Jacques Kallis vs Jack Hobbs

[kyear2]

Bro, I just think you need to acknowledge that many posters here dont perceive the gap in bowlers for Imran as 7th or 8th between the top three as significant as you do. And they give him more points for batting and captaincy than you do.

However to steer the conversation away from Imran, I want to say that I agreed with a more fundamental point you made earlier. That for someone to be no.3, they would need to have a sense of universal acclaim approximating Bradman and Sobers.

I recongize that Imran on points makes the best case on record but he didnt have quite that level of acclaim. Neither did Marshall frankly. Recognized as best of their era as AR and pacers, yes, but not hyped to the extreme.

The only ones I could think having the acclaim to justify it would be Tendulkar, Hobbs, Viv and Warne. Hobbs is too old school for me to put up there. Warne frankly doesnt have the record to justify it. Viv was such a unique package that I find it hard to ignore him. Tendulkar to me has the longevity record as a bat that separates himself from the others distinctly. The complete bat.

So to me its a toss-up for no.3 cricketer of all-time. I dont think there is a clear answer.

I've mentioned before that you need to stop using arguments like many posters, there's not a poll here that suggests that.

For the bowling trio poll he received only 1/3 of the vote, and that's with the acknowledgment that he's by some distance the best batsman. That means that they do value the bowling of the guys ahead of him to some degree. He was even tied on the vote with Wasim, whose not quite the batsman he is either.

So quite possibly most of the posters do perceive there is a gap between him and the top three elite bowlers.

That being said, I do think that Imran has a better argument for an AT team, than he does to be the 3rd best player ever. But that's just my opinion.


On your secondary point. I fully agree. Honestly surprised you went there bit yeah.

There's a top two, and no one has ever grasped hold of that third spot, and I never tried to suggest that Marshall was seen that way.

I also agree that the names you mentioned have been the leading contenders for same, and agree Hobbs is from a far gone era, Warne is great no doubt, but his record doesn't come close to that level of elevation, Viv is immense, but think that he wasn't the most important member of that team, Maco was and yes, then there's Sachin.

So here's my warped and radical line of thinking. With two batsmen already at the top and bolwers being match winners, and the two greatest match winners also being the two greatest bowlers, why can't it be between them?

I've said that the 4 greatest phenomenons of the game were Bradman, Sobers, the Quartet and McWarne. So from my humble and radical perspective, if you have a bowler who was easily the best among said quartet, very arguably the greatest ever, who led his team to the stature and status of, at the time, greatest ever... why can't he be no. 3.

In my mind, if I was able to draft anyone player from history to start a team and I had the first pick there's only 3 or 4 players I would even consider and he's definitely one of them.

That's just my take, and I agree that there's nothing close to a consensus for that no. 3 spot and your mention of Sachin is a valid one as well. I just think Maco has as much a valid statistical and impactful claim as anyone. Hell, he's the best bowler ever.

 

[kyear2]

.... Still waiting to see what you can come up with.

Lillee beat out McGrath for the spot for the Cricinfo team. When you listen to the guys there, they believe Lillee was better.

I personally disagree, but they were swept up with Lillee and Warne's charisma. It is what it is.

The Wisden team, his slot was taken by Barnes and the team was a tad Anglo centric, but they wanted to represent the history of the game, hence Grace as well.

For guys like Marshall and McGrath, I don't know what it is, but they aren't nearly as celebrated as much as their own colleagues, Richards and Warne, and it no doubt has to do with their personalities. They weren't as flamboyant or had as dominant personalities as Richards, Lillee, Imran, Warne, Tendulkar etc.

One voter said, and some here may agree that Lillee could do everything that McGrath could but kilometers faster. I guess for them it's like my opinion of Punter, you had to watch him live.

Now the distinction between our arguments is that you're saying your guy is the equal to Bradman and Sobers, and to some, no. 2, hence above at least one of them. If you're the equal of those two, and universally seen to be top 3, you make these teams, all teams.

My argument, which Subz has seemingly, temporarily agreed to, is that that player doesn't exist. There isn't anyone close to the status of Bradman or Sobers and there is no consensus no. three. That's it.

 

[kyear2]

Let's deal with this first..... No, there's no guarantee I would. I may or I may not depending on combination. For example, I consider Pele the 2nd Greatest player of all time, but he won't make my AT team if I make it with more objectivity than romanticism, as won't Maradona who is 3rd.

But if it's based on romanticism, then he isn't the 2nd best. Then again, similar to my ranking of Hobbs 4th, but doesn't make my all time team.

So not dissimilar.

 

[kyear2]

For me, Timmy would be ahead and Sobers may or may not make the team. His batting is close enough that he probably will still, but with such a 5th bowler's arrival, it will be no longer automatic.
As for the second bolded part, dude are you really this dense. I am going to say for the last time, evaluating a player by the value they bring to a median or below median team over career is a better measure. Coronis ranks Kallis the 3rd best cricketer and he definitely have arguments and he still doesn't makes his AT team, as he shouldn't. How good a cricketer was and including them in All Time teams are two very different things with widely different criterias. Don't be so condensating about it.

I respectfully disagree.

If you're rating Kallis 3rd ever based purely on merit you should make the team, I'm not trying to be condescending about anything.

If I think Kallis is the 3rd best player, which I don't obviously, he has to make the team. I think that Sachin is a decently enough better batsman that he can out rank Kallis slightly for me. This isn't some anti Imran issue, if I have you in the elite top tier of your primary skills, you deserve a boost. That may just be me though.
To be clear that's a very low among of guys

Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Richards, Hobbs, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee.

Lara, Smith, Hutton, Warne, Murali, Steyn kinda close to that as well, but possibly justtttt a little short.

So it's a really short list I'm talking about.

 

[Bolo.]

For the bowling trio poll he received only 1/3 of the vote, and that's with the acknowledgment that he's by some distance the best batsman. That means that they do value the bowling of the guys ahead of him to some degree. He was even tied on the vote with Wasim, whose not quite the batsman he is either.

Is this why you switched your vote to Akram?

You are right that a lot of people consider the gap in bowling to be pretty significant.

This pole is not evidence of it though. He's essentially competing with Akram for a single spot. I can't remember anyone voting for both. Some people will be voting for Akram based on variety. And some have a very high opinion of his bowling that doesn't give insight into their opinion on Imran's.

Getting into a team is not an accurate reflection of quality. RSA have some seriously good bowlers not making the team, and some seriously bad bats getting in. A hypothetical AT team is a worse way to judge players than teams they actually played for.

 

[kyear2]

Looks like @kyear2 chickened out from answering.

Or, or, was busy.

To get back on track, I have two concerns with how you look at Kallis.

In one of the posts above you said runs from a bowling all-rounder is always good, I could argue about that, but that's for another time, but Kallis bowling more overs isn't a good thing. But if Kallis is bowling more overs than usual it's either because he's on his game, more effective than the alternatives and taking wickets. The notion that every over he bowls should be bowled by a specialist, is a lack of understanding of the game.

The other one, is that you rate him as an all rounder and not a cricketer. He's an ATG bats man who's a really good 5th bowler who had filled the 3rd seamer / 4th bowler role at various times. He's also an ATG slip fielder and that role is severely underrated, especially in SA and with the bowling attacks he fielded to.

So yes, he's the 3rd best all rounder ever, plus his slip fielding is a substantive push over that.

 

[kyear2]

Other than Miller, are any of these players actually specialist level over the course of their careers? Miller is well below than Kallis in primary anyway, and played 1/3 of the games with a bunch of injury concerns.q

Sobers is a fair bit closer to specialist than Kallis in role, but a 34 average 92 SR 2.5 WPM bowler in a specialist spot would be a serious liability.

When he was a full time bowler, Imran scored 30 something runs a match at an average you wouldn't want from a specialist. Similar workload per game to Kallis.

Botham had the role, but the quality is questionable. Averaged below 30 for about half his career, and only ever had 1 year averaging in the 40s. He is closer to balanced, but shouldn't be part of this conversation anyway on account of bowling quality.

Basically, you don't get top players in one discipline performing as specialists for too long.

Agree.

 

[ankitj]

Why not though? His brings an additional bowler and elite slip as advantages over Sachin, so if Sachin beats him out, then isn't.Sachin the better player?

I think it does.

Who makes it in a fictitious ATG team has zero relevance to who was a better cricketer in the real cricket games they played.

 

[kyear2]

Few if any are going to value a 6th bowler role that high to ignore Sachin. Most of all you.

For guys who wants batting to 11 (not you), what's wrong with a 6th bowler and an elite 2nd slip.

 

[kyear2]

Is this why you switched your vote to Akram?

You are right that a lot of people consider the gap in bowling to be pretty significant.

This pole is not evidence of it though. He's essentially competing with Akram for a single spot. I can't remember anyone voting for both. Some people will be voting for Akram based on variety. And some have a very high opinion of his bowling that doesn't give insight into their opinion on Imran's.

Getting into a team is not an accurate reflection of quality. RSA have some seriously good bowlers not making the team, and some seriously bad bats getting in. A hypothetical AT team is a worse way to judge players than teams they actually played for.

I gave the reasons why in the thread, but my guy was dead in the water, plus a thread that Coronis started about peaks, where I made a comment in real time. So while I don't think he's the 3rd best bowler, not close, his early start, compromised end and poor ass slip support are decent mitigating factors, I also said I was going to do a deeper dive into his career.
For me there's still a three way battle for the spot, and he has substantial issues, but so do the other 2.

Re the rest of your post, neither were among the top options and yes, likely split votes, but that's be used they are similar in quality and Wasim had more variety and skills. Think the were one spot apart in our last rating.

I don't fully get the point of your last paragraph, and I've already spoken to why I believe that an AT XI is as good a way as any to judge quality.
You will get an idea of the best openers, best batsmen, best bowlers, who did what they did the best. Don't see how that's the worst.

 

[kyear2]

Who makes it in a fictitious ATG team has zero relevance to who was a better cricketer in the real cricket games they played.

And that's different from a fictitious top ten list how?

In the real games they played, Kallis had a greater impact on his team than Hobbs, he probably also had a greater impact on his team outside of any cricketer not named Sobers. Premier batting position, 2nd change bowler and and premier catching position.

But in my mind was he a better cricketer than Hobbs? No, Hobbs reached a level in his primary skill that I don't think Kallis did. I think Hobbs has a argument to be seen as the best bar Bradman, Kallis doesn't. Think that counts for something.

 

[Bolo.]

I gave the reasons why in the thread, but my guy was dead in the water, plus a thread that Coronis started about peaks, where I made a comment in real time. So while I don't think he's the 3rd best bowler, not close, his early start, compromised end and poor ass slip support are decent mitigating factors, I also said I was going to do a deeper dive into his career.
For me there's still a three way battle for the spot, and he has substantial issues, but so do the other 2.

Re the rest of your post, neither were among the top options and yes, likely split votes, but that's be used they are similar in quality and Wasim had more variety and skills. Think the were one spot apart in our last rating.

I don't fully get the point of your last paragraph, and I've already spoken to why I believe that an AT XI is as good a way as any to judge quality.
You will get an idea of the best openers, best batsmen, best bowlers, who did what they did the best. Don't see how that's the worst.

Do you think RSAs 6th best bat is better than all the bowlers getting left out, like Burger, Ngidi, and Harmer?

 

[Coronis]

I respectfully disagree.

If you're rating Kallis 3rd ever based purely on merit you should make the team, I'm not trying to be condescending about anything.

If I think Kallis is the 3rd best player, which I don't obviously, he has to make the team. I think that Sachin is a decently enough better batsman that he can out rank Kallis slightly for me. This isn't some anti Imran issue, if I have you in the elite top tier of your primary skills, you deserve a boost. That may just be me though.
To be clear that's a very low among of guys

Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Richards, Hobbs, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee.

Lara, Smith, Hutton, Warne, Murali, Steyn kinda close to that as well, but possibly justtttt a little short.

So it's a really short list I'm talking about.

Disagree. I think individually Kallis brings more to the table, but that’s not how selecting an ATG XI works, similar to Imran.

In these scenarios, you’re going to be surrounded by 10 other awesome players - obviously these secondary skills and the impact they have are going to be lessened in comparison to what your actual value was when actually playing. Almost all of the time, you’re going to pick the actual greatest specialists (in your mind) because the impact of Kallis’ bowling or Imran’s batting will be somewhat nullified, both by the high level of batting and bowling from their teammates and presumed opposition.

I think maybe there is some sort of disconnect here between some of us - but voting for the greatest player ever has more to do with their actual value when they played and in their actual teams, whilst a ATG XI is completely hypothetical and based on matchups and combinations that we frankly, have no idea how they would actually pan out. They’re two quite different things in my mind, but others seem to consider the two as much more intricately linked.

 

[capt_Luffy]

But if it's based on romanticism, then he isn't the 2nd best. Then again, similar to my ranking of Hobbs 4th, but doesn't make my all time team.

So not dissimilar.

Him being good isn't romanticm, just his inclusion in the team is. Pele is most certainly a better footballer than Ronaldo (R9) ; but R9 is a better fit in a balanced single striker role.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I respectfully disagree.

If you're rating Kallis 3rd ever based purely on merit you should make the team, I'm not trying to be condescending about anything.

If I think Kallis is the 3rd best player, which I don't obviously, he has to make the team. I think that Sachin is a decently enough better batsman that he can out rank Kallis slightly for me. This isn't some anti Imran issue, if I have you in the elite top tier of your primary skills, you deserve a boost. That may just be me though.
To be clear that's a very low among of guys

Bradman, Tendulkar, Sobers, Richards, Hobbs, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee.

Lara, Smith, Hutton, Warne, Murali, Steyn kinda close to that as well, but possibly justtttt a little short.

So it's a really short list I'm talking about.

And I even respectfully disagree. Don't really think it's hard to see that many may consider Kallis to be better than Sachin, as high as no 3; but still not a good fit for an ATG team.

 

[Bolo.]

And I even respectfully disagree. Don't really think it's hard to see that many may consider Kallis to be better than Sachin, as high as no 3; but still not a good fit for an ATG team.

Sachin Tendulkar vs Jacques Kallis

Think this one is close. Tendulkar is obviously the better batsman, but who’s the better cricketer?

www.cricketweb.net

I think a majority of people put Sachin in an AT team, and just about nobody puts Kallis in.

 

[subshakerz]

How many teams in history would give a specialist with Sobers SR, WPM, and average get a long run in? Of specialists, only a few spinners have worse SRs ever. They bowled a lot more.

Again, if we assume bare minimum specialist spinner bowler standards who is first or second change, I think he makes it.

You are adding in the stats of Imran the bat into the Logie comparison. Since we are discussing secondary discipline, this should not be part of the conversation. He's close to Pollock when he played as a bowler. I don't think many people considered Pollock to be better or more valuable than Kallis in secondary.

We assume Imran's entire bowling stats when we account for his bowling career, including his end batting phase. So why should we exclude his end batting stats when assessing him as a bat? You can't have it both ways otherwise if we cut him off at his bowling prime, he averages 21 with nearly 5WPM and suddenly he should be rated higher.

And also, even if we cut off at his bowling prime, he still averages 33/34 with more tons than Logie. He clearly, obviously is lower order batting specialist standards by the 80s era. You don't seem to want to take the era into account.

 

[subshakerz]

For guys who wants batting to 11 (not you), what's wrong with a 6th bowler and an elite 2nd slip.

Again, can you point to anyone who include both Kallis and Sobers in their XI and exclude Tendulkar? Whats the point of this hypothetical?

 

[kyear2]

Do you think RSAs 6th best bat is better than all the bowlers getting left out, like Burger, Ngidi, and Harmer?

That's kinda my point. If you can't make the team and contribute, then.....

The game is structured a certain way, I don't know, it's 2am and I need to sleep, but the same way with the others, if you can't get on the field, does it matter?

May rephrase that when I'm fully awake

 

[kyear2]

Disagree. I think individually Kallis brings more to the table, but that’s not how selecting an ATG XI works, similar to Imran.

In these scenarios, you’re going to be surrounded by 10 other awesome players - obviously these secondary skills and the impact they have are going to be lessened in comparison to what your actual value was when actually playing. Almost all of the time, you’re going to pick the actual greatest specialists (in your mind) because the impact of Kallis’ bowling or Imran’s batting will be somewhat nullified, both by the high level of batting and bowling from their teammates and presumed opposition.

I think maybe there is some sort of disconnect here between some of us - but voting for the greatest player ever has more to do with their actual value when they played and in their actual teams, whilst a ATG XI is completely hypothetical and based on matchups and combinations that we frankly, have no idea how they would actually pan out. They’re two quite different things in my mind, but others seem to consider the two as much more intricately linked.

As I said, if you're looking at actual value, no one's ahead if Sobers and Kallis, but now many besides you voted Kallis top 5, far less top 3.
I said early in that you're the only one who was consistent in your philosophy, the rest showed a disconnect and voted favorites and God knows what else.
If you're going total value, which you're doing if Imran is no. 3, then the same applies even more for Kallis. Period.