Allrounder Comparison

Which player is more impressive?

  • Total voters
    8
Top Contributors
Caesar

Caesar

Member
Allrounder Comparison

Code: 
	Player A
Mts	131
Runs	10,277
Average	54.66
100s	31
Wickets	258
Average	31.08
Best    6/54
Catches	147

	Player B
Mts	93
Runs	8,032
Average	57.78
100s	26
Wickets	235
Average	34.03
Best    6/73
Catches	109
Just curious, without looking up whose stats are whose, which do you think is the more impressive player?

Some may already recognise the numbers, if not it's easy to find out, but just wondering what people think prima facie. I know there's a lot more to players than the stats I've posted.
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

Caesar;359762 said:
Code: 
	Player A
Mts	131
Runs	10,277
Average	54.66
100s	31
Wickets	258
Average	31.08
Best    6/54
Catches	147

	Player B
Mts	93
Runs	8,032
Average	57.78
100s	26
Wickets	235
Average	34.03
Best    6/73
Catches	109
Just curious, without looking up whose stats are whose, which do you think is the more impressive player?

Some may already recognise the numbers, if not it's easy to find out, but just wondering what people think prima facie. I know there's a lot more to players than the stats I've posted.
Click to expand...

Just went for player A, only for longevity purpose done it for 38 matches more, almost 1/3 more.
Without knowing who the players are, i am guessing J.Kallis is perhaps player A and I an Botham player B.
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

I think player A = Jacques Kallis and Player B = Sir Garfield Sobers. If this is correct then the fact that Sobers could bowl spin and seamers are being left out in the cold. Interesting idea on comparison of players, leaving out their identities.
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

i went for player A without having a clue who either is whatsoever because they seem like they can carry the team. that person seems to be able to control aspects of a win or loss a bit better. my hunch.
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

Control aspects of a win / loss = the ability to influence the course of a match? I hope so as I am rather confused about that :)
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

now that i read it again i am also confused.

i know what i meant :p... i think

but i still think that player a is the better of the two. just seems to be the leader of the team performance wise, whereas the other is more of a perform occasionally but powerfully.
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

i went for player B- i think that with fewer centuries and a higher average that he is a more consistent player which would suggest a more reliable player- the problem with the explosive match winner is not the number of times they do but the number of times they don't.
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

Another fact left out is Sobers' ability to turn a ton into a big one, whilst Kallis has a heap of scores between 100 and 120
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

As most have guessed, Player A is Jaques Kallis and Player B is Garry Sobers.

I thought this was interesting, because Sobers is almost universally rated as the greatest allrounder to play the game, while Kallis (while considered a great) doesn't really come into those discussions a whole lot. It's certainly interesting to see that on paper, he is not that much worse a batsman, and (perhaps surprisingly given modern pitches) a better-averaging bowler.

There are other factors, of course, that are not captured here - Sobers' extraordinary fielding, his ability to bowl both pace and spin, the quality of each player's respective side, Kallis' propensity for consistent high scores rather than massive ones. Also to be considered is the quality of opposition - Sobers never played against Bangladesh.

I do however think that after he retires - maybe ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years down the track - we will be saying "Kallis or Sobers?" when it comes to the greatest allrounder to play the game. The two are a long way above their nearest competitors.
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

i rate imran khan and richard hadlee very highly, i cant remember their figures off the top of my head but i know hadlee averaged around 27 with the bat and around 22 with the ball, i cant remember khans figures but they were equally impressive, both bowling allrounders i know but very very good, i dont buy into the theory that you must average 30 with the bat to be considered an allrounder like a lot of people do, i put both those guys ahead of kallis or at least equal with him, i never watched sobers play, and remember the guys telling you that sobers was the best are the guys from his era, and everyone likes to think that their era was the best, i didnt really answer you question though, toss of the coin for me, kallis is the most boring batsman on the planet so i pick sobers, for now.
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

It's hard to truly compare as they played in very different era's.

I would say that you could probably add 5 runs to both Sobers batting and bowling average (so 63 and 38/9) if he were playing today.

If Kallis was playing at the same time as Sobers then I'd say that we'd be looking at his figures being something like 46 batting and maybe 28/9 bowling.

Both are guess work but I'm trying to factor in things such as pitch, equipment, training etc. I guess what it shows is that I probably rate Sobers as the better bat and Kallis as the better bowler (although not as versatile).

distributer of pain;363244 said:
i rate imran khan and richard hadlee very highly, i cant remember their figures off the top of my head but i know hadlee averaged around 27 with the bat and around 22 with the ball, i cant remember khans figures but they were equally impressive, both bowling allrounders i know but very very good, i dont buy into the theory that you must average 30 with the bat to be considered an allrounder like a lot of people do, i put both those guys ahead of kallis or at least equal with him, i never watched sobers play, and remember the guys telling you that sobers was the best are the guys from his era, and everyone likes to think that their era was the best.
Click to expand...

You have a point but I think the reason that Kallis and Sobers are highlighted is that fact that both their stats (are very close) are what most people consider to be world class if they were specialists (over 40 with the bat and under 30 with the ball (yes, I know they both average over 30)).

As good as Hadlee and Khan were (not forgetting that he averaged 37 with the bat and 22 with the ball) it was easier to mark them out as favouring one discipline over another. It also didn't help that they played in an golden age for all rounders, with Botham and Kapil Dev, so their talent may not have gotten the same level of adulation if playing in different era's.
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

mas cambios;363246 said:
It's hard to truly compare as they played in very different era's.

I would say that you could probably add 5 runs to both Sobers batting and bowling average (so 63 and 38/9) if he were playing today.

If Kallis was playing at the same time as Sobers then I'd say that we'd be looking at his figures being something like 46 batting and maybe 28/9 bowling.

Both are guess work but I'm trying to factor in things such as pitch, equipment, training etc. I guess what it shows is that I probably rate Sobers as the better bat and Kallis as the better bowler (although not as versatile).



You have a point but I think the reason that Kallis and Sobers are highlighted is that fact that both their stats (are very close) are what most people consider to be world class if they were specialists (over 40 with the bat and under 30 with the ball (yes, I know they both average over 30)).

As good as Hadlee and Khan were (not forgetting that he averaged 37 with the bat and 22 with the ball) it was easier to mark them out as favouring one discipline over another. It also didn't help that they played in an golden age for all rounders, with Botham and Kapil Dev, so their talent may not have gotten the same level of adulation if playing in different era's.
Click to expand...

true, i just go on the theory that hadlee was as good a bowler as kallis is a batsman and as good batsman as kallis is a bowler if that makes any sense, i also think hadlee and khan could have batted down the order a tad, 5/6 maybe, especially in their younger years, they were often forced to throw their wkts away due to game circumstances, i think khan was a better bat then hadlee though. i also didnt rate botham very highly, well not as highly as some, he was either very very good or very very bad, very inconsistant, a lot like flintoff really.
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

There are only 9 players in the history of the game who have taken 100 wickets at an average of less than 30 and averaged over 30 with the bat. Imran is top with the averages as mentioned above. If you make the qualification 200 wickets then that number drops to 5.

Tony Grieg is the only other player (apart from Kallis and Sobers) to average over 40 with the bat and take over 100 wickets (at an average of 32.20). No-one has taken over 200 wickets and averaged 40 plus apart from Kallis and Sobers.

Looking at those stats it shows that whilst they weren't far off what most allrounders average with the ball, they were/are certainly miles ahead when it comes to batting.

Then again stats are stats and a lot can be read into them. They don't take into consideration game situation, pitch, era and so on.
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

there was a good thread regarding "who was the best allrounder" on this site a few months back, i dont think hadlee made the top 10 poll lol, im not sure if it was an oversight or because he didnt average 30 with the bat.
 
Re: Allrounder Comparison

I voted B as I thought it was a trick question- and knowing Caesar- I was right :p

I want to know where's Shane Watson as an option? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top