Wally Hammond vs Jacques Kallis

[capt_Luffy]

Can someone please tag me once Kyear2 says something slightly non repeatative or mildly interesting; or better yet, once he acknowledges Abdul Qadir is a viable #4 spinner Ever.

 

[kyear2]

I mean, you also do this.

Who's mind am I trying to change, and for which player.

I'm justifying my selections, which no one else is asked to.

I'm not trying to convince him of anything.

He's insistent that I rank Pollock higher, has been for months.

Why?

Should ask him.

 

[kyear2]

Can someone please tag me once Kyear2 says something slightly non repeatative or mildly interesting; or better yet, once he acknowledges Abdul Qadir is a viable #4 spinner Ever.

Are you lacking or looking for attention?

Why post if you don't have anything of value to offer?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Are you lacking or looking for attention?

Why post if you don't have anything of value to offer?

This was a very valuable insight. Ask @sayon basak or @Johan or @subshakerz or anyone else. You are going on a repeatative tangent of **** you have said 100 of times before, and adamantly will just admit Abdul Qadir to be a contender for #4 just because it satisfies your peer review agenda, despite you not believing it a single ounce. I just want to hear you say once, that you consider Abdul Qadir a viable #4 contender, or say that was a slip and he is one of the faulty parts of peer review. That's it. Do either, and I will satisfied.

 

[Coronis]

I don't rate him that highly as a batsman.

Despite playing in the easiest era for batting, and batting alongside the GOAT, completing his career fully before the LBW rule change, he still batted at a pedestrian rate and wasn't nearly rated as high as Hammond, Hobbs or Hutton.

He didn't nearly have the challenges, pitches or bowlers to contend with that Hutton.

It's a personal ranking choice as with you and Viv, who I have 4th and you have mid teens. One though was the best batsman in the world for over a decade, and more than arguably the greatest player against fast bowling while playing in one of the great eras for fast bowling.

I didn’t ask for your reasons, I know them.

So yes, your ranking of Sutcliffe is further away from the consensus here than mine is of Viv?

And yet you call my ranking of Viv atrocious and a personal vendetta.

Thoughts?

 

[Coronis]

Who's mind am I trying to change, and for which player.

I'm justifying my selections, which no one else is asked to.

I'm not trying to convince him of anything.

He's insistent that I rank Pollock higher, has been for months.

Why?

Should ask him.

You try to change every single poster’s mind on Barry Richards. Constantly.

 

[kyear2]

This was a very valuable insight. Ask @sayon basak or @Johan or @subshakerz or anyone else. You are going on a repeatative tangent of **** you have said 100 of times before, and adamantly will just admit Abdul Qadir to be a contender for #4 just because it satisfies your peer review agenda, despite you not believing it a single ounce. I just want to hear you say once, that you consider Abdul Qadir a viable #4 contender, or say that was a slip and he is one of the faulty parts of peer review. That's it. Do either, and I will satisfied.

I know you're a child, but the stupid **** you hang onto is petty as hell.

Absolutely no where in those references were there anything to suggest that he was top 4, I went though them in detail to show that.

In addition as I've stated before, those references were in no way relatable to the ones I've referenced with regards to one B.A. Richards, in scope, weight or relevance.

There's no contradiction and no need to admit anything. The peer review process while never perfect is quite intact.

As I've also said, I don't have him as a contender for the top 4 and never said he was.

Of course I know what has you pissy, and that's because all of the peer reviews I referenced had him on par with or ahead of Gavaskar. The fact that I named 4 of the 6 fast bowlers of the 70's (who incidentally bowled to both batsmen) who rated Barry clearly ahead, while the 5th rated him as "fair weather" is the part that bothered you. So perhaps it's your agenda that's at the fore here. Not my problem.

And I could care less about what satisfies you, that's strictly between you and your browser history.

No one was speaking to you, but for some reason you decided to inject yourself into the conversation.

 

[kyear2]

I didn’t ask for your reasons, I know them.

So yes, your ranking of Sutcliffe is further away from the consensus here than mine is of Viv?

And yet you call my ranking of Viv atrocious and a personal vendetta.

Thoughts?

No, I would also like to hope that I didn't call it a vendetta.

When you had a Wisden top 5 player and greatest player of pace, and a cricketer who among all of the contenders for best after Bradman, was the only one never to have a flat era or okay against minnows to boost his numbers like the others did, outside of the top 20 I did and fo believe it was atrocious.

I never tried to get you to change it, I just thought it made no sense.

I also don't think my ranking of Sutcliffe is far away from that outside of CW, especially from historians who had him well below the likes of Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton and even Headley.

All of whom are seen as equals to or below Vivian.

We can discuss further if you like, but these players basically epitomize the essence of how we rate and value players and we will never agree and that's fine, but neither of us will alter the other's opinions in the slightest, not should it tbh.

 

[kyear2]

You try to change every single poster’s mind on Barry Richards. Constantly.

I'm not, in case you didn't notice Subzy is the one who constantly comes after me to justify me selection of him.

In his mind it's his retaliation for how he perceived that I go after Imran.

But when you're going to make the idiotic statements that he does, I'll show him that he's wrong. Not trying to convince him at all, even if he wanted to, out of pure spite he wouldn't. He's made that clear.

I'm good either way.

 

[kyear2]

You try to change every single poster’s mind on Barry Richards. Constantly.

Ohh, there is one agenda that I have that i haven't been able to probably focus on of late, and that's no surprise to anyone.

That slip fielding is at least as impactful and important to winning as the other auxiliary aspects of the game.

You're not totally adverse to the idea, as per your Hammond pick, but we'll continue to acknowledge that it's primarily based on his skills as a 6th bowler if required.

 

[Bolo.]

Does anyone have any data on the number of slip catches per match? For teams or overall, not imdividual players.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I know you're a child, but the stupid **** you hang onto is petty as hell.

Absolutely no where in those references were there anything to suggest that he was top 4, I went though them in detail to show that.

In addition as I've stated before, those references were in no way relatable to the ones I've referenced with regards to one B.A. Richards, in scope, weight or relevance.

There's no contradiction and no need to admit anything. The peer review process while never perfect is quite intact.

As I've also said, I don't have him as a contender for the top 4 and never said he was.

Of course I know what has you pissy, and that's because all of the peer reviews I referenced had him on par with or ahead of Gavaskar. The fact that I named 4 of the 6 fast bowlers of the 70's (who incidentally bowled to both batsmen) who rated Barry clearly ahead, while the 5th rated him as "fair weather" is the part that bothered you. So perhaps it's your agenda that's at the fore here. Not my problem.

And I could care less about what satisfies you, that's strictly between you and your browser history.

No one was speaking to you, but for some reason you decided to inject yourself into the conversation.

Excuses excuses excuses.......

 

[Thala_0710]

Does anyone have any data on the number of slip catches per match? For teams or overall, not imdividual players.

Cricviz usually has that sort of stuff

 

[Coronis]

Does anyone have any data on the number of slip catches per match? For teams or overall, not imdividual players.

Would only be recent matches too, if it does exist.

No, I would also like to hope that I didn't call it a vendetta.

When you had a Wisden top 5 player and greatest player of pace, and a cricketer who among all of the contenders for best after Bradman, was the only one never to have a flat era or okay against minnows to boost his numbers like the others did, outside of the top 20 I did and fo believe it was atrocious.

I never tried to get you to change it, I just thought it made no sense.

I also don't think my ranking of Sutcliffe is far away from that outside of CW, especially from historians who had him well below the likes of Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton and even Headley.

All of whom are seen as equals to or below Vivian.

We can discuss further if you like, but these players basically epitomize the essence of how we rate and value players and we will never agree and that's fine, but neither of us will alter the other's opinions in the slightest, not should it tbh.

I never had him outside the top 20, to my recollection.

Ah so now its consensus outside CW apparently. It gets confusing because you often bring up CW consensus and outside consensus and use them both as arguments for/against certain players, even when they contrast.

 

[The Sean]

Not sure I follow here - are we talking about the ESPN Legends of Cricket ranking list and the the Cricinfo All Time XIs? Because they were two entirely separate exercises conducted nearly a decade apart. One was very much not a lead up to the other.

As far as prestige and importance goes, from my perspective I remember more hype around the ESPN Legends of Cricket list. It was even accompanied by its own book and tv series.

Just to expand on this with regard the importance and prestige of each exercise, the panel of judges for the ESPN Legends of Cricket ranking was: Ian Chappell, Richie Benaud, Sunil Gavaskar, Dickie Bird, Mike Procter, Michael Holding, Martin Crowe, Wasim Akram, Ian Botham, Allan Border, Sir Richard Hadlee, Christopher Martin Jenkins, Tony Cozier, John Knowles and Robin Marlar.

The jury for the Cricinfo All Time XI (which I stress once again was an entirely different exercise nine years later) was: Ian Chappell, Clive Lloyd, Tony Greig, Duleep Mendis, Ali Bacher, Intikhab Alam, John Wright, Ajit Wadekar, plus four other cricket writers and historians whose names I can’t seem to find but must exist somewhere.

The first, in both timing and prestige, was in absolutely no way the lead up or support act for the second.

 

[vidiq]

 

[Coronis]

View attachment 46386

Since Sobers retired in 1974 and Kallis debuted in 1995 we’ve got another 9 or 10 years to wait.

 

[DrWolverine]

A great batting allrounder is very rare.
There have been just 2 in the history of cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

No one in that called him top 4 though.

When you do through it, none of the assessments were off base.

You're just being you.

You literally presented him as a contender because you want to blur the idea of his peer rating being a problem. We all know it so stop trying to hide it.

 

[subshakerz]

Can someone please tag me once Kyear2 says something slightly non repeatative or mildly interesting; or better yet, once he acknowledges Abdul Qadir is a viable #4 spinner Ever.

He will use peer rating to trash Sunny and Imran and then downplay with Qadir when cornered. Nobody should take those arguments seriously.