Kallis vs Warne

[subshakerz]

Who is the Greater Cricketer?

 

[kyear2]

"Bowling Shane..."

 

[ankitj]

Greater? Better?

 

[DrWolverine]

If I can pick only one of them in my team, it’s Kallis

 

[subshakerz]

Greater? Better?

Take your pick my bro

 

[Johan]

If I can pick only one of them in my team, it’s Kallis

other than the obvious one you're not really gonna find a better spinner than Warne and that in itself is a huge debate, Kallis has one decisively superior and one on the same tier.

 

[DrWolverine]

There has been only two great batting all rounders in history and Kallis is one of them.

 

[sayon basak]

other than the obvious one you're not really gonna find a better spinner than Warne and that in itself is a huge debate, Kallis has one decisively superior and one on the same tier.

Murali
O'Reilly
Barnes (if considered spinner)

 

[Johan]

Murali
O'Reilly
Barnes (if considered spinner)

Bill doesn't have the body of work to compete, Barnes was a slow/medium imo

 

[sayon basak]

Bill doesn't have the body of work to compete, Barnes was a slow/medium imo

makes sense.

 

[Johan]

There has been only two great batting all rounders in history and Kallis is one of them.

Sir Walter Hammonds

 

[sayon basak]

Sir Walter Hammonds

WPM below 1.

 

[Johan]

WPM below 1.

before the war Hammond had 83 wickets in 77 games and bowled 12.1 overs every inning (very close to Kallis), from what I can gather he was just difficult to hit and used to make pressure and the era was seriously flat.

 

[sayon basak]

before the war Hammond had 83 wickets in 77 games and bowled 12.1 overs every inning (very close to Kallis), from what I can gather he was just difficult to hit and used to make pressure and the era was seriously flat.

and he could bowl faster than Maurice Tate. But still, he isn't comparable to Sobers or Kallis imo.

 

[Johan]

and he could bowl faster than Maurice Tate. But still, he isn't comparable to Sobers or Kallis imo.

Sobers Nah, Kallis and Hammond I think are compareable tbh

 

[Fanboy375]

Kallis wanted to become bowling all rounder when he was young.As you can see until 2003 his bowling ave was 28 in test and 29 in odi.After that Kallis wasn't a noticable player when it comes to bowling.Warne legacy isn't as good in odi because he wanted to focus on test.But Warne was more consistent than Kallis

 

[kyear2]

There has been only two great batting all rounders in history and Kallis is one of them.

Two spinner in history are comparable to Warne.

I can name 14 middle order batsmen better than Kallis, four of them could catch as well (and an additional 3 not far below), and three of those could bowl as necessary.

Modern day all conditions spinners? Two.

I could swap out Kallis however, for Sobers, Hammond, Chappell, even Simpson if in a bind.

I would say Root? But he's a very poor man's version of Kallis. Not nearly as good at the wicket, in the cordon or at the popping crease, but can do a job.

But yeah, Warne was a match winner.

 

[DrWolverine]

I can name 14 middle order batsmen better than Kallis, four of them could catch as well (and an additional 3 not far below), and three of those could bowl as necessary.

There is only one person who could do all of those combined better than Kallis.

 

[kyear2]

before the war Hammond had 83 wickets in 77 games and bowled 12.1 overs every inning (very close to Kallis), from what I can gather he was just difficult to hit and used to make pressure and the era was seriously flat.

Not to add, one of the few who were better than him in the cordon.

From observing (and reading) from the outside looking in. It seemed like both teams prioritized and valued their catching and obviously batting more than their bowling, which in difference ways could compromise both.
Plus neither were overly keen to bowl more than was necessary.

But yes, Hammond is an underated bowler

 

[DrWolverine]

Warne was a match winner.

So was Kallis.

45 centuries and a record 23 MoM proves that.