Hammond vs Kallis

[subshakerz]

"How he was rated when he played" was basically: this guy's numbers are kinda like Sobers' but no-one can be as good as Sobers ---------> he's still doing it ------------> he should stop now it's getting awkward ------------> ok this guy is actually pretty much the player his literal scoring of runs and taking of wickets says he is

Yeah we can argue around the margins of exactly how good he really was, but basically saying his raw numbers are a lie or a major distortion of his quality is pure mid-2000s "I don't want this to be true" revisionism

His raw numbers aren't a lie but were obviously affected by the 2000s run boom, similar with Sanga, Yousuf, Chanders and others. Most whose career largely coincided with that time will have an inflated record.

I get annoyed for those who take his numbers at face value. You have posters literally saying, 'oh well look he averaged 55, Waugh averaged 50, therefore Kallis better'.

Kallis never had a sustained run when he was the no.1 in the world. He was never that highly rated by pundits or peers for most of his career. His case for being an ATG is purely statistical and to me that is insufficient compared to other ATGs.

 

[CricAddict]

His raw numbers aren't a lie but were obviously affected by the 2000s run boom, similar with Sanga, Yousuf, Chanders and others. Most whose career largely coincided with that time will have an inflated record.

I get annoyed for those who take his numbers at face value. You have posters literally saying, 'oh well look he averaged 55, Waugh averaged 50, therefore Kallis better'.

Kallis never had a sustained run when he was the no.1 in the world. He was never that highly rated by pundits or peers for most of his career. His case for being an ATG is purely statistical and to me that is insufficient compared to other ATGs.

So, do an era adjustment. His average will still be good.

He was not rated by pundits because he was not flashy. Kallis and Waugh were the type of players who batted in one mode and that mode was successful. But Waugh got recognition since he was a successful captain and also Aussie media while Kallis did not have those.

He was well rated by peers during his career as well.

 

[subshakerz]

Definitely. Poor Kallis, leave him alone. He did his best for his team and it is clear that this forum under-rates him compared to how he is rated world wide. So, we don't have to reiterate the under-rating again and again.

No, its the opposite, this forum overrates him. You go out to cricket punditry, players and intelligentsia and see if Kallis gets rated higher than Hammond. It won't happen. Kallis the batsman is an afterthought for most of them.

 

[subshakerz]

So, do an era adjustment. His average will still be good.

He was not rated by pundits because he was not flashy. Kallis and Waugh were the type of players who batted in one mode and that mode was successful. But Waugh got recognition since he was a successful captain and also Aussie media while Kallis did not have those.

He was well rated by peers during his career as well.

Nonsense. Waugh was rated the best in the world in the mid nineties. Posters here seem to have a short memory.

Greatness will get acknowledged the world over regardless of whether you are flashy or not. Border, Gavaskar and Dravid got their due. Kallis didn't get that credit because opposition didn't see him as highly.

 

[CricAddict]

No, its the opposite, this forum overrates him. You go out to cricket punditry, players and intelligentsia and see if Kallis gets rated higher than Hammond. It won't happen. Kallis the batsman is an afterthought for most of them.

That is because Kallis the all-rounder is such a huge figure and unfortunately, clouds the judgement on Kallis the batsman. I don't think any peer of him underrates him as a player.

 

[subshakerz]

That is because Kallis the all-rounder is such a huge figure and unfortunately, clouds the judgement on Kallis the batsman. I don't think any peer of him underrates him as a player.

Is that possible? If Kallis was really up there with Border or Waugh or others as a legendary bat, can the entire cricket world simply miss that?

 

[CricAddict]

Is that possible? If Kallis was really up there with Border or Waugh or others as a legendary bat, can the entire cricket world simply miss that?

No. It is not that way. You check on any interview of former players about Sobers and they will be talking more about how awesome an all-rounder he was and not on how awesome a batsman he was. The same happens to Kallis too.

 

[subshakerz]

No. It is not that way. You check on any interview of former players about Sobers and they will be talking more about how awesome an all-rounder he was and not on how awesome a batsman he was. The same happens to Kallis too.

I don't think so. Sobers is pretty unanimously seen as the greatest lefthander of all-time by his generation, Bradman called him as such, and no.1 of his era. If anything, Sobers' exploits with the bat made him seem a better all-rounder. I have seen interviews from Ian Chappell, Bedi, Lillee and others all praising Sobers and discussing his batting.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That is because Kallis the all-rounder is such a huge figure

tbf that was mostly his genetics I think he tried to eat clean

 

[Prince EWS]

But your comment proves my point, because 10 years ago no-one was comparing Hammond and Kallis as all-rounders

This is comparing them as players, not allrounders. I don't think this would ever seem like a silly question.

 

[Flem274*]

His raw numbers aren't a lie but were obviously affected by the 2000s run boom, similar with Sanga, Yousuf, Chanders and others. Most whose career largely coincided with that time will have an inflated record.

And Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar too.

Getting sick of the assassination of Kallis on CW again so its time to tear down Hammond with carefully selected data.

Also didn't Hammond benefit from relatively flat pitches, only one opposition side being his equal and a pile of trash tier teams to face?

I have seen footage of early NZ bowlers - the ones not stolen by County or called Jack Cowie - and the likes of Harry Cave and Fen Cresswell wouldn't play higher than second XI club cricket today if they were transported as is. That's not being mean, that's acknowledging the game has improved around the world and more would be asked of them physically today.

Now lets look at the premier bowler in the NZ side Hammond scored a million against - Ted Badcock. He's at the very start of this video on Immenso's amazing channel;

Everyone on CW could score runs against that. Maybe he just cbf, so here's Curly Page in another video bowling in a match;

I don't mark Hammond down for being one of the best of a lesser era, but I don't think we should mark down Kallis for doing his job either.

And idc what judges of the time say because we all know if he played for one of the right teams there would be churches, shrines or whatever built in his worship. I don't know why we put so much stock in the opinion of past players and judges when they regularly say things on commentary you or I might disagree with. Lots of people have played good level sport in the past, and some of them are some of the densest people I've met.

 

[Coronis]

I do often hear about how flat the uncovered English pitches of the 30’s were.

 

[ankitj]

Hammondball is not a thing. Hence Kallis.

 

[Xuhaib]

Growing up reading my father old cricket magazines from the 60's Hammond was mainly spoken as the big 3 along with Bradman and Hobbs. This really formed by early perception off him.

 

[thierry henry]

This is comparing them as players, not allrounders. I don't think this would ever seem like a silly question.

I think Kallis would’ve always been the answer precisely because he IS an all-rounder.

 

[thierry henry]

Look basically it’s Kallis 4eva and everyone else neva and that’s it

 

[Burgey]

*Kallies

 

[honestbharani]

No idea of most past cricketers. (pre 1980s at least and mostly pre 1990s). Just went with Kallis as I felt bad voting against him twice in recent past.

 

[anil1405]

No idea of most past cricketers. (pre 1980s at least and mostly pre 1990s). Just went with Kallis as I felt bad voting against him twice in recent past.

That balances out tjb's counter vote.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Hammond.Arguably the 2nd best batsman of all time.Good enough to be the 5th bowler and perhaps the best Slip fielder who ever lived.
And may be the most magnificent batsman to watch alongside Trumper and no comparison to Kallis in that regards.