect. And every individual has a different opinion. I don't think the intention of this thread or for that matter any discussion on "greatest ever" kinda things is to arrive at an absolute best. I view the discussion as a way to share and know others' opinions...some of which may be informed, some uninformed. You can provide information to the people who are uninformed and provide facts. Beyond that each individual needs to understand that his choice is just one among many opinions and that there is no one absolute right opinion. Per me, Imran Khan is the greatest AR, indeed greatest cricketer ever to play the Test game, extremely closely followed by Sobers. And I am not going to use stats to argue my point.

Vijay - If you would have stated personal opinion earlier I would've never interrupted. You certainly have that right and I'm going to respect it.

[Sir john]

Odoyo >kallis

[Ultimate_Game]

Kallis, one of the greatest cricketers ever and probably the finest all-rounder the game has seen :hatsoff:

[phaedrus]

Odoyo >kallis

:peter::cleveland::peter::cleveland:

[Vijay.Sharma]

Vijay - If you would have stated personal opinion earlier I would've never interrupted. You certainly have that right and I'm going to respect it.

Dexter, if you read my first post itself it makes it very clear that on stats alone Kallis maybe the best ever but that I go beyond stats. Moreover, all discussions like this one are based on opinions - some informed, some uninformed but opinions nonetheless :icflove:

[Crookbond]

Dexter' date=' if you read my first post itself it makes it very clear that on stats alone Kallis maybe the best ever but that I go beyond stats. Moreover, all discussions like this one are based on opinions - some informed, some uninformed but opinions nonetheless :icflove:[/quote'] True that but sometimes informed and uninformed opinions converge which we look for in these discussions. Please don't take offense to the earlier snide remark - it was in pure jest. :cheers:

[Executioner]

Sobers had better stats than Kallis. however in today's day there is a lot of cricket, a lot of pressure and workload. Amidst all this kallis has performed so yes, it will be fair to call him one of best allrounder in the world. However, his bowling seems to blunt nowadays but his batting is still top class.

[Trichromatic]

Sobers had better stats than Kallis. however in today's day there is a lot of cricket' date= a lot of pressure and workload. Amidst all this kallis has performed so yes, it will be fair to call him one of best allrounder in the world. However, his bowling seems to blunt nowadays but his batting is still top class.

No code has to be inserted here.