Sachin Tendulkar vs Jacques Kallis

[Coronis]

Imran had a 21 year career, longer than any fast bowler, linger than Kallis, yet wasn't regularly injury prone.except for the 83 shin injury. If you want to cut points for that, cut points for Lillee breaking down with a back injury too. Oh wait, you won't.

Must’ve been dropped a lot if he wasn’t injury prone. Missed 50 tests.

 

[subshakerz]

Must’ve been dropped a lot if he wasn’t injury prone. Missed 50 tests.

Yes in the beginning he debuted at 18 in 71 and didn't play for a few years and only became a test regular in 76.

Then the shin injury in 83. Then he retired from cricket in 87 before being asked back later.

 

[kyear2]

If I'm getting your question right, Australia would switch Brett Lee for Imran Khan immediately, yes. And WI would 100% switch Joel Garner ( a great gully catcher IIRC) for Imran too if given the choice. This is an astonishingly easy choice to make imo.

You didn't remotely read or understand the question.

 

[Coronis]

Yes in the beginning he debuted at 18 in 71 and didn't play for a few years and only became a test regular in 76.

Then the shin injury in 83. Then he retired from cricket in 87 before being asked back later.

So then should we really be calling out stuff like “21 year career”? I mean even I don’t call out “13 year career” for Barrington and I’m not sure anyone would be bragging about Cummins having an almost 15 year career now

 

[subshakerz]

You didn't remotely read or understand the question.

No he is treating your hypothetical with the derision it deserves.

 

[subshakerz]

So then should we really be calling out stuff like “21 year career”? I mean even I don’t call out “13 year career” for Barrington and I’m not sure anyone would be bragging about Cummins having an almost 15 year career now

Well Imran was still aging in those 21 years.

I normally bring the 21 year thing out when it is in particular about him playing exceptionally younger or older. As in, he had tailends the other pacers may not have. Not in terms of raw output like Anderson since it's obvious he missed a lot of games for various reasons.

 

[Bolo.]

So then should we really be calling out stuff like “21 year career”? I mean even I don’t call out “13 year career” for Barrington and I’m not sure anyone would be bragging about Cummins having an almost 15 year career now

Hmmm, I was was going to point out the same thing using Cummins as an example too.

Well Imran was still aging in those 21 years.

I normally bring the 21 year thing out when it is in particular about him playing exceptionally younger or older. As in, he had tailends the other pacers may not have. Not in terms of raw output like Anderson since it's obvious he missed a lot of games for various reasons.

He played 5 tests and took 5 wickets in his first 5 calendar years after debut. Then he focused on his batting for the last couple of years. Other bowlers typically did a substantial amount of bowling at the bookends of their careers. Regular bowler for about 13 years (plus 13 wickets outside of this time), but lost a couple of years of this due to injury/ temporary retirement. With the obvious caveat that an AR works harder than a specialist, he's pretty normal for a top bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

He played 5 tests and took 5 wickets in his first 5 calendar years after debut. Then he focused on his batting for the last couple of years. Other bowlers typically did a substantial amount of bowling at the bookends of their careers. Regular bowler for about 13 years (plus 13 wickets outside of this time), but lost a couple of years of this due to injury/ temporary retirement. With the obvious caveat that an AR works harder than a specialist, he's pretty normal for a top bowler.

You arguing volume of intl cricket played which I am not even arguing or have argued before.

 

[Bolo.]

You arguing volume of intl cricket played which I am not even arguing or have argued before.

What point are you trying to make in comparing his length of career to quicks?

 

[subshakerz]

What point are you trying to make in comparing his length of career to quicks?

Mainly I mention age at particular tailend points. So for example not to hold him to the same standards as other out and out fast bowlers if he is bowling late 30s. Just to include that context. Same for his 18 years old debut series.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No he is treating your hypothetical with the derision it deserves.

No, I responded with sincerity to the point I thought he was making. I am going to treat it with derision now though.

You didn't remotely read or understand the question.

Well hardly my fault that the post I was responding to was a page long waffle. I thought I understood what your point was but apparently not.

 

[Bolo.]

Mainly I mention age at particular tailend points. So for example not to hold him to the same standards as other out and out fast bowlers if he is bowling late 30s. Just to include that context. Same for his 18 years old debut series.

People generally do give him credit for his lack of bowling in his batting phrase. He's got some Shaun Pollock career bowling stats if we don't. Nobody thinks they are at all comparable.

His debut series at 18 was 1 test in which he did little bowling. Then a 3 year gap. Do you think the impact of this one test on his record is significant enough to bring it up?

Then he had 3 more tests. And another couple of year gap before he played again and started to become a regular. He bowled less at a young age than is typical for a top quick. Why are you giving him extra consideration?

 

[subshakerz]

His debut series at 18 was 1 test in which he did little bowling. Then a 3 year gap. Do you think the impact of this one test on his record is significant enough to bring it up?

Then he had 3 more tests.

Yes. I count the three later tests in 74 since he was par age for a pacer with county experience.

But we had guys like Kyear2 argue to me that IK doesn't have a worldclass record in Eng based on 47 wickets in 12 tests@24.6, and when I pointed out the first test was him as a teen debutant and without it, it goes to 47 in 11 tests @23, he basically agreed it's up there with his ATG standards. Minor but just an example.

Similarly his record in Aus takes a hit for him continuing as a part time bowler in 1990 but folks may be mislead by his raw record. Etc.

 

[Bolo.]

Yes. I count the three later tests in 74 since he was par age for a pacer with county experience.



But we had guys like Kyear2 argue to me that IK doesn't have a worldclass record in Eng based on 47 wickets in 12 tests@24.6, and when I pointed out the first test was him as a teen debutant and without it, it goes to 47 in 11 tests @23, he basically agreed it's up there with his ATG standards. Minor but just an example.



Similarly his record in Aus takes a hit for him continuing as a part time bowler in 1990 but folks may be mislead by his raw record. Etc.

Sounds like both of you should take this as a sign that you attach too much importance to records in particular countries. There is too much variance in samples this small.

Quibbling over individual countries aside, I'm sure most people give him an allowance for his batting. He is very highly rated. I have him at 5th quick. Maybe 10th or so without considering him as a bat.

 

[subshakerz]

Sounds like both of you should take this as a sign that you attach too much importance to records in particular countries. There is too much variance in samples this small.

Quibbling over individual countries aside, I'm sure most people give him an allowance for his batting. He is very highly rated. I have him at 5th quick. Maybe 10th or so without considering him as a bat.

I usually take things series by series rather than raw averages.

 

[kyear2]

People generally do give him credit for his lack of bowling in his batting phrase. He's got some Shaun Pollock career bowling stats if we don't. Nobody thinks they are at all comparable.

His debut series at 18 was 1 test in which he did little bowling. Then a 3 year gap. Do you think the impact of this one test on his record is significant enough to bring it up?

Then he had 3 more tests. And another couple of year gap before he played again and started to become a regular. He bowled less at a young age than is typical for a top quick. Why are you giving him extra consideration?

Pretty sure he also missed about 20 tests or so in the 80's, or at least after he became a regular in '76.

But it's Kallis who couldn't have held up physically.

 

[kyear2]

Yes. I count the three later tests in 74 since he was par age for a pacer with county experience.

But we had guys like Kyear2 argue to me that IK doesn't have a worldclass record in Eng based on 47 wickets in 12 tests@24.6, and when I pointed out the first test was him as a teen debutant and without it, it goes to 47 in 11 tests @23, he basically agreed it's up there with his ATG standards. Minor but just an example.

Similarly his record in Aus takes a hit for him continuing as a part time bowler in 1990 but folks may be mislead by his raw record. Etc.

.his average goes from 28 to 27 if you exclude that final tour. But why should it be, he was the all rounder right?

 

[subshakerz]

.his average goes from 28 to 27 if you exclude that final tour. But why should it be, he was the all rounder right?

And 24 with WSC.

 

[Randomfan]

I think elimitating this or that is illogical if you are going to count IK as an all rounder. For good or bad, he had good batting and good bowling in different periods. Not just pretty average, I am talking about volume of runs and volume of wickets during that period as well.

In reduced period, how many runs he actually scored? If it's too less then it elimiates him as an all rounder.

I would think he has a geniuine case of being a top tier all rounder far more than being a top tier bowler. I would prefer to have his entire runs and wickets.

 

[Bolo.]

I think elimitating this or that is illogical if you are going to count IK as an all rounder. For good or bad, he had good batting and good bowling in different periods. Not just pretty average, I am talking about volume of runs and volume of wickets during that period as well.

In reduced period, how many runs he actually scored? If it's too less then it elimiates him as an all rounder.

I would think he has a geniuine case of being a top tier all rounder far more than being a top tier bowler. I would prefer to have his entire runs and wickets.

Imran is a bit of a different case seeing as he did play as a specialist bat. It's very unfair on him as a bowler to include this period. I want to credit him for his batting phase too, as it makes him a better player, but it gets messy assessing him in different ways.

He's plenty good as a bowling AR without looking at his batting period. His average, runs, and longevity all drop, but remain excellent for a guy who is clearly a bowler first and foremost. But if you want to assess him as an AR on entire career, fair enough. At least this avoids the issue of people who will credit or discredit performances in one discipline based on agenda.