Hadlee vs Kallis

[subshakerz]

Why do people so underestimate Kallis's value to SA for his 15 year career... I mean I would really like to know the allrounder currently in world cricket or since Kallis started playing that could replace Kallis in any team and provide the same balance, I would love to hear it...

Hadlee almost singlehandedly ensured NZ were unbeaten at home in the 80s and won series in Australia and England for the first time. Without him, NZ would have been just slightly better than SL at that time.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Kallis the greater allrounder, but Hadlee the greater cricketer if that makes sense.

 

[StephenZA]

Hadlee almost singlehandedly ensured NZ were unbeaten at home in the 80s and won series in Australia and England for the first time. Without him, NZ would have been just slightly better than SL at that time.

Firstly we doing a comparison thread between 2 players... the fact that SA had an overall stronger team particularly during the 2nd half of Kallis career does nothing to take away what he meant to that team.

Secondly even if the SA team as a whole was stronger... can somebody please explain who you replace Kallis by and still retain the balance and quality of that team? As I`ve already said there is maybe another 5 people in the history of cricket that you could put the argument forward for... and none of them have existed in the last 30 years.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Hadlee almost singlehandedly ensured NZ were unbeaten at home in the 80s and won series in Australia and England for the first time. Without him, NZ would have been just slightly better than SL at that time.

That's an exaggeration. They would've been about the same as India and Australia.

 

[wpdavid]

Hadlee almost singlehandedly ensured NZ were unbeaten at home in the 80s and won series in Australia and England for the first time. Without him, NZ would have been just slightly better than SL at that time.

To which you can add his role in the only series defeat suffered by WI between the mid 1970s and the mid 1990s

 

[subshakerz]

Why do people so underestimate Kallis's value to SA for his 15 year career... I mean I would really like to know the allrounder currently in world cricket or since Kallis started playing that could replace Kallis in any team and provide the same balance, I would love to hear it...

Because Kallis' numbers flatter him quite a bit.

 

[StephenZA]

Because Kallis' numbers flatter him quite a bit.

Only for those people of high levels of ignorance.... but once again proving that people prefer flash to substance, which is nothing new of the human condition.

 

[Neil Young]

Second half of his career the batting quality surrounding him was almost as good... replacements generally not anywhere near as close. But when you take in his ability to bowl high quality away swing bowling and the skill of his slip fielding... I mean there is maybe 5 players in the history of cricket that produced as much as him as a total cricketer; and yet consistently somehow he was not the player that SA built the entire team around for the vast majority of his career...

I mean I would love people to name some players that would replace Kallis and keep the SA team winning consistently....

I don't think anyone - well, certainly not me - is underestimating Kallis' importance or quality. Super, super player and a definite ATG (also, a far better all-rounder than Hadlee). All I am saying is his value to the SA side was nothing like Hadlee's to NZ. And that's more a reflection of the state of NZ cricket in the 80s.

 

[StephenZA]

I don't think anyone - well, certainly not me - is underestimating Kallis' importance or quality. Super, super player and a definite ATG (also, a far better all-rounder than Hadlee). All I am saying is his value to the SA side was nothing like Hadlee's to NZ. And that's more a reflection of the state of NZ cricket in the 80s.

Which I`m perfectly happy with... even if I would debate it for Kallis's early career. But that does not really tell us anything about the comparison of the players... unless you honestly believe that Kallis in the same NZ side would not have had the same sort of impact.

 

[subshakerz]

Firstly we doing a comparison thread between 2 players... the fact that SA had an overall stronger team particularly during the 2nd half of Kallis career does nothing to take away what he meant to that team.

Secondly even if the SA team as a whole was stronger... can somebody please explain who you replace Kallis by and still retain the balance and quality of that team? As I`ve already said there is maybe another 5 people in the history of cricket that you could put the argument forward for... and none of them have existed in the last 30 years.

Kallis is still a great player so of course if you take him away from any side it would weaken. You could probably replace him with Shakib and give SA a decent spinner which they would have desperately needed, but their middle order would be affected.

I will say that Kallis the 5th bowler contribution is probably overrated a bit here on CW.

 

[BazBall21]

I think it's Hadlee by some distance. Hadlee is GOAT level with the ball and a useful lower order batsman. Kallis was an ATG batsman and a good fifth bowler. Their secondary skills cancel each other out basically by Hadlee is a level above in his primary skill. This is without getting into all the intangibles but I'll say they do matter since Viv came beat Lara by such a big margin.

What about Akram v Kallis? That would be closer on here it seems.

 

[subshakerz]

Which I`m perfectly happy with... even if I would debate it for Kallis's early career. But that does not really tell us anything about the comparison of the players... unless you honestly believe that Kallis in the same NZ side would not have had the same sort of impact.

If you are playing for a weak side, I think having an ATG pacer is far more valuable than an ATG batsman.

 

[subshakerz]

What about Akram v Kallis? That would be closer on here it seems.

Still Akram.

 

[anil1405]

I will say that Kallis the 5th bowler contribution is probably overrated a bit here on CW.

Yeah. Because he was good enough to be a fourth bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah. Because he was good enough to be a fourth bowler.

I think that load would have affected his batting.

 

[StephenZA]

If you are playing for a weak side, I think having an ATG pacer is far more valuable than an ATG batsman.

As someone currently watching a team struggling with a great pace quartet I would happily give my right arm for a batsmen of Kallis quality never mind the rest of the allrounder ability. And as much as a great bowling performance can win you a game, 90% of the time its runs on the board that put the pressure on that allow bowling attacks to consistently succeed. People like to remember great individual winning performances but those happen scarcely in a career. Teams succeed off the back of consistency... with the truly great players contributing consistently.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

If Kallis had been born in NZ, he wouldn't have made our side in the mid 80s.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

If Kallis had been born in NZ, he wouldn't have made our side in the mid 80s.

Mainly because he would have only been 10 years old.

 

[Zinzan]

Which I`m perfectly happy with... even if I would debate it for Kallis's early career. But that does not really tell us anything about the comparison of the players... unless you honestly believe that Kallis in the same NZ side would not have had the same sort of impact.

Well he wouldn't have, simply cause with him instead of Hadlee in that NZ side, they would have struggled to take the 20 wickets to bowl sides out.

 

[Coronis]

Impossible to actually compare them since they’re completely different players, its like if someone asked me who was better, Barnes or Bradman. Overall though as a player I’d say Kallis had more useable skills and talents but Hadlee was much more individually important to his team and is more of a contender for #1 bowler than Kallis is for #2 batsman.