Victor Ian
International Coach
Kallis scored 100 every 6.22 innings compared to Tendulkar every 6.45. both scored 50 every 4.8. better average.
Not so much intent, but I'm going to hang around to make sure my point is not in vain, just like the great man, Kallis.Do you have any real intent and a superior strike rate to drive this point into subshakerz mind? Because if you don't, you're wasting your time.
No, but the point is to show he is better than Tendulkar, who is phenomenal.I can't recall anyone ever saying that Kallis' average was too low or that he didn't make enough runs
Come on he's not better than TendulkarNo, but the point is to show he is better than Tendulkar, who is phenomenal.
If you think Kallis is better than Tendulkar, there is no point debating you.No, but the point is to show he is better than Tendulkar, who is phenomenal.
This is a bit reductive. Kallis being much better at a far less important skill in terms of the actual match doesn't make up for the gap in the skills in which they will be contributing 80-90% of their output.Good point this. Most people will say Hadlee was better in his primary skill that Kallis was in his and I would agree. But Kallis also had clearly the better secondary skill. It does make this a mighty close contest. They are both top 10 players of all time for mine.
So are Hadlee's runs. But these are support roles.293 wickets is not "some useful stock bowling overs", that's a legitimate contribution.
Yeah, you are right. Will grant you that.This is a bit reductive. Kallis being much better at a far less important skill in terms of the actual match doesn't make up for the gap in the skills in which they will be contributing 80-90% of their output.
Hadlee has a case for being the best pacer ever, Marshall and McGrath are more firsts among equals. Kallis aint close to that level as a bat. The idea of Kallis bowling some useful stock bowling overs to swing his case is quite silly.
Yeah, you are right. Will grant you that.Hadlee with the ball might be well above Kallis with the bat in terms of ‘percentage of people who would have him top 5 of all time’, but surely in terms of ‘compared to all test cricketers’ they are both broadly in the elite category? Whereas I think there’s an argument that there’s quite a stark difference in their lesser disciplines ?
Again, Kallis' numbers flatter him. He average 35 outside Zimbabwe and Bangladesh with 254 wickets in 154 matches.A 27 averaging batsman is much much worse compared to a 33 averaging bowler, there's plenty of difference here.
According to our CW list, Hadlee is number 3 of all pacers, Kallis is number 18 of all bats, though for me he shouldnt be in the top 20.They are both ATGs at their primary discipline, maybe Kallis is not the absolutely top tier one but I don't really see him as a major downgrade on other ATGs.
While I have already mentioned how the bowler Hadlee is better than batsman Kallis, the ranking is also due to the fact that there are much more batsmen than pacers in cricket. So that is not necessarily a criterion.According to our CW list, Hadlee is number 3 of all pacers, Kallis is number 18 of all bats, though for me he shouldnt be in the top 20.
That is at least one to two tier levels of greatness difference depending on how to rank.
Hadlee is arguably the best pacer ever, with little between him and Marshall and McGrath.While I have already mentioned how the bowler Hadlee is better than batsman Kallis, the ranking is also due to the fact that there are much more batsmen than pacers in cricket. So that is not necessarily a criterion.
If you do the same ranking for their secondary disciplines, Hadlee will be 50 places or something below Kallis.
To me it seems odd to emphasise the difference between two greats of the game and then minimise the difference where at least arguably there is a glaring, fundamental difference.Hadlee is arguably the best pacer ever, with little between him and Marshall and McGrath.
Kallis is outside not just the top tier of undisputed best bats of all-time, but also outside the next tier of bats who were spent significant stretches of their career as no.1s, or solid no.2 behind the best ever. He is more of a generic great batsman, high scoring overall but short of the best of his time and with enough holes in his record to keep him from top rating. His placid batting style doesn't help.
Even if the secondary difference is that big, in terms of real impact in a match, Hadlee being a tier ahead in a primary discipline means a lot more.
Kallis wasn't good enough to be a full-time bowler and Hadlee wasn't good enough to bat in the top six. Therefore their actual match impact in these regards is limited.
So saying a great batsman can overtake arguably the best pacer ever based on being a more reliable support bowler than the other was a handy bat seems just odd.