Jacques Kallis vs Jack Hobbs

[Coronis]

13 overs a game? How many games were they 4th seamer?

9 for Kasprowicz, 13 for Bichel.

 

[shortpitched713]

This is the first time I've been unable to suppress the urge, maybe it's my old age:

Mother****ers, this is a Kallis vs Hobbs thread. Can we not make it about Imran Khan!

 

[subshakerz]

9 for Kasprowicz, 13 for Bichel.

Yeah that's only a minority of tests. I think you inadvertently raise a fair point, there may not be such a thing as a specialist fourth seamer. Bowlers usually then are selected as third seamers and depending on the lineup then bowl fourth seamer. Or start as fourth seamer and graduate to third seamer.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah that's only a minority of tests. I think you inadvertently raise a fair point, there may not be such a thing as a specialist fourth seamer. Bowlers usually then are selected as third seamers and depending on the lineup then bowl fourth seamer. Or start as fourth seamer and graduate to third seamer.

Unless you're 80s WI of course.

 

[subshakerz]

Unless you're 80s WI of course.

True.

 

[kyear2]

That is true. But I think you can make a stats-based case that Kallis was overrated too.

This article lays out an excellent case that Kallis' wasn't an allrounder really comparable with any of the other great ARs. Primarily because the way he was used as a bowler was quite marginal to SA's bowling plans. Worth a read.

Can Kallis really be called an allrounder?

Jacques Kallis was among the greatest of batsmen who could bowl, but he doesn't belong to the pantheon of legendary allrounders like Sobers, Imran and Botham

www.espncricinfo.com

Is this who was the better test cricketer or all rounder. Two different things, and yes btw, Kallis is an all rounder.

Kallis was just an effective batsman as Imran was a bowler, contributing at an ATG level and out outside of the absolute top tier. He also contributed as an ATG catcher.

For the most of those careers, one was a good 5th blower and one a good lower order bat. Neither came close to great or world class in their other roles.

 

[subshakerz]

Is this who was the better test cricketer or all rounder. Two different things, and yes btw, Kallis is an all rounder.

Kallis was just an effective batsman as Imran was a bowler, contributing at an ATG level and out outside of the absolute top tier. He also contributed as an ATG catcher.

For the most of those careers, one was a good 5th blower and one a good lower order bat. Neither came close to great or world class in their other roles.

Dude stop bringing a clearly superior cricketer like Imran into threads about Kallis. Can't you see posters are fed up with it?

As for Kallis the supposed matchwinner super critical absolutely indispensable bowler, read the article, it shows he isn't in the same class as the top ARs.

 

[kyear2]

You know, the one ranking cricketers all time. Rather than ataraxia's poll which was about pace bowling trios, which is a different thing and also a format where votes can sometimes be split and won't provide an accurate picture of their actual ranking relative to each other.

I think you know all of this and are also quite aware that imran is a consensus number 3 cricketer on CW but want to deny it for some reason.

Ahhhh

No.

The highlighted part is particularly egregious and is actually the inverse and actually quite accurate for the ranking poll.

First up there's no vote splitting for voting for a trio, you choose the 3 best options, factoring in everything btw, from all of the players to have ever played the game, who are best suited to form the attack.

The poll was started to prove mine was wrong, and that given a choice, most wouldn't choose the best three bowlers, but the best three batsmen among the bowlers. My guy finished last, but the top3 bolwers finished on top and it wasn't remotely close.

Of the 54 votes each received

Marshall - 51 (94%)

Next were

McGrath and Hadlee - 29 (54%)
&
Imran and Wasim - 17 (31%)

Note the separation only two players in the 20's and Imran reviving only a third of the vote and tied with Wasim for said 4th. He was closer to Ambrose in 6th than he was to 3rd. That's not votes being split, and quite definitive.

While the bowling trio poll was had a good sample size and votes definitive, while having a clear objective and definition ... The player rankings tended to be more haphazard, greater about of players factored in, and with no definition, some just turn it into a listing of all rounders, and yes, this is where the vote splitting occurs. Not to mention the massive gap between 2nd and 3rd.

The poll being referenced had only 24 participants, so you're starting with a much smaller sample size, which when added to point allocations, gives greater impact to a few disproportionate votes.

There were also much more persons nominated, especially considering the far smaller vote count.

So with all of that being said...

Oh, and if you're wondering why didn't the persons who voted him 3rd (or better), also not vote for him in the blowing trio thread? No need to wonder, they all did.

Of the 24 participants, how many actually ranked Imran 3rd or higher?

Seven (7).

One person voted him 2nd, no prizes for guessing who.
Six voted him 3rd, again no need for guesses.

Out of 24 votes, only 7 persons voted him into the position he ended up, btw that's what vote splitting looks like.(Similar to the Cricinfo votes after 2nd)

So again, if the majority of the forum thought he was top 3 (which apparently they don't), they would have also voted him into the top trio.

Think about it, it's like having the best possible group of players available for your club team and saying Timmy is easily the 3rd best, but he's not making the team?

Subz loves to maintain that Wisden's only allowed on all-rounder, with zero evidence mind you. The truth is that none of us has a clue how they came to their conclusions.

Yes Imran was a top 10 bowler and really good lower order batsman, not arguing that in the slightest, but in the end shouldn't we be ranking them on what they were primarily selected to do? It's at least arguable.

 

[kyear2]

This is the first time I've been unable to suppress the urge, maybe it's my old age:

Mother****ers, this is a Kallis vs Hobbs thread. Can we not make it about Imran Khan!

Oh wow, your rage.... Let me stop then

 

[kyear2]

Dude stop bringing a clearly superior cricketer like Imran into threads about Kallis. Can't you see posters are fed up with it?

As for Kallis the supposed matchwinner super critical absolutely indispensable bowler, read the article, it shows he isn't in the same class as the top ARs.

The article was full of ****. Even watching cricket today, it's clear the absolute value of having a 5th bowling option.

And as for being up the clearly superior cricketer, I will bring up whomever to highlight the inconsistency of your arguments.

 

[capt_Luffy]

@kyear2 I take your point on Imran, but rating based on them making an arbitrary ATXI is far from really a sound criteria. I don't know about NFL and NBA, but at least not in cricket.

 

[Coronis]

@kyear2 I take your point on Imran, but rating based on them making an arbitrary ATXI is far from really a sound criteria. I don't know about NFL and NBA, but at least not in cricket.

Oh right I meant to make a response on this too. Arguably 5 (definitely 4) of the best 10 players of all time played the centre position… Multiple centres are ranked in the top 5 players quite often, but obviously not all of them would make someone’s all time starting 5..

All time starting 5’s in NBA are even more chemistry dependant than in a cricket team tbh. See: Curry often being picked in all time teams because he’d pair better with LeBron than Magic (the top PG) would.

For example @kyear2 I have 3 centres in my top 5 players but only 1 is going to make it to my all time starting 5. So yeah that argument with Imran and Kallis not making ATG sides…

 

[shortpitched713]

AT XI is only one way to make ranking lists.

And it's one which ignores comparative vs absolute advantages that players can bring.

 

[Prince EWS]

1. Yes it was, that's not even an argument

 

[kyear2]

Oh right I meant to make a response on this too. Arguably 5 (definitely 4) of the best 10 players of all time played the centre position… Multiple centres are ranked in the top 5 players quite often, but obviously not all of them would make someone’s all time starting 5..

All time starting 5’s in NBA are even more chemistry dependant than in a cricket team tbh. See: Curry often being picked in all time teams because he’d pair better with LeBron than Magic (the top PG) would.

For example @kyear2 I have 3 centres in my top 5 players but only 1 is going to make it to my all time starting 5. So yeah that argument with Imran and Kallis not making ATG sides…

Good point, and good discussion point I will pursue in the NBA thread, have thoughts on that.

With regards to this, I personally only have 1 centre in my top 5, but I get you. In your scenario the best centre, and best player (Kareem gets in).

Cricket is different, there are no (except wicketkeeper) natural restrictions. In the recent poll that I referenced, no one is placing a restriction on which bowlers to choose, yet 2/3's of those polled went against choosing Immy.
Kallis is even easier, Sobers makes the team even if he wasn't an all rounder, his batting and catching covers that. Kallis similarly as an all round package can usurp anyone for the 4 and 5 positions. If you think he's the 4th best player ever, choose him (in your scenario) over Hutton, or Sachin. Extra bowling, as we're seeing in this test is always welcome and would there have ever been a stronger cordon than Hammond, Kallis and Sobers? You're covered for everything and was he really that far from Sachin if that's your argument?

Unlike basketball there's no reason to not select anyone because of position, though they are moving to position less basketball.

I have to go, but if you legit believe Imran's the 3rd best or valuable player ever, why isn't he in your team? For you, easy, Marshall, McGrath, Imran... Unless you don't think he was a good enough bowler, then what are we doing? Just adding numbers together and ranking the top all rounders as the top players?

Just my two cents, the logic doesn't make sense to me, that's all.

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2 I take your point on Imran, but rating based on them making an arbitrary ATXI is far from really a sound criteria. I don't know about NFL and NBA, but at least not in cricket.

Why not? Id you're the best player for your club, aren't you making the team?

For the record, I think Imran is a decent call, his batting is a good argument, but if you're not choosing him, how can he be third best?

That's literally it,.doesn't apply to you of course, but the polling for top 10's is a mess, and everyone's criteria is different. But vote splitting is a thing, especially when less than a quarter of voters, voted for you in the position you ended up.

If you had to argue which one was more indicative, which of the two was more representative?
The 54 man poll which was clear and conclusive, or the one of less than half the size where only 7/24 voted the guy who came no. 3 that high?

 

[subshakerz]

Ahhhh

No.

The highlighted part is particularly egregious and is actually the inverse and actually quite accurate for the ranking poll.

First up there's no vote splitting for voting for a trio, you choose the 3 best options, factoring in everything btw, from all of the players to have ever played the game, who are best suited to form the attack.

The poll was started to prove mine was wrong, and that given a choice, most wouldn't choose the best three bowlers, but the best three batsmen among the bowlers. My guy finished last, but the top3 bolwers finished on top and it wasn't remotely close.

Of the 54 votes each received

Marshall - 51 (94%)

Next were

McGrath and Hadlee - 29 (54%)
&
Imran and Wasim - 17 (31%)

Note the separation only two players in the 20's and Imran reviving only a third of the vote and tied with Wasim for said 4th. He was closer to Ambrose in 6th than he was to 3rd. That's not votes being split, and quite definitive.

While the bowling trio poll was had a good sample size and votes definitive, while having a clear objective and definition ... The player rankings tended to be more haphazard, greater about of players factored in, and with no definition, some just turn it into a listing of all rounders, and yes, this is where the vote splitting occurs. Not to mention the massive gap between 2nd and 3rd.

The poll being referenced had only 24 participants, so you're starting with a much smaller sample size, which when added to point allocations, gives greater impact to a few disproportionate votes.

There were also much more persons nominated, especially considering the far smaller vote count.

So with all of that being said...

Oh, and if you're wondering why didn't the persons who voted him 3rd (or better), also not vote for him in the blowing trio thread? No need to wonder, they all did.

Of the 24 participants, how many actually ranked Imran 3rd or higher?

Seven (7).

One person voted him 2nd, no prizes for guessing who.
Six voted him 3rd, again no need for guesses.

Out of 24 votes, only 7 persons voted him into the position he ended up, btw that's what vote splitting looks like.(Similar to the Cricinfo votes after 2nd)

So again, if the majority of the forum thought he was top 3 (which apparently they don't), they would have also voted him into the top trio.

Think about it, it's like having the best possible group of players available for your club team and saying Timmy is easily the 3rd best, but he's not making the team?

Subz loves to maintain that Wisden's only allowed on all-rounder, with zero evidence mind you. The truth is that none of us has a clue how they came to their conclusions.

Yes Imran was a top 10 bowler and really good lower order batsman, not arguing that in the slightest, but in the end shouldn't we be ranking them on what they were primarily selected to do? It's at least arguable.

Dude are you literally trying to break down our CW polls to find a way to discredit the fact that Imran was a solid no.3 choice by the board? That's pathetic. By the way Cricinfo is clear that they had only one AR spot, they picked Imran at no.6 in their second team, why can't Wisden have the same logic since their side has the same makeup?

 

[subshakerz]

The article was full of ****. Even watching cricket today, it's clear the absolute value of having a 5th bowling option.

And as for being up the clearly superior cricketer, I will bring up whomever to highlight the inconsistency of your arguments.

This is so rich. @kyear2 , the guy who went on and on and on about how no.8 bats are overrated and 'well, if the regular bats fail, what's the use of the no.8' now will turn on a dime and suggest that a 5th bowling option like Kallis, who he says is not even a test standard bowler, is somehow critical and indispensable for the team. Typical double standards.

Dude, do you not watch cricket? I watched Kallis' entire career and if you think his bowling was this game changer, you're just fooling yourself and others.

Kallis was a 5th bowler. Like Aamer Sohail, Michael Clarke, Joe Root and Carl Hooper. Yes, he was better than all of them, but ultimately his role was the same. Be a change bowler, let the main bowlers rest, and take the odd partnership breaking wicket. Useful, in Kallis' case very useful, but not a game changer.

And if you think Kallis' light bowling load and minnow bashing is irrelevant, then why rate Sobers ahead of him as a bowler. Of course, you didn't mind bringing up bowling load then, but when someone mentions Imran, suddenly it's a non-issue.

Stop being dishonest.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Why not? Id you're the best player for your club, aren't you making the team?

For the record, I think Imran is a decent call, his batting is a good argument, but if you're not choosing him, how can he be third best?

That's literally it,.doesn't apply to you of course, but the polling for top 10's is a mess, and everyone's criteria is different. But vote splitting is a thing, especially when less than a quarter of voters, voted for you in the position you ended up.

If you had to argue which one was more indicative, which of the two was more representative?
The 54 man poll which was clear and conclusive, or the one of less than half the size where only 7/24 voted the guy who came no. 3 that high?

Because the team combination is a thing. Everybody has different criterias there. So even the 2nd best player of All Time can not make many AT teams. To give you an example, suppose a player comes who averages 55 with bat and 22 with ball over 125 games. A legit contender for GOAT, he will walk into the AT teams. And then, Sobers will no longer be an automatic selection. So will Sobers no longer be the 3rd best cricketer?? He will drop multiple spots for the arrival of one player? Getting my point.....
See, just to put things in perspective of course not everyone rates him at 3rd. I don't rate him at 3rd. But that's not really how you look at a consensus. You know out of those 24, how many voted Imran to be in Top 10? 22. And on average he got a noticeably higher ranking than Sachin and Hadlee who got 20 votes. Just for perspective, at 3rd place Imran had 143 points, 33 clear of Grace and 40 of Sachin. That's a significant portion rating Imran higher. And yes, even with the smaller voter base and wider criteria (which if anything helped Grace, Sachin and Hadlee, the other best contenders); I think my Poll was significantly more conclusive on this matter than Ataraxia's.

 

[subshakerz]

Because the team combination is a thing. Everybody has different criterias there. So even the 2nd best player of All Time can not make many AT teams. To give you an example, suppose a player comes who averages 55 with bat and 22 with ball over 125 games. A legit contender for GOAT, he will walk into the AT teams. And then, Sobers will no longer be an automatic selection. So will Sobers no longer be the 3rd best cricketer?? He will drop multiple spots for the arrival of one player? Getting my point.....
See, just to put things in perspective of course not everyone rates him at 3rd. I don't rate him at 3rd. But that's not really how you look at a consensus. You know out of those 24, how many voted Imran to be in Top 10? 22. And on average he got a noticeably higher ranking than Sachin and Hadlee who got 20 votes. Just for perspective, at 3rd place Imran had 143 points, 33 clear of Grace and 40 of Sachin. That's a significant portion rating Imran higher. And yes, even with the smaller voter based and wider criteria (which if anything helped Grace, Sachin and Hadlee, the other best contenders); I think my Pollock was significantly more conclusive on this matter than Ataraxia's.

My friend, do you honestly think that @kyear2 actually believes these ATGs XIs mean that much about player rankings? Of course he doesn't. It's all about excluding one player.

Otherwise he would have to address how his number 2 bowling of all-time McGrath didn't get selected in his two sacred XIs. In fact, he wasn't even in Cricinfo's Second ATG XI that he gives so much credit to.