Wally Hammond vs Jacques Kallis

[DrWolverine]

Wally Hammond averages 51 against Australia.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Wally Hammond averages 51 against Australia.

with the ball I meant

 

[subshakerz]

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

No you're right he did his fair but of sucking against better opposition.

 

[Johan]

Wally Hammond averages 51 against Australia.

Jacques Kallis averages 40 against Australia

 

[DrWolverine]

with the ball I meant

Hammond’s bowling record is not even good.
Less than 1 WPM.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

I'm not denying Kallis was clearly a better bowler. But I don't think the difference makes a big difference.

I see him more as Hadlee level bat in his bowling.

Whereas I see Hammond as a Philander level bat in his bowling.

Their batting difference is clearly more significant. Unless we want to argue Kallis will bowl a regular load.

 

[Johan]

Hammond’s bowling record is not even good.
Less than 1 WPM.

his WPM was more than 1 before the war, and it's universally agreed that his record post war are cut offs from both batting and bowling

 

[DrWolverine]

I'm not denying Kallis was clearly a better bowler. But I don't think the difference makes a big difference.

I see him more as Hadlee level bat in his bowling.

Whereas I see Hammond as a Philander level bat in his bowling.

Their batting difference is clearly more significant. Unless we want to argue Kallis will bowl a regular load.

Agreed.

Hammond is a better batsman.
Kallis is a better bowler.

 

[Coronis]

I'm not denying Kallis was clearly a better bowler. But I don't think the difference makes a big difference.

I see him more as Hadlee level bat in his bowling.

Whereas I see Hammond as a Philander level bat in his bowling.

Their batting difference is clearly more significant. Unless we want to argue Kallis will bowl a regular load.

I don’t think so. The difference between the top batsmen is not as much as it seems. Practically, the difference between them as batsmen is easily smaller than the difference between them as bowlers. It depends how you want to weight them.

 

[subshakerz]

I don’t think so. The difference between the top batsmen is not as much as it seems. Practically, the difference between them as batsmen is easily smaller than the difference between them as bowlers. It depends how you want to weight them.

I obviously don't rate Kallis the bat as high as you.

And I don't see the bowling difference between Kallis and Hammond translating into consistent meaningful match impact to be a tiebreaker.

 

[DrWolverine]

There is no right or wrong answer in this case imo. Obviously Kallis is the better bowler.

As batsmen, Wally Hammond is better than Jacques Kallis. There is a difference between both of them but how much is something that will vary from person to person

 

[Coronis]

I obviously don't rate Kallis the bat as high as you.

And I don't see the bowling difference between Kallis and Hammond translating into consistent meaningful match impact to be a tiebreaker.

Yeah can’t imagine consistently getting batsmen like Ponting, Tendulkar, Waugh, Hayden, Chanderpaul or Gilchrist out could make a difference.

 

[kyear2]

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.

I agree with all of this, except the last part.

Kallis lacked range, but damn he caught everything as well. Yeah Hammond tanks further up the list, but Kallis isn't far behind. Almost a tie?

 

[kyear2]

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.

Wins in primary and one of two secondaries.

And yeah, Kallis wasn't definitely that much better with the ball, he was just used more.

Hammond averaged, an excellent 28 (for the era) coming on 2nd change.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah can’t imagine consistently getting batsmen like Ponting, Tendulkar, Waugh, Hayden, Chanderpaul or Gilchrist out could make a difference.

Sure but minus the wickets that Hammond would be taking.

 

[subshakerz]

I agree with all of this, except the last part.

Kallis lacked range, but damn he caught everything as well. Yeah Hammond tanks further up the list, but Kallis isn't far behind. Almost a tie?

How do you disagree? You said Hammond is a better slip.

Hammond the slightly better bat, Kallis more volume as a bowler and Hammond again slightly the better slip.

 

[kyear2]

Yet you select Kallis in your ATG team over Wally.

It's not just that you're a liar, but this is the 3rd time that were having this conversation.

So add disingenuous to liar.

So again.

They both nake my 2nd XI.

What you're referring to, and we've had this conversation twice before.

If Sobers hadn't taken up cricket, who replaces him in the first team.

In this scenario he's expected to bowl possibly a greater amount of overs and to be part of the rotation.
With the increased emphasis on bowling for that specific role, and consisting that since he's also repaving Sobers at 2nd where he was brilliant, and Hammond was more of a specialist at 1st.

In that very specific scenario, I would go with Kallis, being the more recognized all rounder and a more one on one replacement in the cordon.

As it stands they both make my second team.

You intentionally misrepresent what I say, call me racist and then wonder why I clicked you.
You're a ****ing nuisance

 

[kyear2]

Kallis easily is the better bowler.

Kallis bowled more overs, and yes in a less batting friendly era.

Hammond,.especially taking into consideration their respective roles, isn't that far behind.

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

Yes, I fully agree with this. Why ranking players by who's the best all rounder have never made sense.

The gap in their fielding is also not big.

Yes, Hammond is arguably the GOAT, but Kallis is only behind Waugh and Hooper at 2nd from what I've seen, and Simpson and Sobers historically overall. (Taylor and Richardson fits somewhere in there as well)

But point is, Kallis isn't that far behind.

So yeah, I agree.

 

[kyear2]

This is really not true and underrating Kallis.

It's not really.

There's only one era that was flatter than Kallis's and that was Hammond's. And Kallis had helpful home conditions throughout.

Yes he's better, but it's also more of a volume situation.

And yes, as an all rounder, Kallis would still rate higher, much higher here apparently.

 

[kyear2]

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

There's no argument that Kallis has the clear advantage in production.