Greater cricketer: Wasim Akram or Jacques Kallis

[BazBall21]

Whenever there's an exercise that consists of runs against top-level bowling or runs in tough conditions, Kallis doesn't seem to do too as one would imagine. His home record suggests he was an outstanding player of pace bowling but his record against quality pace in detail isn't the best.

 

[The Sean]

Kallis' home average is certainly his best achievement.

However, his major downside and the reason he never generated any ATG heat in his career is that he lacked an accelerator gear unlike other mainstays like Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting and was just a static, one-dimensional accumulator. And unlike Dravid, who was also a slowpoke, he rarely translated his knocks into daddy hundreds or mega series that really punished the opposition for not dismissing him. The net effect of both of these is he wasn't seen as the same level of threat.

To be fair, he rectified these issues towards the end of his career but his reputation was already solidified by then.

Kallis suffers by comparison in converting his big hundreds into doubles, if that's what you mean - but Kallis has 14 Test innings of 150+, which is more than Dravid. And both men scored over 600 runs in a Test series twice, with Kallis actually taking one of his beyond 700.

 

[Bolo.]

ATG to me means top of the tree, considered best of your era for some stretch, and by the time of your career end you are not being compared with your peers but the Vivs and Chappells of other eras.

It's a pretty poor definition IMO. You want to deny a bat averaging 80 ATG status simply due to having an unfortunate overlap with Bradman?

Your definition of best for a period when you are including someone like Waugh opens up space for a ton of ATGs. So many players were the best in the world at the period they were peaking, including Kallis and much worse players than him.

And quality is not determined by a label like ATG.

 

[trundler]

Your definition of best for a period when you are including someone like Waugh opens up space for a ton of ATGs.

While this is true, I do think being the best holds value. I'll take Crowe or Gooch over Jayawardene every time. Might just be me though.

 

[BazBall21]

For the same reason I sometimes wonder if I'm harsh on Kane because despite his obvious problems, he is the 4th best bat of his era which is pretty high up.

 

[subshakerz]

It's a pretty poor definition IMO. You want to deny a bat averaging 80 ATG status simply due to having an unfortunate overlap with Bradman?

Your definition of best for a period when you are including someone like Waugh opens up space for a ton of ATGs. So many players were the best in the world at the period they were peaking, including Kallis and much worse players than him.

And quality is not determined by a label like ATG.

Give me an actual example of that type of situation. Obviously both would be considered ATGs as that exception.

Waugh to me is an ATG and that is a separate debate.

Point is Kallis never really had a stretch where he stood out and was recognized as the definitive best bat in the world, even in his peak. Why? Because he wasn't seen as that big of a deal. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find him as a standout no.2 in his time.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis suffers by comparison in converting his big hundreds into doubles, if that's what you mean - but Kallis has 14 Test innings of 150+, which is more than Dravid. And both men scored over 600 runs in a Test series twice, with Kallis actually taking one of his beyond 700.

Well, I mentioned that Kallis did rectify some of this by the end of his career. But it also matters on the context.

Dravid's mega series were in important series draws in England 2003 and Australia 2004, and I would add in England 2011. He had three critical double tons in Pakistan, England and Australia around the same period.

Kallis' mega series were at home against a poor WI, and a good England side, and even in the latter his batting got flack in the last test for costing time and a chance at victory. He has zero 150+ plus knocks against Australia which obviously would dent his reputation. Both of his double tons are at home against poor attacks.

 

[Coronis]

Give me an actual example of that type of situation. Obviously both would be considered ATGs as that exception.

Waugh to me is an ATG and that is a separate debate.

Point is Kallis never really had a stretch where he stood out and was recognized as the definitive best bat in the world, even in his peak. Why? Because he wasn't seen as that big of a deal.

Well Headley was never seen as the best of his era. Behind Bradman and considered behind Hammond, throw in Hutton and Compton in the latter parts of his career. Is he an ATG?

 

[BazBall21]

Even against a weak WI, Dravid has three classics at Sabina Park. Kallis lacks overseas classics. He has a poor record in below-average scoring tests away from home.

 

[subshakerz]

Well Headley was never seen as the best of his era. Behind Bradman and considered behind Hammond, throw in Hutton and Compton in the latter parts of his career. Is he an ATG?

Sure Headley would be an exceptional circumstance thanks to Bradman being so far beyond others.

 

[Bolo.]

Give me an actual example of that type of situation. Obviously both would be considered ATGs as that exception.

Waugh to me is an ATG and that is a separate debate.

Point is Kallis never really had a stretch where he stood out and was recognized as the definitive best bat in the world, even in his peak. Why? Because he wasn't seen as that big of a deal. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find him as a standout no.2 in his time.

Kallis 04-07 has comfortably the most runs and highest average, with the most 100s and 50s too. He had an away average that is likely pretty close to the highest ever, with a hundred every second game. He toured 6 countries (with no minnows), and did well against the other 2 at home. If you didn't think he was the leading bat in world by the end of that run, you weren't paying attention. It was very clear to me that he was. And if you think not paying attention is a good criterion for underrating someone, I don't know what to tell you.

I'm cherry picking a period of only 4 years here. Not an amount I'm happy rating a player on at all. But I would be very curious about how you would squeeze Ponting, Lara, Waugh, Sachin, and (as trundler points out) Gooch in as the best bat in the world without cherrypicking a even smaller period.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis 04-07 has comfortably the most runs and highest average, with the most 100s and 50s too. He had an away average that is likely pretty close to the highest ever, with a hundred every second game. He toured 6 countries (with no minnows), and did well against the other 2 at home. If you didn't think he was the leading bat in world by the end of that run, you weren't paying attention. It was very clear to me that he was. And if you think not paying attention is a good criterion for underrating someone, I don't know what to tell you.

I'm cherry picking a period of only 4 years here. Not an amount I'm happy rating a player on at all. But I would be very curious about how you would squeeze Ponting, Lara, Waugh, Sachin, and (as trundler points out) Gooch in as the best bat in the world without cherrypicking a even smaller period.

Really? You think Kallis 2004-2007 was getting rated the best batsman in the world?

Ponting peaked 2002-2007.

Behind him was Dravid who peaked 2002-2006. Lara had found his second wind 2002-2006. Hayden was also in his dominant period 2001 to 2007 with a superb SR.

I highly doubt at any point Kallis was rated ahead of the above, especially given his high percentage of soft runs and no notable knocks. I certainly don't remember him being talked that way. Nobody is questioning he was scoring a lot of runs but the question is how was he viewed by his opponents in terms of a high value wicket and he would be lucky to make the top 5 in this period.

Ponting is pretty much recognized as the best batsman of the 2000s. Tendulkar was seen as the best in the world around late 90s to early 2000s. Waugh was seen as the best bat around the mid to late-90s. Lara was seen as the best bat of early to mid-90s.

 

[Prince EWS]

lmao @ Hayden > Kallis

There were probably some total loons like @Raz0r6ack who tried to make that argument at the time but it was always extremely stupid.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Well Headley was never seen as the best of his era. Behind Bradman and considered behind Hammond, throw in Hutton and Compton in the latter parts of his career. Is he an ATG?

Headley as well as Hammond are of different era to Hutton and Compton. Headley was half the player Post-War.

There definitely could have been 4 ATGs Bat without WW2 in the same time though Hutton wouldn’t still entirely be of same era and Compton isn’t a ATG imho.

 

[Bolo.]

Really? You think Kallis 2004-2007 was getting rated the best batsman in the world?

Ponting peaked 2002-2007.

Behind him was Dravid who peaked 2002-2006. Lara had found his second wind 2002-2006. Hayden was also in his dominant period 2001 to 2007 with a superb SR.

I highly doubt at any point Kallis was rated ahead of the above, especially given his high percentage of soft runs and no notable knocks. I certainly don't remember him being talked that way. Nobody is questioning he was scoring a lot of runs but the question is how was he viewed by his opponents in terms of a high value wicket and he would be lucky to make the top 5 in this period.

Ponting is pretty much recognized as the best batsman of the 2000s. Tendulkar was seen as the best in the world around late 90s to early 2000s. Waugh was seen as the best bat around the mid to late-90s. Lara was seen as the best bat of early to mid-90s.

He clearly was the best bat in the world for the 4 years. Look up his record if you don't remember. Was scoring hundreds for fun. Averages 43 in SL. But 63+ in the other 6 (non minnow) countries he played in. Averaged exactly the same away (86) as Ponting and Hayden (the two other guys you said we're peaking for this full time) put together. Averages more than Hayden in RSA and Aus, more than Ponting in RSA, and nearly as much in Aus. There comes a point where you can't ignore numbers, even if you don't like the style.

Yes, someone else is better if you make the periods longer. But if you are happy accepting a period of less than 4 years for one (or more) of Lara, Sachin and Waugh, 4 should be enough for Kallis too.

 

[BazBall21]

There was a fella called wfdu_ben on here a very long time ago (someone like @subshakerz may remember him) that was the biggest Hayden fan in the world, he rated him above Kallis as a cricketer. Never mind as a batsman.

 

[Owzat]

An ATG bowler who can bat vs an ATG bat who bowls. Another Kallis thread.

does seem a bit like comparing ice cream and fish and chips, both very nice but hardly the same foodstuffs

Wasim was a bowler who despite being classed as an all-rounder funnily enough wasn't included as one of the all-rounders Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Richard Hadlee and Kapil Dev. Just for fun :


Jacques Kallis - bat ave 55.37, 100 x45, 50 x58 & bowl ave 32.65, 10wm x0, 5wi x5

Kapil Dev - bat ave 31.05, 100 x8, 50 x27 & bowl ave 29.65, 10wm x2, 5wi x23
Imran Khan - bat ave 37.69, 100 x6, 50 x18 & bowl ave 22.81, 10wm x6, 5wi x23
Ian Botham - bat ave 33.55, 100 x14, 50 x14 & bowl ave 28.40, 10wm x4, 5wi x27

Richard Hadlee - bat ave 27.17, 100 x2, 50 x15 & bowl ave 22.30, 10wm x9, 5wi x36
Wasim Akram - bat ave 22.64, 100 x3, 50 x7 & bowl ave 23.62, 10wm x5, 5wi x25


I could throw in matches to give context over hundreds, 10wms etc, but actually the numbers do that to a fair degree. Flintoff never took a 10wm, nor did Kallis although I'd consider Flintoff more of a genuine all-rounder than Kallis who granted could easily have been, but with plenty of good bowlers around him didn't need to be. Can also, not that I've included the numbers, use wickets per match to judge how much someone bowled generally and Kallis was 292 wickets across 166 Tests, a bit off 2 a Test. I'd back a top bowler to be taking 4-5, in fact I looked at those with 300+ wickets and much over 4.5 per match is quite tricky and rare

so the above figures are split pretty much batsman who bowled a fair bit but a batting all-rounder more than straight/genuine, the middle three more balanced/genuine and the last two pretty much the anti-Kallis, bowling all-rounders. Scoring a hundred doesn't make someone an all-rounder, although you could argue anyone who bowls and is a good batsman is an "all-rounder", could argue everyone is as they bat and bowl (and field) just how good of one and how balanced of one they are depends on their ability

 

[ZK$]

His adjusted away average goes down by five runs. South Africans of that era enjoyed particularly good batting conditions due to conscious attempts to neutralise their bowling attack that was the best around. Graeme Smith loses 8 and a half runs from his away average when accounting for the runs top 7s made across the overseas tests he featured in.

I’m not sure about away average, but his overall average went up when PEWS did his standardized averages thing.

 

[BazBall21]

I’m not sure about away average, but his overall average went up when PEWS did his standardized averages thing.

No doubt his home record is incredible and I rate him above Sangakkara and Dravid because of that but his away average is generous.

 

[ZK$]

These are PEWS’s standardized averages and longevity for Kallis and his peers.

Tendulkar - 53.10 (22.62 years)
Kallis - 55.78 (15.92 years)
Lara - 54.42 (13.86 years)
Sangakkara - 53.76 (14.43 years)
Dravid - 50.60 (15.94 years)
Waugh - 47.88 (15.65 years)
Ponting - 46.38 (14.82 years)