Kallis Vs Wasim

[kyear2]

Suffice it to say, I think the competition of batting v bowling all-rounder is much stiffer with Imran.

So where am I wrong exactly?

 

[shortpitched713]

So where am I wrong exactly?

You want to rope me in to it, and I don't want to get into the same thing over again.

I will say, in particular that Imran's secondary discipline of batting is vastly underrated. IMO only a shade under Miller and Botham, and a shade over Kapil. Which is better than Sobers' bowling for the extensive reasons I mentioned in the other thread.

Also has a pretty meaningful captaincy bonus over Sobers, who while a unifying leader, was famously tactically overdaring with declarations, and counterproductively overused himself. There's not much evidence to suggest that these negative aspects of his captaincy were a misrepresentation either.

 

[Coronis]

I will say, in particular that Imran's secondary discipline of batting is vastly underrated. IMO only a shade under Miller and Botham, and a shade over Kapil.

I’m pretty sure thats the prevailing opinion on their batting skills so I wouldn’t call it underrated here.

 

[kyear2]

You want to rope me in to it, and I don't want to get into the same thing over again.

I will say, in particular that Imran's secondary discipline of batting is vastly underrated. IMO only a shade under Miller and Botham, and a shade over Kapil. Which is better than Sobers' bowling for the extensive reasons I mentioned in the other thread.

Also has a pretty meaningful captaincy bonus over Sobers, who while a unifying leader, was famously tactically overdaring with declarations, and counterproductively overused himself. There's not much evidence to suggest that these negative aspects of his captaincy were a misrepresentation either.

Secondary skills wise, Imran's batting numbers were incredibly soft. Still the best of the bowlers, but not matching the average either.
Sobers bowling was versatile and his 6 wicket hauls were of greater impact that some of his counterparts hundreds, 7 of which came in draws, most not exactly match saving either. Sobers had varying roles at times varying from opening the bowling, to bowling long spells into the wind with the old ball to defensive fields, and two type of spin which was also employed late into innings.
He was also one of the elite great slip fielders, one of the very best of all time, and in another show of versatility, he also specialized at leg slip and short leg for the off spinner. He was literally always where the ball was most likely to be caught.

There's a reason why there's only two names on top of the pantheon for cricket from the start of the 20th century till now.
As Mark Nicholas once stated, while naming him the best bat since Bradman
"never mind that he bowled quick, slow, and caught flies. Yup, It's Garry. There is no going back. I just hit the "send" key"

 

[subshakerz]

Secondary skills wise, Imran's batting numbers were incredibly soft. Still the best of the bowlers, but not matching the average either.

You called Imran a 'beast' in the lower order yourself, and admit to underrating him.

I still put Sobers ahead though.

 

[subshakerz]

Anyways all of this was beyond the point. I don't doubt Imran is a top 10 player of all time, I'm not arguing with you about Imran's quality, I'm (unsuccessfully) trying to show that your argument towards Kallis is pointless. His numbers and impact were there. He was an ATG batsman, a test 4th and great 5th bowler and an ATG slip. What more do you want? He was a top 3 of 4 all rounder of all time.

Your point failed because it was based on diminishing Imran when you shouldn't have brought him into a chat about Kallis

You tried to suggest Imran was never called the top AR of his time. I showed you Hadlee doing so explicitly.

You tried to suggest he wasn't called the top AR during his playing days and only by career end. I showed you Lillee doing so.

You tried to suggest there wasn't a consensus on him as a top drawer cricketer. I showed you the lists where he is up there.

 

[kyear2]

You called Imran a 'beast' in the lower order yourself, and admit to underrating him.

I still put Sobers ahead though.

Said it then as well, they were soft, but still as a lower order batsman, he was the best.

But yes, Sobers was still ahead.

 

[kyear2]

Your point failed because it was based on diminishing Imran when you shouldn't have brought him into a chat about Kallis

You tried to suggest Imran was never called the top AR of his time. I showed you Hadlee doing so explicitly.

You tried to suggest he wasn't called the top AR during his playing days and only by career end. I showed you Lillee doing so.

You tried to suggest there wasn't a consensus on him as a top drawer cricketer. I showed you the lists where he is up there.

You named two names, one not exactly explicitly. If you want to see Hadlee be explicit look at what he says about Lillee.

Tell me how many players called Wasim the best while he was playing, the list is how many times longer, that's my point.

Lists made in what year? Kallis was also mentioned as one of the greatest all rounders near the end of his career.

It's basically the same. I would say I don't know why u must pull down Kallis, but we all do.

 

[subshakerz]

You named two names, one not exactly explicitly. If you want to see Hadlee be explicit look at what he says about Lillee.

Hadlee:' "If I was asked to pick who was the better of the four of us, and I am on record as saying Imran because he was a versatile batsman, potent strike bowler and charismatic captain". How much more explicit do you want?

Tell me how many players called Wasim the best while he was playing, the list is how many times longer, that's my point.

No you are changing points. This is whataboutism. You asked for a reference, I gave you one, then you moved on without acknowledging it. Shifty.

Lists made in what year? Kallis was also mentioned as one of the greatest all rounders near the end of his career.

I gave those list around the millennium because you were suggesting Imran's rep is a CW myth.

 

[kyear2]

Hadlee:' "If I was asked to pick who was the better of the four of us, and I am on record as saying Imran because he was a versatile batsman, potent strike bowler and charismatic captain". How much more explicit do you want?


No you are changing points. This is whataboutism. You asked for a reference, I gave you one, then you moved on without acknowledging it. Shifty.


I gave those list around the millennium because you were suggesting Imran's rep is a CW myth.

That Imran is a great player isn't a myth, never said it was. I will say that the top 3 player is a CW creation, but that's a different story.

You're totally misunderstanding what I was saying. I'm not denying he's a great player.

What I did say is that his peer rating wasn't the same as it was after his career, same as Kallis. But you use it as a weapon against Kallis. He wasn't an exciting player, that tends not to garner as many headlines.

His numbers are there, he was a legit ATG batsman, a good 4th bowler, a great 5th bowler and one of the best slip fielders ever. What else do you need from him.

 

[subshakerz]

What I did say is that his peer rating wasn't the same as it was after his career, same as Kallis.

Except you haven't given evidence of that. From the early 80s onwards (mid-career) he was considered the best of the four ARs, and I gave you a reference to that. And by 82/83, he was being discussed as the best bowler in the world before his injury.

 

[kyear2]

Except you haven't given evidence of that. From the early 80s onwards (mid-career) he was considered the best of the four ARs, and I gave you a reference to that. And by 82/83, he was being discussed as the best bowler in the world before his injury.

Dude, you gave one contemporaneous reference. How can can you give for Wasim, seriously, how many... Do you know why, they were everywhere.

Re the bowling thing. Lillee was seen as the best bowler in the world, till it was handed over to Maco. From 83 to about 88 / 89 it was Marshall, then Ambrose, Akram, then McGrath, Steyn and finally where we are today with Bumrah.

We can argue about that till the cows come home and neither of us would convince the other, but knowing you, you'll still try.

Btw I love how when it was Ambrose it was that he lacked penetration, with Wasim he was respectfully played out and nullified that way. You're hilarious.

 

[subshakerz]

Dude, you gave one contemporaneous reference. How can can you give for Wasim, seriously, how many... Do you know why, they were everywhere.

You only asked for one bro lol. Please see his Wisden profile at the time to get a sense of how highly he was rated too.

Re the bowling thing. Lillee was seen as the best bowler in the world, till it was handed over to Maco. From 83 to about 88 / 89 it was Marshall, then Ambrose, Akram, then McGrath, Steyn and finally where we are today with Bumrah.

I would say: Lillee until around 81/82. Imran 81/82 to 83. Marshall then to 88/89. Ambrose 89 to 93/94. Wasim then to 96/97. Donald to 98/99. McGrath onwards to 2007. Then Steyn.

Btw I love how when it was Ambrose it was that he lacked penetration, with Wasim he was respectfully played out and nullified that way. You're hilarious.

I don't see your point. I am not giving credit or excuses to Wasim here. He was bottomline less effective then and that late career part one reason why he is lesser rated than McGrath and Ambrose. I was just rebutting the idea that Wasim had some skill issue or too much variety that cost him wickets, or that he was less effective in his prime.

 

[Bolo.]

I don't see your point. I am not giving credit or excuses to Wasim here. He was bottomline less effective then and that late career part one reason why he is lesser rated than McGrath and Ambrose. I was just rebutting the idea that Wasim had some skill issue or too much variety that cost him wickets.

You were defending him as a player. But not against the idea that how he chose to bowl cost him quality wickets. Him knocking over disproportionate amount of weak bats by hitting tailenders and weak teams is an issue from his whole career, not just outside his peak.

Why do you think a guy with his skillset took so few good specialists out compared to other comparable quicks?

 

[subshakerz]

Why do you think a guy with his skillset took so few good specialists out compared to other comparable quicks?

I do think slips do account for most of it. You essentially lose perhaps a top order wicket every couple of games.

But I also think he was just so much more effective in running through the tail.

 

[kyear2]

I do think slips do account for most of it. You essentially lose perhaps a top order wicket every couple of games.

But I also think he was just so much more effective in running through the tail.

That's not a premier or sought after skill in relation to top and upper middle order though.

I've seen what great cordons have done for Lillee, Steyn, the quartet +, McGrath, Warne etc, so yes, a factor.

But as Bolo says, does that explain the relative struggles against the good teams vs blowing out the bad ones, and the top order struggles. Think the slips can more explain the top order struggles than the rest.

 

[subshakerz]

That's not a premier or sought after skill in relation to top and upper middle order though.

I've seen what great cordons have done for Lillee, Steyn, the quartet +, McGrath, Warne etc, so yes, a factor.

But as Bolo says, does that explain the relative struggles against the good teams vs blowing out the bad ones, and the top order struggles. Think the slips can more explain the top order struggles than the rest.

I definitely think not just cordons but general all round catching was a factor. I explained on the other thread, a drop can affect a bowlers energy levels significantly.

However, I wouldn't ignore runnings through tails as a useful ability, not comparing it to top order new ball bowling. Lillee was famous for lacking a good yorker and having trouble to do so.

 

[Bolo.]

I do think slips do account for most of it. You essentially lose perhaps a top order wicket every couple of games.

But I also think he was just so much more effective in running through the tail.

Even if you assume slip drops had a major impact on his career, them accounting for most of it is a reach. You are still getting drops off the weaker bats. Slips are in play for the top the most, but more for the tail than the middle. And the proportion of drops presumably stays the same against weaker lineups.

Getting the tail out is very handy. It's just not a good substitute for getting the specialists out.

 

[subshakerz]

Even if you assume slip drops had a major impact on his career, them accounting for most of it is a reach. You are still getting drops off the weaker bats. Slips are in play for the top the most, but more for the tail than the middle. And the proportion of drops presumably stays the same against weaker lineups.

Wasim was pitching it up for the tail. The slip drops were mostly a new ball thing.

Getting the tail out is very handy. It's just not a good substitute for getting the specialists out.

Agreed.

 

[Bolo.]

Wasim was pitching it up for the tail. The slip drops were mostly a new ball thing.


Agreed.

I'm saying top order drops would be the most. Middle usually has 0-1 slips. Slips aren't dropping a lot when you don't have a slip. You usually have a couple of slips to the tail and are generating edges regardless of length.