Kallis Vs Wasim

[capt_Luffy]

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.

I don't know whether Kallis was underrated in his peak or not; but Ponting surely was overrated in his.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Pretty sure if Viv's early peak coincided with Sachin's, he would be getting talk about as better. And Ponting came close to being put in the Lara/Tendulkar level in terms of mid-2000s ratings, I dont think it was a fringe view. But if you got a different sense, ok then.

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.

Ok bro I think we have each said our piecse, let us not beat this to death.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't know whether Kallis was underrated in his peak or not; but Ponting surely was overrated in his.

We can debate whether Kallis was underrated and we can debate whether Ponting was overrated, but surely we can agree Ponting was rated much higher than Kallis in the 2000s, regardless of whether we think that was right.

 

[capt_Luffy]

We can debate whether Kallis was underrated and we can debate whether Ponting was overrated, but surely we can agree Ponting was rated much higher than Kallis in the 2000s, regardless of whether we think that was right.

And we can debate how higher rated Ponting is currently than Kallis; and regardless what we believe it will be quite close.
And I really don't get why how they were rated by public at the middle of their careers matters so much??

 

[Bolo.]

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.

I know the reasons for rating Akram. They don't account for the issues he had with taking quality wickets though. He gourged on weaker bats and tailenders. Those stats Ankitj posted put him insanely below the others in wicket quality. Looking at his proportion of tail end wickets and much higher WPM against the worst batting lineups of the 90s tells the same story.

I think poor slips can account for some of the issues with a low number of top end wickets. Not very applicable to middle order or weaker teams. I think he was bowling the wrong balls to get quality bats out.

 

[subshakerz]

And we can debate how higher rated Ponting is currently than Kallis; and regardless what we believe it will be quite close.
And I really don't get why how they were rated by public at the middle of their careers matters so much??

I told you why. Because Kallis' playing style sucked.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I told you why. Because Kallis' playing style sucked.

And I just told you they would be rated neck and neck..... Using peer ratings from mid career is a horrible way to go, especially when you're making a case for a over glorified attacking home bully who lead a world champion aggressive team and played for Australia (or England) and had a high scoring peak against weak attacks.....

 

[Bolo.]

Pretty sure if Viv's early peak coincided with Sachin's, he would be getting talk about as better. And Ponting came close to being put in the Lara/Tendulkar level in terms of mid-2000s ratings, I dont think it was a fringe view. But if you got a different sense, ok then.


Ok bro I think we have each said our piecse, let us not beat this to death.

Viv would never catch Sachins career. It's a 6 year head start averaging over 50, and him just starting one of the GOAT runs at that time.

There would be plenty of questions about who the better bat was at the time, but that's not relevant to better career. There were probably 100 bats rated better on form than Sachin at some stage in his career. Viv would be one of them.

 

[subshakerz]

Viv would never catch Sachins career. It's a 6 year head start averaging over 50, and him just starting one of the GOAT runs at that time.

There would be plenty of questions about who the better bat was at the time, but that's not relevant to better career. There were probably 100 bats rated better on form than Sachin at some stage in his career. Viv would be one of them.

Viv had the greatest peak of all-time in his early years. You telling me him overshadowing Tendulkar against the same opponents from 95 to early 2000s wouldnt get him to be better rated?

You are confusing rating best on form with rating for overall career. I agree you need an output range to overtake a career rating. My contention was that Kallis never got a form rating (which you dispute) and therefore isnt comparable to Wasim in primary discipline.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Viv had the greatest peak of all-time in his early years. You telling me him overshadowing Tendulkar against the same opponents from 95 to early 2000s wouldnt get him to be better rated?

You are confusing rating best on form with rating for overall career. I agree you need an output range to overtake a career rating. My contention was that Kallis never got a form rating (which you dispute) and therefore isnt comparable to Wasim in primary discipline.

1997-2002. The years Viv will overshadow Sachin. And I am sure most people will still rate Sachin higher.

 

[subshakerz]

1997-2002. The years Viv will overshadow Sachin. And I am sure most people will still rate Sachin higher.

Not if he tours Aus in 99 and averages in the 70s compared to 46 for Sachin.

 

[subshakerz]

And I just told you they would be rated neck and neck..... Using peer ratings from mid career is a horrible way to go, especially when you're making a case for a over glorified attacking home bully who lead a world champion aggressive team and played for Australia (or England) and had a high scoring peak against weak attacks.....

My point was quite simple. If Kallis is this big bad ATG you claim, surely over an ATG year career he gets rated best in the world at some point. I dispute with Bolo that he did but that was my point.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not if he tours Aus in 99 and averages in the 70s compared to 46 for Sachin.

With such umpiring?? Good luck with that......

 

[capt_Luffy]

My point was quite simple. If Kallis is this big bad ATG you claim, surely over an ATG year career he gets rated best in the world at some point. I dispute with Bolo that he did but that was my point.

And my point is simple, that this logic is worse than your check bucketlist..... Man, think about it for 2 hours on how stupid it is. I have a tuition, will ask again after 2 hours.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Trying to figure out if that was a serious question.

Wisden and Cricinfo were colab ventures which was better with regards to weeding out bias.

Dickie Bird's was objectively limited and subjectively bad, while Benaud stressed multiple times that his wasn't the best all time team, but the one he wanted to see play.

Wonder why those two?

Please understand I'm not saying he wasn't the best all rounder of the era, he's one of the best ever, but so is Kallis. Stop finding reasons to pull him down.

 

[Bolo.]

Viv had the greatest peak of all-time in his early years. You telling me him overshadowing Tendulkar against the same opponents from 95 to early 2000s wouldnt get him to be better rated?

You are confusing rating best on form with rating for overall career. I agree you need an output range to overtake a career rating. My contention was that Kallis never got a form rating (which you dispute) and therefore isnt comparable to Wasim in primary discipline.

I'm saying a career of 6 years of averaging over 50 + x years of outstanding peak is >>> than x years of outstanding peak. For a bat debuting at that time, they would have to be far better than Sachin to pull ahead on career. So nobody.

Ranking on form without regard to career quality is going to give you a long list of bats. Just about anyone who hit the ICC number one will have a lot of people considering them the form bat. And some who didn't hit number 1. The list from Kallis' time would include a number of bats worse than him.

 

[kyear2]

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.

What we saw, what we've read, what we've been told just doesn't quite match up.

 

[subshakerz]

Trying to figure out if that was a serious question.

Wisden and Cricinfo were colab ventures which was better with regards to weeding out bias.

Ok but why isn't him being in the top ten in the two lists of Cricketers of the Century and ESPN's Cricket legends relevant then?

 

[subshakerz]

What we saw, what we've read, what we've been told just doesn't quite match up.

And you've been informed why.

 

[kyear2]

I don't know whether Kallis was underrated in his peak or not; but Ponting surely was overrated in his.

And this is based on?