Yes, people who accuse Kallis of selfishness should consider that he's spent his entire career sorrounded by players such as Smith, Gibbs, De Villiers, Rhodes, Klusener and Cullinan- therefore his slightly slower scoring rate is due more to circumstance than it is to selfishness or lack of ability.

There are only two allrounders that I can think of off the top of my head who would be chosen for both their batting and their bowling throughout their careers. One would be Gary Sobers, and the other Keith Miller, who despite having an overall batting average lower than Imran's actually batted mainly at 5, where he averaged 41. I think the only claim aginst Kallis as an allrounder- onw which was made by Geoff Armstrong in The 100 Greatest Cricketers- was that he rarely dominates with both bat and ball at the same time. However, again, if the bowlers he played with weren't as penetrative and effective, then that might not have been the case.

Aby thouhts on WG Grace?

With all due respect SBM, WGG was a larger-than-life character that happened to be in the right place at the right time during the so-called Golden Age of cricket. No doubt that he has contributed a lot to the game, but you have got to look at his statistics - which are not all that awe-inspiring as some believe - realistically. Like others before and after him, Grace could only play against what was in front of him, but he was also a martinet used to getting his own way in almost everything (including double gate-charge if he was playing with rumours that some of those 'royalties' went his way) and was very well known for his "gamesmanship". Some of his contemporaries - Archie McLaren for example - and certainly later critics have speculated how Grace would have performed against really tough opposition. WGG certainly has his place in Cricket's Hall of Fame but IMO, as a genuine all-rounder he was rather behind the likes of Sobers, Kallis, Miller, Beefy etc.

And Aurelius, I tend to agree with your comments about Keith Miller. He was a great all-rounder whose career - like several others of his time - was affected by WW2. Miller was already 26 when he played his first Test against New Zealand - a bit late for a fast bowler especially in those days where Tests were not as frequent as they are today. I rate Miller third in my line-up of great all-rounders - Sobers, Kallis, Miller, Imran and Botham being the top 5.

Well for what it's worth my top 5 would be;
Miller
Proctor
Imran
Sobers
Hadlee (should probably be Botham but unfortunately I only caught the depressing fag end of his career and that has greatly soured my perception of the player)

The way this thread has gone I feel I quickly have to justify excluding Kallis who misses out for three reasons.
1; Personally I believe bowling all rounders to be far more valueable to a side (hence why Sobers is as low as 4) and I'd rather have a guy capable of scoring a quick fire 60 from number 7 or 8 and taking match changing 5 wicket hauls than a top order batsmen (however good) capable of occasionally chipping in with 2-3 wickets from 15-20 tidy overs.
2; The key thing for me with all rounders is how well they compartmentalise the dule roles and Kallis's excellence with the ball and bat has never really coincided. And once Kallis made absolutely sure of his place as a batsmen his interest in bowling decreased and over the last 4-5 years he has been very selective over when he comes onto bowl which is not the mark of an all time great player.
3; Some people may call it selfishness (at times I'm one of them) but perhaps more accurately it's a lack of confidence in himself and more recently in his teammates that means Kallis has never been willing to adapt his game and play outside his comfort level for the best interests of his side. He has the talent to stamp his authority on the game with the bat but barring sporadic occasions doesn't have the belief to impose himself on and dominate opposition bowlers. And in his prime with the ball early on his career he had all the tools to be a match winner (pace and the ability to swing and seam the ball both ways) but settled far too easily into the South African negative fire it 2 feet outside off stump with a 7,2 field mindset.

Well ignoring opinion, statistics and any other subjective analysis, Imran WAS actually picked to play for Pakistan when he was unable to bowl. His injury at peak (that you are well aware of) prevented him bowling in test cricket for over two years, but he was picked to play the 83 world cup and some test matches in Australia as a batsman ONLY. Seeing that you have mentioned elevated averages, it is important to notice that he averaged over 50 for the last ten years of his career (which is almost the length of Kallis' entire career).

As for Botham, there was a time when he was clearly good enough to play as bowler or batsman. He batted at five for England in 1982 and, I think, scored more runs that year than any other batsman. His twelve centuries in just over six years since debut were more than anyone else who played in the same period (even Gower) for England. Only Gower and Boycott scored more runs than him....so to suggest he would not have played if it wasn't for his bowling is just plainly unbelievable.

When thinking of specialist batsmen it's only natural to think of the best examples... which might lead us to question the comparative worth of "all-rounders" in a specialist role... but whilst Botham's batting might not warrant comparison with that of other postwar England legends (Hutton, Boycott, Barrington, May, Compton and the like)... it seems to me quite self evident that he at least merited comparison with such regular 1st XI batsmen as Mark Butcher, Nasser Hussain and Paul Collingwood (who appears to be secure in the current England side as a batsman, irrespective of his bowling).

Equally... Imran's batting might not get him rated as one of the 5-10 best post-war Pakistan batsmen... but I'm sure it would be easy to name a stack of long term first choice Test batsmen who were not up to his standard.

Same on the bowling front: as a bowler, Kallis might not merit comparison with Gough and Caddick, let alone with Donald and Pollock.... but he's at least on a par with many third seamers England have fielded in recent years - Cork was perhaps better... but Defreitas wasn't (and bagged 44 caps)... and Mullally was quite clearly inferior with the ball, a muppet with the bat and a dire fielder and still bagged 19 Test caps!

Great post Rachael; for once, I agree with everything said here. It is very difficult to quantify the value of quality all-rounders and so perhaps we should not really be comparing them.

Sobers was no more an all rounder than Doug Walters was. He was bowled so much because he was in that void in West Indian cricket before the drop dead unbelievable bowling attacks. He averaged, what, 34.03 (2.53 wpm) with a gawdawful strike rate of 91.9 in a reasonably strong bowling era. Yes, he could bowl SLA, SLC and LMF, but he could not bowl any of them very well, he was actually hurting his team with the ball. That said, when you are the best batsman of your generation (comfortably) it's not surprising people pin a lot of accolades on you that you didn't actually live up to. I mean my God, in 93 Tests he had SIX five wicket innings. He never took nine wickets in a match, let alone 10.

With that established, the two best are clearly Miller and Imran. I give the nod to Imran due to the higher level of professionalism and competition in the 80's vs the 50's. Imran has some crazy numbers, between 1980-1986 he took 5.17 wpm, 181 wickets in all @ an insane 16.19 (seriously, that number is from outer space). From 1980-1987 he was scoring @ 41.23, four centuries and 14 scores, the only dissapointing number is his 23.73% score percentage, but still, that is an amazing combo. Arguably no cricketer has ever been more dominating at their prolonged peak than Imran.

Just some cool numbers right there, and you will not come remotely close to finding a comprable set from Sobers - as a batsman, he is in rare air, as an all rounder, this player does not exist.

Nostromo and I have already discussed this- SRs back then were a lot higher than they are now. Again, look at the SRs of Lance Gibbs, Graeme McKenzie and Ray Lindwall and compare them against those of Ashley Giles, James Franklin and Chris Martin. Besides which, when the likes of Hall, Gibbs and Griffith are taking wickets by the bucketful, it's not really Sobers' job to take stacks of wickets himself, just to provide support and pick up the occasional one or two.

Well I never saw him play live, but I've read of his performances with the ball for the World XI in Australia, where he matched Lillee bouncer for bouncer and aquitted himself fairly well. As for hurting his team with the ball, I don't see how. Having an extra bowler who can provide useful backup of either kind will always be handy and allow the selectors more flexibilty than simply a pace bowler or a spinner.

Finally, it's impossible for someone to take over 200 Test wickets and not be an allrounder-unless he's played 1000+ Tests, which Sobers didn't. A batting allrounder, yes, but still an allrounder.

The strike rate is abysmal, not bad, abysmal, and there is no excusing 6 5WI and no 10WM in 93 Test matches - none. The all rounder tag is not earned. Bowling is fundamentally different from bowling in that all players must bat - so any contribution with the bat is naturally, better than nothing. Bowling is different, there are limited resources (ie. deliverys) to allocate, and there is an opportunity cost for every over bowled. Therefore, a player bowling below average quality overs (or at BEST average quality, I can't imagine the batting average for the 1960's being higher than 34.03, I'd be pretty stunned considering this was an era of strong bowling) is HURTING his team. In this case, Sobers may not have been hurting his team because the attack was, despite your insistance, generally a poor one.

Charlie Griffith: 3.36wpm@28.54 essentially from 1963-1969, with only decent performances against England and poor performances against every other nation - Cricinfo Statsguru - CC Griffith - Test matches - Bowling analysis

Wes Hall: 4.00wpm@26.38 1958-1969, this is a good performance, an above average fast bowler, but not in the Trueman/Lindwall/Miller/Goddard class. Also note the exceptional performances against weak Indian and Pakistani teams and the rather underwhelming performances against England and Australia - Cricinfo Statsguru - WW Hall - Test matches - Bowling analysis

Lance Gibbs: 3.91wpm@29.09 1958-1976, a very average, almost spot on average, performer, and I would like to think historically has been seen as such, although certainly a testament to longevity. That said, the years between 1958-1968 are significantly better, 4.26wpm@24.39 although that 4.26wpm isn't really bowling me over for peak performance - Cricinfo Statsguru - LR Gibbs - Test matches - Bowling analysis

I chose a random Test, Lords 16-21 June 1966 - Cricinfo - 2nd Test: England v West Indies at Lord's, Jun 16-21, 1966 A game where Sobers OPENED THE BOWLING taking the typically sterling figures of 1/89. He was hardly used as a "handy bowler". And there are nowhere near enough wickets in that attack (featuring the above three bowlers and Sobers) to challenge most sides of the day, mind you the English attack was markedly weaker in this game.

This is more of a philosophical issue about what an all-rounder actually is - he is always a bowler first and a batsman second because of the opportunity cost involved with bowling. Batting in the 30's is ALWAYS useful, even if it is not batsman class. Bowling in the 30's, no matter how exotic the style, is not particulary useful, particulary when it is 34.03 and you are dramatically overbowled.