Kallis Vs Ambrose

[kyear2]

Every time Kyear and Subs go on anti Imran and Kallis crusades I end up rating them higher. They post stuff that could be accepted as minor criticisms at a cursory glance, but the criticisms get obliterated by other posters, amd extra strengths get revealed in the process.

You'll like to say that I go on anti Imran crusades, I still think he's a top 10 player and a decent candidate for an AT XI, he eviscerates Kallis, Ambrose and Lara in ways I've never attempted to with Imran. My points on Imran are the same brought up by others, his batting was soft, his home record was assisted and his away record wasn't as good as it should have been. That's it.

 

[subshakerz]

I honestly wonder if you even watch cricket.

How many overs did Stokes bowl yesterday, the WI 5th bowler the day before, both taking critical wickets, Stokes breaking the partnership.

How many overs did Stokes bowl in India? Oh that's right, zero. Because as a batting AR, his bowling load, and thus his impact, can't take too much.

And don't bring his fielding which everyone gives credit. It's his bowling that you are overrating.

 

[subshakerz]

You'll like to say that I go on anti Imran crusades, I still think he's a top 10 player and a decent candidate for an AT XI, he eviscerates Kallis, Ambrose and Lara in ways I've never attempted to with Imran. My points on Imran are the same brought up by others, his batting was soft, his home record was assisted and his away record wasn't as good as it should have been. That's it.

Bro, own your views. Don't hide behind others. 'Look they say the same, look they also poll this way'.

 

[kyear2]

How many overs did Stokes bowl in India? Oh that's right, zero. Because as a batting AR, his bowling load, and thus his impact, can't take too much.

And don't bring his fielding which everyone gives credit. It's his bowling that you are overrating.

Isn't he recovering from injuries? So that's not a fair question.

And yes, I have to include his fielding because you don't being it up, and according to one of your articles was more valuable than his fielding.

I don't deny he batted a little slow, but he was insane productive, and is it held against Hutton or Sunny? They are both top 10 bats in the eyes of the community. Now I would have preferred a more enterprising career, but it was who he was and he had quicker guys around him. Doesn't take him from being an ATG bat.
His bowling load was designed to lengthen his career, and it did. I have said it would have been better for Sobers if his had been lessened as well. He was super effective in his role and most of the batsmen dismissed were valuable top order ones.
His catching was elite and invaluable do SA, more than making up for the lack of bowling work load.
The guy was a freak and you keep trying to diminish him.

 

[subshakerz]

Isn't he recovering from injuries? So that's not a fair question.

Generally Stokes has had to drastically reduce his load and thus his impact.

And yes, I have to include his fielding because you don't being it up, and according to one of your articles was more valuable than his fielding.

It was more valuable than his bowling because his bowling is overrated by folk like you.

I don't deny he batted a little slow, but he was insane productive, and is it held against Hutton or Sunny?

Sunny and Hutton are freaking openers who have to see off a new ball. Kallis was a no.4. Thats a bogus comparison.

And it's not just 'batting slow'. Kallis couldn't dominate when his team needed him to, either in picking up the pace or scoring enough to bat a team out of a match. This affects the entire tempo of an innings and team psychology. Why should I consider a bat who can't dominate an ATG?

His bowling load was designed to lengthen his career, and it did. I have said it would have been better for Sobers if his had been lessened as well. He was super effective in his role and most of the batsmen dismissed were valuable top order ones.

He was a change bowler. He was a 5th bowling options. He was a better version of Steve Waugh or Hooper. You are presenting him as a near specialist.

 

[CartyDurham]

No it was James Anderson and Andrew Hall.

 

[shortpitched713]

He was a change bowler. He was a 5th bowling options. He was a better version of Steve Waugh or Hooper. You are presenting him as a near specialist.

I really like Steve Waugh as a bowler. Heck, I consider him to be potentially the "GOAT" of part time bowlers when it came to quality. But I would still have to say that comparing his bowling quality to Kallis's is a joke.

Kalis wasn't used as a workhorse bowler, like Sobers, he was used as a partnership breaker, and he was good at that role, in my opinion. He was shielded a bit in terms of work-rate yes, but there are obvious reasons for that. Still a player who bowled as much as him can't be protected as much as is implied, and he bowled in the same conditions and struggled through whatever a 4th/5th bowler generally struggles through (set batsmen, no new ball, etc).

And despite the need for protection due to his role, South Africa still made it a point to bowl him almost every innings that they took the field. They felt it was very important to give him that, even if it didn't always match up with his ideal use cases. In fact, he didn't rack up many DNBs at all, until about the last two years of career 2012-2013 where that rate increased.

This is a far cry from the way that someone like Steve Waugh was used, for the bulk of his own career.

 

[subshakerz]

I really like Steve Waugh as a bowler. Heck, I consider him to be potentially the "GOAT" of part time bowlers when it came to quality. But I would still have to say that comparing his bowling quality to Kallis's is a joke.

Kalis wasn't used as a workhorse bowler, like Sobers, he was used as a partnership breaker, and he was good at that role, in my opinion. He was shielded a bit in terms of work-rate yes, but there are obvious reasons for that. Still a player who bowled as much as him can't be protected as much as is implied, and he bowled in the same conditions and struggled through whatever a 4th/5th bowler generally struggles through (set batsmen, no new ball, etc).

And despite the need for protection due to his role, South Africa still made it a point to bowl him almost every innings that they took the field. They felt it was very important to give him that, even if it didn't always match up with his ideal use cases. In fact, he didn't rack up many DNBs at all, until about the last two years of career 2012-2013 where that rate increased.

This is a far cry from the way that someone like Steve Waugh was used, for the bulk of his own career.

Thanks. Those are fair points. I think the struggle is where to place Kallis since you are right he was more frequently a fixture in the attack than Waugh or other 5th bowlers, but then his load or output wouldn't qualify him as a regular seamer either. So my point was that out of all the 5th bowler options, he was perhaps the best (maybe Stokes better, not sure) but not specialist level.

 

[shortpitched713]

Thanks. Those are fair points. I think the struggle is where to place Kallis since you are right he was more frequently a fixture in the attack than Waugh or other 5th bowlers, but then his load or output wouldn't qualify him as a regular seamer either. So my point was that out of all the 5th bowler options, he was perhaps the best (maybe Stokes better, not sure) but not specialist level.

I mean, I think he's just the least used of the specialists, because it was a 4 man pace attack + a spinner (usually kind of crappy one). Sometimes he got more work, sometimes less, sometimes he could cash in a bit more when on song. But that's the inherent advantage that he AND all his bowling mates were getting out of being part of a 5 man attack instead of 4, they just had more flexibility in their utilization.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, I think he's just the least used of the specialists, because it was a 4 man pace attack + a spinner (usually kind of crappy one). Sometimes he got more work, sometimes less, sometimes he could cash in a bit more when on song. But that's the inherent advantage that he AND all his bowling mates were getting out of being part of a 5 man attack instead of 4, they just had more flexibility in their utilization.

Ok but his output is well below anything we consider specialist level, who are expected to be main wickettakers and not pure support. So it sort of defeats the purpose of calling him a specialist if it's just skill but not function.

 

[shortpitched713]

Ok but his output is well below anything we consider specialist level, who are expected to be main wickettakers and not pure support. So it sort of defeats the purpose of calling him a specialist if it's just skill but not function.

Sure, that was always the knock against him. But the plus side is, you lost nothing, and you always had that ability on tap for if the team really needed it.

 

[ankitj]

Kallis is back as a hot topic

 

[Coronis]

Ok but his output is well below anything we consider specialist level, who are expected to be main wickettakers and not pure support. So it sort of defeats the purpose of calling him a specialist if it's just skill but not function.

Nobody says he’s a great specialist? A fourth seamer shoulsn’t be a specialist. (outside of a no spin anomaly like the Windies) Also yeah no Stokes isn’t near Kallis.

 

[subshakerz]

Nobody says he’s a great specialist? A fourth seamer shoulsn’t be a specialist. (outside of a no spin anomaly like the Windies) Also yeah no Stokes isn’t near Kallis.

He isn't a fourth seamer specialist. In fact, I think there may be no such thing actually. It tends to be 3rd/4th seamer is one position.

As for Stokes, I don't see why it's not at least debatable.

 

[subshakerz]

Sure, that was always the knock against him. But the plus side is, you lost nothing, and you always had that ability on tap for if the team really needed it.

Oh yes, it definitely worked for SA.

 

[Coronis]

He isn't a fourth seamer specialist. In fact, I think there may be no such thing actually. It tends to be 3rd/4th seamer is one position.

As for Stokes, I don't see why it's not at least debatable.

Yeah you’re right re: Stokes, I might have been confusing his overall figures with someone else. Plus again with a current player, recency bias (excluding this series)

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah you’re right re: Stokes, I might have been confusing his overall figures with someone else. Plus again with a current player, recency bias (excluding this series)

No worries.