Greater cricketer: Wasim Akram or Jacques Kallis

[number11]

FTFY

Not funny the 1st time, not funny the nth time.

 

[Bolo.]

Not funny the 1st time, not funny the nth time.

Take it seriously if you don't find it funny. It is true.

 

[subshakerz]

He can't be the best bat because people do not recognize that he is the best... Despite being the best? No. Entirely inconsistent argument.

If he was the best and people were not recognizing it, those people are wrong.

Many people did recognize him as the best at that stage. Many did not, primarily due to there being guys doing well who had peaked earlier and had better careers to date. Compare to Ponting vs Sachin. Ponting had much better form in the early 2000s, but sachin had clearly had a better career. If you want to recognise that ponting was, for a time, the best bat in the world, despite being inferior overall, you need to recognize that the same is true of Kallis.

Lol it doesn't work that way. Kallis wasn't recognized as the best because he wasn't the best because at the time you had several batsmen also scoring mountains of run but at far faster rates or with higher impact.

You want to pretend the entire cricket world was just stupidly blind to Kallis' brilliance as if somehow the best batsman in the world can just secretly score runs and nobody notices. It's not just about just his raw runs and averages. Everybody saw how he played and would prefer others who are bigger threats.

Ponting was recognized as a better bat than Sachin 2002 to 2007 and in fact the best bat in the world clearly, not Kallis, since he wasn't just scoring a lot but aggressively too. You retroactively pulling some stats doesn't change world opinion.

Kallis was never recognized as the best of his time and wasn't an ATG bat.

 

[Coronis]

Lol it doesn't work that way. Kallis wasn't recognized as the best because he wasn't the best because at the time you had several batsmen also scoring mountains of run but at far faster rates or with higher impact.

You want to pretend the entire cricket world was just stupidly blind to Kallis' brilliance as if somehow the best batsman in the world can just secretly score runs and nobody notices. It's not just about just his raw runs and averages. Everybody saw how he played and would prefer others who are bigger threats.

Ponting was recognized as a better bat than Sachin 2002 to 2007 and in fact the best bat in the world clearly, not Kallis, since he wasn't just scoring a lot but aggressively too. You retroactively pulling some stats doesn't change world opinion.

Kallis was never recognized as the best of his time and wasn't an ATG bat.

Peer opinion is biased and a horrible way to rate a player.

 

[subshakerz]

Peer opinion is biased and a horrible way to rate a player.

Saying Ponting was the best bat of the mid 2000s isn't just peer opinion, it's collective
cricket world opinion.

Peer rating itself is a useful measure IMO.

 

[shortpitched713]

Peers ratings have strange blind spots, and lead the masses to illogical conclusions about players.

 

[subshakerz]

Peers ratings have strange blind spots, and lead the masses to illogical conclusions about players.

Stats are not full proof either. Both are useful but we can't blindly follow both either.

 

[Slifer]

Yes as he is a LH quick & faces no competition for his type. Lots of great RH quicks. Batsmen are a different convo. Gilly & Akram face no [real] competition.

Not trolling but wouldn't Alan Davidson be in competition with Wasim as an atg LH bowler? Minx you Akram > Davidson but it can't be by that much. And Davidson was a handy batsman as well.

 

[Bolo.]

Lol it doesn't work that way. Kallis wasn't recognized as the best because he wasn't the best because at the time you had several batsmen also scoring mountains of run but at far faster rates or with higher impact.

You want to pretend the entire cricket world was just stupidly blind to Kallis' brilliance as if somehow the best batsman in the world can just secretly score runs and nobody notices. It's not just about just his raw runs and averages. Everybody saw how he played and would prefer others who are bigger threats.

Ponting was recognized as a better bat than Sachin 2002 to 2007 and in fact the best bat in the world clearly, not Kallis, since he wasn't just scoring a lot but aggressively too. You retroactively pulling some stats doesn't change world opinion.

Kallis was never recognized as the best of his time and wasn't an ATG bat.

I can't speak for the world, and neither can you. What I can tell you is that the RSA media and commentators were screaming about him being the best by the end of that run... in a country that does not hype up their players. And that it would not have mattered if they weren't, because it's a consequence of quality, not a cause.

I don't need to retroactively pull stats. I couldn't have avoided the hype if I wanted. You obviously do if you think someone like Hayden was even remotely in his quality bracket in that period. When the difference in numbers gets big enough, your personal opinion on style stops mattering. We don't claim M Johnston> Shiv because we liked his aggression more. And the difference in numbers is biiig.

Now, maybe you can show me how you are not using this rating system to enforce personal bias by giving me the dates that Lara and Waugh were each the best in the world?

 

[subshakerz]

I can't speak for the world, and neither can you. What I can tell you is that the RSA media and commentators were screaming about him being the best by the end of that run... in a country that does not hype up their players. And that it would not have mattered if they weren't, because it's a consequence of quality, not a cause.

RSA commentators maybe made his ATG claims by end of career. But in the period in question, don't think they were claiming he is better than Ponting. Nationalist bias only goes so far.

I don't need to retroactively pull stats. I couldn't have avoided the hype if I wanted. You obviously do if you think someone like Hayden was even remotely in his quality bracket in that period. When the difference in numbers gets big enough, your personal opinion on style stops mattering. We don't claim M Johnston> Shiv because we liked his aggression more. And the difference in numbers is biiig.

You did retroactively bring stats and then claim he was the best in a period where likely nobody thought he was.

This is quite simple. Was Ponting widely seen as the best bat in the world 2002 to 2007? If yes, then Kallis was not. In fact, he wasn't even in the conversation.

Yeah, I would have taken Hayden in that period over Kallis (not overall career as Kallis is clearly better). He was much more feared and was scoring runs everywhere.

It's not personal opinion. Kallis wasn't giving opposition sleepless nights in that period like the others I mentioned based on how he played i.e. batting in one slow mode and not going for mega knocks, for which he was criticized his entire career.

Now, maybe you can show me how you are not using this rating system to enforce personal bias by giving me the dates that Lara and Waugh were each the best in the world?

Lara was widely seen as the world best around 93 to 95. Waugh around 95/96 to 97/98.

 

[Bolo.]

RSA commentators maybe made his ATG claims by end of career. But in the period in question, don't think they were claiming he is better than Ponting. Nationalist bias only goes so far.


You did retroactively bring stats and then claim he was the best in a period where likely nobody thought he was.

This is quite simple. Was Ponting widely seen as the best bat in the world 2002 to 2007? If yes, then Kallis was not. In fact, he wasn't even in the conversation.

Yeah, I would have taken Hayden in that period over Kallis (not overall career as Kallis is clearly better). He was much more feared and was scoring runs everywhere.

It's not personal opinion. Kallis wasn't giving opposition sleepless nights in that period like the others I mentioned based on how he played i.e. batting in one slow mode and not going for mega knocks, for which he was criticized his entire career.


Lara was widely seen as the world best around 93 to 95. Waugh around 95/96 to 97/98.

This is the 3rd or 4th time you have told me what South African commentators were saying. You didn't watch them, and must be aware that you know nothing at all about this. Why do you keep doing this?

The idea that Hayden was>Kallis from 04-07 is so ridiculous that it is not worth refuting. Safe to say that is a bad enough claim to blow a hole in your method, credibility, or both.

Lara and Waugh we're only top class for 3/4 years (at the same time). I'm not sure there ever would have been a concensus on who was ahead, but if there was, it wouldn't be for a short enough time that judging an entire career on it is a bit silly, even if accepting the very questionable premise. You do you though.

 

[ZK$]

Kallis would have easily averaged 60+ if he played for Australia.

 

[subshakerz]

This is the 3rd or 4th time you have told me what South African commentators were saying. You didn't watch them, and must be aware that you know nothing at all about this. Why do you keep doing this?

Once again, since you avoid this, was Ponting widely considered the best batsman in the world between 2002 to 2007 and Kallis was not? Let us at least agree there was not this wide perception of Kallis that way, outside of his own country perhaps, regardless of if you think he scored sufficiently to claim so.

Lara and Waugh we're only top class for 3/4 years (at the same time). I'm not sure there ever would have been a concensus on who was ahead, but if there was, it wouldn't be for a short enough time that judging an entire career on it is a bit silly, even if accepting the very questionable premise. You do you though.

Pretty much was a wide consensus across cricket cricles on who the top batter was in those periods, as much as Steve Smith being the best bat in the mid-2010s.

You are missing the point. We aren't judging the entire career based on them peaking in people's perceptions, but saying that achieving that status is a prerequisite for be considered an ATG, with little exceptions. There can be plenty who don't deliver outside their best years too, but ATGs gain that acclaim during their career when it is clear they are on the path to all-time greatness.

ATG bats, at a minimum, are recognized among the very very top batsmen of their time. Claiming a bat is an ATG who was never considered the best bat in the world in his entire 18 year career is an extremely flimsy claim.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis would have easily averaged 60+ if he played for Australia.

He played plenty in Australia yet didn't average 50. Don't see him averaging 60.

 

[Bolo.]

Once again, since you avoid this, was Ponting widely considered the best batsman in the world between 2002 to 2007 and Kallis was not? Let us at least agree there was not this wide perception of Kallis that way, regardless of if you think he scored sufficiently to claim so.



Pretty much was a wide consensus across cricket cricles on who the top batter was in those periods, as much as Steve Smith being the best bat in the mid-2010s.

You are missing the point. We aren't judging the entire career based on them peaking, but saying that achieving that status is a prerequisite for be considered an ATG, with little exceptions. There can be plenty who don't deliver outside their best years too.

ATG bats, at a minimum, are recognized among the very very top batsmen of their time. Claiming a bat is an ATG who was never considered the best bat in the world in his entire 18 year career is an extremely flimsy claim.

Was sachin considered the best bat in the world for the 90s and 2000s? When you change the time periods, you get different answers.

I understand the point you are making. It is just a poor point, inconsistently applied, and you are using factually incorrect info to support it.

 

[ZK$]

He played plenty in Australia yet didn't average 50. Don't see him averaging 60.

He would. Hayden averaged like 58 in Australia. Imagine what Kallis would average on those pitches.

 

[subshakerz]

Was sachin considered the best bat in the world for the 90s and 2000s? When you change the time periods, you get different answers.

I understand the point you are making. It is just a poor point, inconsistently applied, and you are using factually incorrect info to support it.

Sachin was considered the best bat late 90s and early 2000s, yes, without much disagreement, it was a wide perception. Then he dipped, Ponting rose, and Ponting quickly was recognized as the best bat circa 2002.

I don't get why you consider this a poor point. Isn't it straightforward, ATG should have least been the best in the world at some period in their career? I can't think of a top tier cricketer it doesn't apply to.

I would even go further and say ATGs are generally recognized as on the path to being ATGs around mid-way through their careers.

 

[subshakerz]

He would. Hayden averaged like 58 in Australia. Imagine what Kallis would average on those pitches.

We don't need to imagine since he played on those pitches in that period. Maybe your argument is that with more time and facing weaker attacks, his average would rise, I agree, but 60 is a stretch.

 

[shortpitched713]

The original question of the poll is kind of dumb. I refuse to answer it.

 

[ZK$]

We don't need to imagine since he played on those pitches in that period. Maybe you argument is that with more time and facing weaker attacks, his average would rise, I agree, but 60 is a stretch.

Nah, he would. Similarly, McGrath would average around 20 or less if he played for South Africa.