Richard Hadlee VS Jacques Kallis

[Sliferxxxx]

So Imran Tahir and Imran Nazir > Sir Richard ??

Hahaha guess I should've specified....

 

[Zinzan]

Kallis was the better player. Kallis was better as a batsman than Hadlee was as a bowler.

This is a joke right? Hadlee is almost universally rated on this forum as a top 3 all time bowler while I don't know anyone on this forum who would rate Kallis as a top 3 bat of all time.

To answer you actual poll question, yes Kallis is stronger in their respective secondary skills, but Kallis being a better bat than Hadlee the bowler is laughable.

 

[Coronis]

This is a joke right? Hadlee is almost universally rated on this forum as a top 3 all time bowler while I don't know anyone on this forum who would rate Kallis as a top 3 bat of all time.

To answer you actual poll question, yes Kallis is stronger in their respective secondary skills, but Kallis being a better bat than Hadlee the bowler is laughable.

Fairly certain he’s trolling. But you never know.

Why is Tendulkar ahead of Kallis?

Headley is one of 8 elite performers in their primary skills.

There's Bradman and the 4 competing for the best after him and the 3 bowlers with an argument to be the best.

I don't care what other skills you being to the table, you're not getting ahead of those guys.

Don't think anyone would say that Imran was better than or even comparable to Sir Richard with the ball, and Sir Richard could also hold a bat, and didn't pad his batting stats quite as badly.

Think Imran is honestly more comparable to Hammond than Hadlee.

Plus at the end of the day, Hadlee the better bowler, Imran the better batsman. You're selecting a team where one of them is the opening bowler who will be opening you attack the world over, which are you choosing.

I know CW are disproportionately impressed by lower order batting, but which?

But the rating by all these experts says Imran so why does that not apply here, but in other comparisons it does?

 

[shortpitched713]

A player with Hadlee's batting and Kallis's bowling could still be a decently useful Test cricketer, I think. Depending on the team.

For this comparison though, I think is obviously Kallis's bowling.

 

[reyrey]

A player with Hadlee's batting and Kallis's bowling could still be a decently useful Test cricketer, I think. Depending on the team.

Hadlee's batting and Kallis's bowling would be like having an allrounder like Andrew Hall in the team.

 

[Coronis]

Hadlee's batting and Kallis's bowling would be like having an allrounder like Andrew Hall in the team.

So yeah, decently useful cricketer. Better than Mitch Marsh, worse than Cam Green.

 

[Bolo.]

Hadlee's batting and Kallis's bowling would be like having an allrounder like Andrew Hall in the team.

Hall's test bowling was turd. I can remember people throwing toys over him getting into the test team before he had even debuted.

Kallis was similar in quality to Hall at the end of his career. But he'd been test quality for longer than the average quick lasts for before that.

 

[Coronis]

Hall's test bowling was turd. I can remember people throwing toys over him getting into the test team before he had even debuted.

Kallis was similar in quality to Hall at the end of his career. But he'd been test quality for longer than the average quick lasts for before that.

Hall should’ve stuck to bowling against England.

 

[reyrey]

Hall's test bowling was turd. I can remember people throwing toys over him getting into the test team before he had even debuted.

Kallis was similar in quality to Hall at the end of his career. But he'd been test quality for longer than the average quick lasts for before that.

That's fair.

What about Abdul Razzaq then. He was good enough to open the bowling for Pakistan at one point and at times was pretty turd.

 

[Zinzan]

Hadlee's batting and Kallis's bowling would be like having an allrounder like Andrew Hall in the team.

Fair, although Hadlee's bowling & Kallis' batting and you're arguably rivalling Bradman as the greatest cricketer of all time, and streets ahead of Sobers.

 

[Bolo.]

That's fair.

What about Abdul Razzaq then. He was good enough to open the bowling for Pakistan at one point (and did well) and later was turd.

Better player than Hall, but still in the same category. Kallis still averaged about 10 runs less than him with the ball for longer than his career lasted.

In general, I think bits and pieces players can be useful, but it really depends on what resources your team has- you never really want one.

 

[trundler]

I'd throw Klusener's name in the mix as well.

 

[The Sean]

Fair, although Hadlee's bowling & Kallis' batting and you're arguably rivalling Bradman as the greatest cricketer of all time, and streets ahead of Sobers.

I'm firmly of the opinion that Bradman, statistically, literally shouldn't exist and is the greatest outlier in any major sport.

That being said, if a cricketer ever comes along averaging 55 with the bat in the top order, taking the new ball and averaging 22 while picking up 5 wpm, and racking up crazy catching numbers in the slips as well - all over the course of an 18-20 year career - I'd be prepared to say they don't just rival Bradman as the greatest ever but are the new all time number one.

 

[Bolo.]

I'd throw Klusener's name in the mix as well.

Similar career to Razzaq, but an easier player to pick. There were thougts that his bowling alone might be enough to get him in early career, and over his career, his batting was not that far from the worst specialist, which made his bowling almost free, and very valuable (even though it was poor most of the time).

 

[Coronis]

I'm firmly of the opinion that Bradman, statistically, literally shouldn't exist and is the greatest outlier in any major sport.

That being said, if a cricketer ever comes along averaging 55 with the bat in the top order, taking the new ball and averaging 22 while picking up 5 wpm, and racking up crazy catching numbers in the slips as well - all over the course of an 18-20 year career - I'd be prepared to say they don't just rival Bradman as the greatest ever but are the new all time number one.

Confession - when I slip into hours of boredom at work - I fantasize that player is me. Sometimes I’m averaging 100/10 and sometimes 50/20. Either way a traumatic Pant injury or something happens towards the end of my career and then a make a miraculous recovery after ~2 years and prove once and for all I am the GOAT. Then I finally get another customer.

Then I’m a racing driver. Brmmm brrmmmm

 

[reyrey]

Better player than Hall, but still in the same category. Kallis still averaged about 10 runs less than him with the ball for longer than his career lasted.

An all rounder averaging 30ish with the bat and bowling like Kallis did in the latter stages of his career isn't gonna have a long career so no point looking at the length of their careers.

Irfan Pathan would be a good example. He got dropped as soon as his bowling was shaky despite still being crazy young and doing okay with the bat.

 

[DrWolverine]

Irfan Pathan.
He could swing the ball so well. I believe him doing well okay with the bat was the reason teams in IPL picked him for good money.

 

[Bolo.]

An all rounder averaging 30ish with the bat and bowling like Kallis did in the latter stages of his career isn't gonna have a long career so no point looking at the length of their careers.

Irfan Pathan would be a good example. He got dropped as soon as his bowling fell away despite still being crazy young and doing okay with the bat.

Does the fact that Kallis batting was good enough to keep him in the team make his bowling worse? 17 years is an incredibly long career for a quick. He was clearly better than all of these guys for longer than their careers, and if they had played as long as him, they all would likely have ended up averaging about 50 with the ball.

 

[kyear2]

Let's say the top 2 or 3 bowlers are pacers and 4th and 5th are Murali and Warne. Spinners have the advantage when it comes to the additional workload, which gives them more value to an average team and helps make them "greater".

Bradman and Sobers are 1 and 2.

According to you the next 5 are bowlers.

So let's say Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Muralitharan and Warne.

Work load at a lesser efficiency doesn't make one better imo, though we can agree to disagree.

Marshall and McGrath were the centre pieces to the two greatest teams of all time. Hadlee the ultimate, let's say accumulator....

But Hobbs, Tendulkar and Richards also had tremendous impacts on the game as well, the former and latter also somewhat changing or challenging how the game was played. None of the three also had the glaring holes that were India, Lara and Australia on their records.

Most would disagree with my top 10, but it does have in most of them.

Bradman
Sobers

Marshall
Hobbs
McGrath / Hadlee
Tendulkar
Richards

Warne
Imran

Murali features not to long after, along with the likes of Steyn and Lara, might as well just list them.

Steyn
Muralitharan
Smith
Lara
Hammond
Ambrose
Hutton
Kallis
Gilchrist
Richards

The order changes for the bottom 10, but those are the names.

 

[kyear2]

A player with Hadlee's batting and Kallis's bowling could still be a decently useful Test cricketer, I think. Depending on the team.

For this comparison though, I think is obviously Kallis's bowling.

A batting average of 27 and a bowling average of 34?

Which team?