Sachin Tendulkar vs Jacques Kallis

[sayon basak]

tbh Hammond>Kallis

At least Kallis has some bowling stats to look at.

 

[Johan]

At least Kallis has some bowling stats to look at.

Batting: Hammond
Bowling: Kallis
Fielding; Hammond

2-1

 

[sayon basak]

Batting: Hammond
Bowling: Kallis
Fielding; Hammond

2-1

Not as simple as that imo.

Fielding is definitely close. Would say their batting gap is a bit smaller than their bowling gap, close for me as an overall cricketer. I lean towards Kallis.

 

[Johan]

Not as simple as that imo.

Fielding is definitely close. Would say their batting gap is a bit smaller than their bowling gap, close for me as an overall cricketer. I lean towards Kallis.

Kallis averages 35 with the ball with 1.64WPM without Ban/zim, Hammond is like 1.07 WPM (before war) and 38 average, I'd say the bowling gap isn't big enough to discredit Hammond's batsmenship edge

 

[capt_Luffy]

Batting: Hammond
Bowling: Kallis
Fielding; Hammond

2-1

Derek Randall vs Fred Trueman

Batting: Randall
Bowling: Trueman
Fielding: Randall

2-1

 

[Johan]

Derek Randall vs Fred Trueman

Batting: Randall
Bowling: Trueman
Fielding: Randall

2-1

you asked for it

 

[sayon basak]

Kallis averages 35 with the ball with 1.64WPM without Ban/zim, Hammond is like 1.07 WPM (before war) and 38 average, I'd say the bowling gap isn't big enough to discredit Hammond's batsmenship edge

I rate Kallis and Hammond 17th and 10th as batters alone. So, there's no astronomical difference there. And if you only consider Pre war bowling for Hammond, I could do the same for Kallis by considering only his first 14 years;
251 wickets @30.98; WPM=1.992; pretty decent difference imo.

After all, Wally Hammond did play after the war and ended up with a WPM below 1.

 

[Johan]

I rate Kallis and Hammond 17th and 10th as batters alone. So, there's no astronomical difference there. And if you only consider Pre war bowling for Hammond, I could do the same for Kallis by considering only his first 14 years;
251 wickets @30.98; WPM=1.992; pretty decent difference imo.

After all, Wally Hammond did play after the war and ended up with a WPM below 1.

Hammond didn't bowl a spell after the war and it's universally agreed he shouldn't have played, plus iirc Kallis retired at 39 while post War Hammond was like 43-44 with zero cricket in 7 years, it's not a similar case at all lol.

if you do Kallis vs Pre War Hammond, Hammond is better with the bat and the bowling difference is of .5 WPM and a couple runs with 35 vs 38 avg, I'll take Hammond here.

 

[capt_Luffy]

you asked for it

What do you mean?? I can't see anyone.....

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hammond didn't bowl a spell after the war and it's universally agreed he shouldn't have played, plus iirc Kallis retired at 39 while post War Hammond was like 43-44 with zero cricket in 7 years, it's not a similar case at all lol.

if you do Kallis vs Pre War Hammond, Hammond is better with the bat and the bowling difference is of .5 WPM and a couple runs with 35 vs 38 avg, I'll take Hammond here.

Hammond averages 44.7 vs Australia. It's dishonest to remove minnows for one but not the other.

 

[Johan]

Hammond averages 44.7 vs Australia. It's dishonest to remove minnows for one but not the other.

Kallis averages 41 against India and 37 against Aus, so not like he's tearing good attacks apart.

I'd be willing to remove NZ for Hammond, I don't consider other sides minnows, that's how I got 38

 

[subshakerz]

Hmmm..... In the Jadeja-Ashwin era I will take Sachin.
Now that Ashwin has retired and Jadeja will follow his suit, probs Kallis.
India in Sachin's age itself would benefit more from Kallis than him though.

I could see a case in the 2000s with Sehwag, Laxman and Dravid in their prime and poor pacers to have Tendulkar make way for Kallis.

But I think this just shows how we shouldn't determine better cricketer based on the team they fit in. Certainly in an ATG XI Kallis bowling isn't worth replacing Tendulkar.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis averages 35 with the ball with 1.64WPM without Ban/zim, Hammond is like 1.07 WPM (before war) and 38 average, I'd say the bowling gap isn't big enough to discredit Hammond's batsmenship edge

And again all this depends on is team role. Stronger teams will end up using Kallis and Hammond roughly the same I feel.

 

[subshakerz]

Higher than Sachin as a cricketer? I didn't realize that.

I rate Sachin as the 3rd greatest cricketer of all time. 2nd best batter, great all-round record, longevity, peer rating, everything's on Sachin's side.

Yeah but look at the poll results. Kallis is being inflated here.

Kallis is neither better nor greater than Sachin and only a surface reading of raw figures leads one to believe so.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I could see a case in the 2000s with Sehwag, Laxman and Dravid in their prime and poor pacers to have Tendulkar make way for Kallis.

But I think this just shows how we shouldn't determine better cricketer based on the team they fit in. Certainly in an ATG XI Kallis bowling isn't worth replacing Tendulkar.

ATG XI value are less practical than value in mean team

 

[sayon basak]

Yeah but look at the poll results. Kallis is being inflated here.

Kallis is neither better nor greater than Sachin and only a surface reading of raw figures leads one to believe so.

Agreed. Although I rate Kallis quite highly, it'd be absurd for me to rate him above the mighty Tendulkar as a cricketer.

 

[DrWolverine]

It is just a matter of opinion.

I feel Kallis is not really that far behind Sachin as a batsman so his additional skills is a benefit to the team

 

[capt_Luffy]

Agreed. Although I rate Kallis quite highly, it'd be absurd for me to rate him above the mighty Tendulkar as a cricketer.

From a legacy point, maybe.
From a practical value to the team point, not really. It's far from absurd.

 

[sayon basak]

From a legacy point, maybe.
From a practical value to the team point, not really. It's far from absurd.

Greatness as a cricketer has little to do with practical value to the team imo. I could have a team which could demand Wasim more than McGrath (for batting, left arm variety etc), that wouldn't mean that I'd place Wasim ahead of McGrath as an overall cricketer.

 

[subshakerz]

From a legacy point, maybe.
From a practical value to the team point, not really. It's far from absurd.

Depends on the team I could come up with a team where Anderson is.more valuable than Kallis.