Jacques Kallis or Ian Botham? Who was the better all-rounder?

[Harsh Thakor]

Pakpassion viewers comprehensively put Imran Khan on another street so I felt it was better to start a compariosn between Ian Botham and Jacques Kallis.

In terms of statistical figures Kallis was the giant,even ahead of Gary Sobers or Imran Khan.For consistency as a batsmen he was arguably the best batsmen of all the all-rounders with the possible exception of Sobers.He could not rank below no 2 as a batsmen amongts the all-rounders.In his peak as a bowler he could compare with the great fast-medium pace all-rounders and could even at times surpass them for sheer pace.Kallis was part of a much more potent bowling attack than what Botham and Kapil Dev were but at times even opened the attack.Kallis was far more workmanlike batsmen than any all-rounder and at his best twice scored a century and captured 5 wickets in a test match.As a batsmen statistically in his era he was only behind Tendulkar,even overshadowing Lara and Ponting.He had successful stints with the ball like on the 2001 tour of West Indies , the 1997 tour of England and the 1998 home series West Indies.Arguably Kallis wa s unfortunate to play in an era where there was such a high workload of cricket with so many ODI's being played.Hard to conceive the 4 great all-rounders of the 1980's carry such a high workload.


However Ian Botham was a significantly more flamboyant cricketer overall.He reached the test doubles of 1000 wickets and 10000 runs or 200 wickets and 3000 runs in significantly quicker time than Kallis.Unlike Kallis Botham could turn games or series with both ball and bat.In his peak period from 1977-82 Botham had staggering combined figures as a batsmen nad bowler in addition to a big haul of catches in the slips.Kallis has never given a performance in a series comparing with Botham's spectacular 1981 home Ashes or Botham's all-round performance in the 1980 Jubilee test in Mumbai.A few wickets and a few blows of Botham could change the complexion of a game more than any contemporay all-rounder of his time.Botham could ressurect a team from the grave to rise like a phoenix from the Ashes more than even Sobers at his best .Botham's average all-round performances won more games than Kallis.Moraly,Botham was more like Sobers than Kallis.

The weakness in Kallis was that often he could not step the gas on his scoring rate to turn the complexion or win games.He lacked the 'x'factor of a Sobers,Imran or Botham.No doubt he was the ultimate player to bat for your life and also made a big contribution in South Africa's test wins.He also was never at his best with both ball and bat and for mots of his career was a great batsmen.

What went against Botham was that he hardly performed so well against the best team of his era,the West Indies.He also was often overshadowed in series by Kapil Dev and Imran Khan like in 1981-82,1982 and 1987.He also marginally benefited from playing weaker Australian and Pakistan teams during the period of Kerry Packer WSC cricket.Botham did not reveal the longevity of Kallis or Imran and virtually faded out after 1987.

So who would win in the final countdown?I would have to choose between the phenomenal consistency,skill and staggering figures of Kallis against the charisma,match-winning flamboyance and do-or-die spirit of Botham.With a gun on my head I may just root for Botham because at his best he could take a team from the depth of despair to reach the pinnacle of glory more than anyone.Neverthless only a whisker seperates the 2 giants.I am very critical of writers like Cristopher Martin Jenkins and Geoff Armstrong ranking Kallis so much below Imran,Sobers and Botham in their selection of 100 best cricketers.


During the six years when Botham was at his peak, he was the best of the four allrounders going around during that period. Imran Khan, Kapil Dev and Richard Hadlee were tremendous too - though Hadlee's best was to come later - but none of them matched Botham's consistency with bat and ball. During this period, the difference between Botham's batting and bowling average was 12.59. Imran and Hadlee had better bowling averages, but neither matched Botham as a batsman (though Imran's best as a batsman was to come later).


STATISTICS COMPILED FROM.S RAJESH IN CRICINFO IN 2010 AND 2013.

THE FOUR LEADING ALLROUNDERS BETWEEN JAN 1977 AND DEC 1982
Player Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM Diff In Ave
Ian Botham 58 3229 37.11 11/ 13 262 24.52 20/ 4 12.59
Imran Khan 37 1429 29.16 1/ 4 186 21.79 13/ 3 7.37
Kapil Dev 44 1904 32.82 2/ 11 172 29.68 13/ 1 3.14
Richard Hadlee 23 767 21.91 1/ 4 114 23.22 11/ 2 -1.31


In his later years Botham wasn't quite as effective, but he still finished with staggering numbers. He is one of only eight allrounders who took more than 200 wickets, scored more 2000 runs, and did all of this with a batting average that was higher than his bowling average. Garry Sobers and Jacques Kallis lead the list, but both were much more batting allrounders than bowling ones - Kallis averages fewer than two wickets per match, while Sobers averaged 2.53 wickets per match. Among the allrounders who took at least three wickets per Test, Imran Khan and Shaun Pollock are the only ones for whom the difference between batting and bowling averages is greater than that of Botham's.


JACQUES KALLIS' BATTING CAREER IN TESTS
Period Tests Runs Average Strike Rate 100s/ 50s
Till Dec 1998 22 1019 30.87 36.62 2/ 5
Jan 1999 To Dec 2007 90 8263 65.06 44.96 27/ 41
Jan 2008 To Feb 2009 17 778 31.12 45.76 1/ 4
Mar 2009 To Dec 2012 29 2920 67.90 54.21 14/ 6
2013 8 309 25.75 47.03 1/ 2
Career 166 13289 55.37 45.97 45/ 58
JACQUES KALLIS' BOWLING CAREER IN TESTS
Period Tests Wickets Average Strike Rate 5WI Overs/Test
Till 2002 65 136 28.30 63.80 3 22.4
2003 To 2008 62 115 34.14 68.1 2 21.0
2009 Onwards 39 41 42.87 90.4 0 15.5
Career 166 292 32.65 69.2 5 20.2

Battle of the allrounders
What set Kallis apart among modern-day allrounders was the fact that he averaged more than 50 with the bat - and was clearly among the best batsmen of his era - and yet took enough wickets to qualify as a genuine allrounder: no other player has achieved the double of 6000 runs and 250 wickets in Tests. Most of the other top allrounders batted at No. 6 or 7 and averaged in the mid-30s with the bat, but Kallis's batting skills were clearly superior.

The table below lists the top allrounders by the difference between their batting and bowling averages, and the only player with similar stats as Kallis is Garry Sobers - he averaged 57.78 with the bat and 34.03 with the ball, and the difference of 23.74 is marginally higher than Kallis' 22.72.

The other allrounders all have a difference of less than 15 between their batting and bowling averages, which is where Kallis's numbers stand out. However, Kallis averaged only 1.76 wickets per Test, while the others in the list below (apart from Sobers) took at least three per match.

THE TOP ALLROUNDERS IN TEST CRICKET (AT LEAST 2500 RUNS AND 150 WKTS)
Player Tests Runs Bat Ave Wickets Bowl Ave Difference*
Garry Sobers 93 8032 57.78 235 34.03 23.74
Jacques Kallis 166 13,289 55.37 292 32.65 22.72
Imran Khan 88 3807 37.69 362 22.81 14.88
Keith Miller 55 2958 36.97 170 22.97 13.99
Shaun Pollock 108 3781 32.31 421 23.11 9.19
Ian Botham 102 5200 33.54 383 28.40 5.14
Richard Hadlee 86 3124 27.16 431 22.29 4.86
Chris Cairns 62 3320 33.53 218 29.40 4.13
Kapil Dev 131 5248 31.05 434 29.64 1.40* Difference between batting and bowling averages

 

[Hitman]

Botham's secondary skill set was batting, and he was a devastating batsman on his day. Kallis's secondary skill set was bowling, and I never found him threatening to the opposition as a bowler.

 

[Bilal7]

I don't usually make hyperbolic statements but in this case, it would be appropriate to say that Kallis was twice the player Botham was.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Kallis by far. Was an ATG in his prinary skillset and a damn good bowler . Botham was not very good at both but was not truly great.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Kallis by far. Was an ATG in his prinary skillset and a damn good bowler . Botham was not very good at both but was not truly great.

At his best Botham was close to the best fast-medium bowler ever.Look at the no of 5 wkt hauls and wickets per test in his peak.Kallis has not turned or won even half the no.of games Botham has with both ball and bat.Has Kallis surpassed Botham's 149 n.o at leeds in 1981 ,118 at OLd Trafford in 1981 and 2018 at the Oval in 1982?Kallis has a better statistical record but still Botham's batting won more games.As a genuine all-rounder Kallis is not in the same league as a pure match-winner with both bat and ball as Botham if you see Botham's peak from 1977-82.Thus a great bowler and great batsmen at his best.

Kallis is the greatest statistically and on par in skill but remember rating an all-rounder the criteria is how he performs in a game or series with both bat and ball.In this light Botham overshadowed everyone bat Sobers and Miller.

 

[hur rizvi]

Kallis

 

[Robert]

Kallis is more directly comparable to Hammond and Sobers in that all were excellent batters, excellent slippers and (usually) change bowlers, though all three could open the bowling too if they chose.

Botham is more comparable to Miller, Imran and Kapil.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Kallis is more directly comparable to Hammond and Sobers in that all were excellent batters, excellent slippers and (usually) change bowlers, though all three could open the bowling too if they chose.

Botham is more comparable to Miller, Imran and Kapil.

Who was better?

 

[Tusker]

Kallis is more directly comparable to Hammond and Sobers in that all were excellent batters, excellent slippers and (usually) change bowlers, though all three could open the bowling too if they chose.

Botham is more comparable to Miller, Imran and Kapil.

shall we look at some footage then ? ohhh no wait you don't like that at all

 

[Nikhil_cric]

At his best Botham was close to the best fast-medium bowler ever.Look at the no of 5 wkt hauls and wickets per test in his peak.Kallis has not turned or won even half the no.of games Botham has with both ball and bat.Has Kallis surpassed Botham's 149 n.o at leeds in 1981 ,118 at OLd Trafford in 1981 and 2018 at the Oval in 1982?Kallis has a better statistical record but still Botham's batting won more games.As a genuine all-rounder Kallis is not in the same league as a pure match-winner with both bat and ball as Botham if you see Botham's peak from 1977-82.Thus a great bowler and great batsmen at his best.

Kallis is the greatest statistically and on par in skill but remember rating an all-rounder the criteria is how he performs in a game or series with both bat and ball.In this light Botham overshadowed everyone bat Sobers and Miller.

Yeah but all those match winning innings were restricted to England. Not outside. Also post 82/83 he declined far too much as a bowler and as a match winning batsman to be considered imo. Kallis was consistent till the end of his career. That does count for something .

 

[Buffet]

All around contribution in some phase of career was higher by Botham, but Kallis had a far better career.

 

[Robert]

Who was better?

Out of Hammond, Sobers and Kallis?

Strewth, hard to say. All champions. The first two were the most dominant batters in their teams. Kallis had to be more circumspect.

In a stronger batting unit and weaker bowling unit Kallis would likely have scored faster and done more bowling - averaged 45 with the bat and taken 400 test wickets at 25 - and then we’d have to call him the best AR of all.

 

[Robert]

Yeah but all those match winning innings were restricted to England. Not outside. Also post 82/83 he declined far too much as a bowler and as a match winning batsman to be considered imo. Kallis was consistent till the end of his career. That does count for something .

Botham got six centuries away from home - match-winning hundreds in India, Australia and Hadlee’s NZ.

The Mumbai ton was accompanied by a little matter of 13 wickets, of which 12 were either lbw or caught behind.

 

[Rahul1]

I don't usually make hyperbolic statements but in this case, it would be appropriate to say that Kallis was twice the player Botham was.

Perhaps the first and last time I will agree with you.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Botham got six centuries away from home - match-winning hundreds in India, Australia and Hadlee’s NZ.

The Mumbai ton was accompanied by a little matter of 13 wickets, of which 12 were either lbw or caught behind.

I consider Botham a borderline ATG and as a bowling all-rounder he is not directly comparable to a batting all-rounder like Jacques . However , I do think Kallis is overall a certified ATG and that's why I rated him higher.

 

[New Yorker]

I never saw Botham play but he was probably as close to a genuine allrounder as there has been, after Sobers. To put this in perspective; he scored centuries more often, per innings, than VVS Laxman, scored them faster, in terms of SR, than Graeme Smith or Matthew Hayden, and ended his career with more tons, 14 than Damien Martyn. None of the other so called allrounders of his era had that kind of ability to make a difference with the bat. With the ball, he took more 10fers than Glenn McGrath, more 5fers than Waqar Younis, more wickets than Lillee, and ended up with a strike rate comparable to Wasim Akram's. Expensive yes, but in terms of impact his bowling is surely ATG level, with 383 wickets to show for it.

Kallis was a batting allrounder; an ATG batsman indeed, top 3 of his era, better for stretches of time than anyone else, including Sachin, record number of consecutive centuries, and a prolific scorer, who is given a tad to much criticism I think for not being able to accelerate. He was always the most prized South African wicket; only when Kallis was gone could the opposition start to believe that they could win. But as a bowler he made scarce impression; though he might have opened the bowling on occasion, he rarely was more than useful with the ball. It really was a secondary skill.

Overall, I would go with Botham as the ATG Allrounder, and Kallis as the ATG Batsman

 

[Robert]

I don't usually make hyperbolic statements but in this case, it would be appropriate to say that Kallis was twice the player Botham was.

Ah, but remember that Kallis came up in an era of flatter decks and weaker bowling than Botham faced.

 

[New Yorker]

I don't usually make hyperbolic statements but in this case, it would be appropriate to say that Kallis was twice the player Botham was.

Unlike Kallis, however, Botham was genuinely two players rolled into; a series winning batsman and a series winning bowler.

 

[Ab Fan]

Botham is an undisputed ATG and so is Kallis.

In terms of consistency, Kallis was one of the greatest batsmen to have played the game.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Botham was a better batsman than Kallis the bowler but Kallis was a far superior batsman than Botham the bowler. When you consider fielding then it's a one sided contest.

 

[Hasan123]

Kallis easily.

 

[Robert]

Botham was a better batsman than Kallis the bowler but Kallis was a far superior batsman than Botham the bowler. When you consider fielding then it's a one sided contest.

Which way? Both excellent slip fielders in my opinion. Never saw Botham drop anything, ever.

 

[big_gamer007]

Kallis anyday of the week and twice on sundays.. He was a far superior bowler and a pretty decent batsman.. Botham was great for his team and time but Kallis is on another level to botham..

 

[The_Odd_One]

Which way? Both excellent slip fielders in my opinion. Never saw Botham drop anything, ever.

Not just slip fielder. Kallis took some outstanding catches in the deep.

 

[hk031992]

Kallis anyday of the week and twice on sundays.. He was a far superior bowler and a pretty decent batsman.. Botham was great for his team and time but Kallis is on another level to botham..

Kallis a far superior bowler? No. Botham was a far superior bowler, Kallis a far superior batsmen.

 

[big_gamer007]

Kallis a far superior bowler? No. Botham was a far superior bowler, Kallis a far superior batsmen.

I switched it by mistake meant far superior batsman and pretty decent bowler..

 

[hk031992]

I switched it by mistake meant far superior batsman and pretty decent bowler..

ah ok, got it. No worries.

 

[New Yorker]

I switched it by mistake meant far superior batsman and pretty decent bowler..

But we also agree that Botham was the far superior bowler, by miles. While also being a pretty decent batsman. As one would have to admit, for someone with 14 centuries in 100 Tests. But unlike Kallis, who to wit won precious few Tests with his bowling, Botham won at least one entire series with his batting. So how is Kallis clearly the better allrounder?

 

[Cric1234]

Kallis is an all time great batsman a decent bowler at best Botham is a decent bowler and batsman but not special in either facet it will be Kallis easily his batting will be more decisive than Bothams bowling most of the time.
Kallis had Pollock and Donald to bowl teams out had he played in a weaker team he might well have been a better bowler because he became more part time as his career progressed.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Kallis is arguably a tier 1 ATG with just his batting alone. Combining his bowling he was more valubale than Tendulkar. Botham was good but Kallis on a different level.

 

[New Yorker]

Kallis is an all time great batsman a decent bowler at best Botham is a decent bowler and batsman but not special in either facet it will be Kallis easily his batting will be more decisive than Bothams bowling most of the time.
Kallis had Pollock and Donald to bowl teams out had he played in a weaker team he might well have been a better bowler because he became more part time as his career progressed.

More 5fers than either Wasim or Waqar is "decent."? Botham was an extraordinary bowler in his pomp. 383 wickets, 27 5fers and 4 10fers at 28 is ATG level.

Botham was not as consistent as Kallis, but otherwise he was more evenly skilled. Almost as good a bowler as Kallis was a batsman, if one considers also Kallis notorious inability to accelerate, but Botham was a far better batsman in his pomp than Kallis was a bowler. He won series with the bat. See under Botham's Ashes.

 

[New Yorker]

Kallis is arguably a tier 1 ATG with just his batting alone. Combining his bowling he was more valubale than Tendulkar. Botham was good but Kallis on a different level.

To be more precise, not only was Kallis ATG with his "batting alone," he was for most of his career only an ATG batsman. His bowling was a filler. 1 or 2 wickets a game across his career is not exactly Sober's level.

 

[Amjid Javed]

Botham was a much better All-round player. He won games with both Bat and ball for england.

Name one great performance by kallis with the ball in test match cricket that sticks in the mind? Dont get me wrong Kallis was a brilliant batsmen but he never won games for S.A ever with ball in hand.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

To be more precise, not only was Kallis ATG with his "batting alone," he was for most of his career only an ATG batsman. His bowling was a filler. 1 or 2 wickets a game across his career is not exactly Sober's level.

You do realize Kallis has better average and FAR better strike rate than Sobers right? Sobers is massively overrated by the oldies.

 

[New Yorker]

You do realize Kallis has better average and FAR better strike rate than Sobers right? Sobers is massively overrated by the oldies.

Good point ! Neither Kallis nor Sobers were that great with the ball then. Which puts Botham's
achievement into even starker perspective.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Botham was a much better All-round player. He won games with both Bat and ball for england.

Name one great performance by kallis with the ball in test match cricket that sticks in the mind? Dont get me wrong Kallis was a brilliant batsmen but he never won games for S.A ever with ball in hand.

Greatly complement your boldness giving Botham his due.Very rare to find a PP member rating Botham right up there with the best in the Sobers,Imran or Kallis class.Very happy to see a pakpassion member recognize Botham's true stature.Did you like my OP?

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Good point ! Neither Kallis nor Sobers were that great with the ball then. Which puts Botham's
achievement into even starker perspective.

Botham is the best 'genuine' allrounder of all time, I can agree on that.

 

[Tusker]

Are we allowed to post video footage on these threads meant to drool and worship old ERA players or would that result in another round of collective cognitive dissonance amongst worshippers ... Because I can assure you a overweight and unfit Ian Botham trundling in to bowl his dibbly dobbly's is a sight to behold.

 

[RainMan_]

Is this a serious question? Kallis wipes the floor with Botham.

 

[Cric1234]

More 5fers than either Wasim or Waqar is "decent."? Botham was an extraordinary bowler in his pomp. 383 wickets, 27 5fers and 4 10fers at 28 is ATG level.

Botham was not as consistent as Kallis, but otherwise he was more evenly skilled. Almost as good a bowler as Kallis was a batsman, if one considers also Kallis notorious inability to accelerate, but Botham was a far better batsman in his pomp than Kallis was a bowler. He won series with the bat. See under Botham's Ashes.

For the first half he was a great bowler but to average 18 in the first 25 tests then to end up with an average of 28 meant continued regression as a bowler whereas Kallis averaged 31 for the first 20 tests then over 60 thereafter becoming better than all modern batsmen average wise.
Botham was a decent batsman who contributed to some wins but an average of 33 isn't great again it dropped into the 20s during the second half of his career.
Kallis was given a role to hold the innings together be the rock of SA he did it better than most his inability to accelerate is the only thing which isn't so good.

 

[Cric1234]

Are we allowed to post video footage on these threads meant to drool and worship old ERA players or would that result in another round of collective cognitive dissonance amongst worshippers ... Because I can assure you a overweight and unfit Ian Botham trundling in to bowl his dibbly dobbly's is a sight to behold.

Towards the end he was selected on reputation and was past it form and fitness wise thus unable to perform at a decent level.

 

[Robert]

For the first half he was a great bowler but to average 18 in the first 25 tests then to end up with an average of 28 meant continued regression as a bowler whereas Kallis averaged 31 for the first 20 tests then over 60 thereafter becoming better than all modern batsmen average wise.
Botham was a decent batsman who contributed to some wins but an average of 33 isn't great again it dropped into the 20s during the second half of his career.
Kallis was given a role to hold the innings together be the rock of SA he did it better than most his inability to accelerate is the only thing which isn't so good.

Have a look at him bowling at Lord’s in 1984 when he got 8-100. He is not swinging it much, but pacy and getting bounce from that strong action.

In his great years he would get banana swing both ways at fast-medium.

By his last Ashes tour, where he was a shadow of himself, the Aussie batters commented that he looked innocuous but was still quicker than he looked on telly, and still bowled occasional swingers and lifters off a length among the military medium long-hops. (He got a century in one match and a fivefer in another and England won both those tests.)

 

[New Yorker]

For the first half he was a great bowler but to average 18 in the first 25 tests then to end up with an average of 28 meant continued regression as a bowler whereas Kallis averaged 31 for the first 20 tests then over 60 thereafter becoming better than all modern batsmen average wise.
Botham was a decent batsman who contributed to some wins but an average of 33 isn't great again it dropped into the 20s during the second half of his career.
Kallis was given a role to hold the innings together be the rock of SA he did it better than most his inability to accelerate is the only thing which isn't so good.

Botham did not have a 33 batting average at best which then declined to 20; 33 is his overall career average. And averages don't tell the story well enough here. Let's see why.

Kallis had a window, roughly between 1998 and 2003 when his allrounder stats were spectacular, 59 batting average and 29 bowling average. Again, spectacular. If you look at his impact during this time, he scored 11 centuries, and took 4 5fers. This was his most productive era as a bowler. But the number of times he was an outright match winner with the ball were few.

However, if you look at Botham during his own best five years, from 1977 to 1982, he averaged about 24 with the ball and 37 with the bat. His batting numbers are not nearly as great as Kallis, but, and this is remarkable, he scored as many centuries, 11, as did Kallis did his best 5 years, and took an eye watering 20 5fers. So with the bat he was a match winner in roughly equal measure to Kallis, and with the ball, he blew Kallis away.

In terms of overall allrounder impact, Botham just looks like he brought a bit more to the table. Or perhaps one might say, a bit more of something different

Kallis got better as a batsman, and as a batsman, he is an ATG, but he got much, much worse as a bowler. In his last four years he average 40 with the ball and took no 5fers. Botham declined with both bat and ball, no doubt, but at his best, he was a better, genuine allrounder than Kallis.

 

[Robert]

Another point is that Kallis maximised his minnowbashing opportunities against BAN and ZIM.

Botham never faced minnow sides.

 

[Cric1234]

Botham did not have a 33 batting average at best which then declined to 20; 33 is his overall career average. And averages don't tell the story well enough here. Let's see why.

Kallis had a window, roughly between 1998 and 2003 when his allrounder stats were spectacular, 59 batting average and 29 bowling average. Again, spectacular. If you look at his impact during this time, he scored 11 centuries, and took 4 5fers. This was his most productive era as a bowler. But the number of times he was an outright match winner with the ball were few.

However, if you look at Botham during his own best five years, from 1977 to 1982, he averaged about 24 with the ball and 37 with the bat. His batting numbers are not nearly as great as Kallis, but, and this is remarkable, he scored as many centuries, 11, as did Kallis did his best 5 years, and took an eye watering 20 5fers. So with the bat he was a match winner in roughly equal measure to Kallis, and with the ball, he blew Kallis away.

In terms of overall allrounder impact, Botham just looks like he brought a bit more to the table. Or perhaps one might say, a bit more of something different

Kallis got better as a batsman, and as a batsman, he is an ATG, but he got much, much worse as a bowler. In his last four years he average 40 with the ball and took no 5fers. Botham declined with both bat and ball, no doubt, but at his best, he was a better, genuine allrounder than Kallis.

You've misread my post Botham averaged 40 with the bat in the first 25 tests last 25 tests it was 23 it gradually decreased over time other great all rounders Kallis Sobers Imran became all time greats in one facet Botham started of well but declined yes there are match winning performances but consistency wasn't there.
If he's an ATG bowler then Kumble is an ATG leg spinner but he's never mentioned with Warne and Murali they had their moments but ATGs require more consistent performances and a average that backs it up.

 

[jeetu]

[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td] Overall [/td][td]Kallis [/td][td]Botham [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Span [/td][td]1995-2013 [/td][td]1977-1992 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Mat [/td][td]166 [/td][td]102 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Runs [/td][td]13289 [/td][td]5200 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bat Av [/td][td]55.37 [/td][td]33.54 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]100 [/td][td]45 [/td][td]14 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wkts [/td][td]292 [/td][td]383 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bowl Av [/td][td]32.65 [/td][td]28.4 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]5W [/td][td]5 [/td][td]27 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ave Diff [/td][td]22.71 [/td][td]5.14 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] PeakYears [/td][td]Kallis [/td][td]Botham [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Span [/td][td]1998-2002 [/td][td]1978-1982 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Mat [/td][td]58 [/td][td]56 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Runs [/td][td]4221 [/td][td]3204 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bat Av [/td][td]54.11 [/td][td]37.69 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]100 [/td][td]10 [/td][td]11 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wkts [/td][td]129 [/td][td]252 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bowl Av [/td][td]28.47 [/td][td]24.69 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]5W [/td][td]3 [/td][td]18 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ave Diff [/td][td]25.64 [/td][td]12.99 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

Overall Kallis was better because he was extremely consistent.
Problem with Kallis as a geniune AR lies with low Wickets vs match when it comes to other famous AR.
He was nearly always the 4th/5th best bowler in playing XI.
Even during his early bowling years his wickets per matches are on the lower side.

When it comes to peak years as AR, Botham is unmatched as a match winner. He could score centuries and take good chunk of wickets as well. Botham's decline was alarming from mid 80's onwards. This is when many other AR surpassed him when it comes to overall career.

 

[Thejedi]

Another point is that Kallis maximised his minnowbashing opportunities against BAN and ZIM.

Botham never faced minnow sides.

He faced the minnows of his time. Even without the minnows, Kallis’s average is very very high.

 

[Thejedi]

Ah, but remember that Kallis came up in an era of flatter decks and weaker bowling than Botham faced.

Nah. Botham didn’t face weaker bowling than Kallis.

Flatter decks in Kallis time mean, Kalli’s bowling deserve more credits for bowling that well on these flat decks. You cannot selectively give kudos.

 

[Robert]

He faced the minnows of his time. Even without the minnows, Kallis’s average is very very high.

There were no minnows to face in Botham’s career. NZ were arguably the weakest and even they had Hadlee.

Take the minnows out and Kallis’ bowling stats look a lot worse.

 

[New Yorker]

You've misread my post Botham averaged 40 with the bat in the first 25 tests last 25 tests it was 23 it gradually decreased over time other great all rounders Kallis Sobers Imran became all time greats in one facet Botham started of well but declined yes there are match winning performances but consistency wasn't there.
If he's an ATG bowler then Kumble is an ATG leg spinner but he's never mentioned with Warne and Murali they had their moments but ATGs require more consistent performances and a average that backs it up.

Sure the consistency was there; Botham was a very consistent match winner for 5 straight years; he then declined, but he was consistent until then, as consistent as Kallis, in fact, in his ability to score 100s, as the record irrefutably shows.

 

[Thejedi]

There were no minnows to face in Botham’s career. NZ were arguably the weakest and even they had Hadlee.

Take the minnows out and Kallis’ bowling stats look a lot worse.

India, NZ and SriLanka. Take away botham’s record against them and Botham’s record looks a lot worse.

 

[James]

Botham was a much better All-round player. He won games with both Bat and ball for england.

Name one great performance by kallis with the ball in test match cricket that sticks in the mind? Dont get me wrong Kallis was a brilliant batsmen but he never won games for S.A ever with ball in hand.

Spot on.

Kallis is the one for the stattos, but when I need to get a move on and win a match, it’s Botham every time for me.

 

[Thejedi]

there are two types of allrounders. Ones that are equally talented in both batting and bowling but not an ATG in any. The other one is ATG in one department and very serviceable in the other.
These 2 players are different and should not be compared. Better comparision would be Botham vs Miller, Chris Cairns, Flintoff etc
Kallis vs Sobers, Imran, Hadlee.

Botham never reached the ATG level in batting or bowling like Kallis did but as pure allrounder he was the best or 2nd best depending on where you rank Miller. In the last few decades nobody come close to Botham as pure allrounder.

 

[Thejedi]

Spot on.

Kallis is the one for the stattos, but when I need to get a move on and win a match, it’s Botham every time for me.

Kallis won a match or 2 in England with bowling but his batting was pretty good that SA were probably right to take advantage of his batting and Kallis’s focus shifted to batting. He sometimes opened and bowled first changed pretty often in late 1990s and used to bowl over 30overs per innings. If he was a leaser batsman, a lot would have been expected of his bowling and he would have given it little more importance.

Kallis for stats is one of the laziest and stupidest thing I have ever read.

 

[New Yorker]

there are two types of allrounders. Ones that are equally talented in both batting and bowling but not an ATG in any. The other one is ATG in one department and very serviceable in the other.
These 2 players are different and should not be compared. Better comparision would be Botham vs Miller, Chris Cairns, Flintoff etc
Kallis vs Sobers, Imran, Hadlee.

Botham never reached the ATG level in batting or bowling like Kallis did but as pure allrounder he was the best or 2nd best depending on where you rank Miller. In the last few decades nobody come close to Botham as pure allrounder.

How far from ATG level in bowling do you think Botham was, with 383 wickets, 27 5fers, 4 10fers? His number of hauls are better than most specialist bowlers today, including Anderson's. He was the 4th fastest pace bowler ever to 200 wickets, behind only Lillee, Steyn and Waqar. Those are ATG names as far as I can tell.

 

[hk031992]

Are we allowed to post video footage on these threads meant to drool and worship old ERA players or would that result in another round of collective cognitive dissonance amongst worshippers ... Because I can assure you a overweight and unfit Ian Botham trundling in to bowl his dibbly dobbly's is a sight to behold.

there is virtually no one here that has claimed that Botham was an express pace bowler. He was known as a medium pace swing bowler. And it was widely acknowledged by his comtemporaries that his bowling and fitness declined greatly in his later years.

Your bias against old timers is remarkable.

 

[Tusker]

there is virtually no one here that has claimed that Botham was an express pace bowler. He was known as a medium pace swing bowler. And it was widely acknowledged by his comtemporaries that his bowling and fitness declined greatly in his later years.

Your bias against old timers is remarkable.

You just aint going to get 350+ Wkts today bowling like that - Aint happening. Thats the bitter truth that die hard fans of old ERA cricket don't like to come to terms with. Nothing to do with bias. Wasim was pretty much from the same ERA and I rate him as one of the best. I call it as I see it.

 

[hk031992]

You just aint going to get 350+ Wkts today bowling like that - Aint happening. Thats the bitter truth that die hard fans of old ERA cricket don't like to come to terms with. Nothing to do with bias. Wasim was pretty much from the same ERA and I rate him as one of the best. I call it as I see it.

You rank Wasim but you don't rank the guys that he rated as among the best he ever played, live Viv for example. That is bias.

Yes, the older fat Botham would indeed not get 350 wickets bowling like that. You are ignoring how much better his bowling average was in the first half of his career vs the second half

I don't see why he could not be as sucessfull today, especially playing in England/NZ/SA. You are taking a cricketer at his worst, ignoring the first half of his career when he appears to be a much better bowler and when he had far better stats than in the second half, and claiming that he could not get 350 wickets today. Sorry mate but that is bias. If Philander and Broad can be successful, i see no reason why Botham couldn't.

 

[Tusker]

You rank Wasim but you don't rank the guys that he rated as among the best he ever played, live Viv for example. That is bias.

Yes, the older fat Botham would indeed not get 350 wickets bowling like that. You are ignoring how much better his bowling average was in the first half of his career vs the second half

I don't see why he could not be as sucessfull today, especially playing in England/NZ/SA. You are taking a cricketer at his worst, ignoring the first half of his career when he appears to be a much better bowler and when he had far better stats than in the second half, and claiming that he could not get 350 wickets today. Sorry mate but that is bias. If Philander and Broad can be successful, i see no reason why Botham couldn't.

If you want to rate players as ATG based on 3 to 5 yrs worth of cricket then you need to do the same for all. And Philander is not an ATG nor is Broad.

 

[hk031992]

If you want to rate players as ATG based on 3 to 5 yrs worth of cricket then you need to do the same for all. And Philander is not an ATG nor is Broad.

I never said he was an ATG as a bowler alone. He is an ATG all rounder. Why were the stats in the first half of his career better than the second half? Because he was both quicker (not express) and more motivated early on. Broad may not be ATG but he has taken over 300 wickets, hasn't he? So could Botham.