Jacques Kallis vs Jack Hobbs

[capt_Luffy]

How many WPM is Timmy taking?

Timmy is a Garner level bat and Woakes tier bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

.... Still waiting to see what you can come up with.

When is he going to answer?

 

[Bolo.]

Actually, I am willing to acknowledge that Kallis uptil 2003 was fairly close to specialist level in terms of impact. Even with Donald he was taking 2 wickets a test @28. But that's 40 percent of his career hence harder to give an overall estimate of where he stands as a bowler.

I also grant your point that expecting him to perform that same level for 166 tests is unreasonable. Normally we rank bowlers on their average output, where Kallis doesn't do as well, but I can concede his numbers were affected by his last 1/3rd, but also boosted by minnows significantly too. Hard bowler to place but I think you would agree he is not Sobers' level as a bowler? I see him around Stokes level as a bowler. Very useful, a good boost for the attack.

In batting terms, I may put him Hadlee or at best Kapil level.

Do you think his impact as bowler was higher in the 90s (when there were other good options), or after his peak (when the other options were atrocious)? I'm excluding the 2010s, which is roughly when he became a part time holding bowler.

Minnows is knit picking. It's a small propotion of his games and wickets. The average batting lineup he bowled at was strong. He usually bowled at the stronger bats in a lineup. See his average quality of wickets-whatever feasting on minnows you think he did, he obviously more than made up for it by bowling at quality. And was bowling at them when they were set and with an old ball. Really tough job.

Ya, I rate Sobers a bit higher. I'm not sure about quality or impact so am mainly defaulting to the guy with more on the go.

Stokes- maybe. I tend to prefer waiting until career end before making calls unless there is a big gap. Slighty different playing role too.

He had more ability with the ball than Hadlee had and Kapil displayed in terms of actually making runs. Bowling ARs work a bit differently. Batting position aside, you want to maxing their secondary. It's closer to the opposite for batting ARs.

 

[subshakerz]

Do you think his impact as bowler was higher in the 90s (when there were other good options), or after his peak (when the other options were atrocious)? I'm excluding the 2010s, which is roughly when he became a part time holding bowler.

Roughly equal since he made that late 90s attack more penetrative early on before his batting kicked.

Minnows is knit picking. It's a small propotion of his games and wickets. The average batting lineup he bowled at was strong. He usually bowled at the stronger bats in a lineup. See his average quality of wickets-whatever feasting on minnows you think he did, he obviously more than made up for it by bowling at quality. And was bowling at them when they were set and with an old ball. Really tough job.

His overall numbers take a hit after minnows a bit but sure he did go after quality bats too won't deny it.

He had more ability with the ball than Hadlee had and Kapil displayed in terms of actually making runs. Bowling ARs work a bit differently. Batting position aside, you want to maxing their secondary. It's closer to the opposite for batting ARs.

Ability moreso than Hadlee yes. Kapil I think is short of specialist level but I would put the value of his output ahead of Kallis for sure.

 

[Bolo.]

Roughly equal since he made that late 90s attack more penetrative early on before his batting kicked.


His overall numbers take a hit after minnows a bit but sure he did go after quality bats too won't deny it.



Ability moreso than Hadlee yes. Kapil I think is short of specialist level but I would put the value of his output ahead of Kallis for sure.

If you think his impact was equal to the 90s, the way you criticise his impact is clearly problematic. Impact

Pretty much every bowler bruises weak bats. It is not a worthwhile criticism to raise for bowlers unless they have done it at an unusually high rate. He did it less than the vast majority of bowlers.

Output is hard to compare between batting and bowling ARs. A bowling AR scoring more is pretty much always going to be a good thing. Giving a ton of overs overs to a batting AR is going to hurt a team more often than not. It depends on the game.

Kallis took 10% of wickets. Kapil scored 8% of runs. Both at an average slightly worse than their teams. Neither of these comparisons are entirely fair. But Kallis is a lot closer to the number of wickets he would ideally be taking. He had a tougher job as a donkey overs bowler than Kapil did facing tired bowlers. And, most importantly, he had a much greater knock on effect to positively impacting other bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

If you think his impact was equal to the 90s, the way you criticise his impact is clearly problematic. Impact

In the 90s, I felt he had more match impact and was sharper than in the early 2000s where he may have been more valuable given that Donald retired.

Pretty much every bowler bruises weak bats. It is not a worthwhile criticism to raise for bowlers unless they have done it at an unusually high rate. He did it less than the vast majority of bowlers.

Sure but minnows were the only teams he did so exceptional against to impact his average. I will grant you that it balances with him also facing stinger bats in other teams.

Output is hard to compare between batting and bowling ARs. A bowling AR scoring more is pretty much always going to be a good thing. Giving a ton of overs overs to a batting AR is going to hurt a team more often than not. It depends on the game.

Okay but if it's hard to compare how can you say Hadlee is worse so easily? Obviously its just our own sense of it. And again, I don't think it's fair to expect Kallis to take that load, but it's also unfair to treat his impact close to a specialist pacer.

Kallis took 10% of wickets. Kapil scored 8% of runs. Both at an average slightly worse than their teams. Neither of these comparisons are entirely fair. But Kallis is a lot closer to the number of wickets he would ideally be taking. He had a tougher job as a donkey overs bowler than Kapil did facing tired bowlers. And, most importantly, he had a much greater knock on effect to positively impacting other bowlers.

Based on what? Kapil for a number 8 to average 30 plus at a high SR is pretty ideal for that position as much as a 5th bowler taking 1 wicket an innings.

Whether Kapil or Kallis had it tougher is not really the point. Kapil's batting made more difference to the game IMO. Your knock-on effect for other bowlers is your own take but there isn't evidence for that you have provided.

Kapil scored 8% as one of 11 bats, not one of 5 bowlers btw.

I agree comparing bats to bowlers isn't some exact science but I don't see any basis for you to be so sure Kallis was ahead of Kapil or even Hadlee.

 

[subshakerz]

.... Still waiting to see what you can come up with.

Looks like @kyear2 chickened out from answering.

 

[Bolo.]

In the 90s, I felt he had more match impact and was sharper than in the early 2000s where he may have been more valuable given that Donald retired.

Roughly equal since he made that late 90s attack more penetrative early on before his batting kicked.

You contradict yourself.

Sure but minnows were the only teams he did so exceptional against to impact his average. I will grant you that it balances with him also facing stinger bats in other teams.


Okay but if it's hard to compare how can you say Hadlee is worse so easily? Obviously its just our own sense of it. And again, I don't think it's fair to expect Kallis to take that load, but it's also unfair to treat his impact close to a specialist pacer.


Based on what? Kapil for a number 8 to average 30 plus at a high SR is pretty ideal for that position as much as a 5th bowler taking 1 wicket an innings.

Whether Kapil or Kallis had it tougher is not really the point. Kapil's batting made more difference to the game IMO. Your knock-on effect for other bowlers is your own take but there isn't evidence for that you have provided.

Kapil scored 8% as one of 11 bats, not one of 5 bowlers btw.

I agree comparing bats to bowlers isn't some exact science but I don't see any basis for you to be so sure Kallis was ahead of Kapil or even Hadlee. Murali

Almost every bowler has their record boosted by playing some shite teams. We don't pay much attention unless they played an unusual amount of games against minnows. In recent conversations between us, I can understand when you criticise Murali in relation to Imran for high proportion of minnow games. But it doesn't make sense to give Imran a pass if on minnows if you are criticizing Kallis. Imran played a higher proportion of his career against minnows, and took a bunch more wickets. Your criticism seems to be very selective.

Too long a day for the rest of this.

 

[subshakerz]

You contradict yourself.

Apologies I didn't word it properly. Just meant that in terms of quality, Kallis in the late 90s from my memory was his best, he had pace and seemed as good as any aside from Donald/Pollock. Not quite as sharp later on in the 2000s though his role was more important then.

Almost every bowler has their record boosted by playing some ****e teams. We don't pay much attention unless they played an unusual amount of games against minnows. In recent conversations between us, I can understand when you criticise Murali in relation to Imran for high proportion of minnow games. But it doesn't make sense to give Imran a pass if on minnows if you are criticizing Kallis. Imran played a higher proportion of his career against minnows, and took a bunch more wickets. Your criticism seems to be very selective.

Too long a day for the rest of this.

I think that is fair. I don't think folks here take Kallis' bowling average at face value too much anyways. I would retract then my minnow point to make it easier.

 

[Bolo.]

Apologies I didn't word it properly. Just meant that in terms of quality, Kallis in the late 90s from my memory was his best, he had pace and seemed as good as any aside from Donald/Pollock. Not quite as sharp later on in the 2000s though his role was more important then.


I think that is fair. I don't think folks here take Kallis' bowling average at face value too much anyways. I would retract then my minnow point to make it easier.

Through whatever combination of capacity and decision, he dropped from fast to FM in the early 2000s and down to MF around the end of the 2000s. He was the kind of bowler whose quality is pretty tied to his pace, so his quality definitely dropped.

You don't seem to have an issue with his quality though if you don't mind the Nel comparison. Being comparable to a specialist in secondary is pretty outstanding, even if the specialist is mediocre.

You say he was close to specialist in impact early career and comparable later. You don't seem to have an issue with impact up until he'd played more games than just about any quick in history.

Outside of criticising the role of batting AR in general terms, it's hard to see where your issue lies here.

This is a bit of a gotcha analysis- he's a long way from a perfect bowler. Obviously he'd be better with a WPM like Sobers. But that would put him close to the top of the list wicket takers as well as catches and runs. Unrealistic, and Sobers is already a consesus pick for the best not Bradman player ever over a bit more than half as many matches.

 

[subshakerz]

Through whatever combination of capacity and decision, he dropped from fast to FM in the early 2000s and down to MF around the end of the 2000s. He was the kind of bowler whose quality is pretty tied to his pace, so his quality definitely dropped.

You don't seem to have an issue with his quality though if you don't mind the Nel comparison. Being comparable to a specialist in secondary is pretty outstanding, even if the specialist is mediocre.

You say he was close to specialist in impact early career and comparable later. You don't seem to have an issue with impact up until he'd played more games than just about any quick in history.

Outside of criticising the role of batting AR in general terms, it's hard to see where your issue lies here.

This is a bit of a gotcha analysis- he's a long way from a perfect bowler. Obviously he'd be better with a WPM like Sobers. But that would put him close to the top of the list wicket takers as well as catches and runs. Unrealistic, and Sobers is already a consesus pick for the best not Bradman player ever over a bit more than half as many matches.

I think we have reached more or less agreement then.

I don't seem him as specialist as bowler, but I do grant that he is better than just raw WPM would make it due to longevity though he had lesser bowling load per game, near specialist quality in the start and then declining with time, but gave a big boost to SA in terms of the team makeup especially between Donald and Steyn.

I would still put him outside Sobers, Imran, Miller and Botham, etc. as the few ARs who are specialist level in both disciplines, but he is closer than originally granted.

 

[Bolo.]

I think we have reached more or less agreement then.

I don't seem him as specialist as bowler, but I do grant that he is better than just raw WPM would make it due to longevity though he had lesser bowling load per game, near specialist quality in the start and then declining with time, but gave a big boost to SA in terms of the team makeup especially between Donald and Steyn.

I would still put him outside Sobers, Imran, Miller and Botham, etc. as the few ARs who are specialist level in both disciplines, but he is closer than originally granted.

Other than Miller, are any of these players actually specialist level over the course of their careers? Miller is well below than Kallis in primary anyway, and played 1/3 of the games with a bunch of injury concerns.q

Sobers is a fair bit closer to specialist than Kallis in role, but a 34 average 92 SR 2.5 WPM bowler in a specialist spot would be a serious liability.

When he was a full time bowler, Imran scored 30 something runs a match at an average you wouldn't want from a specialist. Similar workload per game to Kallis.

Botham had the role, but the quality is questionable. Averaged below 30 for about half his career, and only ever had 1 year averaging in the 40s. He is closer to balanced, but shouldn't be part of this conversation anyway on account of bowling quality.

Basically, you don't get top players in one discipline performing as specialists for too long.

 

[subshakerz]

Other than Miller, are any of these players actually specialist level over the course of their careers? Miller is well below than Kallis in primary anyway, and played 1/3 of the games with a bunch of injury concerns.q

Sobers is a fair bit closer to specialist than Kallis in role, but a 34 average 92 SR 2.5 WPM bowler in a specialist spot would be a serious liability.

When he was a full time bowler, Imran scored 30 something runs a match at an average you wouldn't want from a specialist. Similar workload per game to Kallis.

Botham had the role, but the quality is questionable. Averaged below 30 for about half his career, and only ever had 1 year averaging in the 40s. He is closer to balanced, but shouldn't be part of this conversation anyway on account of bowling quality.

Basically, you don't get top players in one discipline performing as specialists for too long.

To clarify, I am not saying all of those are better than Kallis. Botham clearly isnt. Miller is a toss-up.

The main thing is to judge cricketers based on their era to get an idea of specialist level.

Sobers' SR for his time was par for the course, really because scoring rates were so low.

And Imran's output was consistent with specialist lower order bats in most if not all teams of that era. The best example is Logie who played almost the entire 80s in the best side of the era, WI. And Imran was batting up the order by his career end.

 

[Bolo.]

To clarify, I am not saying all of those are better than Kallis. Botham clearly isnt. Miller is a toss-up.

The main thing is to judge cricketers based on their era to get an idea of specialist level.

Sobers' SR for his time was par for the course, really because scoring rates were so low.

And Imran's output was consistent with specialist lower order bats in most if not all teams of that era. The best example is Logie who played almost the entire 80s in the best side of the era, WI. And Imran was batting up the order by his career end.

Slow era, but Sobers' SR wasn't par at all. He had a teamate in Wes Hall who struck at 54. Some specialists struck nearly as slowly as him, but they were spinners with massive bowling loads. I don't find his SR problematic FTR in his role. Just want a specialist striking faster.

Imran scoring 30 whatever runs a game is significantly below what specialists did, and comparable with 1.7 WPM. He's comparable to a medoicre bat in Logie like Kallis is to Nel. I doubt Imran compares favourably to Logie in his time as a bowler though, like Kallis does to Nel.

 

[subshakerz]

Slow era, but Sobers' SR wasn't par at all. He had a teamate in Wes Hall who struck at 54. Some specialists struck nearly as slowly as him, but they were spinners with massive bowling loads. I don't find his SR problematic FTR in his role. Just want a specialist striking faster.

Sobers had a fairly decent bowling load. And he was a spinner too. Nobody is arguing he was even a good specialist, just a basic one.

Imran scoring 30 whatever runs a game is significantly below what specialists did, and comparable with 1.7 WPM. He's comparable to a medoicre bat in Logie like Kallis is to Nel. I doubt Imran compares favourably to Logie in his time as a bowler though, like Kallis does to Nel.

Imran did 43 runs a game. Logie played as a specialist for 52 games for the best batting side, scoring around 47 a game, but with a worse overall career average and less ton conversion by comparison to Imran. They are close despite Imran starting his career batting at no.8.and moving eventually to 5/6. Logie is very much an Imran-level bat. And you can find similar lower order bats to Imran in pretty much all the sides of the era.

There is little doubt that by the tougher batting standards of the 80s, Imran was a specialist lower order bat.

 

[kyear2]

I mean, the second greatest opener won’t be in anyone’s top 10 or 11 players will he? But he’d still make an all time side. Its basically the reverse with AR’s.

Very good point, think the best argument so far... But no one is preventing the 2nd or even 3rd best all rounder from making an all time side.

If they don't make one it's probably because they are better options, not because they are automatically restricted from making it.

It comes down to Kallis or Sachin, Imran or Hadlee or Wasim or Steyn or whomever else.

But not a bad point.

 

[kyear2]

Lets take Kallis as an example. Many today would be him in the top five ever if not top three, but he aint making an ATG XI. Same logic applies to Imran.

Why not though? His brings an additional bowler and elite slip as advantages over Sachin, so if Sachin beats him out, then isn't.Sachin the better player?

I think it does.

 

[Bolo.]

Sobers had a fairly decent bowling load. And he was a spinner too. Nobody is arguing he was even a good specialist, just a basic one.


Imran did 43 runs a game. Logie played as a specialist for 52 games for the best batting side, scoring around 47 a game, but with a worse overall career average and less ton conversion by comparison to Imran. They are close despite Imran starting his career batting at no.8.and moving eventually to 5/6. Logie is very much an Imran-level bat. And you can find similar lower order bats to Imran in pretty much all the sides of the era.

There is little doubt that by the tougher batting standards of the 80s, Imran was a specialist lower order bat.

How many teams in history would give a specialist with Sobers SR, WPM, and average get a long run in? Of specialists, only a few spinners have worse SRs ever. They bowled a lot more.

You are adding in the stats of Imran the bat into the Logie comparison. Since we are discussing secondary discipline, this should not be part of the conversation. He's close to Pollock when he played as a bowler. I don't think many people considered Pollock to be better or more valuable than Kallis in secondary.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Why not though? His brings an additional bowler and elite slip as advantages over Sachin, so if Sachin beats him out, then isn't.Sachin the better player?

I think it does.

Not necessarily. It just shows Sachin is a better fit for the team. Contributing factors includes the other batsmen and most importantly that Kallis' bowling isn't important much anymore.

 

[subshakerz]

Why not though? His brings an additional bowler and elite slip as advantages over Sachin, so if Sachin beats him out, then isn't.Sachin the better player?

I think it does.

Few if any are going to value a 6th bowler role that high to ignore Sachin. Most of all you.