Wally Hammond vs Jacques Kallis

[DrWolverine]

Who would you prefer for an average test team?

 

[kyear2]

I think that Wally is the better batsman and hence better cricketer.

Hammond was also regarded as the better slip, though Kallis was closer behind him there. Neither is dropping anything, though Kallis is at the more critical modern spot. Though we can't blame Hammond for fielding where was deemed more valuable when he played.

Not sure if Kallis was the better bowler,.or just bowlers more and both could do the job.

Incredibly close, but I'll go Hammond.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

I think that Wally is the better batsman and hence better cricketer.

Hammond was also regarded as the better slip, though Kallis was closer behind him there. Neither is dropping anything, though Kallis is at the more critical modern spot. Though we can't blame Hammond for fielding where was deemed more valuable when he played.

Not sure if Kallis was the better bowler,.or just bowlers more and both could do the job.

Incredibly close, but I'll go Hammond.

Kallis easily is the better bowler.

 

[Prince EWS]

Kallis for his bowling and Joel Garner's batting.

 

[Johan]

Hammond is plainly better at batting with no room for debate.

Neither is a particularly good bowler, but they bowl an equivalent number of overs and the gap in bowling is not as big as it seems on paper. Hammond is a better fielder. So, Hammond.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Hammond is plainly better at batting with no room for debate.

Neither is a particularly good bowler, but they bowl an equivalent number of overs and the gap in bowling is not as big as it seems on paper. Hammond is a better fielder. So, Hammond.

The gap in their fielding is also not big.

 

[Johan]

The gap in their fielding is also not big.

Yeah but Hammond obviously wins on Primary and Tertiary, Kallis winning on secondary is not enough of a point for him to win the comparison.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Yeah but Hammond obviously wins on Primary and Tertiary, Kallis winning on secondary is not enough of a point for him to win the comparison.

Yes. Kallis the better all rounder and Hammond the better Cricketer.

 

[subshakerz]

I think that Wally is the better batsman and hence better cricketer.

Hammond was also regarded as the better slip, though Kallis was closer behind him there. Neither is dropping anything, though Kallis is at the more critical modern spot. Though we can't blame Hammond for fielding where was deemed more valuable when he played.

Not sure if Kallis was the better bowler,.or just bowlers more and both could do the job.

Incredibly close, but I'll go Hammond.

Yet you select Kallis in your ATG team over Wally.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis' edge over Hammond in bowling is kinda meaningless unless Kallis is expected to be a regular bowler, which will affect his batting.

 

[Coronis]

Hammond is plainly better at batting with no room for debate.

Neither is a particularly good bowler, but they bowl an equivalent number of overs and the gap in bowling is not as big as it seems on paper. Hammond is a better fielder. So, Hammond.

This is really not true and underrating Kallis.

 

[Johan]

This is really not true and underrating Kallis.

I do think Hammond is an underrated bowler too so

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Kallis' edge over Hammond in bowling is kinda meaningless unless Kallis is expected to be a regular bowler, which will affect his batting.

If it was Imran, the secondary disciple would have been another story for you…in case of Kallis it becomes meaningless

 

[subshakerz]

If it was Imran, the secondary disciple would have been another story for you…in case of Kallis it becomes meaningless

I said the EDGE of Kallis over Hammond in secondary discipline is meaningless because Hammond is nearly as good a bowler. Whereas Hammond is a much better bat.

 

[subshakerz]

This is really not true and underrating Kallis.

Not really. Remove minnows. The gap between them narrows.

 

[DrWolverine]

This is really not true and underrating Kallis.

Comparing Hammond & Kallis as bowlers is similar to comparing Warne & Hadlee as batsmen.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

I said the EDGE of Kallis over Hammond in secondary discipline is meaningless because Hammond is nearly as good a bowler. Whereas Hammond is a much better bat.

Agreed Hammond is better due to his edge in the primary discipline. I don’t agree with the much better gap tho, although Hammond the better is clearly evident.
For me the gap in their primary and secondary disciplines are almost same , although in different directions but Hammond becomes better because batting is their primary discipline and as a batsman both are atleast 7 or 8 tiers above their bowling skill.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Not really. Remove minnows. The gap between them narrows.

Hammond averages 44 VS Australia and even if West Indies is included in the name of George Headley, his average against them crosses 50

 

[subshakerz]

Agreed Hammond is better due to his edge in the primary discipline. I don’t agree with the much better gap tho, although Hammond the better is clearly evident.
For me the gap in their primary and secondary disciplines are almost same , although in different directions but Hammond becomes better because batting is their primary discipline and as a batsman both are atleast 7 or 8 tiers above their bowling skill.

Yeah whatever marginal value the slightly better bowling gives you isn't going to affect the game as much as their main batting.

 

[Coronis]

Not really. Remove minnows. The gap between them narrows.

Kallis has a far higher WPM/WPI and was far more of a contributor to his team’s bowling.

The reason they’re even close on overs bowled is because the matches and innings Hammond played in tended to go on much longer. Kallis was easily a far superior bowler to Hammond.