Greater cricketer: Wasim Akram or Jacques Kallis

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Kallis was a genuine allrounder.. Akram semi allrounder. Its not fair to compare their secondary skills.

Overall Akram though

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Yeah, Wasim is another example of someone who gets penalized for having an unusually long career.

Ponting's fielding saves 15 runs per match
Mark Waugh saves another 15
But that wont help Mcgrath stats
CW logic.

 

[ZK$]

Ponting's fielding saves 15 runs per match
Mark Waugh saves another 15
But that wont help Mcgrath stats
CW logic.

Yeah, I’ve never really thought about fielding support but it’s definitely a valid point. Wasim was at a pretty big disadvantage with his fielders.

 

[Coronis]

Kallis was a genuine allrounder.. Akram semi allrounder. Its not fair to compare their secondary skills.

Overall Akram though

Despite Kallis being clearly superior in his secondary and tertiary skills, and yes its technically unfair to compare different types of players but then we would have barely any Kallis threads and nobody wants that.

 

[trundler]

The poll says better cricketer, not better all rounder though Kallis the all rounder is vastly overrated on here. By the logic in this thread, Kallis would also be better than McGrath or Tendulkar but no one believes that.

 

[ataraxia]

Kallis is the 5th best cricketer for mine, behind Bradman / Grace / Sobers / Imran.

(Roughly equivalent to bowl-the-hoop-down-the-hill Ross the Boss.)

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, Wasim is another example of someone who gets penalized for having an unusually long career.

Yes but not because he played longer than he should have, but because he debuted early.

 

[subshakerz]

Had a feeling Pollock would demolish Kapil but this being one-sided has surprised me. Akram doesn’t fare well too well on CW though. Wonder if Pollock could beat him.

I really wish the Kallis that gets rated so highly on CW was the actual one that played.

 

[subshakerz]

It's just a function of demographics really. Akram's insane longevity, gun performances against WI/Australia (the former as a foetus learning on the job) and poor fielding support are all afterthoughts/non factors when rating Akram but these factors are very real and tangible to followers of Pakistan cricket. When compared to other great pacers (except Walsh), what Akram did after '96 is irrelevant to me when evaluating his career as that's already a full ATG career by that point. You may disagree but hey I'm consistent with it. Akram definitely gets short-changed on CW because there's no push back when someone suggests he benefited from having poor fielders by bowling more in swinging yorkers.

It is poor logic IMO. I give Akram leeway based on his very early career not on what he did when he was already a great. Why not rate those bowlers higher who were still penetrative in their later years compared to Akram.

 

[ZK$]

Yes but not because he played longer than he should have, but because he debuted early.

He did both imo.

 

[subshakerz]

He did both imo.

Being able to still deliver quality performances when dealing with the effects of aging is one of the common challenges of all cricketers with full careers.

Being able to do so when a teenager is not as most cricket boards will debut players in their early 20s when physically mature.

It is fair to judge the former but the latter can be given leeway.

 

[ZK$]

It is poor logic IMO. I give Akram leeway based on his very early career not on what he did when he was already a great. Why not rate those bowlers higher who were still penetrative in their later years compared to Akram.

You’re missing his point. Most ATG fast bowlers retire after around 12 years.

I’m sure he does rate higher those few bowlers that don’t retire at that point and do continue to have success like Walsh or Hadlee.

 

[Coronis]

The poll says better cricketer, not better all rounder though Kallis the all rounder is vastly overrated on here. By the logic in this thread, Kallis would also be better than McGrath or Tendulkar but no one believes that.

Plenty of people believe that, and with good reason.

 

[ankitj]

Kallis > Tendulkar, McGrath is hardly controversial

 

[trundler]

Well that's just atrocious then. You guys are on crack.

 

[Coronis]

Well that's just atrocious then. You guys are on crack.

Clearly better than whatever you’re on lately.

 

[honestbharani]

Its a hard comparison. I do think Kallis is better as a cricketer in terms of career and achievements, but I also think if I am picking a side I would pick Wasim over Kallis pretty easily. So went with Wasim here.

 

[subshakerz]

You’re missing his point. Most ATG fast bowlers retire after around 12 years.

I’m sure he does rate higher those few bowlers that don’t retire at that point and do continue to have success like Walsh or Hadlee.

Let's see those who took 300 wickets or more:

Lillee, Ambrose and Marshall - 13 years
Trueman and Pollock - 14 years
Steyn, Waqar and McGrath - 15 years
Hadlee - 17 years
Imran - 20 years

So it would seem the expectation would be 14/15 years long for an ATG bowler with a full career in the modern era.

Wasim is at 18 years. Long? Yes. But as mentioned, that is because he debuted around 3-4 years earlier than all those above, except maybe Imran.

He retired at 35 years old, around the same age or younger as Lilllee, Steyn, Donald, Ambrose, Pollock, Trueman and McGrath did, Hadlee and Imran retired close to 40.

So again, the only reason Wasim had an extra long career was he started earlier. There is no reason to wave Wasim's later years record. Unless your suggestion is that because he debuted early he declined early, which is an unfounded claim. Imran and Hadlee were still able to produce worldclass performances well after 15 years of playing.

 

[ankitj]

Well that's just atrocious then. You guys are on crack.

You are a completely different person in drafts. You are always desparate to pick Kallis.

Hadlee + Kallis should be one of those videogame achievements but for drafting. Immense.

Gahhhhhhhhhhhhh Hadlee and Kallis would've been so good

 

[ZK$]

Let's see those who took 300 wickets or more:

Lillee, Ambrose and Marshall - 13 years
Trueman and Pollock - 14 years
Steyn, Waqar and McGrath - 15 years
Hadlee - 17 years
Imran - 20 years

So it would seem the expectation would be 14/15 years long for an ATG bowler with a full career in the modern era.

Wasim is at 18 years. Long? Yes. But as mentioned, that is because he debuted around 3-4 years earlier than all those above, except maybe Imran and Waqar.

He retired at 35 years old, around the same age as Lilllee, Steyn, Ambrose, Pollock, Trueman and McGrath did, Hadlee and Imran retired close to 40.

So again, the only reason Wasim had an extra long career was he started earlier. There is no reason to wave Wasim's later years record.

At least get the years right. Ambrose, Marshall, Pollock, Lillee, Waqar, Mcgrath, Trueman were all around 12 or 13 years. Steyn was a bit longer but didn’t actually play much in his last few years due to injury.

You seem to expect players to all perform within a specific age range and only give leeway to performances outside of that range. It doesn’t really make sense since players peak and decline at different ages.

We’ve already been over this though so there’s no need to debate it again lol.