Greatest All-Rounder Since Sobers

[sami ullah khan]

I voted imran as well. If kallis was bowling on fire he would have been bowled more to take 5 wickets. A captain would keep a bowler that had taken 3 wickets in the attack.

Imran's batting stats suffer a little because he came in so young and not fully developed as a batsman, but regardless, his bowling was as good as Sobers batting, easily one of the best 10 ever, if not top 5, and his batting was more than good enough to play in any top 6 at the time.

I think an all-rounder that averages 20 with the ball and 40 with the bat is more useful than one that averages 30 and 50, although I guess while Kallis batted in a batting friendly age, Khan bowled in a bowling friendly age and while he bowled on flat tracks he did have the somewhat, shall we say generous, home umpires.

but anyway, the man was a genius. plus if we're talking all-rounder proper, not just a combination of batting and bowling Imran was also a brilliant captain ( I guess it should be said that Kallis is an excellent slip fielder).

What about some generous home umpires that other teams have got. I still remember that 1999 test against Aussies where Adam Gilchrist was given not out more than once and ended up winning the game for his team.
My point is home umpires have been biased for all the test playing nations. That is the reason we have got neutral umpires.

 

[6ry4nj]

What about some generous home umpires that other teams have got. I still remember that 1999 test against Aussies where Adam Gilchrist was given not out more than once and ended up winning the game for his team.
My point is home umpires have been biased for all the test playing nations. That is the reason we have got neutral umpires.

Hear, hear! You may have heard this stat before, but in the 70/71 Ashes tour of Australia, the Australian umpires did not give a single Australian out lbw - in six Tests! (England still won the series btw).

I'm not singling Australia out - that's just the example I have access to. I'm agreeing with Samiullah that there's a reason that neutral umpires were instituted everywhere, and not only on the subcontinent!

 

[Howsie]

Shaun Pollock and Chris Cairns anyone? To have Shakib and Vettori included in the poll but not these two is a bit of an insult it must be said. Chris Cairns especially seems to be very underrated on PC which is quite a shame, was a better all rounder then Andrew Flintoff for mine.

 

[Garson007]

Shaun Pollock [...] anyone?

I actually think his batting was never paid its due. He only came out as one of the top 6 batsmen only so many times in his career. Mostly he came out when the chips were down or run chase loomed. I still think he'd have a healthy 40+ average if he played up the order. That said, his bowling was far more important.

 

[angryangy]

What about some generous home umpires that other teams have got. I still remember that 1999 test against Aussies where Adam Gilchrist was given not out more than once and ended up winning the game for his team.
My point is home umpires have been biased for all the test playing nations. That is the reason we have got neutral umpires.

I think claiming there were bad decisions because of bias is to massively overrate Peter Parker, who once called an 11 ball over.

 

[Biggy]

Yusuf Pathan

Correct sir.

 

[War]

Shaun Pollock and Chris Cairns anyone? To have Shakib and Vettori included in the poll but not these two is a bit of an insult it must be said. Chris Cairns especially seems to be very underrated on PC which is quite a shame, was a better all rounder then Andrew Flintoff for mine.

Yes indeed im now checking the poll & i just realised they aren't in. But to be fair to thread starter he probably just forget them (hopefully).

Plus yes Cairns peak as an all-rounder from like 1998-2001 was certainly better than Flintoff from 2004-2006. Funny thing with both Cairns & Flintoffs short peaks is that neither of them really fully peaked as all-rounders due to injuries. We just saw glimpses of how great they could have been.

Another all-rounder forgotten is Brian McMillan.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Yeah, I did forget quite a few, but like I mentioned in my OP, those were just the first ones that popped into my mind when starting the thread.

Can't believe Pollock didn't come to mind though guess I was too fixated on Kallis

Someone asked why Miller wasn't included - I just don't know that much about him and he was before Sobers. Judging by just his numbers alone, he seems to be very similar to Pollock.

 

[War]

Harsha Bhogle: Kallis is the Sobers of his generation | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Timely article.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Harsha Bhogle: Kallis is the Sobers of his generation | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Timely article.

Ha-ha, seems like Bhogle reads this forum for article ideas.

He does annoy the hell out of me though - even in this article, half of it is spent saying how much the older generation's going to hate him for this. Cricinfo should just move all he says to Page 2.

 

[sifter132]

Shaun Pollock and Chris Cairns anyone? To have Shakib and Vettori included in the poll but not these two is a bit of an insult it must be said. Chris Cairns especially seems to be very underrated on PC which is quite a shame, was a better all rounder then Andrew Flintoff for mine.

Agree wholeheartedly - particularly Cairns, he is criminally underrated as you say.

 

[ChefMan21]

Both are very different cricketers. Khan was always the leader, the icon, charismatic, the inspiration, the heartbeat of Pakistani cricket - even today. That's an exceedingly rare thing to have and something that few people in history - in any profession, field or other - have had.

Kallis is and will always be The Machine. He just keeps going. Big numbers after big numbers consistently. That's a rare thing to have also. He's an almost textbook allrounder.

Which is why I have to pick Khan. Khan was... well... Khan. He never had quite the same consistency of Kallis but what he had was that rare ability to become a living, breathing manifestation of the very thing he represents. Some players are greats of the game - Kallis is one. And some players are icons of the game.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Some players are greats of the game - Kallis is one. And some players are icons of the game.

Nicely put

 

[AkshayS]

Both are very different cricketers. Khan was always the leader, the icon, charismatic, the inspiration, the heartbeat of Pakistani cricket - even today. That's an exceedingly rare thing to have and something that few people in history - in any profession, field or other - have had.

Kallis is and will always be The Machine. He just keeps going. Big numbers after big numbers consistently. That's a rare thing to have also. He's an almost textbook allrounder.

Which is why I have to pick Khan. Khan was... well... Khan. He never had quite the same consistency of Kallis but what he had was that rare ability to become a living, breathing manifestation of the very thing he represents. Some players are greats of the game - Kallis is one. And some players are icons of the game.

 

[Collingwood50]

Kallis' stats are just rediculous :S