What's new

Jacques Kallis or Imran Khan? Who was the better cricketer?

Harsh Thakor

First Class Star
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Runs
3,521
Post of the Week
2
In an earlier post there was a debate about who was the better between Gary Sobers and Imran Khan.I feel another appropriate argument would be who was better between Imran Khan and Jacques Kallis.Atleast as an all-rounder it is a very close call.

To me if it came to match-wining flair and charisma Imran would win.Imran could turn games with the ball making an impact of a hurricane and also show great composure with the bat.Being a fast-bowing all-rounder Imran could turn games more than Kallis.However if criteria of longevity,consistency and all-round figures is applied Kallis would win the battle against Imran purely as an all-rounder.No all-rounder ever has had as staggering statistics as Kallis,including Sobers.Infact statistically Kallis is the champion all-rounder of all time.Never forget his performances in O.D.I's.Statistically Kallis was the best batsman after Bradman nad Tendulkar.At his bset Kallis could even be devastating with the ball.He also gave some great all-round performances in tests and series like against West Indies in 1998.Even if Kallis lacked the x factor of Imran he was the ultimate utilitarian.Hi sbatting was not debonair but as effective as any great player.Kallis also had the disadvantage of playing in an era with so many O.D.I's and T-20 games.In Imran's ear half as much international cricket was played and wickets favoured the bowlers considerably more.Kalli's weakness was that often he would not step the gas to a sufficient extent to win games.

Where Imran would win overall is his great prowess as a skipper and his greater overall flamboyance as a cricketer.No all-rounder ever made the impact of a captain as Imran who led his team like a great military marshal.However to replace Sobers in the 1st all-time xi my first choice would be Kallis.Arguably I would place a draw for second between Botham,Miller and Kallis.To join Sobers,Imran would be my 1st choice being a fast-bowling all-rounder but still I would prefer including the left-arm prowess of Wasim Akram.Imran was almost a certainty for the 2nd xi like Kallis but more than Sobesr may replace Wasim Akram in the 1st xi.Botham at his best would have ben Sober's best replacement but he l;acked the longevity and consistency of Miller,Imran and Kallis.Arguably he could have been the best cricketer of his era.

To me sadly Kallis is one of the most under-rated cricketers and all-rounders.Several cricket experts do not class him as a genuine all-rounder as he did not excel with the bat and ball in similar periods.I would partly refute this highlighting the fcat that Kallis took 5 wickets and scored a century in a single test match twice.He also gave an outstanding all-round performance in a home series in 1998 against the West Indies.Kallis at his peak also won matches with the ball like in England in 1998.Incredibly,he even took the new ball at times and opened his team's bowling attack.Kallis also played in an era when much more cricket is played and wickets are hardly conducive to seam bowling.He also played in aside with a lethal bowling attack so rarely got an opportunity in the later part of his career.Neverthless remember the crucial breakthroughs he made with the ball in hard times. Remember that even the great Imran Khan was basically a great fast bowler who became a very good batsmen late in his career.As a batsman statistically he was 2nd to the mighty Sachin Tendulkar and was arguably the best batsman of his era to bat for your life.In a crisis he was in the Javed Miandad or Rahul Dravid class.

In the experts analysis of 100 best cricketers of all time James Armstrong ranks Kallis at 72 nd place while Cristopher Martin Jenkins places him at 52nd place.True he may not have been as entertaining as Kapil and Botham or as much as a match-winner as Imran or Botham but remember his phenomenal consistency and the era in which Kallis played.I would have backed Kallis to overshadow Imran,Hadlee,Botham and Kapil had he played in the 1980's when wickets were more conducive to bowling.He did not bat in the dynamic style of Gary Sobers or posess his bowling variety but was almost in the class of the giant with his utilitarianism.No batsmen statistically ever ran Sachin Tendulkar so close in test cricket.Arguably Kalllis could have been the best cricketer of his era.


True Kallis at times did not force the pace enough to win games.However he played crucial roles in many of South Africa's great victories,be it in West Indies,England or Australia.He has a staggering agregate in games won and saved and was one of the most unselfish of batsmen.No cricketer may ever equal Kalli's staggering haul of runs and wickets combined.I would have loved seeing Kallis playing aside Gary Sobers.It would have been a spectacle like seeing Bradman batting with Viv or Sachin.Kalli's lacking of the 'x ' factor to me places him below W.G.Grace,Gary Sobers,Don Bradman,Shane Warne,Jack Hobbs,Sachin Tendulkar,Viv Richards,Imran Khan ,Wally Hammond and Adam Gilchrist.
At his best Kallis could have well made it an an 11 as a bowler.


In terms of statistical figures Kallis is a giant. Let alone all-rounder or batsman his figures make him a strong contender for the greatest cricketer ever.No all-round cricketer has equalled Kallis statistically.However one has to weigh the figures in the correct light with a balanced criteria.Today far many more test matches are played than in yesteryears and many more One day Internationals.Test pitches are also loaded in favour of the batsman and strokemaking is far more easy.In the game toady there are more minnow teams like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

As a bowler Kallis has better figures but Sobers was better in his peak period.Sobers was far more versatile than Kallis bowling chinaman,spin and fast-medium like 3 bowlers combined into one.It must be stated that Kallis has hardly bowled much or taken many wickets for the latter half of his career.However we have to consider that Kallis has been at a disadvantage of being a part of a great bowling attack and in an era where the bowling load was far greater than that of Sir Gary's era.The pitches were also more favourable to seam bowlers in Sir Gary's time as compared to the docile tracks of today.At his best Kallis could bowl some lethal bouncers and swing the ball dangerously.One must complement Kallis sharing an attack with compatriots like Alan Donald,Shaun Pollock etc.

In test matches Kallis and Sobers have both scored a century and taken 5 wickets in a test match twice.However in a single test series Sobers has on 3 occassion scored over 300 runs and taken 20 wickets.Adding the games for Rest of the World the tally would have been 4.In comparison. Kallis has never had such staggering figures with both bat and ball.

As a pure all-rounder I think Kallis challenges Sobers more than Imran while as a cricketer it is vice-versa.A more artistic and charismatic Kallis could have joined the likes of Bradman,Hobbs,Tendulkar , Viv Richards or even Imran.In terms of pure all-round skill Kallis would just marginally edge Imran .Remember he has taken 5 wickets and scored a century in the same match twice.

Kallis's figures in test matches
Batting

Career averages Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s
overall 1995-2013 166 280 40 13289 224 55.37 28903 45.97 45 58 16 1488 97

won match 1996-2013 82 124 22 6379 224 62.53 13368 47.71 22 28 4 712 56

Bowling

Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
overall 1995-2013 166 272 3372.0 848 9535 292 6/54 9/92 32.65 2.82 69.2 5 0

won match 1996-2013 82 145 1636.5 440 4461 182 6/54 9/92 24.51 2.72 53.9 4

O.D.I.record of Kallis

Batting
Career averages Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s
overall 1996-2014 328 314 53 11579 139 44.36 15885 72.89 17 86 17 911 137

Bowling

Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI Ave Econ SR 4 5
overall 1996-2014 328 283 1791.4 79 8680 273 5/30 31.79 4.84 39.3 2 2
 
I would choose Kallis over Imran anyday if team has strong bowling line-up , then I would take somebody who is a better batsman and thats kallis .
 
Kallis is a much better batsman. Imran a much better bowler.

But Imran made his team win more games.
 
Imran, because he was do much more destructive than Kallis.
 
Kallis a great allrounder of his generation but Imran not only was a great all-rounder but he was also 'the leader of men'
 
Imran, because he was do much more destructive than Kallis.

Was Imran a better replacement than Kallis for Sobers at no 6?Was not Ian Botham at his best arguably by inches a more suitable replacement for Sobers?Remember 1981 Ashes and 1980 Jubilee test.At his peak from 1977-82 Botham arguably even edged Sobers as a match-winner at his best.
 
Imran, because he was do much more destructive than Kallis.


I feel Botham at his best from 1977-82 like in the 1981 Ashes or the 1980 Jubilee test was by a few inches would be a more eligible candidate than Imran or even Keith Miller at his peak.Imran was not at his best with both bat and ball.From 1991-88 no doubt he was the champion all-rounder and arguably best cricketer in the world.Imran may have been the best of match-winners but was generally a great fast-bowling all-rounder while both Miller and Botham were marginally more genuine all-rounders.
 
Kallis is a giant in terms of stats but lacked the X-factor Imran had.

Kallis the bowler played alongside really good bowlers all the time, and he rarely experienced something called pressure as a bowler. SA is among the sides that rarely have to bowl to two set batsmen batting at 2/200, especially at home. Kallis has never been tested much as a bowler. Most of the work would already be done by the likes of Donald, Pollock,Steyn, Philander etc. Kallis will never be given the ball in a World XI side simply because he never had the experience of opening the bowling nor had the experience of shouldering the burden of bowling in his entire bowling career. To his fortune he played a lot of matches on bowler friendly SA wickets along with some of the greatest contemporary bowlers. Outside the comfort of home, Kallis averages 42 in Oz, 39 in India, 46 in NZ, 42 in Pakistan and 39 in SL - all this when he enjoyed strong bowling support at the other end. Look upon Kallis as a pure batsman while considering him for an All time XI - he will not be given the ball anyway. Imran's batting is much superior to Kallis bowling and renders this debate moot.
 
Jacques Kallis as an allrounder is any day better than Imran Khan. As a bowler, Imran was better. But we are comparing allrounders, aren't we?
 
Leadership wise Imran. no one can touch him.

Batting wise Kallis was one of the best all rounder in cricket. Probably higher than Imran Khan. Kallis though lost his tough in bowling after his injury in 2000s
 
Those saying Kallis, do you have the audacity to accept then that Kallis is a better batsman than Tendulkar? A statistician's delight, much better career stats than even SRT.

This influx of Imran vs. Sobers,Bradman,Anderson etc. threads are getting boring now.
 
Those saying Kallis, do you have the audacity to accept then that Kallis is a better batsman than Tendulkar? A statistician's delight, much better career stats than even SRT.

This influx of Imran vs. Sobers,Bradman,Anderson etc. threads are getting boring now.

Why does any one saying Kallis > Imran (which I do not agree with) have to agree that Kallis is a better batsman than Sachin?
 
Why does any one saying Kallis > Imran (which I do not agree with) have to agree that Kallis is a better batsman than Sachin?

Because of looking at stats only. That too only batting. No other way anyone can claim Kallis > Imran lol.
 
They say numbers never lie, but stats can be a little misleading sometimes. Kallis on paper is the best AR, in real life in real playing conditions and real pressure...Imran is better
 
Very easy , Great khan and alone for his bowling . His primary skill was so good that even his batting average was 10 , I would have selected him.
 
Imran Khan IMO, Kallis as a player alone had better performances than IK but IK had the X-factor, big match temparement. Won his team the WC, Kallis had his fair share of failures in World Cups
 
It's not that big of a difference. You can definitely compare them. In fact, statisticians can make very convincing arguments in Kallis' favour but cricket is not played on a stat sheet.

What statistics does Kallis have to check the following?

- The best MOTS innings/award ratio.
- The best bowling peak of all time.
- Top quality performances against the great West Indies.
- A ten year period with a 50+ batting average and <19 bowling average.

This comparison can be made because both of them are legends but Imran wins this by some distance.
 
Kallis may have better stats, but then again they played in different eras. Who's to say Imran's stats may not have been even better or less if he played at the same time as Kallis. No doubt Kallis was a gun player and like you said if not under rated then certainly a little under appreciated. I think generally, SA cricketers have hard time endearing themselves to non saffer fans with maybe the exception of DeVilliers due to his phenomenal performances of late.

But never mind Kallis, you'll find it difficult to get Pak fans to consider even the best players there's ever been to be better than Imran or take his place. Imran is a legend and has earned the right to sit on the throne of Pak cricket as its best ever player and undisputed King.
 
Imran.

Kallis is a statistical marvel, and has been a 3 in 1 cricketer on paper; but his impact on the field has been minimal and his legacy insignificant.

In spite of the mountain of runs and wickets that he has piled up, there have always been better batsmen, better bowlers and more impactful all-rounders.

Imran on the other hand was amongst the top two bowlers in his prime and has been more pivotal in the success of his team. His leadership skills cannot be ignored either and he left a lasting legacy.
 
Both are definitely comparable. Imran Khan for me is a better bowler than Kallis was a batsman, but their secondary skills are comparable. And Kallis was a good fielder too. So it isn’t a terrible matchup.

Imran Khan is better even if we disregard his captaincy/leadership skills though.
 
Forget about Imran Khan the allrounder if i am given a choice i will pick Donald from same SA team only as a Test bowler instead of Kallis the 3 in 1 package because i don't need those thousands of runs if my bowling attack can't get me 20 wickets. Test matches are only won by taking 20 wickets otherwise your triple and double hundreds will be remembered in draws.

A team can defend 150 in a Test match with great bowlers and another team can't save/win even with 300 on board with all those great bats if there are no bowlers to defend the total.
 
Forget about Imran Khan the allrounder if i am given a choice i will pick Donald from same SA team only as a Test bowler instead of Kallis the 3 in 1 package because i don't need those thousands of runs if my bowling attack can't get me 20 wickets. Test matches are only won by taking 20 wickets otherwise your triple and double hundreds will be remembered in draws.

A team can defend 150 in a Test match with great bowlers and another team can't save/win even with 300 on board with all those great bats if there are no bowlers to defend the total.

Forget about Imran Khan the allrounder if i am given a choice i will pick Donald from same SA team only as a Test bowler instead of Kallis the 3 in 1 package because i don't need those thousands of runs if my bowling attack can't get me 20 wickets. Test matches are only won by taking 20 wickets otherwise your triple and double hundreds will be remembered in draws.

A team can defend 150 in a Test match with great bowlers and another team can't save/win even with 300 on board with all those great bats if there are no bowlers to defend the total.

The comparison here is of all-rounders. So when you compare a batting allrounder to a bowling allrounder, you can’t discuss which one you would rather have in your team. Otherwise people would always pick the bowling AR because “bowlers win matches”.

Also if you have a bowling attack that can pick up 20 wickets it doesn't matter if you are defending a first innings score of 150.
 
The comparison here is of all-rounders. So when you compare a batting allrounder to a bowling allrounder, you can’t discuss which one you would rather have in your team. Otherwise people would always pick the bowling AR because “bowlers win matches”.

Also if you have a bowling attack that can pick up 20 wickets it doesn't matter if you are defending a first innings score of 150.

It can create lot of difference in many of those matches where their is not enough time left to decide the result because of rain.

I know the thread was about 2 all rounders but i was just sharing my opinion by starting it with the line "if i am given a choice"

Sorry if i sound biased i know i always had soft corner for bowlers in Test and specially genuine fast bowlers.
 
With all rounders it's all about what the team needs.
SA currently could do with a Kallis or two, not a great bowler who can bat a bit.
Then when you look at that great Aussie side of your 90s-00's they were so strong they didn't even need an all rounder, a specially a batting one. A great fast bowler though who can win a match spontaneously could be of need (maybe ahead of Lee or Gillespie).
A weak side will mainly need runs on the board, a strong batting unit (India of the 00's) will need IK.
Horses for courses.
 
This is not a fair thread, because you are again comparing a batting all-rounder (who batted in the Top Four and bowled as fourth seamer) with a balanced all-rounder (who batted at 7 and was his team's strike bowler).

It's like comparing Donald Bradman with Donald Trump and Donald Duck.

Kallis was a brilliant batting all-rounder, which is why I often point out that he was as good as Sachin Tendulkar and Zaheer Khan combined.

And Imran was a brilliant skipper and balanced all-rounder.
 
With all rounders it's all about what the team needs.
SA currently could do with a Kallis or two, not a great bowler who can bat a bit.
Then when you look at that great Aussie side of your 90s-00's they were so strong they didn't even need an all rounder, a specially a batting one. A great fast bowler though who can win a match spontaneously could be of need (maybe ahead of Lee or Gillespie).
A weak side will mainly need runs on the board, a strong batting unit (India of the 00's) will need IK.
Horses for courses.

Imran would help a side like Bangladesh win more matches than Kallis would. The only team that would pick Kallis over an Imran or Keith Miller will be one that has a very good bowling attack but no quality batsmen.
 
Tough to choose. But still i would pick Irman over sobers for just 1 reason. Because i consider Imran to be best Bowl A/R of all time while Kallis is 2nd best Batting AR of all time. Kallis was better fielder while Imran was better captain. On that count i give slight edge to Kallis. But inability to make mark in WC goes against Kallis.

Then it becomes a choice to who to pick in final XI between then.
If i want a great batsman who can double up as 5th bowler then Kallis would be my pick.
If i want a great bowler who can hold tail at No.8 then i would go for Imran.
For weaker team Imran is better option for All time lineups i would prefer Kallis.
 
Imran, because Imran the bowler could turn the game on its head. Kallis is great but I am not sure whether he impacted any games ?
 
Imran by a huge margin. Forget Kallis, Imran can give the 'great' Sobers a run for his money.
 
I'm not even sure if Kallis is better than Shaun Pollock. He belongs to a lower category of greats Along with Sangakkara. Lacked the attitude of a true great cricketer. Never intimidated any opponent, rather you would much better the longer he stayed .
 
This is not a fair thread, because you are again comparing a batting all-rounder (who batted in the Top Four and bowled as fourth seamer) with a balanced all-rounder (who batted at 7 and was his team's strike bowler).

It's like comparing Donald Bradman with Donald Trump and Donald Duck.

Kallis was a brilliant batting all-rounder, which is why I often point out that he was as good as Sachin Tendulkar and Zaheer Khan combined.

And Imran was a brilliant skipper and balanced all-rounder.

If Kallis was as good as Zaheer Khan, then your argument that he is a batting-allrounder depends on the team Kallis played in. If Kallis played for some team apart from SA and was as good as Zaheer Khan, he would probably be playing as a first change bowler (which would make him a “balanced” all-rounder).
 
Well Kallis has more MoM awards than anyone else in test cricket....so I don't know why people are saying they would pick Imran because he "wins more matches". But anyways as a fast bowling fan, Imran over Kallis any day of the week
 
People undermine Kallis a lot here.

Kallis lacked flair, not impact.

You don't win most MoM awards (the idea of MoM is to give it to the player who had a decisive impact on the game) in history of the game without having impact.

I don't know what does it mean by saying that Kallis was the stats delight and cricket is not played on stats paper.

Stats are the measure if performances after all, may not tell us everything, but they do tell us a lot of things. Cricket is not played on stats sheet but that sheet itself is written on the basis of what happens on the cricket field.

Kallis though was batting allrounder, used to take some important wickets. He was a partnership breaker, used to take bowl and take wickets when rest of the bowlers were tired or a partnership is going on.

Unlike many front-line bowlers, he don't used to get much opportunity to bowl to tail-enders, so heavy majority of wickets are top order ones.

Look at the batsmen he has dismissed most often

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ate=results;type=bowling;view=batsman_summary

Hardly any tail-enders and mostly best batsmen of the opposition.


As for saying that Imran was a better match winner, said that in other threads as well. Bowlers do have luxury to make a decisive impact on the game, so by comparing a batsman with a bowler or a batting allrounder with a bowling allrounder of similar calibre in that way, bowlers or bowling allrounders would always have a upper hand.

The same definition makes Kumble a better match-winner than Sachin and Dravid, but Kumble by no means is a better player than them. So thats not the right way to look at it.


Anyways, about the comparison, Imran is ahead of Kallis as a player even ignoring his captaincy. Was the sole reason why Pakistan remained the second best test team in 80s. But I must say, certain players like Lillee or Kallis remain under-rated on PP for different reasons.
 
This is not a fair thread, because you are again comparing a batting all-rounder (who batted in the Top Four and bowled as fourth seamer) with a balanced all-rounder (who batted at 7 and was his team's strike bowler).

It's like comparing Donald Bradman with Donald Trump and Donald Duck.

Kallis was a brilliant batting all-rounder, which is why I often point out that he was as good as Sachin Tendulkar and Zaheer Khan combined.

And Imran was a brilliant skipper and balanced all-rounder.

Zak was top 3 bowler in the world for four or five years. What has Kallis done (in bowling) to be even compared to Zaheer?
 
Well Kallis has more MoM awards than anyone else in test cricket....so I don't know why people are saying they would pick Imran because he "wins more matches". But anyways as a fast bowling fan, Imran over Kallis any day of the week

Kallis got only 9 Man of the Series in a career of 166 Test matches and Imran got 8 Man of the Series award in only 88 Test matches (almost half number of matches) that's more than any Pakistani, Indian, West Indies or England cricketer and only Murali and Kallis are ahead of Imran in number of Man of the series awards but they played many more matches to achieve that.

He was Man of the Series when we won the Test series in England 1987. He was Man of the series when we toured India in 1987/88 and won the Test series there and he was Man of the series when we drawn a Test series against West Indies in West Indies.
 
The no. of man of the series in tests is a weak argument. In tests it is always all-rounder/bowler centric while its batsman centric in ODI's.

Case in point - Miandad got 2 MoS awards in his test career (one oagainst the minnows of his time,SL), does not mean he was was that less effective than Kallis or Imran.
 
The no. of man of the series in tests is a weak argument. In tests it is always all-rounder/bowler centric while its batsman centric in ODI's.

Case in point - Miandad got 2 MoS awards in his test career (one oagainst the minnows of his time,SL), does not mean he was was that less effective than Kallis or Imran.

Point to note is we are comparing a Test AR with a Test AR here so the criteria remain same for both we are not comparing apples with oranges.

Ofcourse bowlers and true all rounders are more important in deciding a Test series result than a batsman.
 
Point to note is we are comparing a Test AR with a Test AR here so the criteria remain same for both we are not comparing apples with oranges.

Ofcourse bowlers and true all rounders are more important in deciding a Test series result than a batsman.

Test Batting A/R vs Test Bowling A/R, there is a difference.

Anyway, i rate Imran higher as he had a habit of bringing out his best against the best. The same cannot be said for Kallis.
 
Test Batting A/R vs Test Bowling A/R, there is a difference.

Anyway, i rate Imran higher as he had a habit of bringing out his best against the best. The same cannot be said for Kallis.

Agree your skills are tested when you face the best.
 
Imran would help a side like Bangladesh win more matches than Kallis would. The only team that would pick Kallis over an Imran or Keith Miller will be one that has a very good bowling attack but no quality batsmen.

I'm not so sure. What Bangladesh needs is a share volume of runs. Kallis at times was like 3 players in one. Gave South Africa an option of either playing an extra bowler or batsmen depending on the conditions.
The England tour is a classic example. We had an option of including an extra bat thanks to Kallis. JP played @6/7 and scored crucial runs with the tail. Ironically he would not have made the starting XI without Kallis.
With this strategy Bangladesh would be hard to beat in my books. Yeah it could be argued the bowling attack would fail to seize the initiative from time to time and not kill games of by taking 20 wickets.
But having a player scoring in different conditions consistently, whilst playing with an extra bat increases your chances of winning and competitiveness over long stretches
 
I'm not even sure if Kallis is better than Shaun Pollock. He belongs to a lower category of greats Along with Sangakkara. Lacked the attitude of a true great cricketer. Never intimidated any opponent, rather you would much better the longer he stayed .

LOL Pollock in the 00's was not even our main man though he still had great stats. After his knee went out, he wasn't a strike bowler anymore, Ntini was. Kallis scored the runs while the bowlers did the rest.
Kallis in the same sentence as Sangakkara? Not sure about that.
 
I'm not so sure. What Bangladesh needs is a share volume of runs. Kallis at times was like 3 players in one. Gave South Africa an option of either playing an extra bowler or batsmen depending on the conditions.
The England tour is a classic example. We had an option of including an extra bat thanks to Kallis. JP played @6/7 and scored crucial runs with the tail. Ironically he would not have made the starting XI without Kallis.
With this strategy Bangladesh would be hard to beat in my books. Yeah it could be argued the bowling attack would fail to seize the initiative from time to time and not kill games of by taking 20 wickets.
But having a player scoring in different conditions consistently, whilst playing with an extra bat increases your chances of winning and competitiveness over long stretches

Imran was a 4 in 1 cricketer. Not only would he have been a devastating spearhead, he'd be their best test batsman as well. Apart from his own performances, he would also help Bangladesh find a couple of great players and put them on the path to becoming a top cricketing nation. Pretty much what he did for Pakistan.

Extra batsmen don't increase your chances of winning, having an ATG bowler in your ranks does.
 
Imran was a 4 in 1 cricketer. Not only would he have been a devastating spearhead, he'd be their best test batsman as well. Apart from his own performances, he would also help Bangladesh find a couple of great players and put them on the path to becoming a top cricketing nation. Pretty much what he did for Pakistan.

Extra batsmen don't increase your chances of winning, having an ATG bowler in your ranks does
.
so batsmen and runs don't win games?
Coz I've seen a toothless Sri Lankan attack win a test match in SA thanks to runs on the board. Walagedera looked like McGrath. This is what Asian teams have been guilty of, they don't score enough runs to defend on a consistent basis outside Asia.
 
4 current Pakistani players certainly.

I wonder how many 22 averaging pacers other countries have. How many awe-inspiring leaders, who average 50 with the bat.

so batsmen and runs don't win games?
Coz I've seen a toothless Sri Lankan attack win a test match in SA thanks to runs on the board. Walagedera looked like McGrath. This is what Asian teams have been guilty of, they don't score enough runs to defend on a consistent basis outside Asia.

No, batsmen don't win you game. Bowlers do. Sri Lanka won that test due to their bowlers.
 
I wonder how many 22 averaging pacers other countries have. How many awe-inspiring leaders, who average 50 with the bat.

Nobody, ever.

Imran and Miller managed about 37 each, though.
 
Imran made tremendous contribution to Pakistan by being a good leader. Without him no Wasim or Waqar. So Imran Khan.
 
Nobody, ever.

Imran and Miller managed about 37 each, though.

Stop ruining the mood, sir. An average of 50 sounds much better thab an average of 37.

Seriously though, Imran was no Viv with the bat but an average of 50 is an average of 50. And yes, he did average 50 as captain.
 
Imran any day.....

Kallis is like a student sitting in the first bench of the class.... Lacks the x factor.

Kallis could never be a leader. Same like Tendulkar.

Imran could inspire.... And that is one quality that is very rare.
 
Imran any day.....

Kallis is like a student sitting in the first bench of the class.... Lacks the x factor.

Kallis could never be a leader. Same like Tendulkar.

Imran could inspire.... And that is one quality that is very rare.

Tendulkar was an informal leader of the team since the late 90s. He was one player whom every other team mate respected and adored. If he had chosen to be the captain nobody could have stopped him from becoming one. But he was content playing second fiddle to the captain of the team though he wielded great influence in team decisions. I think some crushing defeats in SA and WI blew out his confidence - but a good captain will try to progress and put those behind.
 
I wonder how many 22 averaging pacers other countries have. How many awe-inspiring leaders, who average 50 with the bat.



No, batsmen don't win you game. Bowlers do. Sri Lanka won that test due to their bowlers.

and the 400 runs on the board?
 
and the 400 runs on the board?

What about them? Make it 100,000 runs and Sri Lanka still wouldn't have won if they hadn't bowled well. This is cricketing ABC, can;t believe you're arguing over something as basic as this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What about them? Make it 100,000 runs and Sri Lanka still wouldn't have won if they hadn't bowled well. This is cricketing ABC, can;t believe you're arguing over something as basic as this.

but you can win a test match by taking 19 while losing all your wickets. Test matches are not won by taking more wickets but by scoring more runs than your opposition. Both teams are usually all out across two innings and the team that score more runs win. So runs are as important as wickets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What about them? Make it 100,000 runs and Sri Lanka still wouldn't have won if they hadn't bowled well. This is cricketing ABC, can;t believe you're arguing over something as basic as this.

there's a thing called scoreboard pressure. it doesn't matter how great an attack is, runs have to be on the board. Simple as that, even the great Windies attack wouldn't defend a total of 50 even a hundred (9/10) despite being the greatest attack of all time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
but you can win a test match by taking 19 while losing all your wickets. Test matches are not won by taking more wickets but by scoring more runs than your opposition. Both teams are usually all out across two innings and the team that score more runs win. So runs are as important as wickets.

:SMH I don't know what's so hard to comprehend. It's as if bowlers are bowling wicket to wicket with no batsmen in between. Batsmen have no impact or say on the outcome of a test match
 
I'd take Kallis. He is a useful fifth bowler and a monster runscorer. Imran was overall a better cricketer but I prefer batting allrounders.
 
Imran as a fast bowling all rounder is more valuable than Kallis , who was batting all rounder.
 
Imran is better, bowler > batsman in test cricket by default. Bowlers win you matches. Imran is an ATG bowler even without his batting
 
Imran the batsman was far superior than Kallis the bowler so I will take Imran over Kallis. Imran saved his team with his batting dozens of time. Can't recall such consistent bowling performances from Kallis.
 
Imran was better in his stronger suit and also better in his weaker suit.
 
This is a tough one.
If i have to pick World XI then i'll pick Kallis over Imran as AR.

However as comparison Imran is better than Kallis because Kallis has low wickets per match.
 
Back
Top