Jacques Kallis vs Imran Khan

[TheJediBrah]

What I found interesting here is how close Hadlee's Runs per test stat is next to Imran despite batting lower in the order generally. (I would say usually 7-8 compared to Imran's 6-7). At first glance, yes Imran is streets ahead due to the superior average, but I wonder if he was a bit of a red inker when batting with the tail while Hadlee just hit out, selflessly

That's a pretty random thing to wonder. More not outs most likely just means he was better, because he didn't get out.

 

[mr_mister]

Hey, we say the same about Chanderpaul

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hey, we say the same about Chanderpaul

Because that's true about Chanderpaul, it was observable about his batting . . . how do you not get the difference between that and making a baseless assumption because of some stats

 

[mr_mister]

Because that's true about Chanderpaul, it was observable about his batting . . . how do you not get the difference between that and making a baseless assumption because of some stats

I dunno dude, I'm hungover

 

[TheJediBrah]

fair enough, sorry for judging

 

[Dissector]

Imran. His captaincy adds more value than Kallis's fielding and I also think that bowling all-rounders are a bit more valuable than batting all-rounders.

 

[Chrish]

Ironically, poor slip fielding was one of the main reasons Pakistan never became a dominant team despite having very strong players on paper..

 

[smash84]

Ironically, poor slip fielding was one of the main reasons Pakistan never became a dominant team despite having very strong players on paper..

Not really. Pakistan's slip fielding was not great but nothing too different from its all round fielding in general. In fact, if anything the slip fielding was probably better than overall fielding in general. Inzi, Miandad, Mudassar Nazar, over the years were all fairly decent in the slips.

 

[Chrish]

Not really. Pakistan's slip fielding was not great but nothing too different from its all round fielding in general. In fact, if anything the slip fielding was probably better than overall fielding in general. Inzi, Miandad, Mudassar Nazar, over the years were all fairly decent in the slips.

I see arguments over Wasim hard done by slip fielding over and over again in discussions. Highlights I see on YT supports those claims (I didn’t see two Ws live that much before 1999.)

 

[Bolo.]

Because that's true about Chanderpaul, it was observable about his batting . . . how do you not get the difference between that and making a baseless assumption because of some stats

Key words from his post were ''I wonder''.

I wonder about this too, as someone who looked through a lot of Imran's score cards in the past, but never actually saw him in tests. I definitely don't know it, like Chanders, but it is worth the question.

I say this as someone with a lot of respect for Imrans batting.

OFC, there are other factors in play. Imran had a stronger batting lineup, duller home pitches, and the impact was not nearly as pronounced as MM made it seem in the OP. But the question is still worth asking.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not really. Pakistan's slip fielding was not great but nothing too different from its all round fielding in general. In fact, if anything the slip fielding was probably better than overall fielding in general. Inzi, Miandad, Mudassar Nazar, over the years were all fairly decent in the slips.

Yeah but ground fielding matters much, much less. Even if it was to an even lower standard than the slip fielding, poor slip fielding can cost hundreds of runs in an innings sometimes.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah but ground fielding matters much, much less.

This is debatable

 

[smash84]

I see arguments over Wasim hard done by slip fielding over and over again in discussions. Highlights I see on YT supports those claims (I didn’t see two Ws live that much before 1999.)

My point was that it wasn't just slip fielding that was bad. Overall fielding was pretty bad. The 2Ws lost chances everywhere including slips.

 

[smash84]

Yeah but ground fielding matters much, much less. Even if it was to an even lower standard than the slip fielding, poor slip fielding can cost hundreds of runs in an innings sometimes.

Quite debatable. Especially if pitches don't bounce much. Slip fielding definitely hurt more in foreign tours probably. But both slip and non slip fielding was shite.

 

[Victor Ian]

The players made it to the end of day 2 with the test delicately poised. No standout performances from any players here. Some surmised this is how rest of the world always played against a single opponent. People hoped they would gel together on the third day, after a good night's rest. And a good night's rest it would be, because Kallis had laid a cunning plan the previous day. Everyone who did not proclaim 'Kallis is the Goat' is vanilla for the night.

It is now night 2. Get your orders in... Oh, that's right. Most of you are vanilla.

 

[Prince EWS]

Quite debatable. Especially if pitches don't bounce much. Slip fielding definitely hurt more in foreign tours probably. But both slip and non slip fielding was ****e.

It depends what you mean by 'ground fielding' I think. If catching in positions other than slip count, then yeah you're 100% right. If you just mean misfields costing an extra couple of runs etc and not outright drops, you're off you're head. I'd rather have 20 misfields than a dropped catch.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It depends what you mean by 'ground fielding' I think. If catching in positions other than slip count, then yeah you're 100% right. If you just mean misfields costing an extra couple of runs etc and not outright drops, you're off you're head. I'd rather have 20 misfields than a dropped catch.

You're still oversimplifying it. Having an impenetrable ring (hehe) builds immense pressure that brings about mistakes. Likewise misfields allowing batsmen off strike, releasing pressure etc. There's a lot more to it than just looking at the direct result of a misfield or dropped catch and how many runs each costs. When the batsman can't pierce the infield they take risks that lead to wickets.

 

[Prince EWS]

You're still oversimplifying it. Having an impenetrable ring (hehe) builds immense pressure that brings about mistakes. Likewise misfields allowing batsmen off strike, releasing pressure etc. There's a lot more to it than just looking at the direct result of a misfield or dropped catch and how many runs each costs. When the batsman can't pierce the infield they take risks that lead to wickets.

Nah I think this is total BS tbh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nah I think this is total BS tbh.

you're joking right?

 

[smash84]

It depends what you mean by 'ground fielding' I think. If catching in positions other than slip count, then yeah you're 100% right. If you just mean misfields costing an extra couple of runs etc and not outright drops, you're off you're head. I'd rather have 20 misfields than a dropped catch.

Of course I mean catching in other positions as well as ground fielding. I do think that slip fielding gets treated as too much of a separate entity from other parts of fielding, as if slip fielding is the only important aspect of fielding. And Jedibrah has made some good points. Not sure what you think is bs in that.