Hammond vs Kallis

[kyear2]

This is not entirely inaccurate but a pretty unfair summation on the whole. The 4 hundreds you refer to are:

1. This one vs an ATG standard attack of Marshall/Croft/Garner/Clarke where he took Pakistan from 95/5 to 369. Absolutely no way Warne or Marshall would even be able to fluke a hundred like this in an ATG XI game (https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-vs-west-indies-1st-test-63272/full-scorecard)

2. vs India where Pakistan were 273/7 and ended up getting 487 because of Imran's hundred (https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...dia-vs-pakistan-1st-test-63452/full-scorecard)

3. again vs India where Pakistan were 367/5. Probably downhill skiing but they were responding to 370 from India, so I'd still argue this as a very valuable innings (https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...kistan-vs-india-3rd-test-63331/full-scorecard)

4. vs England. This is 100% inarguably downhill skiing (https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...and-vs-pakistan-5th-test-63465/full-scorecard)

Maybe only 1 or maybe 2 of the 6 hundreds are of low worth imo.

The first one i I definitely give to you, he salvaged the innings and got assistance, lower down. But it seemed the pitch also may have got easier, not based on Imran's knock, but the ones just above and the few after him. But full credit to Imran on this one. But yeah, drawn game.

The second one, there was for all intents and purposes three hundreds in that first innings and Wasim scored a 60 plus. Another drawn game where India scored even more.

The third, seriously? His hundred was the 4th scored in that innings. 4 hundreds in one innings. The definition of down hill skiing.

For the fourth you've already admitted that this one was just piling on.

Only one if those innings I would seem to be high worth and while one may have saved a game, none were match winning efforts.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The second one, there was for all intents and purposes three hundreds in that first innings and Wasim scored a 60 plus. Another drawn game where India scored even more.

This is almost beyond parody. Scoring a hundred from 273/7 is apparently downhill skiing now. And yes, India scored a ton of runs and the game was drawn... hence you know what would've happened if Imran hadnt scored those runs? Pakistan lose the game.

I'm in shock that you even wrote that out. Completely absurd.

 

[subshakerz]

The first one i I definitely give to you, he salvaged the innings and got assistance, lower down. But it seemed the pitch also may have got easier, not based on Imran's knock, but the ones just above and the few after him. But full credit to Imran on this one. But yeah, drawn game.

The second one, there was for all intents and purposes three hundreds in that first innings and Wasim scored a 60 plus. Another drawn game where India scored even more.

The third, seriously? His hundred was the 4th scored in that innings. 4 hundreds in one innings. The definition of down hill skiing.

For the fourth you've already admitted that this one was just piling on.

Only one if those innings I would seem to be high worth and while one may have saved a game, none were match winning efforts.

What about this knock in Adelaide?

AUS vs PAK Cricket Scorecard, 2nd Test at Adelaide, January 19 - 23, 1990

Get cricket scorecard of 2nd Test, AUS vs PAK, Pakistan tour of Australia 1989/90 at Adelaide Oval dated January 19 - 23, 1990.

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[The Sean]

The second one, there was for all intents and purposes three hundreds in that first innings and Wasim scored a 60 plus. Another drawn game where India scored even more.

There were two hundreds, and one of them was Imran's.

 

[subshakerz]

And for me the batting depth matters less for two reasons.
1. I would go for the absolute best bowlers with the possible exception of the no 8 position, and that person, would be Hadlee over McGrath, but then I also believe McGrath is the 2nd best pacer ever and him and Marshall would bowl well together, and I also would prefer to have guys from different eras. Hence Marshall, Steyn, McGrath is perfect for me.

Please tell, in terms of real series impact, what is the projected overall difference between being the 2nd best pacer every and Hadlee or Imran in an ATG setup?

2. Diminished or depreciated value of the secondary skills. And let's be honest, if Bradman, Sobers and co have been skittled out, don't see any tail making much of a comeback.

Given that we all agree these will be generally low-scoring affairs, doesn't Imran's batting have more value, especially in a chase?

 

[kyear2]

Tbf, the real reason this discussion won't have any resolution is because I rate Imran much higher purely as a bowler than other people do. It's built on a premise that we cant agree on anyway.

And this is the point, if you have him in your top 3 or 4 and the equal to the rest, then there's absolutely no argument to be made.


But I don't think most in CW does, look at the recent poll where Steyn handily defeated Imran head to head.
For CW there's the consensus big 3, in the general order of Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, then persons generally rank Steyn and Ambrose in variable order with Imran and some others generally ranked just below. Almost all in the top 10, most probably around 6 to 8, which is where I rate him, with most probably having him 6th. Him, Garner and Donald being relatively close imo, and definitely slightly ahead of the rest.

If that's the case for others, it's never going to be clear cut for everyone, some yes but not everyone has the same criteria.

 

[kyear2]

There were two hundreds, and one of them was Imran's.

Think Javed was run out for 94, hence why I said for all intents and purpose.

 

[Prince EWS]

Actual downhill skiing should be called out, but turning losses into draws wins series.

 

[The Sean]

Think Javed was run out for 94, hence why I said for all intents and purpose.

Michael Slater loves this, because for all intents and purposes he scored 23 Test centuries.

 

[Coronis]

Steve Smith will never be selected in such a team in the first place because of his low standardised average tbh.

#muhroads

Only if you update them tbh.

Bowling and batting are inherently equally valuable.

The reason bowlers are more valuable than bats is because everyone bats, and not everyone bowls. In a conversation about the value that bowlers add with the bat, this observation is out of place.

i.e reducing the bowling quality with one player is more of a factor than increasing the batting quality with one player

 

[shortpitched713]

Anyway, Kallis was better than Hammond.

(but I'd pick Hammond in my ATG World XI and not Kallis)

Hammond wasn't even a better bat than Kallis.

I hate this obsession we have with rating old timey batsmen (who didn't experience a professional quality of play or opposition bowling like modern bats do) really high for some reason, not because I don't respect their game, but simply because we don't apply this consistently and rate any bowlers of that time.

For real, between Sydney Barnes and Keith Miller, tell me how many non spin bowlers are given a place as all-timers. Now count the batsmen. It's a ridiculous disparity.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Anyway, Kallis was better than Hammond.

(but I'd pick Hammond in my ATG World XI and not Kallis)

Yeah Kallis was a better bat than Hammond. But i won't pick either in ATG XI

 

[shortpitched713]

Hammond wasn't even a better bat than Kallis.

I hate this obsession we have with rating old timey batsmen (who didn't experience a professional quality of play or opposition bowling like modern bats do) really high for some reason, not because I don't respect their game, but simply because we don't apply this consistently and rate any bowlers of that time.

For real, between Sydney Barnes and Keith Miller, tell me how many non spin bowlers are given a place as all-timers. Now count the batsmen. It's a ridiculous disparity.

If you think I'm cherry picking compare even opening batsmen alone from this period, to compare to non seam bowlers. Still more batsmen who get all-time status, just as a matter of course without scrutiny. There is no such charity for the bowlers.

 

[Socerer 01]

Hammond wasn't even a better bat than Kallis.

I hate this obsession we have with rating old timey batsmen (who didn't experience a professional quality of play or opposition bowling like modern bats do) really high for some reason, not because I don't respect their game, but simply because we don't apply this consistently and rate any bowlers of that time.

For real, between Sydney Barnes and Keith Miller, tell me how many non spin bowlers are given a place as all-timers. Now count the batsmen. It's a ridiculous disparity.

its been a long complaint of mine because the standard of play in certain areas was poor then but cricket fans are one of the few who always are like nostalgia good and think theirs is the only sport where everyone has regressed in quality over time contrary to normal sports evolution

 

[kyear2]

Anyway, Kallis was better than Hammond.

(but I'd pick Hammond in my ATG World XI and not Kallis)

Not to get too much back on track, but... I find that these are basically the same player.
Both were fairly slow scoring though while Kallis's was perceived selfishness, Hammond may have at least had the era as explanation.
They were both reluctancy, but more than useful quick bowlers and superb slip fielders and would bring tremendous value to any team.

Between, Kallis batting on more sporting pitches and Hammond having his issues with the short ball, I would give the advantage to him.

 

[trundler]

For real, between Sydney Barnes and Keith Miller, tell me how many non spin bowlers are given a place as all-timers. Now count the batsmen. It's a ridiculous disparity.

O'Reilly, Verity and Grimmett are all at least low tier ATGs. Consider that there are 6 batsmen for 1 or 2 spinners, there is no disparity at all.

 

[OverratedSanity]

O'Reilly, Verity and Grimmett are all at least low tier ATGs. Consider that there are 6 batsmen for 1 or 2 spinners, there is no disparity at all.

Non spinners

 

[Socerer 01]

just to be devil’s advocate though

nearly 10 years of that artificial period are lost due to world war and that also has an impact on the period after it because many would have lost athletic development and playing time to it

some pacers for consideration after that

Lindwall
Snooke
Bedser
Cowie
Toshack
Statham
Martindale

and a few names who were not sub 25 on test bowling average but had the reputation instead

Larwood
Constantine
Nissar
Voce
Griffith
Amar Singh

some of the greats also had their careers start in the 50s and had 10 matches or more by the time Miller retired and a good start which include Adcock, Mahmood, Tyson, Appleyard, Mohammed

 

[kyear2]

its been a long complaint of mine because the standard of play in certain areas was poor then but cricket fans are one of the few who always are like nostalgia good and think theirs is the only sport where everyone has regressed in quality over time contrary to normal sports evolution

It really wasn't until the mid 30's that cricket even started to look like the game played today and competition started to improve, but yeah, I would say that post WWII is when the game fully became comparable to the modern one. But that isn't a popular opinion here.

 

[shortpitched713]

O'Reilly, Verity and Grimmett are all at least low tier ATGs. Consider that there are 6 batsmen for 1 or 2 spinners, there is no disparity at all.

Non spinners my dude.

You can even compare the number of non spin bowlers to opening batsmen alone, and compare that ratio, because I'm feeling charitable.