Kallis Vs Wasim

[kyear2]

Huh? Didn't you see the link with the clip. Hadlee says it explicitly. And did you ignore the two teams that Bird and Marsh picked where the other ARs are not there?

And if Lillee was calling Imran the best AR in the world by the early 80s, do you think he would change his mind by the time Imran retired?

And yes, Wasim has a better rating as a bowler.

From the clip, Hadlee basically said what he said in the Cricinfo interviews, that Imran was more consistent.

What I said was that while they played there was no explicit best of the group. They were collectively rated. Contemporary ratings, no matter what you read or watched or from my own memories, from that time he was one of the great all rounders.

Your argument is that Kallis was only elevated to his rating nearing the end of his career and I'm saying that for Imran it was the same.

Not this doesn't matter if peer or contemporary ratings doesn't matter to you, bur you use it to beat down Kallis, so....

 

[kyear2]

In restaurants there are ceetain chefs that are known as 'chef's chefs', which a lot of chefs admire and look up to but may not get as much general accolades. Wasim was definitely a 'player's player'. Contemporaneous batsmen and bowlers who played with and against him all rate him very highly.

When you listen to stuff like that, it makes you think that he has to be among the top 3 ever. The skill and variations he possessed.

They guys that were definitively the best successively?

Lillee
Marshall
Ambrose
Akram
McGrath
Cummins

 

[subshakerz]

From the clip, Hadlee basically said what he said in the Cricinfo interviews, that Imran was more consistent.

Hadlee gets asked point blank by Atherton who is the best and he said he rates Imran ahead of them all. Pretty explicit.

What I said was that while they played there was no explicit best of the group. They were collectively rated. Contemporary ratings, no matter what you read or watched or from my own memories, from that time he was one of the great all rounders.

Yeah except you have Lillee in the early 80s who rated Imran ahead. Excerpts I believe were published in this site.

Your argument is that Kallis was only elevated to his rating nearing the end of his career and I'm saying that for Imran it was the same.

Not this doesn't matter if peer or contemporary ratings doesn't matter to you, bur you use it to beat down Kallis, so....

Except when you have references for Imran early in the 80s, around the time he came to England and outperformed Botham and got Wisden Cricketer of the Year, when he did get rated that highly, including as the best bowler in world. All which you ignore because you don't like him.

 

[kyear2]

Hadlee gets asked point blank by Atherton who is the best and he said he rates Imran ahead of them all. Pretty explicit.


Yeah except you have Lillee in the early 80s who rated Imran ahead. Excerpts I believe were published in this site.


Except when you have references for Imran early in the 80s, around the time he came to England and outperformed Botham and got Wisden Cricketer of the Year, when he did get rated that highly, including as the best bowler in world. All which you ignore because you don't like him.

The thing is that you know what I said was true. And I'm not saying this because I don't like Imran, it's to show you your argument against Kallis doesn't make any sense.

He has the numbers to be seen as arguably the 2nd best all rounder ever. Doesn't matter what the contemporary opinion was.

And don't look at one single year... The mantle of best in the world went from Lillee to Marshall and you very much know that. Then Ambrose, kinda Wasim, then McGrath and Steyn. Currently Bumrah.

 

[subshakerz]

The thing is that you know what I said was true. And I'm not saying this because I don't like Imran, it's to show you your argument against Kallis doesn't make any sense.

He has the numbers to be seen as arguably the 2nd best all rounder ever. Doesn't matter what the contemporary opinion was.

And don't look at one single year... The mantle of best in the world went from Lillee to Marshall and you very much know that. Then Ambrose, kinda Wasim, then McGrath and Steyn. Currently Bumrah.

I like how you just conveniently skip over the Hadlee point when you have been corrected. You never concede to anything.

Here is the Lillee reference from 1983 btw:

'A lot of prople talk about Ian Botham, Kapil dev and Richard Hadlee as being the best all-rounders in the world. But for my money - and as you know I bet wisely - in the last couple of seasons that distinction belongs to Imran.'

And as you are aware, Imran only got better from then. So it wasn't a late career rating as you are suggesting. Can you concede here too? Strangely Lillee also rated Imran as a better bowler than Hadlee at the time too.

And the mantle of best bowler in the world shifted from Lillee to Marshall (with Imran briefly gaining that distinction) at precisely the time Imran was injured in the middle of his historic peak and denied two years. It wasn't because he wasn't good enough. Omitting this is wrong.

And you are missing my entire point. Kallis was never rated this way at any point in his career as the best in the world.

 

[Bolo.]

Kallis was ranked #1 batsman as per ICC ratings with peak rating of 935. Akram was never ranked #1 bowler and had peak rating of 830. That's a difference of more than 100.

I think your quality of wicket analysis explains a big part of why Wasim is so low on ICC rankings. Quality of wickets is a part of of the ranking methodology, and likely a fairly big one. I don't think that the ICC rankings fairly reflect his performances. But I also think the quality of wickets tells a big story. Wasim is a crazy outlier on your list.

How valuable is that wicket!

Long time back I came across a comprehensive analysis of bowlers based on the "value"of the wickets they take. The approach was wonderfully elegant and very logical. The article is not online anymore. Nevertheless I decided to do the exercise again. I am happy to share the results of my hard...

www.cricketweb.net

 

[kyear2]

I like how you just conveniently skip over the Hadlee point when you have been corrected. You never concede to anything.

Here is the Lillee reference from 1983 btw:

'A lot of prople talk about Ian Botham, Kapil dev and Richard Hadlee as being the best all-rounders in the world. But for my money - and as you know I bet wisely - in the last couple of seasons that distinction belongs to Imran.'

And as you are aware, Imran only got better from then. So it wasn't a late career rating as you are suggesting. Can you concede here too? Strangely Lillee also rated Imran as a better bowler than Hadlee at the time too.

And the mantle of best bowler in the world shifted from Lillee to Marshall (with Imran briefly gaining that distinction) at precisely the time Imran was injured in the middle of his historic peak and denied two years. It wasn't because he wasn't good enough. Omitting this is wrong.

And you are missing my entire point. Kallis was never rated this way at any point in his career as the best in the world.

Hadlee said, I was the better bowler but the worst batsman, and he would name Imran only because he was probably the most consistent. I've said that before...

But you've missed my point. These interviews and opinions are post career, the same way it was with Kallis. During that period, and we both experienced some of it, there wasn't a clear cut no 1. The fact that he was asked that decades later somewhat speaks to that.

When you watch and listen to commentary, even with Wasim, Curtly, you hear how the commentators speak, you can find articles and this backs it up as well. That wasn't the case with the all rounders. His rating and elevation, like Kallis came a lot post career.

There's only two valid collectively selected all time cricket teams, for a player that CW consistently ranks 3rd all time, though unable to safely / consistently make our final XI, Imran makes neither. His peer rating was no where close to where you want us to believe it was. His stats are there, just like Jacques, so either you accept both as you should, or keep with the peer ratings and reject both.

That's my only point.

The ones that made both teams btw.

Hobbs / Bradman / Richards / Tendulkar / Sobers / Marshall / Akram / Warne

 

[Coronis]

I like how you just conveniently skip over the Hadlee point when you have been corrected. You never concede to anything.

Here is the Lillee reference from 1983 btw:

'A lot of prople talk about Ian Botham, Kapil dev and Richard Hadlee as being the best all-rounders in the world. But for my money - and as you know I bet wisely - in the last couple of seasons that distinction belongs to Imran.'

And as you are aware, Imran only got better from then. So it wasn't a late career rating as you are suggesting. Can you concede here too? Strangely Lillee also rated Imran as a better bowler than Hadlee at the time too.

And the mantle of best bowler in the world shifted from Lillee to Marshall (with Imran briefly gaining that distinction) at precisely the time Imran was injured in the middle of his historic peak and denied two years. It wasn't because he wasn't good enough. Omitting this is wrong.

And you are missing my entire point. Kallis was never rated this way at any point in his career as the best in the world.

You do realise that interview explicitly states Botham’s talking about AR’s not bowlers right?

 

[kyear2]

I think your quality of wicket analysis explains a big part of why Wasim is so low on ICC rankings. Quality of wickets is a part of of the ranking methodology, and likely a fairly big one. I don't think that the ICC rankings fairly reflect his performances. But I also think the quality of wickets tells a big story. Wasim is a crazy outlier on your list.

How valuable is that wicket!

Long time back I came across a comprehensive analysis of bowlers based on the "value"of the wickets they take. The approach was wonderfully elegant and very logical. The article is not online anymore. Nevertheless I decided to do the exercise again. I am happy to share the results of my hard...

www.cricketweb.net

As soon as my mind is made up,

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee said, I was the better bowler but the worst batsman, and he would name Imran only because he was probably the most consistent. I've said that before...

Yes he said Imran was the best AR. That was your contention. Do you want me to bring your earlier quotes?

But you've missed my point. These interviews and opinions are post career, the same way it was with Kallis. During that period, and we both experienced some of it, there wasn't a clear cut no 1. The fact that he was asked that decades later somewhat speaks to that.

And I gave you a Lillee reference that was mid-career that you are ignoring.

When you watch and listen to commentary, even with Wasim, Curtly, you hear how the commentators speak, you can find articles and this backs it up as well. That wasn't the case with the all rounders. His rating and elevation, like Kallis came a lot post career.

Yes if you ignore all the press around 82/83 when he burst into English consciousness and outperformed Botham. By the late 80s it wasn't a debate anymore, he was clearly ahead of all of them.

There's only two valid collectively selected all time cricket teams, for a player that CW consistently ranks 3rd all time, though unable to safely / consistently make our final XI, Imran makes neither. His peer rating was no where close to where you want us to believe it was. His stats are there, just like Jacques, so either you accept both as you should, or keep with the peer ratings and reject both.

Dude your just making up stuff at this point. Imran was put in many ATG XIs by pundits and in the top ten Cricketers of the Century. You just are committed to downgrading him and creating false parity with Kallis.

 

[subshakerz]

You do realise that interview explicitly states Botham’s talking about AR’s not bowlers right?

Yes that is what we are debating. About ARs.

 

[kyear2]

Yes he said Imran was the best AR. That was your contention. Do you want me to bring your earlier quotes?


And I gave you a Lillee reference that was mid-career that you are ignoring.


Yes if you ignore all the press around 82/83 when he burst into English consciousness and outperformed Botham. By the late 80s it wasn't a debate anymore, he was clearly ahead of all of them.


Dude your just making up stuff at this point. Imran was put in many ATG XIs by pundits and in the top ten Cricketers of the Century. You just are committed to downgrading him and creating false parity with Kallis.

The only two teams that mattered were Wisden's and Cricinfo's.

 

[subshakerz]

The only two teams that mattered were Wisden's and Cricinfo's.

Why? Why not Benauds or Dickie Birds?

And what about being in the top ten in Cricketers of the Century?

And please address the Lillee reference because it completely counters what you were suggesting.

 

[ankitj]

I think your quality of wicket analysis explains a big part of why Wasim is so low on ICC rankings. Quality of wickets is a part of of the ranking methodology, and likely a fairly big one. I don't think that the ICC rankings fairly reflect his performances. But I also think the quality of wickets tells a big story. Wasim is a crazy outlier on your list.

How valuable is that wicket!

Long time back I came across a comprehensive analysis of bowlers based on the "value"of the wickets they take. The approach was wonderfully elegant and very logical. The article is not online anymore. Nevertheless I decided to do the exercise again. I am happy to share the results of my hard...

www.cricketweb.net

Yes, that's the reason why I rate Wasim Akram tad lower than a bunch of greats. It's not his average or WPM.

ICC ratings themselves can also be impacted by how many breaks you take during your playing days so of course should be taken with bucketful of salt. But still it's curious how low Akram sits on that all time list.

 

[subshakerz]

A truly crap bat would have had a chance to have (briefly) enjoyed a better career than Sachin if they debuted at the same time. Bradman debuting 20 years later would not overtake Sachin's career while Sachin was still going. I think Lara had a somewhat decent case to be ranked ahead of Sachin when he retired. I don't think this would be the case if Lara had debuted 5 years later.

Except as mentioned Ponting was being discussed with Lara/Tendulkar briefly in his peak. Viv overtook Greg Chappell who debuted five years earlier. None of this is set in stone.

The sources I'm mentioning did rate Kallis this high. Would have been is the most likely date that peak estimation of him happened.

Share some quotes. I am happy to correct myself.

Not that I think that best form is particularly important, let alone perception of it. Kallis was probably the best bat from 04-2012, but if you slice that down, there will be a ton of players ahead of him at various stages in that time. Wasim was probably the best bowler 90-97, but I'm not sure that he was ever actually the best bowler in this period if you slice it down.

Wasim was definitely rated no.1 around 94/95/96.

I don't think Kallis being lesser rated for a bulk of his career is debated. I think your side suggests he was underrated in his peak and I am saying he was rated correctly.

 

[Bolo.]

Yes, that's the reason why I rate Wasim Akram tad lower than a bunch of greats. It's not his average or WPM.

ICC ratings themselves can also be impacted by how many breaks you take during your playing days so of course should be taken with bucketful of salt. But still it's curious how low Akram sits on that all time list.

His average is OK. Not great by the standards of the players he usually is compared to, but not particularly problematic.

The WPM is low. It's partly due to stuff like length of career and competition, but also speaks to the same problem as his quality of wickets. If you are struggling to knock over the quality bats you will end up with fewer.

 

[ankitj]

Akram's test record feels irreconcilable with what we saw with naked eye. It would surprise no one if we averaged 18 given his skill.

Or it's the lack of all important slip cordon that explains the gap between what we saw and what record he ended up with.

 

[Bolo.]

Akram's test record feels irreconcilable with what we saw with naked eye. It would surprise no one if we averaged 18 given his skill.

Or it's the lack of all important slip cordon that explains the gap between what we saw and what record he ended up with.

The best bowlers mostly just found something that worked and put it on repeat until it stopped working. Not Akram.

He had all the tools except 1-consistently putting the ball in the right area. It's a tool that bowlers can succeed without, but of all tools, it's the most valuable

 

[subshakerz]

The best bowlers mostly just found something that worked and put it on repeat until it stopped working. Not Akram.

He had all the tools except 1-consistently putting the ball in the right area. It's a tool that bowlers can succeed without, but of all tools, it's the most valuable

I dont think there was a particular skill issue that accounts for Wasim's lesser impressive numbers.

He has a peak of nearly 50 tests averaging 20 with a WPM of 5, comparably to anything from Ambrose and McGrath.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

There were three issues:

- Debuting very early. Pacers normally debut early 20s and take around 10-15 tests to hit their strides, he debuted 18 and took 30 tests to do so.

- Diabetes around 98. Wasim had achieved a level of skill mastery but diabetes reduced his pace a couple years earlier or so than normal aging, allowing batsmen to play him out of respect without losing their wicket. This became clear to me when Australia toured Pakistan in 98 and Wasim was bowling excellently, yet for some reason the batsmen survived. The Aussies explained later that their strategy towards Wasim was to just limit his damage, and without that extra sting of pace, his swing was enough to keep best batsmen quiet but not to run through a lineup.

Imagine this same spell with an extra 2-3 MPH.

- Slips. Wasim was a fantastic new ball bowler, not far from McGrath and Ambrose, but if your fielders are regularly shelling 1-2 catches, that is bound to impact your numbers.

 

[Bolo.]

Except as mentioned Ponting was being discussed with Lara/Tendulkar briefly in his peak. Viv overtook Greg Chappell who debuted five years earlier. None of this is set in stone.


Share some quotes. I am happy to correct myself.


Wasim was definitely rated no.1 around 94/95/96.

I don't think Kallis being lesser rated for a bulk of his career is debated. I think your side suggests he was underrated in his peak and I am saying he was rated correctly.

Ponting came nowhere near to overtaking Sachin's career. If you want to use minority reactionary opinions, plenty of RSA fans thought Kallis had overtaken Sachin. This isn't evidence of anything other than the fact that ratings can be dumb. Viv debuting in 95 would not have been able to catch Sachin's career.

You are asking me to quote websites when you already know what they say? Commentators and presentations from years old matches? Conversations I had? To sift through years old newspapers? Why does this make any sense to you?

My last paragraph is to do with actual quality, not ratings.