akilana
International 12th Man
Easily better than cheater Imran.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Hammond vs Kallis
- Thread starter Fuller Pilch
- Start date
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's just his instinct to win, which sadly Kallis lacked.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Much more likely to find the kind of soft, damp pitch receptive to his medium pacers domestically than in a test, where harder, drier pitches were the rule even in England.
How do you know?
Kallis was the best for 4 years. Not everyone realised it at the time, because he had contemporaries who peaked earlier, but he was definitely the best at that time, and those of us who were closely following his career were very aware of it. 60s+ average in 6/7 countries he played in (all top 8). 86 away average. Easy era for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if nobody has ever piled runs on with this type of consistency in that many places.
Also, arguably, the best from coming right in 99 till end of career. Most runs, best average, about the best away record etc. He definitely has at least as good a case as anyone in this timeframe. More so if you stop in 2012.
BazBall21
International Captain
He was good but famously very reluctant
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
LOL he was the best batsman in the world for four years and nobody noticed it. Ponting, Dravid and maybe Lara all were peaking around 2004 to 2006 so they would be rated ahead of him that time. Perhaps 2007 when they declined/retired, Kallis would be ahead.
I know you werent paying attention, but I certainly noticed. Just look at the numbers if you can't remember.
The second best bat in that timeframe was probably Ponting. He has a sub 40 average in 3/7 countries. Kallis had zero. 60+ in 3 countries for Ponting, one of which was a minnow. 6/7 for Kallis, no minnows. 50ish away average vs 86. Huge difference in overall average.
Arguing that Ponting was ahead in the timeframe is just doubling down on not remembering how consistently and heavily Kallis was scoring.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I have issue with the timeframe. It is revisionist history to say Kallis was the best batsman in the world from 2004 to 2006. Ponting was not just scoring well but also in a far more dominant fashion, whereas Dravid was in the middle of a golden run.
Kallis had a jumbo year in 2007 but by then Dravid and Ponting were in decline but for the majority of the period he was behind them.
Chrish
International Debutant
Everyone from that era alone rated Hobbs unquestionably higher..
Kallis had jumbo years in 04, 05 and 07. He was a long way ahead of the guys you are mentioning for most of this period.
You aren't going to find a case in modern cricket when a bat is clearly the best in the world for a calendar year for more than a couple of years at a time. Maybe not even for a couple... some inferior bat is always going to be pulling a monster year.
Kallis was clearly the best over that 4 year stretch, and has the strongest case over a 13 year stretch. Considering the competition, these are big numbers.
shortpitched713
International Captain
Is "better" player simply a euphemism for better all-rounder? Because to me, there is no one that compares to the top 5 genuine all-rounders in cricket history, (in whatever order) for me being: Sobers, Miller, Khan, Botham, and Kallis.
Most of the time there are many "bowling all-rounders" that contribute a hell of a lot to the team, but for me usually aren't quite good enough with the bat to be considered "genuine" all-rounders, whereas all of the above have had periods where they were picked at least equally, if not more for their batting (always more for batting in Sobers and Kallis case).
Hammond, in my mind simply does not meet the threshold for being an all-rounder at all, wickets of Bradman notwithstanding. However, I think he's probably a somewhat marginally better batsman.
So which am I choosing based on, who is the better all-rounder, or who is the better batsman? I await your answer before I contribute my polling vote.
Yours truly,
An insufferable pedant
Most of the time there are many "bowling all-rounders" that contribute a hell of a lot to the team, but for me usually aren't quite good enough with the bat to be considered "genuine" all-rounders, whereas all of the above have had periods where they were picked at least equally, if not more for their batting (always more for batting in Sobers and Kallis case).
Hammond, in my mind simply does not meet the threshold for being an all-rounder at all, wickets of Bradman notwithstanding. However, I think he's probably a somewhat marginally better batsman.
So which am I choosing based on, who is the better all-rounder, or who is the better batsman? I await your answer before I contribute my polling vote.
Yours truly,
An insufferable pedant
Doesn't matter how much of an AR a player is. They are as good as the sum of their disciplines. An AR is definitionally better, but a top quality specialist is still going to be better than an AR who is poor at both. If Kallis is ahead in bowling by more than Hammond is as a bat, he should win and vice versa.
shortpitched713
International Captain
I don't like this reductionism, and I think the comparison between two players Kallis and Hadlee, both nominal allrounders but with different team roles, brought this home to me. You really shouldn't compare players with different roles.
It feels wrong to say something like Imran was a better player than Malcom Marshall, but by your criteria it's just some sort of objective truth.
If you extended your reasoning to the logical conclusion, then the history of the top X great cricketers would only include Bradman representing batsmen, the odd transcendant bowlers like McGrath, and every allrounder that fit the description, from Jack Gregory to Mushtaq Mohammad to Jason Holder and everyone in between.
Last edited:
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Neither. Better cricketer
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Okay. Please click on his name by the opening post for the poll.