Kallis’s bowling vs Imran’s batting

[kyear2]

So now @subshakerz cares about polls? Last week it wasnt determative of anything.

Anyways, as a bowler, @subshakerz prefers to only look at his record from '74 to '88.

I assume then that we're also looking at his batting under the same scope?

As was highlighted in the comparisons with Sobers's batting, Imran's batting, to use one of Subz's favorite terms is basically down to "pretty averages". The volume and production just isn't there.

When we go a step further and go from '74 to '88, his average goes from 37 to 32, and the rpi goes from 30 to 27.

And just to take a peek at the overall actual output, his rpm, the amount of runs produced per match is 39.6

When we then start to look at the value of each person's contributions, Kallis has one of the highest value of wicket in history. In contrast, to look at Imran's hundreds, while there are a couple that can be looked at as match saving efforts, they're devoid of match winning efforts and more than a few were the epitome of down hill skiing.

So even if one wants to say Imran's batting is ahead there, and that's a very reasonable conclusion, the two are quite comparable in volume and Kallis may be ahead in quality.

 

[subshakerz]

So now @subshakerz cares about polls? Last week it wasnt determative of anything.

Anyways, as a bowler, @subshakerz prefers to only look at his record from '74 to '88.

Recently discussed this with Bolo and he convinced me to use the period of 76 to 89 for Imran rather than 74 to 88.

Are you ok with using that for him as a bowler and bat?

 

[DrWolverine]

Imran could make it into the team as a specialist batsman alone.

No

 

[subshakerz]

No

In the 80s he could, barely as a no.6.

WI, the no.1 side, has Gus Logie who played the decade with them and he was clearly inferior to Imran.

 

[DrWolverine]

That’s because they had no other option

 

[subshakerz]

That’s because they had no other option

I mean, that kind of tells about the batting standards of the time, and how Imran basically met those standards.

 

[Bolo.]

Recently discussed this with Bolo and he convinced me to use the period of 76 to 89 for Imran rather than 74 to 88.

Are you ok with using that for him as a bowler and bat?

I'm using that for calculating longevity, not other stats.

Point of reference from this thread: Kallis. Similar situation to Imran- teen debut when not ready cos his country lacked resources, and dire start to career. I say that Kallis had a 17 year career, not the 19 calendar years he played for, because he didn't play enough in 95 and 96. We don't just leave Kallis' poor start out of his record though. Everyone would be rated higher if we ignored the times they were crap.

 

[Johan]

why are we cutting Imran's career more and more? 74-88 Makes sense for bowling

 

[subshakerz]

why are we cutting Imran's career more and more? 74-88 Makes sense for bowling

I am fine with that timeline also. But Kyear wants to use that timeline to judge his batting only but not his bowling.

 

[Johan]

I am fine with that timeline also. But Kyear wants to use that timeline to judge his batting only but not his bowling.

eh, until 88 he was an all rounders so when compared with fellow all rounders, that should be used.

 

[subshakerz]

eh, until 88 he was an all rounders so when compared with fellow all rounders, that should be used.

I am fine with that.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm using that for calculating longevity, not other stats.

Point of reference from this thread: Kallis. Similar situation to Imran- teen debut when not ready cos his country lacked resources, and dire start to career. I say that Kallis had a 17 year career, not the 19 calendar years he played for, because he didn't play enough in 95 and 96. We don't just leave Kallis' poor start out of his record though. Everyone would be rated higher if we ignored the times they were crap.

It's very different for batsmen and for fast pace bowlers who have a much shorter shelf life.

 

[Bolo.]

It's very different for batsmen and for fast pace bowlers who have a much shorter shelf life.

Which means that their career length should be compared to players of their own type. It doesn't mean we can ignore the bad parts of bowlers' records but not do the same for bats.

Imran is hardly a unique case amongst quicks for having a slow start. All the guys you rate above him had terrible records early career before they were test standard.

 

[BazBall21]

I think Kallis might have been a more skillful bowler than Imran the batsman but Imran's batting output beats Kallis' bowling output. Kallis was a reluctant bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

Which means that their career length should be compared to players of their own type. It doesn't mean we can ignore the bad parts of bowlers' records but not do the same for bats.

Imran is hardly a unique case amongst quicks for having a slow start. All the guys you rate above him had terrible records early career before they were test standard.

The issue isn't slow start like I said it is career duration for a fast pacer and starting as a teen and ending around 40 which is unprecedented. Hence a need to adjust for a period comparable with virtually all other fast pacers of the modern era. I think we are agreed on this point

And I also look at batting career phases and in certain cases I can contextualize them too. Like end career Ponting for example.

 

[Johan]

close but Imran.

 

[Johan]

Are you working for Subz?

I absolutely love this post.

 

[Bolo.]

The issue isn't slow start like I said it is career duration for a fast pacer and starting as a teen and ending around 40 which is unprecedented. Hence a need to adjust for a period comparable with virtually all other fast pacers of the modern era. I think we are agreed on this point

And I also look at batting career phases and in certain cases I can contextualize them too. Like end career Ponting for example.

The almost 40 thing is a strawman until you find someone who suggests we count his record in the 90s.

Imran's career stats are already being protected from early career performances by being dropped. He wasn't a Hadlee who actually played a lot while poor.

The certain cases you can contextualize records in seem to match your agendas rather neatly. Ponting gets a pass for being poor late career. Kallis doesn't for early career, despite playing for a team with much bigger problems in the middle order. Imran gets a major longevity boost for bowling in essentially a 14 year period, of which he was out for a couple of years. Kallis doesn't for an essentially 17 year period. This is despite Kallis bowling more overs than Imran in his career (while scoring nearly 10k more runs and fielding slips).

 

[subshakerz]

The almost 40 thing is a strawman until you find someone who suggests we count his record in the 90s.

Several here want to count his 90s bowling record though like Kyear.

Like I said, we are agreeing on Imran because you recognize the need to not count that as he wasn't a bowler then. And for longevity comparative sakes, look at 74 or 76 as his start.

The certain cases you can contextualize records in seem to match your agendas rather neatly. Ponting gets a pass for being poor late career. Kallis doesn't for early career, despite playing for a team with much bigger problems in the middle order. Imran gets a major longevity boost for bowling in essentially a 14 year period, of which he was out for a couple of years. Kallis doesn't for an essentially 17 year period. This is despite Kallis bowling more overs than Imran in his career (while scoring nearly 10k more runs and fielding slips).

I'm not sure poor team strength is a reason to discount a part of a career. Early age yes. Injuries maybe. Or in Pontings case staying in the team to help in transition.

I am willing to accept that we contextualize Kallis the bowler for a shorter period though, perhaps until 2009, as you can argue he played almost 15 years until that point.That is a fair argument though I wonder if Sobers who played 20 years should get more points then.

However, based on this, Kallis the bowler rises slightly in my estimation.

 

[Bolo.]

Several here want to count his 90s bowling record though like Kyear.

Like I said, we are agreeing on Imran because you recognize the need to not count that as he wasn't a bowler then. And for longevity comparative sakes, look at 74 or 76 as his start.


I'm not sure poor team strength is a reason to discount a part of a career. Early age yes. Injuries maybe. Or in Pontings case staying in the team to help in transition.

I am willing to accept that we contextualize Kallis the bowler for a shorter period though, perhaps until 2009, as you can argue he played almost 15 years until that point.That is a fair argument though I wonder if Sobers who played 20 years should get more points then.

However, based on this, Kallis the bowler rises slightly in my estimation.

I don't exactly discount poor performances on the back of team strength, but there is no doubt they make a difference to records. Guys in weak teams debut often early, and stick in the team despite initial failures. Which drags their career stats down. See Hadlee and Marshall. Both played too early and averaged about infinity in their first few games. Marshall got his stats protected a bit by the WSC guys coming back and getting dropped. Hadlee played a lot of games cos his team was consistently weak and got his stats burned a bit. He averages 35 in his first 5 years and 20 after. Would have been considered a better bowler if he had been dropped for longer at the beginning and ended up with the GOAT average.

Kallis- super weak middle order early career. They averaged about 30 for a a couple of years either side of debut. That (plus his bowling) was getting him into the team before he was test quality as a bat. Which impacted his record. His average from 95-98 is 31 (25 till 97). From 98 till career end is 59. That's including his decline at the end.

Pontings transition team had a middle order of Clarke and Hussey retiring after him. He was a very below average bat for that middle order in his last few years, and didn't offer the upsides od bowling or growing into a better player later. You want to give Ponting more credit for this because he claimed he was doing it for the good of the team?