Kallis Vs Ambrose

[subshakerz]

If the criteria is to be able to regularly make it to the stronger teams of your era on your secondary skills, here are the likely benchmarks. Imran achieves it overall in his career, Kallis does not.

Gus Logie Profile - Cricket Player West Indies | Stats, Records, Video

Read about Gus Logie cricket player from West Indies profile, stats, rankings, records, videos, photos at ESPNcricinfo

www.espncricinfo.com

Michael Kasprowicz Profile - Cricket Player Australia | Stats, Records, Video

Read about Michael Kasprowicz cricket player from Australia profile, stats, rankings, records, videos, photos at ESPNcricinfo

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Bolo.]

Not replying directly to @kyear2 as I have agreed not to engage him anymore, but a general point about Kallis' slightly overrated bowling:

- Kallis played 166 tests, with that much volume it inflates his record quite a bit. In bowling terms though he was overall a solid 5th bowler. Too many are impressed by raw numbers.

- Kallis could not make a mid level team based on his bowling record alone even in the 2000s. He would need to have at least a couple wickets a game to argue that. Imran could make such a teams in the 80s on his batting record alone if you look at his era as there were plenty of comparable lower order bats in those lineups. Look at somewhat like Gus Logie who played the entire 80s in the WI lineup and tell me Imran couldn't take his place.

- Those promoting him need to admit that there was a drastic difference in his role early versus kid and late career. Early career was a genuine 3rd/4th bowler, late career very much a 5th bowler who kept the batters warm between main seamers.

- If you are looking at individual games won, you can find a few examples from Kallis but virtually all of these are early career. He has 5 fifers in his entire 166 tests career, two against WI and two against Bangladesh. That is a awfully low sampling. It means he barely ever went into an actual wickettaker mode. Carl Hooper has four in 100 tests btw all against real opposition. This is just a bad way to do it.

- Once you take out minnows from Kallis' record, it becomes clear you can't take him seriously as a standalone bowling option.

His bowling was almost never match winning in isolation, and a few instances in a long career don't change this.

His bowling allowed RSA to field an extra bat. That would have won a lot of matches.

Having 5 bowlers has a big impact too. You don't need your 5th bowler soloing it. The odd wicket plus giving the other quicks a break will change the course of a team's results longer term through preventing injuries.

 

[OverratedSanity]

His bowling was almost never match winning in isolation, and a few instances in a long career don't change this.

His bowling allowed RSA to field an extra bat. That would have won a lot of matches.

Yeah I think this is the real value of Kallis. I think picking out instances where he took a 6fee when SA were defending 400 as evidence his bowling had match winning impact is pretty silly. The value of the balance provided to the team overall is very high.

He got good batsmen out a lot through his career too.

 

[subshakerz]

His bowling was almost never match winning in isolation, and a few instances in a long career don't change this.

His bowling allowed RSA to field an extra bat. That would have won a lot of matches.

Having 5 bowlers has a big impact too. You don't need your 5th bowler soloing it. The odd wicket plus giving the other quicks a break will change the course of a team's results longer term through preventing injuries.

I agree with your argument. Kallis' real value was bringing balance to his side. Though I would add that in his early days he was often 3rd seamer too.

However that is a different argument that certain Kallis proponents that Kallis' overall skill and output merit him being anything more than a 5th bowler in winning games.

And if we compare to Imran, it is clear Imran was a standard lower order bat for his era overall on his returns. Using 'solo winning games' as a criteria you'll agree is arbitrary as it depends on team dynamics.

I will add that in general, I probably weigh batting ARs a bit higher for normal teams based on the reason you give But Imran I believe was exceptional as a bowling AR to be much better than the norm with a bat.

 

[subshakerz]

To me, the only ones who could have made it into teams based on either discipline alone are Sobers, Imran, Botham and Miller.

Kallis as a bowler to me is around Hadlee/Pollock batting level.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Would disagree with that, but it's all good.

I mean, duhhhh

 

[Bolo.]

I agree with your argument. Kallis' real value was bringing balance to his side. Though I would add that in his early days he was often 3rd seamer too.

However that is a different argument that certain Kallis proponents that Kallis' overall skill and output merit him being anything more than a 5th bowler in winning games.

And if we compare to Imran, it is clear Imran was a standard lower order bat for his era overall on his returns. Using 'solo winning games' as a criteria you'll agree is arbitrary as it depends on team dynamics.

I will add that in general, I probably weigh batting ARs a bit higher for normal teams based on the reason you give But Imran I believe was exceptional as a bowling AR to be much better than the norm with a bat.

I don't think anyone argues that his bowling load per game was that of a frontliner (except maybe in very brief patches)? Are you mixing that up with bowling load across career? Not many bowlers sent down more than him in total. It wasn't his role to bowl a lot per game, and it would have been detrimental to the long term health of the team to ask him to do it.

Defining quality of a secondary discipline in terms of being specialist quality is a bit of a non sequitur. Value gets added regardless of hitting some arbitrarily drawn line. That said, he was very clearly specialist quality for a good chunk. We aren't expecting a quick to be specialist quality for 166 games, even if they aren't batting like him. His amount of time being pretty good was probably in line with the typical (not elite) quick, or with the amount of years Imran spent being good as a bat (depending on how you count time he was playing as a bat).

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think anyone argues that his bowling load per game was that of a frontliner (except maybe in very brief patches)? Are you mixing that up with bowling load across career? Not many bowlers sent down more than him in total. It wasn't his role to bowl a lot per game, and it would have been detrimental to the long term health of the team to ask him to do it.

Defining quality of a secondary discipline in terms of being specialist quality is a bit of a non sequitur. Value gets added regardless of hitting some arbitrarily drawn line. That said, he was very clearly specialist quality for a good chunk. We aren't expecting a quick to be specialist quality for 166 games, even if they aren't batting like him. His amount of time being pretty good was probably in line with the typical (not elite) quick, or with the amount of years Imran spent being good as a bat (depending on how you count time he was playing as a bat).

Nobody is suggesting that Kallis' wickets werent valuable. But how valuable? Are you suggesting that a 5th bowler role is inherently more useful than a specialist bat? I think the question is how would you measure the runs of a bowling AR with the bowling of a batting AR.

Warne has more runs than many specialist bats in his career, doesnt mean he is near their level overall even if those runs were valuable.

Kallis was specialist level until 2003, around 40 percent of his career. Yes a longer career though. Imran's batting years from 80 onwards and tests though are around 60 percent of his career and probably longer in terms of years than Kallis at his bowling prime.

 

[kyear2]

If the criteria is to be able to regularly make it to the stronger teams of your era on your secondary skills, here are the likely benchmarks. Imran achieves it overall in his career, Kallis does not.

Gus Logie Profile - Cricket Player West Indies | Stats, Records, Video

Read about Gus Logie cricket player from West Indies profile, stats, rankings, records, videos, photos at ESPNcricinfo

www.espncricinfo.com

Michael Kasprowicz Profile - Cricket Player Australia | Stats, Records, Video

Read about Michael Kasprowicz cricket player from Australia profile, stats, rankings, records, videos, photos at ESPNcricinfo

www.espncricinfo.com

No matter how you want to parse or frame it, a batsman averaging 33 isn't a test standard, or even a good test batsman.

 

[kyear2]

His bowling was almost never match winning in isolation, and a few instances in a long career don't change this.

His bowling allowed RSA to field an extra bat. That would have won a lot of matches.

Having 5 bowlers has a big impact too. You don't need your 5th bowler soloing it. The odd wicket plus giving the other quicks a break will change the course of a team's results longer term through preventing injuries.

Yeah I think this is the real value of Kallis. I think picking out instances where he took a 6fee when SA were defending 400 as evidence his bowling had match winning impact is pretty silly. The value of the balance provided to the team overall is very high.

He got good batsmen out a lot through his career too.

The value of a 4th / 5th blower role is invaluable. Aiding the rotation, resting bolwers prior to taking the new ball, allowing ineffective bolwers to be taken out of the attack, taking key wickets / breaking partnerships.
Having someone who can come on and cover a few overs into the wind that wouldn't give away the shop is invaluable.

What's also being forgotten is that he was one of the greatest slip fielders ever, and just as valuable when he wasn't bowling. He was easily a top 3 slip fielder for the past 30 years or so that I've seen, and top 10 overall all time.

Guys like Hammond, Simpson, Sobers, Kallis, even when they weren't bowling, they were providing exceptional value to their or any team on the field.

So yes, his batting, bowling and catching combination was 2nd only to Sir Garry.

 

[Bolo.]

Nobody is suggesting that Kallis' wickets werent valuable. But how valuable? Are you suggesting that a 5th bowler role is inherently more useful than a specialist bat? I think the question is how would you measure the runs of a bowling AR with the bowling of a batting AR.

Warne has more runs than many specialist bats in his career, doesnt mean he is near their level overall even if those runs were valuable.

Kallis was specialist level until 2003, around 40 percent of his career. Yes a longer career though. Imran's batting years from 80 onwards and tests though are around 60 percent of his career and probably longer in terms of years than Kallis at his bowling prime.

The main value he brought (from the 2000s when there weren't as many ARs) wasn't in the wickets themselves. It was playing the extra bat. That value is there even if he doesn't bowl at all. In his case, the value of his bowling was that of a specialist bat in a chunk of games. In some other teams this value may not be there. He might play a more balanced role (at the expense of longevity), or not be as useful.

Comparing a batting AR to a bowling AR is always goingto be tricky. Bowling AR is (to some extent) batting + bowling. Batting AR is way more complicated.

What did Warne average in relation to the 7th best Aus bat? And Kallis in relation to a replacement bowler?

There's a hard cap on wickets but not runs. You don't need a 5th bowler to take stacks. Ya, I'd rate him higher if he did. But he already carried a total test workload far above any other player in history. Asking for still more is extremely greedy.

Imran had a lot of years where he either wasn't playing or his main discipline was batting. They are fairly comparable in the amount of time they were good at secondary.

 

[subshakerz]

The main value he brought (from the 2000s when there weren't as many ARs) wasn't in the wickets themselves. It was playing the extra bat. That value is there even if he doesn't bowl at all. In his case, the value of his bowling was that of a specialist bat in a chunk of games. In some other teams this value may not be there. He might play a more balanced role (at the expense of longevity), or not be as useful.

Comparing a batting AR to a bowling AR is always goingto be tricky. Bowling AR is (to some extent) batting + bowling. Batting AR is way more complicated.

What did Warne average in relation to the 7th best Aus bat? And Kallis in relation to a replacement bowler?

There's a hard cap on wickets but not runs. You don't need a 5th bowler to take stacks. Ya, I'd rate him higher if he did. But he already carried a total test workload far above any other player in history. Asking for still more is extremely greedy.

Imran had a lot of years where he either wasn't playing or his main discipline was batting. They are fairly comparable in the amount of time they were good at secondary.

I'm not sure how to process this statement. Like Hooper has over 100 wickets in his career but where he might have played that 5th bowler hand, I dont think that cumulative value is quite what the numbers make it out to be. Same with Kallis and his overall load.

Also the extra bat aspect I am not sure about really. Didn't SA in the 90s and early 2000s already have an extra deep tail? It's not like they dropped a bowler for Kallis.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Kallis obviously

 

[Bolo.]

I'm not sure how to process this statement. Like Hooper has over 100 wickets in his career but where he might have played that 5th bowler hand, I dont think that cumulative value is quite what the numbers make it out to be. Same with Kallis and his overall load.

Also the extra bat aspect I am not sure about really. Didn't SA in the 90s and early 2000s already have an extra deep tail? It's not like they dropped a bowler for Kallis.

Cumulative load is definitely a thing, especially for fast bowlers. Anderson aside, a ton of quicks have capped out at around 40k international deliveries, irrespective of career length. Kallis said he was cutting down the bowling to prolong the career. And all the ARs who were carrying a comparable load to Kallis early career fell to serious injuries.

I said the extra bat pertains to the 2000s, not the 90s. Early 2000s the AR stock dried up, and he would have made the team as a bowler anyway.

 

[subshakerz]

Cumulative load is definitely a thing, especially for fast bowlers. Anderson aside, a ton of quicks have capped out at around 40k international deliveries, irrespective of career length. Kallis said he was cutting down the bowling to prolong the career. And all the ARs who were carrying a comparable load to Kallis early career fell to serious injuries.

Surely spreading his bowling thinner as he went longer makes it harder to judge the quality of his bowling though overall, no?

I said the extra bat pertains to the 2000s, not the 90s. Early 2000s the AR stock dried up, and he would have made the team as a bowler anyway.

To clarify, you mean the team played 7 bats as opposed to six? How long a period was this?

 

[Bolo.]

Surely spreading his bowling thinner as he went longer makes it harder to judge the quality of his bowling though overall, no?


To clarify, you mean the team played 7 bats as opposed to six? How long a period was this?

Im sure some people would rate him higher if he had the same number of wickets over fewer tests. I likely would too. But it would be wrong, at least as far as winning more games for RSA goes. His bowling quality is independent of the amount he bowled, unless you think he would be tired from too much workload. Which is a distinct possibility, because you would be compressing his enormous career workload.

The quality of his bowling is more difficult to assess in terms of him making a decision to slow down to up his lifespan. IDK how much better he would have been if going harder.

RSA 2000s on usually played Kallis + 5 bats. 4 bowlers (of differing batting quality), including a sub 3WPM spinner. It's not enough bowling to be confident in without Kallis most of the time. Without him, they would often be dropping a bat for a shoddy bowler or bits and pieces player.

 

[kyear2]

Persons misunderstand and undervalue the role of a 5th bowler.

First off, no one expects front line batting ability from your no. 8 batsman, but somehow expects Kallis's output to be similar to that of a front line batsman.

The nature of their jobs can't be further apart. One gets the worst conditions to operate in, the other the best.

One also gets to benefit from the higher possiblity of not out, inflating the average, the other doesn't get much opportunity for higher wicket hauls.

The effectiveness of one's role is exercised just by bowling and not being taken apart, this allowing for flexibility of the rotation and allowing the front line guys, or ineffective performers to rest or not to continue bowling.

And everyone's forgetting the guy was a stud in the cordon.

 

[subshakerz]

Im sure some people would rate him higher if he had the same number of wickets over fewer tests. I likely would too. But it would be wrong, at least as far as winning more games for RSA goes. His bowling quality is independent of the amount he bowled, unless you think he would be tired from too much workload. Which is a distinct possibility, because you would be compressing his enormous career workload.

I don't think I agree. The same amount of wickets in less tests is more impact per test and a better player. Spreading it out is thinning your game to the point where it's not decisive enough a factor in winning games, more useful than matchwinning. I do think he would be tired from more workload yet some like Sobers managed it

RSA 2000s on usually played Kallis + 5 bats. 4 bowlers (of differing batting quality), including a sub 3WPM spinner. It's not enough bowling to be confident in without Kallis most of the time. Without him, they would often be dropping a bat for a shoddy bowler or bits and pieces player.

Isn't 6 bats, excluding keeper, what SA had anyways before Kallis? So Kallis didn't really give an extra bat per se.

He just literally a better 5th bowling option (though in the days between Donald and Steyn a bit more). Which is very useful, balances your attack but not a matchwinning game changer overall in the sense some are presenting. In most cases, 4 main bowling options plus a part timer are sufficient, Kallis is better quality backup.

So to me, I still see it relative to batting no 8 as an AR and making the tail stronger. If you can be a specialist bat though I would still value you more then.

 

[Bolo.]

Persons misunderstand and undervalue the role of a 5th bowler.

First off, no one expects front line batting ability from your no. 8 batsman, but somehow expects Kallis's output to be similar to that of a front line batsman.

The nature of their jobs can't be further apart. One gets the worst conditions to operate in, the other the best.

One also gets to benefit from the higher possiblity of not out, inflating the average, the other doesn't get much opportunity for higher wicket hauls.

The effectiveness of one's role is exercised just by bowling and not being taken apart, this allowing for flexibility of the rotation and allowing the front line guys, or ineffective performers to rest or not to continue bowling.

And everyone's forgetting the guy was a stud in the cordon.

The advantage for batting lower is entirely derived from tired bowlers and the aging ball.

Not outs are not good for the average when weighed against the opportunity to complete an innings. The expected runs from a bat increase the more they score.

One thing you can criticize a bat for about remaining not out is not maximising team runs through a combination of scoring faster/strike farming. But this is a disadvantage to batting lower. Top order bats don't need to sacrifice their own potential for scoring as often in this way.

 

[Bolo.]

I don't think I agree. The same amount of wickets in less tests is more impact per test and a better player. Spreading it out is thinning your game to the point where it's not decisive enough a factor in winning games, more useful than matchwinning. I do think he would be tired from more workload yet some like Sobers managed it


Isn't 6 bats, excluding keeper, what SA had anyways before Kallis? So Kallis didn't really give an extra bat per se.

He just literally a better 5th bowling option (though in the days between Donald and Steyn a bit more). Which is very useful, balances your attack but not a matchwinning game changer overall in the sense some are presenting. In most cases, 4 main bowling options plus a part timer are sufficient, Kallis is better quality backup.

So to me, I still see it relative to batting no 8 as an AR and making the tail stronger. If you can be a specialist bat though I would still value you more then.

Would RSA have been a better team if Kallis had taken 3 WPM but only played 100 games? Marginally for those hundred games, but far worse for the games he was not playing. However you assess his low WPM in terms of personal quality, bowling him less was good for the team. And there is a very strong argument to be made that quality of a player should be defined around what they bring to a team.

Sobers was not a fast bowler, had a significantly lighter schedule, and blew out his shoulder bowling.

4 + a part timer can be sufficient(ish). It wasn't for RSA. Rubbish spin is the main factor. Without Kallis, you would be relying on some 40ish average spinner to be bowling a lot of overs. Other than some very brief periods, they only had a maximum of 2 quality bowlers. Often less. Under some circumstances they could go in with 4 bowlers. Usually they would need to drop a bat. There is a very good chance of the extra bat being game changing.