Kallis Vs Wasim

[subshakerz]

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.

Which early career Viv was.

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.

Can you think of an ATG who was never rated number one ever on form?

 

[capt_Luffy]

And this is based on?

Not having a single series classifiable as ATG (most argued in a recent thread the 2003 home series vs India being his best..... That was horribly flat, the bowling wasn't great from both teams (except Kumble) and almost everyone scored heavily)
Averaging 3 in an Indian tour (which his team lost) in his peak.

 

[kyear2]

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

Just stop

 

[subshakerz]

Just stop

But that is the essence of my argument, just crudely put.

 

[capt_Luffy]

But that is the essence of my argument, just crudely put.

That's not the essence of your argument, that's your whole argument.....

 

[CartyDurham]

I voted Kallis on his impact in both bowling and batting is ahead of Wasim

bowling alone I would have said wasim though

 

[Coronis]

Which early career Viv was.


Can you think of an ATG who was never rated number one ever on form?

I don’t think Sutcliffe was. Was Gavaskar ever? Verity was an ATG spinner but I’ve never seen him rated over O’Reilly at any point. Was Donald ever rated no.1 between Ambrose, Wasim and McGrath? Pollock and Walsh weren’t. Was Garner ever rated the best? I doubt it.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I don’t think Sutcliffe was. Was Gavaskar ever? Verity was an ATG spinner but I’ve never seen him rated over O’Reilly at any point. Was Donald ever rated no.1 between Ambrose, Wasim and McGrath? Pollock and Walsh weren’t. Was Garner ever rated the best? I doubt it.

He doesn’t rate Sutcliffe, Garner, Pollock, and Walsh as ATGs

 

[capt_Luffy]

Which early career Viv was.


Can you think of an ATG who was never rated number one ever on form?

This whole argument is disingenuous.

 

[kyear2]

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?

You mean the Wisden list where only 5 players got more than a quarter of the votes, where he was voted behind Worrell and Compton? Where he had 77 less votes than Sobers? Let's be honest only the top 2 were definitive, and Worrell and Compton, really?

If he was the top 3, top 5 player you're convinced he is seen as, he wouldn't have missed out of both the Wisden and Cricinfo's teams. It's touch and go if he makes ours far less.

And again, he's among the best all-rounders, just showing you how your argument for Kallis doesn't hold up.

 

[subshakerz]

You mean the Wisden list where only 5 players got more than a quarter of the votes, where he was voted behind Worrell and Compton? Where he had 77 less votes than Sobers? Let's be honest only the top 2 were definitive, and Worrell and Compton, really?

And what about the ESPN list? This is just petty nitpicking. You could do the same for the ATG XIs. I think the two lists are sufficient evidence that Imran's rating as a cricketer is not imaginary.

If he was the top 3, top 5 player you're convinced he is seen as, he wouldn't have missed out of both the Wisden and Cricinfo's teams. It's touch and go if he makes ours far less.

ATG XIs are far less objective ways to determine this because they both decided that there is only one AR spot and gave that to Sobers. You know this. Why am I explaining it to you?

Gilly missed out in one of them btw.

And again, he's among the best all-rounders, just showing you how your argument for Kallis doesn't hold up.

You have ignored all the evidence I bring because your mind is made up.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Early career Viv was better than Sachin. Till 1981, Viv had conquered all conditions, scored at a super high SR and dominated the best bowlers. Tendulkar wasn’t that great in SA in 90s and in the first half of his career had no tours that matched Viv in 1979 Aus, 1976 England or 1980 Pak. Viv had the best peak ever. Tendulkar can’t compare with that. He is better than Viv because of longevity and a perfect record across conditions

 

[Bolo.]

Which early career Viv was.


Can you think of an ATG who was never rated number one ever on form?

I don't believe you would actually rate Viv over Sachin in these circumstances based on career. At the end of Viv's peak, Sachin would have been averaging close to 60 with a career nearly twice as long and a tougher era than Viv.

IDK about how the form of historical ATGs were rated. Not one that would hit your standards of ATG. For mine, Flower maybe. Deserved to be rated number 1 on form, but he played for Zim. Younis Khan maybe, who was just really consistent. More bowlers. Their form doesn't fluctuate to the same degree as bats

The list of players who were not ATGs but were rated the best on form is definitely way, way longer, especially for people with a harsher definition of ATG than me.

 

[kyear2]

And what about the ESPN list? This is just petty nitpicking. You could do the same for the ATG XIs. I think the two lists are sufficient evidence that Imran's rating as a cricketer is not imaginary.


ATG XIs are far less objective ways to determine this because they both decided that there is only one AR spot and gave that to Sobers. You know this. Why am I explaining it to you?

Gilly missed out in one of them btw.


You have ignored all the evidence I bring because your mind is made up.

Yes, Gilly missed out on one.... One, and that's based on philosophy for what you're looking for in a keeper. Still made the other. If you're making neither??????

The all time XI is a much more objective way, because that's how teams are presented and represents the best of the best. The argument for all rounders is a little valid for the Cricinfo one, but if they thought he was better than the bowlers there, they would have chosen him. And apparently they don't share the bat deep philosophy of CW, shocker, lol. But again, if he's a top 3 player, he makes the team, at least one of them, and doesn't get beaten out 50 - 0 for his spot.

Anyways all of this was beyond the point. I don't doubt Imran is a top 10 player of all time, I'm not arguing with you about Imran's quality, I'm (unsuccessfully) trying to show that your argument towards Kallis is pointless. His numbers and impact were there. He was an ATG batsman, a test 4th and great 5th bowler and an ATG slip. What more do you want? He was a top 3 of 4 all rounder of all time.

 

[kyear2]

Early career Viv was better than Sachin. Till 1981, Viv had conquered all conditions, scored at a super high SR and dominated the best bowlers. Tendulkar wasn’t that great in SA in 90s and in the first half of his career had no tours that matched Viv in 1979 Aus, 1976 England or 1980 Pak. Viv had the best peak ever. Tendulkar can’t compare with that. He is better than Viv because of longevity and a perfect record across conditions

This.

Don't think he was a better batsman than Lara tbh, but he was greater because he was just so very consistent everywhere, and maintained it for so long...

 

[shortpitched713]

Have to go Kallis here. Kallis vs Wasim is what kyear wishes Imran vs Sobers was.

I'd personally put the primary skillset in favor of Kallis, but even if you didn't and went with a wash for primary skillet, they greatly diverge on secondary.

292 wickets at an average of over 32 at the very least qualifies for an all-rounder. Wasim's batting I think falls short of that, despite being useful and healthily better than some other lower order would be pretenders.

And then we should add fielding, where Kallis was an excellent catcher, to put him ahead.

If we want to add captaincy, I think Kallis's non captaincy should be roughly equal to Wasim's somewhat mediocre, but highly divisive stint.

All told, pretty comfortable in Kallis's favor, for mine, disregarding the vagaries of comparing bowler to batsman.

 

[kyear2]

Have to go Kallis here. Kallis vs Wasim is what kyear wishes Imran vs Sobers was.

I'd personally put the primary skillset in favor of Kallis, but even if you didn't and went with a wash for primary skillet, they greatly diverge on secondary.

292 wickets at an average of over 32 at the very least qualifies for an all-rounder. Wasim's batting I think falls short of that, despite being useful and healthily better than some other lower order would be pretenders.

And then we should add fielding, where Kallis was an excellent catcher, to put him ahead.

If we want to add captaincy, I think Kallis's non captaincy should be roughly equal to Wasim's somewhat mediocre, but highly divisive stint.

All told, pretty comfortable in Kallis's favor, for mine, disregarding the vagaries of comparing bowler to batsman.

Please explain the first line?

 

[shortpitched713]

Please explain the first line?

You'd put all of the skillsets in Sobers favor, in that comparison, just as I would put all of Kallis's in this comparison, nothing more.

 

[kyear2]

You'd put all of the skillsets in Sobers favor, in that comparison, just as I would put all of Kallis's in this comparison, nothing more.

Primary skill - Sobers
Secondary skill - closer, but Sobers bowling was more impactful, and his catching was elite.

 

[shortpitched713]

Primary skill - Sobers
Secondary skill - closer, but Sobers bowling was more impactful, and his catching was elite.

Suffice it to say, I think the competition of batting v bowling all-rounder is much stiffer with Imran.