Kallis - The Greatest All-rounder?

An interesting observation led me to compare the records of Jack Kallis and Sir Gary Sobers. Kallis has hit 5 centuries in his last 4 test matches, and now has 2 instances in his career when he has hit centuries in 4 consecutive test matches (in 2003 it was 5 in 5). Add this to his bowling prowess, and you wonder why Kallis is a lesser revered name in cricket as compared to Sachin, Lara and Ponting, or even Sir Gary Sobers. A closer look at his test records would reveal a striking similarity with that of Sir Gary. His batting average is 58.2 from 111 matches, slightly higher than Sir Gary's 57.8 from 93 matches. Kallis has hit 29 centuries (astonishingly, without a double century), while Sobers hit 26. Even Sobers had some prolific patches in his career, like from 1957-59, when he hit 6 centuries in 6 tests (though not consecutive, one of the tests had 2 centuries). The bowling averages are also very similar, with Sobers picking up 235 wickets in his 93 tests at 34 a piece, while Kallis is slightly better at 31 a piece for his 221 wickets. Sobers had 109 catches to his name while Kallis has 111. Its amazing that Kallis is not considered the best all-rounder ever (as Sobers is), as the only blip I find in his record as compared to Sir Gary Sobers is no double centuries in his career. A key to judge an all-rounder’s ability is to subtract his bowling average from his batting average, and for Kallis this difference is close to 27 runs. I am fairly certain that not too many players who have played even half as long as Kallis boast of such a record. I guess even if we look at him purely as a batsman, he would score in the top few. When on song, he is one of the most pleasing batsmen to watch, and one of the most difficult to dislodge. If not for injuries, he would have been one of the most lethal swing bowlers too. Maybe 20 years from now he will be considered the greatest all-rounder. For me, he is as good as Sir Gary.

Dravid's Omission - A correct decision ?

A lot has been written and said about Rahul Dravid's omission from the One-day team. While it is harsh on a player who has given his heart and soul for his country's cause, a deeper analysis would see through the merits of such a decision. Taking the selector's word, and assuming this to be a rotation policy, I tend to agree that such a policy (of playing only 2 out of the big 3, in ODIs) is necessary, in order to elongate the career of these 3 players, given the amount of one day cricket India plays. Even if this was not a correct explanation, based on current form, it would have been really difficult to keep someone like an Uthappa out, in order to accommodate Dravid. The only other player who could have been left out instead was Ganguly, and his omission would also have raised similar questions. While there may be more to the story than what meets the eye, I think the decision in itself may not be a bad one. For one, it keeps everyone in the team on their toes, given the kind of performances guys like Suresh Raina and Parthiv Patel are giving. Secondly, it gives some confidence to younger guys, unlike 3-4 years back, when every player thought it was virtually impossible to break into the batting line up that boasts of Sachin, Saurav, Dravid and Sehwag. Whether the decision is good or bad will only be proven by time, but at this time, given Dravid's form, and the performance of the guys on the bench, it is difficult to take any other decision. It is cruel for someone like Dravid, but I guess we need to start getting used to some of these decisions while trying to build a solid one-day unit.