Greater cricketer: Wasim Akram or Jacques Kallis

[trundler]

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

I'm shamelessly appealing to the masses in drafts. I even hype up picking Barry Richards.

 

[ankitj]

Well, that's where you look at players based on actual value that will add to a team. Hadlee, Imran, Kallis rightly get picked fast.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

You need to get your estimates right.

Ambrose 88 to 2000 - 13 years
Marshall 78 to 90 - 13 years
Pollock 95 to 2008 - 14 years
Lillee 71 to 84 - 13 years
Waqar 89 - 2003 - 15 years
McGrath 93 to 2007 - 15 years
Trueman 52 to 65 - 14 years

 

[ZK$]

Batsmen that were greater cricketers than Kallis: Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Tendulkar (Smith too probably when he retires)

Bowlers that were greater cricketers than Kallis: Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Murali, Warne (Cummins too probably when he retires)

 

[trundler]

Well, that's where you look at players based on actual value that will add to a team. Hadlee, Imran, Kallis rightly get picked fast.

Kallis is obviously elite but even in drafts I'm picking those other guys first without a second thought if they're available. Or Tendulkar/Lara/Hobbs/McGrath/Marshall etc.

 

[ZK$]

Ambrose 88 to 2000 - 13 years
Marshall 78 to 90 - 13 years
Pollock 95 to 2008 - 14 years
Lillee 71 to 84 - 13 years
Waqar 89 - 2003 - 15 years
McGrath 93 to 2007 - 15 years
Trueman 52 to 65 - 14 years

I think you need to learn how to count lol. All of those guys were in the 12-13 range or just over 13.

 

[subshakerz]

Batsmen that were greater cricketers than Kallis: Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Tendulkar (Smith too probably when he retires)

Bowlers that were greater cricketers than Kallis: Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Murali, Warne (Cummins too probably when he retires)

So the difference between Tendulkar and Lara is more in value than Kallis' wickets in other words.

 

[trundler]

Subshakerz would straight up rate Akram more if he had retired in '97 so this is pointless anyway.

 

[subshakerz]

I think you need to learn how to count lol. All of those guys were in the 12-13 range or just over 13.

Lol, I like how you started with 12 years, then went to 12-13 and now are like just over 13.

Hint: you need to include the debut year when you count.

 

[subshakerz]

Subshakerz would straight up rate Akram more if he had retired in '97 so this is pointless anyway.

Not just me but most posters and those in the cricket world, as we should for a cricketer smart enough to retire in his prime.

 

[ZK$]

Lol, I like how you started with 12 years, then went to 12-13 and now are like just over 13.

Hint: you need to include the debut year when you count.

You’re completely missing the overall point lol. Let’s assume I said 13 years. It doesn’t actually change my point.

You need to look at the debut and retirement dates again for the players you listed. All of them had careers around 12 or 13 years.

 

[trundler]

Not just me but most posters and those in the cricket world, as we should for a cricketer smart enough to retire in his prime.

Well I think it depends on context. I think it's very selfless to hold off retiring because the back ups aren't good enough or if you think you can still contribute well enough. Retiring at the right time is not a skill. Rewarding that over good but not ATG output is weird. It's not even like Akram was useless after that point. He was amazing in WI in 2000. People do it because they just look at overall averages. Being elite for 12 years and being good for a few more > being great for 12.

 

[ZK$]

Being elite for 12 years and being good for a few more > being great for 12.

Exactly.

 

[subshakerz]

Well I think it depends on context. I think it's very selfless to hold off retiring because the back ups aren't good enough or if you think you can still contribute well enough. Retiring at the right time is not a skill. Rewarding that over good but not ATG output is weird. It's not even like Akram was useless after that point. He was amazing in WI in 2000. People do it because they just look at overall averages. Being elite for 12 years and being good for a few more > being great for 12.

Except most ATGs are not elite for that long so cutting out a portion of their later careers for convenience doesnt make sense since you include their early career period in your calculations too. On average, elite or peak years of bowling only cover a portion of a pacers career. Every pacers starts slow, peak and then declines, and you should include all those years in your assessment since they each go through the same process.

Wasim was only elite from 90 to 97. Imran from 80 to 88. Waqar from 90 to 94. Marshall 83 to 89. Ambrose 89 to 94. Donald 96 to 2000. Pollock 95 to 2003. Steyn 2007 to 2014. Everyone of them declined thereafter.

The only pacers I can think of as elite for 12 years were Hadlee, McGrath and Lillee.

 

[trundler]

Except most ATGs are not elite for that long so cutting out a portion of their later careers for convenience doesnt make sense since you include their early career period in your calculations too. On average, elite or peak years of bowling only cover a portion of a pacers career. Every pacers starts slow, peak and then declines, and you should include all those years in your assessment since they each go through the same process.

Wasim was only elite from 90 to 97. Imran from 80 to 88. Waqar from 90 to 94. Marshall 83 to 89. Ambrose 89 to 94. Donald 96 to 2000. Pollock 95 to 2003. Steyn 2007 to 2014. Everyone of them declined thereafter.

The only pacers I can think of as elite for 12 years were Hadlee, McGrath and Lillee.

McGrath was elite from some point in the late '90s too. Not his whole career. Marshall just got phased out as soon as he declined because the West Indies could do that. He was also not very good for the first few years before the Hampshire stint. I'm not arbitrarily leaving out a late career portion though. I'm not counting the length that's in excess of a full career because no one else played that much. It's still the length of a full career with all its ups and downs.

 

[ZK$]

So the difference between Tendulkar and Lara is more in value than Kallis' wickets in other words.

I probably rate Tendulkar a lot higher than you do.

 

[ZK$]

I think McGrath was elite for 11 years from 1995-2005.

 

[subshakerz]

I probably rate Tendulkar a lot higher than you do.

I rate Tendulkar the best since Bradman but Lara is obviously close to him.

 

[subshakerz]

McGrath was elite from some point in the late '90s too. Not his whole career. Marshall just got phased out as soon as he declined because the West Indies could do that. He was also not very good for the first few years before the Hampshire stint. I'm not arbitrarily leaving out a late career portion though. I'm not counting the length that's in excess of a full career because no one else played that much. It's still the length of a full career with all its ups and downs.

Why dont you exclude the early career 3-5 year portion of Wasim's career that we both agree is not fairly representative of him as a bowler?

 

[subshakerz]

I think McGrath was elite for 11 years from 1995 to 2006.

Not to be pedantic but if you count that is 12 years including 2006.