Kallis Vs Ambrose

[subshakerz]

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.

Sure he lessened his bowling for a longer career. My point is that once you fall beneath a particular threshold in your secondary role, the cumulative aspect over a longer career stretch doesn't compensate in terms of match to match impact of doing it at a higher level for maybe 100 tests (just for bowling, not his batting which benefitted by a longer career for less bowling). Overall it's more than useful but questionable if it translated into the same net gain if he performed at a higher level for 100 tests. I still have to judge Kallis by his overall numbers.

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.

Going through the scorecards they rarely did that. Excluding the 90s, it would be classic 6 bats, Boucher and four bowlers, with Kallis as 4th/5th the seamer depending on how bad the spinner was

 

[Bolo.]

Sure he lessened his bowling for a longer career. My point is that once you fall beneath a particular threshold in your secondary role, the cumulative aspect over a longer career stretch doesn't compensate in terms of match to match impact of doing it at a higher level for maybe 100 tests (just for bowling, not his batting which benefitted by a longer career for less bowling). Overall it's more than useful but questionable if it translated into the same net gain if he performed at a higher level for 100 tests. I still have to judge Kallis by his overall numbers.

I assume you mean for bowling only? Losing him completely as a bowler would likely see him lost as a bat too, which would be a huge loss. He said he was cutting back on bowling to extent his shelf life as a player, not a bowler.

Even just bowling, it's better. His bowling was limited to the times it was needed.

Going through the scorecards they rarely did that. Excluding the 90s, it would be classic 6 bats, Boucher and four bowlers, with Kallis as 4th/5th the seamer depending on how bad the spinner was

They usually played 5 bats, 4 bowlers + Kallis because Kallis bowled. Hypothetically, if he wasn't an AR they would often decide they needed more than 4 and drop a bat. Not sure why you think the scorecards are painting a different picture?

 

[subshakerz]

I assume you mean for bowling only? Losing him completely as a bowler would likely see him lost as a bat too, which would be a huge loss. He said he was cutting back on bowling to extent his shelf life as a player, not a bowler.

Even just bowling, it's better. His bowling was limited to the times it was needed.

Sure but realistically this will mark him down as an AR in terms of how we value him. Because it's less match value but spread over a longer period.

They usually played 5 bats, 4 bowlers + Kallis because Kallis bowled. Hypothetically, if he wasn't an AR they would often decide they needed more than 4 and drop a bat. Not sure why you think the scorecards are painting a different picture?

No,.my point is before Kallis came into the picture for SA it was often the same lineup. 5 bats, keeper, 4 bowlers plus one more bat who also did part time bowling. So the real value of Kallis isn't necessarily in changing the side or adding an extra bat but being a better than part timer bowling option.

 

[Bolo.]

Sure but realistically this will mark him down as an AR in terms of how we value him. Because it's less match value but spread over a longer period.

I entirely get the thought process behind marking him down in relation to someone like Sobers in output per game. I doubt I would rate Sobers ahead if not for it.

But it's crazy to ask him to carry a workload multiple tiers above what anyone else has managed. And it's crazy to penalize him for a decision that helped the team.

So I say Imran wins on game by game and Kallis.wins on career.

No,.my point is before Kallis came into the picture for SA it was often the same lineup. 5 bats, keeper, 4 bowlers plus one more bat who also did part time bowling. So the real value of Kallis isn't necessarily in changing the side or adding an extra bat but being a better than part timer bowling option.

What relevance is the lineup before Kallis came into the side, except so far as some the players continued for a bit of the start of his career? It's different resources. Early 90s had McMillan, who was basically just Kallis lite, and still extremely good. 2000s had Hall. Or a bowler worse than Nel. Neither are appealing choices.

 

[subshakerz]

I entirely get the thought process behind marking him down in relation to someone like Sobers in output per game. I doubt I would rate Sobers ahead if not for it.

But it's crazy to ask him to carry a workload multiple tiers above what anyone else has managed. And it's crazy to penalize him for a decision that helped the team.

So I say Imran wins on game by game and Kallis.wins on career.

I'm not penalising him for anything. Actually it's your approach that effectively penalises bowling ARs who have shorter careers and therefore even if they have excelled at batting moreso than Kallis at bowling, they lose by default in comparisons because it is far easier for Kallis to pare down his bowling and then claim more credit for on average increasingly lesser returns.

It's a simple question. In his overall career, how good a bowler should Kallis be judged? If you want to say that it's fairer to judge him by maybe 2/3rds of his career but not beyond then that maybe can be an argument.

But it's not fair to just give his bowling automatic longevity points to pare with specialists ARs when we don't do that to make Anderson's wickets into him being elite class or Warne's runs into him being an AR.

What relevance is the lineup before Kallis came into the side, except so far as some the players continued for a bit of the start of his career? It's different resources. Early 90s had McMillan, who was basically just Kallis lite, and still extremely good. 2000s had Hall. Or a bowler worse than Nel. Neither are appealing choices.

Because your claim was that Kallis gave SA an extra bat. Yet before Kallis and during his time it was effectively the same makeup, except Kallis was a much better 5th bowler option.

 

[Bolo.]

I'm not penalising him for anything. Actually it's your approach that effectively penalises bowling ARs who have shorter careers and therefore even if they have excelled at batting moreso than Kallis at bowling, they lose by default in comparisons because it is far easier for Kallis to pare down his bowling and then claim more credit for on average increasingly lesser returns.

It's a simple question. In his overall career, how good a bowler should Kallis be judged? If you want to say that it's fairer to judge him by maybe 2/3rds of his career but not beyond then that maybe can be an argument.

But it's not fair to just give his bowling automatic longevity points to pare with specialists ARs when we don't do that to make Anderson's wickets into him being elite class or Warne's runs into him being an AR.


Because your claim was that Kallis gave SA an extra bat. Yet before Kallis and during his time it was effectively the same makeup, except Kallis was a much better 5th bowler option.

Do you believe that Kallis the player helped his team by playing longer?
Do you believe Kallis when he said he would not be able to play as long if he didn't dial back the bowling.

If the answer both of these is yes, then you are penalising him for a smart call.

Fair point on the bowling/batting AR. He's so far ahead on workload that it's not an important one though.

On quality, not role: Kallis, even at peak, was never much better than a mediocre quality bowler by specialist standards. I tend to rate him in line with mediocre bowlers. Between Nel and Ntini of the guys he played a lot with, but closer to Nel. I'm not really a fan of neatly axing sections of records, but I'm making some allowance for Kallis having a better peak than Nel's career. And some allowance for him being worse thereafter. Which comes in a watered down form, because, like other medoicre quicks, he wouldn't have been selected for his bowling alone after his peak. By the standards of batsmen, his bowling is magnificent.

Everyone credits Anderson for his longevity. We don't see him being grouped with someone like Hazelwood. Anderson doesn't usually get grouped with elites cos he falls short on measures of quality other than those related to longevity. If you want to argue that Kallis didn't have the quality, this would be analogous to the Anderson example. Workload criticisms are not.

I credit Warne for his batting, so far as a 17 average allows. If Kallis averaged a comparable 45? with the ball, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I excluded 90s for the extra bat factor. Why would I possibly be referring to adding a bat from before Kallis even played? This is a 2000s thing. In the 2000s, with 2000s resources, RSA often played one specialist bat more than they would have if Kallis did not bowl. And this is where a huge portion of his value as a bowler came from. However you assess his quality and workload, 6 bats are a whole lot better than 5.

 

[subshakerz]

Do you believe that Kallis the player helped his team by playing longer?
Do you believe Kallis when he said he would not be able to play as long if he didn't dial back the bowling.

If the answer both of these is yes, then you are penalising him for a smart call.

No, he made the smart call, but then I am asking by what standards as an AR should be judge him after he dialed back his bowling.

Fair point on the bowling/batting AR. He's so far ahead on workload that it's not an important one though.

On quality, not role: Kallis, even at peak, was never much better than a mediocre quality bowler by specialist standards. I tend to rate him in line with mediocre bowlers. Between Nel and Ntini of the guys he played a lot with, but closer to Nel. I'm not really a fan of neatly axing sections of records, but I'm making some allowance for Kallis having a better peak than Nel's career. And some allowance for him being worse thereafter. Which comes in a watered down form, because, like other medoicre quicks, he wouldn't have been selected for his bowling alone after his peak. By the standards of batsmen, his bowling is magnificent.

Nel would be a decent comparison, though it should be pointed out that even in Kallis' bowling peak, he wasnt nearly giving the output that Nel was. When we are comparing Imran's batting, it is with other lower order bats of his era, not as a bowler who can bat. Kallis doesnt quite make it there which was by point all along.

Everyone credits Anderson for his longevity. We don't see him being grouped with someone like Hazelwood. Anderson doesn't usually get grouped with elites cos he falls short on measures of quality other than those related to longevity. If you want to argue that Kallis didn't have the quality, this would be analogous to the Anderson example. Workload criticisms are not.

I credit Warne for his batting, so far as a 17 average allows. If Kallis averaged a comparable 45? with the ball, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

In judging Kallis the bowler, I would either judge Kallis for his bowling prime or the entire career, rather than a speculative cumulative value one because all ARs give their team dynamics these sort of benefits.

I excluded 90s for the extra bat factor. Why would I possibly be referring to adding a bat from before Kallis even played? This is a 2000s thing. In the 2000s, with 2000s resources, RSA often played one specialist bat more than they would have if Kallis did not bowl. And this is where a huge portion of his value as a bowler came from. However you assess his quality and workload, 6 bats are a whole lot better than 5.

Except like I said, pretty much every team plays six regular bats anyways. So I dont see an extra bat if you have a top six already. Show me a scorecard where there is an extra bat.

 

[Bolo.]

No, he made the smart call, but then I am asking by what standards as an AR should be judge him after he dialed back his bowling.


Nel would be a decent comparison, though it should be pointed out that even in Kallis' bowling peak, he wasnt nearly giving the output that Nel was. When we are comparing Imran's batting, it is with other lower order bats of his era, not as a bowler who can bat. Kallis doesnt quite make it there which was by point all along.


In judging Kallis the bowler, I would either judge Kallis for his bowling prime or the entire career, rather than a speculative cumulative value one because all ARs give their team dynamics these sort of benefits.


Except like I said, pretty much every team plays six regular bats anyways. So I dont see an extra bat if you have a top six already. Show me a scorecard where there is an extra bat.

Nel is a comment on quality, not output. If a specialist bowler and your best bat are of similar quality, you are definitely going to bowl the specialist more.

I checked 3 matches Kallis missed in the 2000s. First 2 and last. 5 bats. Last one they even played 5 quicks. Kallis very much gave RSA an extra bat in a significant proportion of games.

First match Kallis missed in the 2000s:

Scorecard - 2003 England v South Africa - 1st Test - 24/07/2003 - Edgbaston, Birmingham - Test No. #1651

Test Cricket - Scorecard: 2003 England v South Africa - 1st Test - 24th July, 2003 - Edgbaston

www.howstat.com

 

[subshakerz]

Nel is a comment on quality, not output. If a specialist bowler and your best bat are of similar quality, you are definitely going to bowl the specialist more.

But it doesnt matter if its the same quality really if you dont get the same output. Kallis was bowling around 12 overs an inning at his peak, that is quite marginal. I think it is fair to rate those most active in their secondary disciplines ahead.

I checked 3 matches Kallis missed in the 2000s. First 2 and last. 5 bats. Last one they even played 5 quicks. Kallis very much gave RSA an extra bat in a significant proportion of games.

First match Kallis missed in the 2000s:

Scorecard - 2003 England v South Africa - 1st Test - 24/07/2003 - Edgbaston, Birmingham - Test No. #1651

Test Cricket - Scorecard: 2003 England v South Africa - 1st Test - 24th July, 2003 - Edgbaston

www.howstat.com

I find it a bit of a stretch that unless Kallis was playing, they would pick five specialist bowlers every time. They did this time likely because their bowling quality was bad.

How many bowlers did they have in the other two games Kallis missed?

 

[subshakerz]

A decent read on Kallis:

https://www.theroar.com.au/2015/12/19/jacques-kallis-career-has-been-overrated/

 

[Bolo.]

But it doesnt matter if its the same quality really if you dont get the same output. Kallis was bowling around 12 overs an inning at his peak, that is quite marginal. I think it is fair to rate those most active in their secondary disciplines ahead.


I find it a bit of a stretch that unless Kallis was playing, they would pick five specialist bowlers every time. They did this time likely because their bowling quality was bad.

How many bowlers did they have in the other two games Kallis missed?

I didn't claim Kallis gave a bat every game, just a significant portion of them. You don't need 100% for the value add from Kallis' bowling to be way, way above the wickets he takes.

All 3 games had 5 specialist bats. Across the matches cumulatively, there's Pollock, a couple of guys who averaged in the 20s with the bat, and a bunch of proper tailenders.

 

[subshakerz]

I didn't claim Kallis gave a bat every game, just a significant portion of them. You don't need 100% for the value add from Kallis' bowling to be way, way above the wickets he takes.

All 3 games had 5 specialist bats. Across the matches cumulatively, there's Pollock, a couple of guys who averaged in the 20s with the bat, and a bunch of proper tailenders.

I don't think it was a significant portion. Can you show the other two scorecards? I want to see if they had five bowlers.

 

[Bolo.]

I don't think it was a significant portion. Can you show the other two scorecards? I want to see if they had five bowlers.

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

That's all the matches Kallis missed in the 2000s. They all have 5 bats and 5 bowlers/bits and pieces players. I don't think 100% would be maintained if he never bowled, but it would definitely be a significant proportion.

 

[subshakerz]

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

That's all the matches Kallis missed in the 2000s. They all have 5 bats and 5 bowlers/bits and pieces players. I don't think 100% would be maintained if he never bowled, but it would definitely be a significant proportion.

In two of them, they play 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers. The others mostly have a poorer AR instead of Kallis.

I understand the point you are trying to make , which I agree earlier, that Kallis helps the team balance, but mostly in the obvious way of having 5 bowling options without sacrificing your batting.

It's a bit more unclear to say that he saved them a bat. Certainly not for most of his career, and in the that brief early 2000s portion, perhaps some of the time when they felt 5 bowling options were necessary (and even then if Kallis was not there, it would be a lesser AR, not necessarily a pure bowler).

 

[Bolo.]

In two of them, they play 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers. The others mostly have a poorer AR instead of Kallis.

I understand the point you are trying to make , which I agree earlier, that Kallis helps the team balance, but mostly in the obvious way of having 5 bowling options without sacrificing your batting.

It's a bit more unclear to say that he saved them a bat. Certainly not for most of his career, and in the that brief early 2000s portion, perhaps some of the time when they felt 5 bowling options were necessary (and even then if Kallis was not there, it would be a lesser AR, not necessarily a pure bowler).

I assume the two you think have 6 bats are when Hall opened? He was a bits and pieces player, promoted to open from number 9, Jack Leach style, cos RSA didn't have an opener.

The guys you are calling ARs are what I've been calling bad bits and pieces players. The highest test batting average any of them have is 27 (besides Pollock, who gets in regardless of whether Kallis bowls). And they are all worse bowlers than Kallis.

You wanted scorecard evidence. You have it. It's very clear he allowed them an extra specialist bat in a significant amount of games. The value of his bowling was far greater than just the wickets he actually took.

 

[subshakerz]

I assume the two you think have 6 bats are when Hall opened? He was a bits and pieces player, promoted to open from number 9, Jack Leach style, cos RSA didn't have an opener.

The guys you are calling ARs are what I've been calling bad bits and pieces players. The highest test batting average any of them have is 27 (besides Pollock, who gets in regardless of whether Kallis bowls). And they are all worse bowlers than Kallis.

You wanted scorecard evidence. You have it. It's very clear he allowed them an extra specialist bat in a significant amount of games. The value of his bowling was far greater than just the wickets he actually took.

I think this is more evidence that SA had a problem with their bench at that time. They tried to replace Kallis and the 5th bowling option with far inferior ARs. He didn't literally give them an extra bat most of the time, but a far better bat than his bit-and-pieces replacements.

But I will agree with your larger point on his being valuable to the makeup of his side, since we can make a case that Kallis being such a good 5th bowler AR in the first place may have influenced the team to keep that combo even when he was injured.

 

[Bolo.]

I think this is more evidence that SA had a problem with their bench at that time. They tried to replace Kallis and the 5th bowling option with far inferior ARs. He didn't literally give them an extra bat most of the time, but a far better bat than his bit-and-pieces replacements.

But I will agree with your larger point on his being valuable to the makeup of his side, since we can make a case that Kallis being such a good 5th bowler AR in the first place may have influenced the team to keep that combo even when he was injured.

He makes the team as a bat if he didn't bowl. His bowling gave an extra specialist bat, and an upgrade on bowling.

Your second paragraph is a funny way of saying 'the evidence I asked for shows the exact opposite of what I was hoping for, so I'm going to try find an explanation that doesn't make him look as good'. Kallis was so good that he made the selectors dumber? RSA selectors wanted 5 bowlers for good reason. How often do other teams pick 5 bowling options without an eye on batting?

 

[subshakerz]

He makes the team as a bat if he didn't bowl. His bowling gave an extra specialist bat, and an upgrade on bowling.

His bowling upgraded team bowling sure but overall he didn't create a new bat in the lineup. Every team normally has a top six and so they did with Kallis That would only be the case if they were playing seven bats including Kallis and Kallis was one of four bowlers.

Your second paragraph is a funny way of saying 'the evidence I asked for shows the exact opposite of what I was hoping for, so I'm going to try find an explanation that doesn't make him look as good'. Kallis was so good that he made the selectors dumber? RSA selectors wanted 5 bowlers for good reason. How often do other teams pick 5 bowling options without an eye on batting?

Calm down you're saying exactly what I am here. With Kallis they had five bowling options plus his batting role and without him tried to keep that dynamic but suffered because no other AR was near good enough to really replace him.

 

[Bolo.]

His bowling upgraded team bowling sure but overall he didn't create a new bat in the lineup. Every team normally has a top six and so they did with Kallis That would only be the case if they were playing seven bats including Kallis and Kallis was one of four bowlers.


Calm down you're saying exactly what I am here. With Kallis they had five bowling options plus his batting role and without him tried to keep that dynamic but suffered because no other AR was near good enough to really replace him.

RSA got to play their best 6 bats instead of 5. You do recognize this, yes?

Other teams aren't relevant to the value he brought to RSA. His role wouldn't be the same in them. For a bunch of other teams he'd probably have been an opening bowler, take stacks more WPM, and have a shorter career. Sometimes he replaces a bowler and sometimes a bat.

 

[subshakerz]

RSA got to play their best 6 bats instead of 5. You do recognize this, yes?

Other teams aren't relevant to the value he brought to RSA. His role wouldn't be the same in them. For a bunch of other teams he'd probably have been an opening bowler, take stacks more WPM, and have a shorter career. Sometimes he replaces a bowler and sometimes a bat.

Maybe I am struggling to understand what you mean by extra bat if SA would have tried someone who can bat to fill Kallis' position anyways.