Jacques Kallis vs Jack Hobbs

[kyear2]

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?

If someone makes a statement that was false and I correct them, using factual statements, how's that pathetic.
Of the 24 voters (small sample size, even on the first page or so of the other poll, I suggested that it would be better if at least 50 members voted to give a clear consensus), only 7 rated him as high as 3rd.
That's not a solid consensus. There's never been a solid consensus as the no 3 guy in history, and this site more than anywhere else I've seen have decided that were going by all rounder rankings.

The only hint Wisden have to their rankings is that they used cricket in general rather than just test cricket, this including first class and odi's. That could have been what pushed Wasim ahead, we have literally no idea, so to keep pushing that narrative is kinda disingenuous, especially to your own countryman.

After the Cricinfo votes, it was suggested that Imran was the 2nd best all rounder, but that the 3rd best player, obviously decided by bored would be Warne, followed by Sachin.

The issue I have with the argument here, is like it's pretended that Imran is the undisputed no. 3 ever, if not a contender for 2nd. You know that's not true anywhere and that there's always seen that there's a top 2 and a "who is it" for no. 3 with multiple candidates, which I acknowledge Imran definitely to be one.
He's not mine, but any logic that elevates him, also has to bring Kallis along, which is the part you are vehemently against. If we're using cumulative numbers, and you're elevating Imran above his bowling station, then Kallis is there as well with his bowling and even more impressively, his catching.

That's my issue with you, the inconsistency, and not unintentionally. You've been trying to pull down Kallis for the past God knows how long, just for that purpose.

Even though I disagree with Coronis, he's consistent from that perspective.

Who after Bradman and Sobers?

Shane Warne and Sachin Tendulkar have effectively been voted the third and fourth-greatest cricketers in the game's history

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Coronis]

Consistency is key, in both cricket and arguing about cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

If someone makes a statement that was false and I correct them, using factual statements, how's that pathetic.
Of the 24 voters (small sample size, even on the first page or so of the other poll, I suggested that it would be better if at least 50 members voted to give a clear consensus), only 7 rated him as high as 3rd.
That's not a solid consensus. There's never been a solid consensus as the no 3 guy in history, and this site more than anywhere else I've seen have decided that were going by all rounder rankings.

Scrounging around looking at polls to find cheap points to discredit a player is pretty and pathetic. Don't know what else to tell you.

The only hint Wisden have to their rankings is that they used cricket in general rather than just test cricket, this including first class and odi's. That could have been what pushed Wasim ahead, we have literally no idea, so to keep pushing that narrative is kinda disingenuous, especially to your own countryman.

I do have an idea. Wisden does not think Wasim is a better cricketer than Imran. If you believe that, you are either fooling yourself or lying. They think Wasim is a better bowler.

After the Cricinfo votes, it was suggested that Imran was the 2nd best all rounder, but that the 3rd best player, obviously decided by bored would be Warne, followed by Sachin.

Confirming that they had one AR per side.

The issue I have with the argument here, is like it's pretended that Imran is the undisputed no. 3 ever, if not a contender for 2nd. .

It isn't undisputed. Even I don't necessarily rate Imran that high. But it is easy, easy to see why he is. ATG bowler, great captain and a proper lower order bat is a hard combo to ignore.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

He was similar to these guys to in the same way Murali was similar to Streak.

Quality, bowling position, workloads, and role in the team were all different. The main thing they have in common is being primarily bats who typically didn't carry a full load. And the former isn't particularly relevant to Kallis' bowling. He would typically have made the team for about a decade if he averaged 25 with the bat.

 

[capt_Luffy]

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.

Now that's pushing it.......

 

[subshakerz]

He was similar to these guys to in the same way Murali was similar to Streak.

Quality, bowling position, workloads, and role in the team were all different. The main thing they have in common is being primarily bats who typically didn't carry a full load. And the former isn't particularly relevant to Kallis' bowling. He would typically have made the team for about a decade if he averaged 25 with the bat.

We can disagree but to me in actual practice he was closer to Hooper than a regular specialist seamer, while like I said, being far better in quality than Hooper.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Wasim Akram made both XIs over Mcgrath and hadlee. Trust you think he's a superior cricketer to both.

In fact Mcgrath/Hadlee didn't even even make Cricinfo's second xi lol

@kyear2 have you addressed this. Point me tu the post if you have.

 

[Bolo.]

We can disagree but to me in actual practice he was closer to Hooper than a regular specialist seamer, while like I said, being far better in quality than Hooper.

Streak and Murali share as much commonality in role, and a smaller gap in quality.

When Kallis was out injured, his replacement was either a bowler or a bits and pieces player. He was clearly an integral part of the attack. The fact that doing without his batting left a massive hole and they still prioritised plugging the bowling, more so.

 

[subshakerz]

Streak and Murali share as much commonality in role, and a smaller gap in quality.

When Kallis was out injured, his replacement was either a bowler or a bits and pieces player. He was clearly an integral part of the attack. The fact that doing without his batting left a massive hole and they still prioritised plugging the bowling, more so.

With all due respect, saying Kallis was hard to replace as a quality batting AR is an entirely different argument to what impact he actually delivered with the ball as a member of that attack and whether he significantly made it more effective or not.

 

[Bolo.]

With all due respect, saying Kallis was hard to replace as a quality batting AR is an entirely different argument to what impact he actually delivered with the ball as a member of that attack and whether he significantly made it more effective or not.

The drop in effectiveness that came from losing his bowling was deemed by the selectors to be significant enough to justify playing only 5 specialist quality bats when he was injured.

Why were the selectors considering his value as a bowler to be significant when you don't?

Another way to put this- would you regard a 4WM bowler as significantly more effective than a 2 WPM one?

 

[shortpitched713]

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

I think the criteria can tend to be a bit too tight in this article, because the role of allrounder is actually dependent on the team context, more than specific hard and fast average / usage cutoffs.

The fact that the criteria the writer provides, fails to include even Shaun Pollock, Jadeja, and Hadlee as bowling all-rounder, and instead categorizes them as Specialist bowlers is evidence of that.

It does highly regard the skills of Tony Greig though, so I got to give him that. An underrated monster, that man was.

 

[subshakerz]

I think the criteria can tend to be a bit too tight in this article, because the role of allrounder is actually dependent on the team context, more than specific hard and fast average / usage cutoffs.

The fact that the criteria the writer provides, fails to include even Shaun Pollock, Jadeja, and Hadlee as bowling all-rounder, and instead categorizes them as Specialist bowlers is evidence of that.

It does highly regard the skills of Tony Greig though, so I got to give him that. An underrated monster, that man was.

Agreed article is too strict in not qualifying Kallis as a batting AR which he clearly was, compared to an AR who excelled in both disciplines.

 

[subshakerz]

The drop in effectiveness that came from losing his bowling was deemed by the selectors to be significant enough to justify playing only 5 specialist quality bats when he was injured.

Why were the selectors considering his value as a bowler to be significant when you don't?

Again, he was valuable no doubt but we are comparing his significance in his secondary with other great ARs.

Another way to put this- would you regard a 4WM bowler as significantly more effective than a 2 WPM one?

Yes.

 

[Bolo.]

Again, he was valuable no doubt but we are comparing his significance in his secondary with other great ARs.


Yes.

If you position is that his secondary had significant value and that other great ARs added more significant levels of value, wouldn't it be better to avoid comments like this the below?

With all due respect, saying Kallis was hard to replace as a quality batting AR is an entirely different argument to what impact he actually delivered with the ball as a member of that attack and whether he significantly made it more effective or not.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Ok, time for you and your bullshit again.

I've consistently said that like having a viable 5th bowler, and a very good cordon, having decent lower order batting is important. Where you lack either nuance or understanding or both, are with the two points I've tried to make.
1. They are overrated here to the point where it's believed they are the most important role in the game and match winners with the bat. Neither are true, you can be important and still be overrated as there are there.

2. The way no. 8 batsmen are categorized is that they will swoop in the save every match, and I've correctly said, that if the ATG, great and very good batsmen are failing, do we.really believe that the lower order mid 30's / mid 20's guys are going to consistently perform well? No.
The same way I don't believe Kallis is coming in with match winning performances every game. The role he plays is vital, even if he's not taking wickets in assisting with the rotation and keeping bolwers fresh for the match and series. When he did take wickets, it was with the old ball and most.often against set partnerships, and he still got a high percentage of top order wickets. How is any of that hard to understand.

Where did I say his bowling was a game changer, he played a vital role for his team, and not just stat padding in prime conditions, that had little impact in games.

Do you think Carl Hooper as a bat was a game changer? Just a question.

The thing I dislike about how you post is how inherently dishonest you are. I rate Sobers bowling higher because he was more versatile, during his peak he had consistently very good performances and he played more roles, from opening to stock bowling.

I've also consistent said that he was severely over bowled, to the point where it was a detriment to his batting. And that someone should have managed his bowling load, similar to how Kallis's was managed. He would have been better suited cutting back his bowling, spend more time at second and bar higher up the order. Tell me I haven't been saying that for a decade.

Genuinely don't understand the Imran reference, but guess you're contractually obligated to at this point.

 

[subshakerz]

1. They are overrated here to the point where it's believed they are the most important role in the game and match winners with the bat. Neither are true, you can be important and still be overrated as there are there.

Another crap strawman. Nobody said they are most important. They said it's a weakness to have a weak no.8 and hence a weaker tail. Which you eventually were forced to concede.

2. The way no. 8 batsmen are categorized is that they will swoop in the save every match, and I've correctly said, that if the ATG, great and very good batsmen are failing, do we.really believe that the lower order mid 30's / mid 20's guys are going to consistently perform well? No.
The same way I don't believe Kallis is coming in with match winning performances every game. The role he plays is vital, even if he's not taking wickets in assisting with the rotation and keeping bolwers fresh for the match and series. When he did take wickets, it was with the old ball and most.often against set partnerships, and he still got a high percentage of top order wickets. How is any of that hard to understand.

The problem here is you are deliberately loose with language, trying not call Kallis a game changer but his role as vital, as in essential to success.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't you consistently bring up WI and Aus ATG teams and show how they didn't need a stronger batting number 8 to be the best. Well they didn't need a Kallis-like 5th bowler either, so doesn't that discredit your entire argument of a critical need for someone like Kallis?

His matches won by bowling are statistically insignificant btw. He was a support bowler. Very useful but there are ARs who are specialists in their secondary who outstrip him.

I've also consistent said that he was severely over bowled, to the point where it was a detriment to his batting. And that someone should have managed his bowling load, similar to how Kallis's was managed. He would have been better suited cutting back his bowling, spend more time at second and bar higher up the order. Tell me I haven't been saying that for a decade.

You've also said that you rate Sobers ahead of Kallis partially on workload he took, as in below and other times. So my workload critique on Kallis you agree with. I also rate Sobers ahead on variety partially too.

It's not just the work load and the variety, as a fast bowler he was so much more to his team than Kallis ever was.

 

[subshakerz]

If you position is that his secondary had significant value and that other great ARs added more significant levels of value, wouldn't it be better to avoid comments like this the below?

Fair, I should have stated it more clearly that I don't deny he had significant value overall but not to the degree of other great ARs.

 

[kyear2]

AT XI is only one way to make ranking lists.

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

Yes, it is one way, probably the best way.

The second part I don't understand. How does it ignore absolute advantages?

I know this entre argument is about Imran, and it's an argument that fueled by an enthusiastic echo chamber.

And there's a couple points to the argument and I would like to address them, I think I'll focus on the one involving Kallis here first and respond to the other in the appropriate thread.

The absolute advantages argument however goes through the window when we're discussing Kallis, both from a AT XI perspective and a ranking one, and there's a notably one sided and inconsistent argument.

From my perspective you go specialists first, but to entertain this argument...

Let's try to mirror the two careers of let's say Kallis and Tendulkar. From '94 to 2014

Tendulkar
168 mts - 13898 runs - avg 54.28 - 44 tons

Kallis
166 mts - 13289 runs - avg 55.37 - 45 tons

During that period Kallis was also a top 3 or 4 slip fielder pouching 200 catches, he was also taking almost 300 wickets @ 32 a clip and a more than handy 4th or 5th bowling option.

Where's the absolute advantage argument there?
For a top 10 argument, does the accumulative or absolute advantage argument still apply?
For an AT XI who would be more valuable to the team? One scored just as well in the exact same era and at the same no. 4 position on more sporting home pitches, was an elite 2nd slip and a valuable 5th bowler. One batted at 4 on more docile home pitches. For the absolute advantage guys surely Kallis has to pip Sachin for the spot?

That's the things that's missed, it's the inconsistent and hypocritical argument that is purely based on the personality and favorites rather than philosophy. For mine you're either a Tendulkar and McGrath guy or a Kallis and Imran / Hadlee guy, but so many are split because it's not based on these things.
Me personally I'll go with the best specialists in each argument because that's their primary job, but can see an argument for the alternative.

For the argument that an AT XI ignores absolute advantages, this is somehow based on arguments for two players, while ignoring the collective.
You see it that way because you have a specific preference for one style of player that isn't mirrored by the majority on the forum or the wider cricketing community, because quite frankly it doesn't make sense. But is pushed by the echo chamber and hence believed to true because they happen to be the more vocal members of the community. Subz loves to say "we" all the time, because he generally backed up by those who are similarly minded, doesn't make it right or the consensus.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yes, it is one way, probably the best way.

The second part I don't understand. How does it ignore absolute advantages?

I know this entre argument is about Imran, and it's an argument that fueled by an enthusiastic echo chamber.

And there's a couple points to the argument and I would like to address them, I think I'll focus on the one involving Kallis here first and respond to the other in the appropriate thread.

The absolute advantages argument however goes through the window when we're discussing Kallis, both from a AT XI perspective and a ranking one, and there's a notably one sided and inconsistent argument.

From my perspective you go specialists first, but to entertain this argument...

Let's try to mirror the two careers of let's say Kallis and Tendulkar. From '94 to 2014

Tendulkar
168 mts - 13898 runs - avg 54.28 - 44 tons

Kallis
166 mts - 13289 runs - avg 55.37 - 45 tons

During that period Kallis was also a top 3 or 4 slip fielder pouching 200 catches, he was also taking almost 300 wickets @ 32 a clip and a more than handy 4th or 5th bowling option.

Where's the absolute advantage argument there?
For a top 10 argument, does the accumulative or absolute advantage argument still apply?
For an AT XI who would be more valuable to the team? One scored just as well in the exact same era and at the same no. 4 position on more sporting home pitches, was an elite 2nd slip and a valuable 5th bowler. One batted at 4 on more docile home pitches. For the absolute advantage guys surely Kallis has to pip Sachin for the spot?

That's the things that's missed, it's the inconsistent and hypocritical argument that is purely based on the personality and favorites rather than philosophy. For mine you're either a Tendulkar and McGrath guy or a Kallis and Imran / Hadlee guy, but so many are split because it's not based on these things.
Me personally I'll go with the best specialists in each argument because that's their primary job, but can see an argument for the alternative.

For the argument that an AT XI ignores absolute advantages, this is somehow based on arguments for two players, while ignoring the collective.
You see it that way because you have a specific preference for one style of player that isn't mirrored by the majority on the forum or the wider cricketing community, because quite frankly it doesn't make sense. But is pushed by the echo chamber and hence believed to true because they happen to be the more vocal members of the community. Subz loves to say "we" all the time, because he generally backed up by those who are similarly minded, doesn't make it right or the consensus.

Nah man...... I am done with this. Will just like to add the value a player adds in a median team or below median team over the length of their careers is a better way than making AT XIs.

 

[Bolo.]

Fair, I should have stated it more clearly that I don't deny he had significant value overall but not to the degree of other great ARs.

Maybe.

His WPM is not particularly strong evidence of this though, given his overall workload, the fact that he always played in teams with 5-7 viable bowlers, and the fact that he brought value by changing the composition of the side.