Yeah,Kallis would probably get a place at no.7 in my list because 5 or 6 years ago,he used to be a very good bowler but now he bowls only on supporting tracks or against weak
batsmen/tailenders.[/quote]
Well yes that true & i have mentioned this before when people try to compare Kallis the bowler to Sobers the bowler. Kallis hasn't taken a 5 wicket haul against a strong test opposition in almost 8 years now. Trent Bridge 2003 vs ENG was the last time he did so.
It probably requires me tons of pages to explain it but I would try to sum it up in a few lines.
1.Cricket has been a batsmen's game.This is the case since 1930s atleast.Bowlers, especially pacers have shorter careers as compared to batsmen.
2.Bowlers get more injured than batsmen which means cricket is tougher for batsmen as compared to bowlers.
3.You need to be more fit to be a bowler(especially if u r a pacer).I've seen many batsnen doing great Job at test despite the fact they were not very fir but I hardly think there have been any pacers who were not fully fit for most of their careers & ended up being alltime greats.
4.Most of the times,when you are chasing a target of let's say 400,you have more than 95% chance of losing the game even if you have one are two Pontings or Tendulkars in your side but if you give your opposition a target of 200,More than 60% of the time,you have one or two alltime great pacers,you can count on them to win the game for you.I'm talking about whole history of cricket not just last decade in which wickets have been one of the flatest ever.Which means most of the time,you depend on your bowlers to win the game,not batsmen.
5.Rules have always been changed to favour batsmen,eg bouncer rule in Tests & Power Play in ODIs etc.
There are many of other reasons but let me save them for another day.
Hmm i actually agree with this 100%.
Only thing i would say as you rightfully highlighted my friend. Cricket in the 2000s has seen the decline of quality quick bowling & increase of flat tracks, which would have certainly made it harder to be a top-class bowling all-rounder compared to batting one.
But when the balance between bat & ball between the 1950s-1990s was very even. Then advantages to batsmen wouldn't be around, thus i feel if we judge historically based on that period in test history, then one really cant give a world-class bowling all-rounder an edge over a batting one TBH.
Click hereIf Sobers was not a batsman,he would've never been able to maintain his place in the side after first few games coz the bowling performances he showed in his first 30 Tests(1/3rd of his career) is till one of the worst ever,probably the worst ever.For another 1/3,he was mediocre and and average for the rest,considering his overall stats in those periods.So,my statements are absolutely true & accurate .
You cant judge Sobers as an "allrounder" based on his first 30 test. The same way you cant judge:
- Richie Benaud as an all-rounder & world-class spinner based on anything he did before 1957/58 tour to S Africa.
- Steve Waugh as world-class batsmen before his career chaning MCG 1992/93 vs West Indies.
- Allan Davidson as world-class left-arm quick before the 57/58 tour to S Africa.
- VVS Laxman as batsmen before his Kolkatta 2001 century.
- Imran Khan as all-rounder before 1980. Although he was already a quality bowler by 1976
- Zaheer Khan as a quality test quick before the 05/06 tour to S Africa.
- Majid Khan & Asif Iqbal as an opener & quality batsmen before the mid 70s.
Since Majid used to be an quick bowler before back injuries forced him to give it up & he became a top-class opener later in his career. While Iqbal transformation was sort of similar to S Waugh.
Daniel Vettori currently. Was basically a left-arm spinner who could bat a bit. Now his batting his transformed immensely in the last 4-5 years & he is top quality bowling all-rounder.
etc etc etc
The above are historical examples of players who had years of being poor/mediocre/different player. Transformed out of sight later in their careers.
So when judging Sobers as a batsman & all-rounder:
- As a batsman you cant judge him based on anything after before his 365 not in 57/58, that was when Sobers the batting legend was born. But his bowling was still average.
- As a all-rounder his bowling began to step until the 60/61 tour to AUS. Thus his peak as complete all-rounder was between Australia 60/61 to ENG 1969 in tests. Once could include the Rest of World vs England matches in 1970 as well here.
In that period Sobers averaged
55 with the bat - 31 with the ball . Which included that tremendous all-round series vs ENG in 1966 where he scored 722 runs @ 103 & 20 wickets @ 27. Which is argubaly the greatest single series individual performance other than Bradman 974 runs in Ashes 1930.
His bowling for that 9 year period was with him part of a 4-man attack of Hall/Griffith/Sobers/Gibbs which pretty much proves how good his bowling was @ its peak.
No,Botham's peak as an allrounder lasted
4 years(1978-1982).After that his bowling started declining.He was still a fine bowler for next 3 years but that can't be included in his peak because peak is a period at which a player is at his best,which for Botham is from 1978-1982.As for as "hit & miss" thing is concerned,Imeant no disrespect to Botham by doing.I've a habit giving players such & do it mostly to good players from the country I support as well.But if you watched him play,he had indeed become a "hit & miss" in his last 3 or 4 years.
Its a bit subjective given i have had this debate before on Botham where you want to stop his peak. I have read articles, listened to journalist & family members who saw his peak & i have rounded it off to 1984 vs Windies.
I do so against people like yourself who stop it @ 1982 because we his 8 wicket haul vs Windies in 1984 was certainly him bowling well as anything he did between 77-82. While although he had an average Ashes 82/83 with the blade his bowling was still solid & his batting vs NZ 83/84 was also pretty good.
But even if you want to limit it 1982 for argument sake. Your contryman Waqar Younis peak was also quite short from 1990-1994 before injuries crippled him like Botham, but everyone still refers to him as a great bowler based on that short period of 38 test between 1990-1994 - no one calls him hit & miss.
Botham 77-82 period was good 40-45 tests, maintaining such a high standard for so much tests is superb & deserves respect my friend regardless of how much he declined in the late 19080s. Even if Dale Steyn where to suddenly decline rapidly in the next couple years - wouldn't you still rank him as one of the great fast bowlers based on his efforts/peak since 2006?.
. OMG, this has got to be the most insulting & inaccurate description of Sobers bowling ive ever seen. Only on the internet could such comments be seen. Come on now sir, lift your your game.
