Hammond vs Kallis

[kyear2]

Who was the greater cricketer.

Batsman, bowler, slip fielder.... Who did it better and more impactfully?

Who would be a better fit in an ATG XI

 

[subshakerz]

Hammond easily. All of Kallis' wickets can't make up for his shortcomings with the bat.

 

[BazBall21]

Already done but Hammond

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Kallis is better on batting alone into consideration. When taking other skills, it's not even close.

 

[Coronis]

As a massive Hammond fan, I’d have to say Kallis is an overall better cricketer.

 

[kyear2]

As a massive Hammond fan, I’d have to say Kallis is an overall better cricketer.

Really? Isn't this similar to bowling all rounders where at the end of the day batting would probably be weighted more heavily?

Surprised me a bit here

 

[Coronis]

Really? Isn't this similar to bowling all rounders where at the end of the day batting would probably be weighted more heavily?

Surprised me a bit here

Well Hammond isn’t an allrounder - unlike Kallis. It would be like comparing Marshall vs Imran (though perhaps maybe Hadlee is a more apt comparison) - one is a true allrounder and one is a bowler who can bat a bit.

 

[The Sean]

Well Hammond isn’t an allrounder - unlike Kallis. It would be like comparing Marshall vs Imran (though perhaps maybe Hadlee is a more apt comparison) - one is a true allrounder and one is a bowler who can bat a bit.

The Marshall comparison feels like quite an apt one to me, as from all I have seen and read I tend to think of Hammond's bowling and Marshall's batting in a similar vein - both with plenty of talent, but neither took it seriously enough to elevate themselves to the true all-rounder level.

 

[Coronis]

The Marshall comparison feels like quite an apt one to me, as from all I have seen and read I tend to think of Hammond's bowling and Marshall's batting in a similar vein - both with plenty of talent, but neither took it seriously enough to elevate themselves to the true all-rounder level.

Soz yeah I meant Hadlee rather than Imran.

 

[kyear2]

Well Hammond isn’t an allrounder - unlike Kallis. It would be like comparing Marshall vs Imran (though perhaps maybe Hadlee is a more apt comparison) - one is a true allrounder and one is a bowler who can bat a bit.

But not looking at them as all rounders, but who would bring more value to a team overall, and specifically this one.
If you have someone splitting the 5th bowling role, that's less important.

 

[Coronis]

But not looking at them as all rounders, but who would bring more value to a team overall, and specifically this one.
If you have someone splitting the 5th bowling role, that's less important.

Well I think it all depends on the construction of the rest of the team.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I've bumped last year's identical thread just to confuse everyone.

 

[kyear2]

Had a lazy day today, do decided to go in depth on Wally Hammond, do I underrate him due to his performances vs the WI and short pitched bowling and that fact that during his test career, he never really faced off against quality pace.
But it was either @Patience and Accuracy+Gut or one of the others that illustrated that he did fairly well in club cricket vs pace and he could only score against who he faced. But it was a very weak era for fast bowling overall, and he did struggle mightily vs Constantine and Martindale.
He still was a member of the HHH club, though last he may be, while facing the least challenging of conditions.
He was however one of the greatest and possibly more underrated cricketers of all time, a top 10 batsman, possibly the greatest slip fielder of all time and an under rated bowler who was capable of sharp pace and got Bradman's wicket 3 times

Kallis however wasn't that far behind as a batsman, though not nearly an attractive one, a match winning ang much more utilized bowler and almost as capable if not equally so catcher in the cordon.

 

[peterhrt]

Had a lazy day today, do decided to go in depth on Wally Hammond, do I underrate him due to his performances vs the WI and short pitched bowling and that fact that during his test career, he never really faced off against quality pace.
But it was either @Patience and Accuracy+Gut or one of the others that illustrated that he did fairly well in club cricket vs pace and he could only score against who he faced. But it was a very weak era for fast bowling overall, and he did struggle mightily vs Constantine and Martindale.

Hammond's first-class averages (including Tests) against arguably the top ten fast bowlers of his time. Based on runs he scored when they were playing for the opposition. Dismissals by each bowler in brackets.

Nissar: 110 (1)
Voce: 97 (4)
McDonald: 71 (5)
Martindale: 52 (2)
Gregory: 49 (2)
Larwood: 47 (3)
Miller: 42 (-)
Constantine: 40 (11)
George Francis: 38 (3)
Lindwall: 21 (1)

 

[ankitj]

Hammond's first-class averages (including Tests) against arguably the top ten fast bowlers of his time. Based on runs he scored when they were playing for the opposition. Dismissals by each bowler in brackets.

Nissar: 110 (1)
Voce: 97 (4)
McDonald: 71 (5)
Martindale: 52 (2)
Gregory: 49 (2)
Larwood: 47 (3)
Miller: 42 (-)
Constantine: 40 (11)
George Francis: 38 (3)
Lindwall: 21 (1)

If you are referring to Cricinfo stats, this is just average score at which each bowler dismissed him which is completely useless.

Edit: for FC cricket, I don't know if they have even that

 

[peterhrt]

If you are referring to Cricinfo stats, this is just average score at which each bowler dismissed him which is completely useless.

Edit: for FC cricket, I don't know if they have even that

It is nothing to do with Cricinfo.

Data is taken from scorecards from Cricket Archive. Hammond's scores when each of these bowlers were in the opposition. It doesn't indicate how many runs he took off each bowler, just off their team.

It is known from match reports, however, that he was particularly severe on McDonald on more than one occasion.