Wasim Akram vs Dennis Lillee

[kyear2]

Huh? I already answered he had a shin injury for two years.


Lol so you admit you are nitpicking.


No because it was stated that he did bat well during his bowling peak.


Except he literally averaged 44 over a decade and over 50 tests and scored 5 of his 6 tons . I know you would like to wave it off but it's still a fine achievement and nobody here is daft enough to forget he batted deep in the lower order so yeah we aren't comparing him with Crowe.


How many times do I have to state he was a minimum standard lower order bat overall?

So how did he hold up?

No, you started the looking at Kallis's work load and output. You can use WPM, I showed runs per match.

He was well below the output of a batsman with that average. Welllllll below.

He was a not out merchant you padded his stats with down hill skiing. Any way you toss it, he produced 45 runs per match.

And yes he batted deep, primarily at 7 and 8.

This is exactly what you do to Kallis, and you forgot he also had good support and bowled down the order. The advantage Kallis has is the high value of his wickets taken. Yet you want to wave it off, someone would have to be daft to not take any of that into account. We're not comparing him to Walsh here.

 

[sayon basak]

Top 8 bowler vs top 10 batsman. That's a tie.

That just shows that Imran is better than Hammond in both primary and secondary discipline. And don't think people will ever rate Slip catching high enough to overcome the gap.

 

[subshakerz]

So how did he hold up?

Great

No, you started the looking at Kallis's work load and output. You can use WPM, I showed runs per match.

Yeah you started with RPI, remember? Which is a much more fair indication for a bat than RPM anyways.

But since RPI failed when I showed that Imran was pretty much lower order standard expectations, you have shifted to RPM because you think you have a better chance without addressing those initial arguments.

And yes he batted deep, primarily at 7 and 8.

Not that decade definitely.

 

[kyear2]

All these numbers about Imran in the 80s, his average, the not outs, whatever, have been circulated enough in this forum that me reminding someone he averaged good during his bowling prime is not going to suddenly make them forget he is a lower order bat with lower output. Everyone knows at this point.

I already addressed your other arguments and you refuse to counter my points.

Now please stop derailing these threads about Imran vs Kallis.

I'm merely responding to you, not letting the bs go unchecked.

And yes, Immy was a lower order batsman. No qualms there.

 

[subshakerz]

And yes, Immy was a lower order batsman. No qualms there.

Yes. A minimum standard specialist lower order bat.

This is the third or fourth active thread you have derailed in the past few days about Imran vs Kallis. I suggest you desist and cool down.

 

[kyear2]

No that was the conclusion from directly comparing their secondary disciplines together through conversion.

Imran as a bat was simply better in average output than Kallis as a bowler.

What you brought up was a mindless deflection to comparing Kallis to bats who may have never bowled an over ever lol and you expect folks to take that argument seriously

Really don't see how that's definitively so. It's really close.

Look at Imran's output of runs compared to Kallis's wickets. Look at the comparative rankings through their respective decades.

Look at the high value of Kallis's wickets.

 

[subshakerz]

Really don't see how that's definitively so. It's really close.

Look at Imran's output of runs compared to Kallis's wickets. Look at the comparative rankings through their respective decades.

Look at the high value of Kallis's wickets.

By this measure Imran was 50% better in his secondary discipline. We compared WPI with RPI since we agreed the per match units were more unreliable.

 

[kyear2]

That just shows that Imran is better than Hammond in both primary and secondary discipline. And don't think people will ever rate Slip catching high enough to overcome the gap.

As your good friend @subshakerz is famous for saying, there are way more batsmen than bowlers and even top 12 among the batsmen. Is equivalent to top 8 among the bowlers.

But even beyond that, they are in similar categories as not in the best after Bradman, nor contender for best ever tier, and below the tier under those. They're equal on primary.

Secondary, I can even use Hammond's slip catching as his secondary vs Imran's batting and it's up in the air.

One was clearly the best ever, one doesn't rank in their own era when it comes to out put.

If you want to argue with regards to the value to team, let's go. In an era of less than helpful pitches where wickets were invaluable, he was the one catching the majority of them. You want to calculate how much a chance is worth, calculate how much a wicket is, and note that a drop means to have to try to take it again.

Imran was the best ever no. 8, Hammond the greatest slip. We aren't talking about top 4 or even top 6 guys.
If guys like the Chappell's, the WI death row, the Australian cordons of the 2000's, the succeeding SA group etc doesn't perform, the bowlers don't perform. Not at the preferred levels at least.

Australia's chances in the last series basically rode on how well they caught and who they dropped.

So 1, don't see the gap, and two I rate it highly enough.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran was the best ever no. 8, Hammond the greatest slip.

You just admitted yourself last week Imran batted mostly at 7 and walked back calling him a no.8. If you are going to lie, at least be subtle.

And all your pretend praise for Hammond the bat and his magical slip catching means nothing because you said you would replace him with the inferior bat and catcher Kallis in your ATG XI lol.

 

[akilana]

why's there a comparision? kallis as a batsman was better than imran as a bowler. imran's bowling is overrated and i'm not sure he would have been of any use without the bottle cap..

 

[subshakerz]

why's there a comparision? kallis as a batsman was better than imran as a bowler. imran's bowling is overrated and i'm not sure he would have been of any use without the bottle cap..

We should stop this comparison here because it's not the point of the thread.

 

[Van_Sri]

Dennis Lillee 355 Test Cricket Victims at Each Batting Position : 1st - 45, 2nd - 42, 3rd - 42, 4th - 38, 5th - 27, 6th - 31, 7th - 33, 8th - 36, 9th - 24, 10th - 25, 11th - 12. Dennis Lillee took 129 Wickets of Openers and No 3 Batsmen Combined. 96 Wickets of No 4,5,6 Batsmen. 45+42+42+38+27+31+33+36+24+25+12=355View attachment 44496

This is one good way to judge the impact of a bowler.

 

[capt_Luffy]

why's there a comparision? imran as a batsman was better than kallis as a bowler. kallis's bowling is overrated and i'm not sure he would have been of any use without the SA pitches and a higher load..

Agreed

 

[akilana]

why's there a comparision? kallis as a batsman was better than imran as a bowler. imran's bowling is overrated and i'm not sure he would have been of any use without the bottle cap..

Agreed

thanks man

 

[kyear2]

Yes. A minimum standard specialist lower order bat.

This is the third or fourth active thread you have derailed in the past few days about Imran vs Kallis. I suggest you desist and cool down.

I have detailed?

Takes two to tango and I'm just responding to you, which you feel inclined to then reply to.

I would suggest what you do, but that would exceed the norms of conventional social behavior.

 

[kyear2]

You just admitted yourself last week Imran batted mostly at 7 and walked back calling him a no.8. If you are going to lie, at least be subtle.

And all your pretend praise for Hammond the bat and his magical slip catching means nothing because you said you would replace him with the inferior bat and catcher Kallis in your ATG XI lol.

I swear you don't read, or just really slow, and on top of it, have the gumption to call someone a liar.

I will repeat the jist of what I said.

Imran was a no. 7 batsman, Kallis a no. 4 bowler. That's what they were the vast majority of their careers. Drop both down a slot however and you have a higher than replacement value player, and that's where their real value is.

Imran was a (decent) no. 7 batsman, but he was the greatest ever no. 8. Similarly Kallis was a (decent) no. 4 but the 2nd best no. 5.

Unless of course you are trying to suggest that Imran is also the greatest ever no 7, in which case let's just end the discussion now.

With regards to the second ridiculous statement. As I explained I have Hammond rated overall just above Kallis.

I rate Hammond at 10 as a batsman and Kallis 14th, so hardly "inferior".

The position in question though was batting all rounder. And since Kallis is the 3rd greatest all rounder ever and Hammond some distance behind there, I don't see the issue. And Hammond would still very much be in said discussion. Not to mention that both, along with Imran all make my 2nd XI, so again I rate all of them very highly.

But Hammond is one of only 3 players who could perform as he did. ATG batsman and slip and capable of being a legit 5th bowler is the rarest combination in cricket.

 

[kyear2]

Agreed

That is truly ridiculous. If the pitches aided his bowling, surely we should give him more credit as a batsman having your home pitches be the only one with life in the world.

And surely we aren't comparing lovely home pitches to home umpiring and bottle caps? Would imagine the latter to be more more useful.

 

[Coronis]

How @subshakerz and @kyear2 read the thread title.

WasImran greater than KalLillee

 

[Van_Sri]

I swear you don't read, or just really slow, and on top of it, have the gumption to call someone a liar.

I will repeat the jist of what I said.

Imran was a no. 7 batsman, Kallis a no. 4 bowler. That's what they were the vast majority of their careers. Drop both down a slot however and you have a higher than replacement value player, and that's where their real value is.

Imran was a (decent) no. 7 batsman, but he was the greatest ever no. 8. Similarly Kallis was a (decent) no. 4 but the 2nd best no. 5.

Unless of course you are trying to suggest that Imran is also the greatest ever no 7, in which case let's just end the discussion now.

With regards to the second ridiculous statement. As I explained I have Hammond rated overall just above Kallis.

I rate Hammond at 10 as a batsman and Kallis 14th, so hardly "inferior".

The position in question though was batting all rounder. And since Kallis is the 3rd greatest all rounder ever and Hammond some distance behind there, I don't see the issue. And Hammond would still very much be in said discussion. Not to mention that both, along with Imran all make my 2nd XI, so again I rate all of them very highly.

But Hammond is one of only 3 players who could perform as he did. ATG batsman and slip and capable of being a legit 5th bowler is the rarest combination in cricket.

Imran Khan

 

[kyear2]

View attachment 44509Imran Khan

Hey, I'm aware of his average chart. Context matters.

When and vs who?