Jacques Kallis vs Ben Stokes

[a massive zebra]

No I said " more so the opposite and has been getting better. " in reference to Kallis.

A phrase such as "has been getting better" is usually used to describe something that happened relatively recently, not something that happened in the second quarter of a career (or over 5 years ago) as in this case.

Stokes averaged high 30s afters 25 Tests and 30ish after that. How exactly is that not getting better in reference to Kallis who went from averaging high 20s to mid 30s? There averages went in opposite directions as their careers progressed.

This is a straw man argument as my comments were specifically in relation to your comment that Stokes "has been getting better". As I showed, statisticly the second half of his career is inferior to the first.

I await your answer and please try not to make yourself look like an idiot again mentioning Stokes lack of wickets per Tests which include the time he was playing as a specialist batsmen

I don't believe in resorting to personal insults. If you want to discuss Stokes bowling record and simply ignore the fact that he added zero value
to the side (as a bowler) over a significant number of matches, that is your perogative. But when comparing sections of individual bowlers careers, I would much rather pick someone who actually bowled and took wickets, rather than someone who did not bowl, had zero impact and was therefore useless.

 

[reyrey]

I don't believe in resorting to personal insults. If you want to discuss Stokes bowling record and simply ignore the fact that he added zero value
to the side (as a bowler) over a significant number of matches, that is your perogative. But when comparing sections of individual bowlers careers, I would much rather pick someone who actually bowled and took wickets, rather than someone who did not bowl, had zero impact and was therefore useless.

Your original post asked " Who's the better Test bowler?". Think about that for a moment or read post 19

You're bringing in metrics that have nothing to do with bowling quality.

You should have asked something like who bought more value as a bowler to their team, as this could then include games they weren't fit enough to bowl being taken into account.

Maybe start a new thread if you want that answered.

 

[Coronis]

Your original post asked " Who's the better Test bowler?". Think about that for a moment or read post 19

You're bringing in metrics that have nothing to do with bowling quality.

You should have asked something like who bought more value as a bowler to their team, as this could then include games they weren't fit enough to bowl being taken into account.

Maybe start a new thread if you want that answered.

I mean, being a better test bowler also includes being available to bowl surely? Like no question I think Bond or Shoaib would be considered better if they had been injured less? Or perhaps this is heading more into the better/greater debate.

A quick check btw shows Kallis bowled in 156/166 matches and Stokes has bowled in 92/105 matches.

Some other players for reference. Sobers (92/93), Imran (81/88), Botham (100/102), Kapil (131/131), Miller (52/55) and Hammond (66/85)

A quick check shows one of Botham’s matches England never bowled. cbf checking Stokes’, Kallis’, Imran’s and Hammond’s, Sobers and Millers misses were all in completed matches, usually with 2 innings from the opposing team.

 

[reyrey]

I mean, being a better test bowler also includes being available to bowl surely? Like no question I think Bond or Shoaib would be considered better if they had been injured less? Or perhaps this is heading more into the better/greater debate.

A quick check btw shows Kallis bowled in 156/166 matches and Stokes has bowled in 92/105 matches.

Some other players for reference. Sobers (92/93), Imran (81/88), Botham (100/102), Kapil (131/131), Miller (52/55) and Hammond (66/85)

Already posted this, but if a bowler is unable to bowl then he isn't getting picked for the team, his wickets per Tests record goes unblemished. If Stokes was only a bowler he wouldn't have played in the Tests where he was only fit enough to bat and his wickets per Tests record goes unblemished.

If you start looking at games they only played as batsmen as part of judging just their bowling quality then you're no longer comparing bowling, you're comparing the allrounder skill set.

 

[Majestic]

Already posted this, but if a bowler is unable to bowl then he isn't getting picked for the team, his wickets per Tests record goes unblemished. If Stokes was only a bowler he wouldn't have played in the Tests where he was only fit enough to bat and his wickets per Tests record goes unblemished.

If you start looking at games they only played as batsmen as part of judging just their bowling quality then you're no longer comparing bowling, you're comparing the allrounder skill set.

To be honest, by this logic, Stokes would have lost his spot too because he wouldn't have played in many games then and someone else would have replaced him. His batting ensures that his spot is safe.

a bowler having a full fledged career where he never got dropped > a bowler whose career shortened due to injury.

 

[reyrey]

To be honest, by this logic, Stokes would have lost his spot too because he wouldn't have played in many games then and someone else would have replaced him. His batting ensures that his spot is safe.

a bowler having a full fledged career where he never got dropped > a bowler whose career shortened due to injury.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, but the bowling choices in this thread aren't between a player who had a full fledged bowling career and one whose career was shortened due to injury .

In this case the choice is between Kallis with 292 wickets from 272 innings bowled and Stokes with 203 from 152 innings bowled. Looking at games played when it comes to just looking at bowling as OP was doing is far less relevant than looking at how many innings they actually bowled in.

Stokes the bowler doesn't have the volume of work as Kallis and he has a lot less wickets, but he averages 1.33 wickets per innings where he bowled and Kallis averages 1.07

So as someone mentioned this becomes a bit more of better/greater debate, but both have done more than enough bowling for someone to be able to reach a decision on who they think is the better Test bowler.