Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

SaintPowelly wrote:

mikesiva wrote:

m@tt wrote:

SaintPowelly wrote:Greatest all-rounder ever in my eyes ( sorry Sobers )

Definitely seems the right time to go now though, enjoy your retirement Jacques.

The Dravid of all-rounders? Goes about his brilliance quietly, is possibly a tad under appreciated, and doesn't stand out as much as flashier players (Sobers being flashy, as well as brilliant).

I don't quite agree that Kallis was a greater allrounder than Sobers, though....

I was always taught that you subtract your bowling average from your batting average to get the statistical assessment of how great an allrounder is, and on that basis Sobers just edges Kallis.

Kallis, batting 55.12, bowling 32.53 = 22.59

Sobers, batting 57.78, bowling 34.03 = 23.75

But no other allrounder in the history of Test cricket comes close on that statistical assessment....

Sobers 93 tests..Kallis 166

Is Tendulkar greater than Bradman?

Playing lots of Tests don't make you greater than one who played less...they played less Test cricket back in the 1960s.

I always value averages over aggregates.

After his final Test, Kallis has improved his Test average, batting 55.37, bowling 32.65 = 22.72.

He still had more to contribute, clearly, but felt that he wanted to retire before he reached the stage where folks questioned his place in the side.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/conte ... 06081.html

Interesting article. One that I don't agree with though. All depends on your definition of the word 'allrounder'.

mikesiva wrote:Is Tendulkar greater than Bradman?

Playing lots of Tests don't make you greater than one who played less...they played less Test cricket back in the 1960s.

I always value averages over aggregates.

After his final Test, Kallis has improved his Test average, batting 55.37, bowling 32.65 = 22.72.

He still had more to contribute, clearly, but felt that he wanted to retire before he reached the stage where folks questioned his place in the side.

When you are judging whos better on such a small margin..then I think Kallis playing 77 tests more than Sobers is a very relevant fact.

SaintPowelly wrote:

mikesiva wrote:Is Tendulkar greater than Bradman?

Playing lots of Tests don't make you greater than one who played less...they played less Test cricket back in the 1960s.

I always value averages over aggregates.

After his final Test, Kallis has improved his Test average, batting 55.37, bowling 32.65 = 22.72.

He still had more to contribute, clearly, but felt that he wanted to retire before he reached the stage where folks questioned his place in the side.

When you are judging whos better on such a small margin..then I think Kallis playing 77 tests more than Sobers is a very relevant fact.

Indeed. Playing an average of just over 4 tests a year is nothing compared to the sheer amount of cricket they play now. I wonder how many old legends could have maintained such fantastic figures in three major types of cricket, playing over 50 games of international calibre a year, and T20 in India inbetween.

I think its entirely relevant. As i said before, Kallis' bowling particularly got worse as the strain of too much cricket took hold. If he was playing so little cricket he could have been an excellent bowler for a longer time.

But hey, old fans attribute a more inconsistent standard to older players.... one cannot claim a test player nowadays is great if he retires after 20 tests, but Headley and Pollock played about 20 and are argued by some to be the best players ever.... Mike Hussey averaged nearly 85 after 20 tests, an average that dropped by 34 runs over time!

sussexpob wrote:
I wonder how many old legends could have maintained such fantastic figures in three major types of cricket, playing over 50 games of international calibre a year, and T20 in India inbetween.

clubcricketeradi wrote:

sussexpob wrote:
I wonder how many old legends could have maintained such fantastic figures in three major types of cricket, playing over 50 games of international calibre a year, and T20 in India inbetween.

I wonder how many new pampered players could have got on a boat for weeks to play Cricket rather than get on a comfy plane?

Plenty of pro's and cons for playing now and years ago.

Dr Robert wrote:

clubcricketeradi wrote:

sussexpob wrote:
I wonder how many old legends could have maintained such fantastic figures in three major types of cricket, playing over 50 games of international calibre a year, and T20 in India inbetween.

I wonder how many new pampered players could have got on a boat for weeks to play Cricket rather than get on a comfy plane?

Plenty of pro's and cons for playing now and years ago.

Agreed that +ves and -ves will always be there in everything.

However, as far as fitness is concerned imo the more cricket a cricketer play, the better fitness is required.It is not Sobers mistake that he did not play as much as Kallis.However, Kallis edges it on longevity imo.

Personally, I reckon they'll bring de Kock into the test side following his great ODI series against India: He's clearly a huge talent and would allow AB to hang up the gloves and focus on his batting.