Wally Hammond vs Jacques Kallis

[kyear2]

Pollock being rated at 16 was even more special.

So yes. 16th was better

So that's 1, ESPN, I'll also give you Geoff Armstrong, that's 2.

The other side.

Christopher Martin Jenkins
Richards - 28th / Pollock - 37th / Gavaskar - 26th

David Gower
Richards - 15th / Pollock - 25th / Gavaskar - 26th

Woodcock
Richards - 15th / Pollock - 30th / Gavaskar - 23rd

TMS
Richards - 15th / Pollock - 36th / Gavaskar - 12th

Broken Dreams (not as familiar so...)
Richards - 19th / Pollock - 22nd / Gavaskar - 28th

So that's 5 - 2 so far. Let's continue.

Cricinfo also had an AT XI exercise, Richards and Gavaskar both made the 2nd team, Pollock didn't make any.

Martin Crowe also did an article for Cricinfo sometime after, Gavaskar made the first team, Richards the 2nd, Pollock didn't make either.

Bob Willis did a team as well, opening his team with Hobbs and Richards, but Pollock missing from the middle order.

John Snow also jumped into the fray selecting team that included Richards, Pollock and Gavaskar. He though makes it clear that he rates Barry (and Sobers as the perfect batsmen he's bowled to)

Dennis Lillee rates Barry as the greatest opener and the 3rd best batsman (after Sobers and Viv) that he bowled to.

Mike Procter and Graeme Pollock both called Barry the best batsman they've ever seen, Pollock though placing him in a tie with Sobers.

Now there's much more, but those are the most meaning full peers, there's still of course Bradman who rated him on par with Hobbs and Hutton, if not slightly ahead, Dicky Bird who called him the best he ever saw, and supposedly Hutton who rated him below only Hobbs.

So while none of this may mean anything to you, the score right now is closer to 10 - 2

So unless you're bringing any close to comparable sources where Pollock is rated higher, stop trying to create a false narrative.

 

[Migara]

Hammond may be marginally better with the bat, (that also discounting the variety of oppositions Kallis played), but with the ball it is no contest. Some times Kallis was the strike bowler for South Africa, hitting the bat hard, exeeding 145k. Hammond was a steady fast medium bowler but never was a strike bowler as I read it. Not seen him bowl however is a great disadvantage in this comparison.

 

[Johan]

Hammond may be marginally better with the bat, (that also discounting the variety of oppositions Kallis played), but with the ball it is no contest. Some times Kallis was the strike bowler for South Africa, hitting the bat hard, exeeding 145k. Hammond was a steady fast medium bowler but never was a strike bowler as I read it. Not seen him bowl however is a great disadvantage in this comparison.

the bowling gap between them isn't relevant enough to give up on Hammond's primary and tertiary advantage

 

[Migara]

the bowling gap between them isn't relevant enough to give up on Hammond's primary and tertiary advantage

The assumption of a large gap between their primary skill is a wrong one. They average very close to each other. I haveseen the argument that Kallis bowled in a less batsman friendly era. Then he batted in it too. And he batted in lot more variable conditions too. As batsmen there isn't much between them.

Then I usually have my money on current players being better fielders unless they've proven to be total disasters.

 

[Johan]

The assumption of the gap between their primary skill is a wrong one. They average very close to each other. I haveseen the argument that Kallis bowled in a less batsman friendly era. Then he batted in it too. And he batted in lot more variable conditions too. As batsmen there isn't much between them.

Then I usually have my money on current players being better fielders unless they've proven to be total disasters.

both had fairly "batting friendly" eras if that is what is being discussed, the batting averages in their games are close, even though Hammond's goes higher due to the Bradman factor which no one has to deal with and Kallis had Steyn/Donald to bring his game's averages down. Hammond batted on plenty tricky wet and matting wickets and was successful on them. He also was averaging 61.5 before the second world war ended his career, and his peer reputation is something Kallis cannot match. All in all, Hammond is clearly the superior Batsmen, they are close but the answer on batting is obvious.

Hammond's reputation as a slip is absurd, and he has 0.71 catches an inning to Kallis's 0.63, I know this mostly comes down to bowling attack too, but Kallis is behind even though he had a far superior bowling attack, Hammond is superior in this regard too.

Kallis averages 35 without minnows, Hammond 38, they bowl a similar amount, are you really passing on arguably the Greatest #3 of all time for some small gains as the 5th or 6th bowler of an attack?

 

[Migara]

Though I'm now remembering that Hammond does have an advantage in that he was better to spin.

So yeah, you're right, advantage to Hammond.

If you are considering it an advantage you should be putting Barrington on the top. Bro killed spin on spinning pitches, not on flat tracks.

 

[Migara]

I argue you don't need Kallis if you have Hammond. Pick your best bats.

Gavaskar
Sutcliffe
Headley
Smith
Lara
Hammond
Knott
Hadlee
Steyn
Lillee
Murali

If you have Hadlee and Murali, you really don't need a fifth bowler.

 

[Migara]

both had fairly "batting friendly" eras if that is what is being discussed, the batting averages in their games are close, even though Hammond's goes higher due to the Bradman factor which no one has to deal with and Kallis had Steyn/Donald to bring his game's averages down. Hammond batted on plenty tricky wet and matting wickets and was successful on them. He also was averaging 61.5 before the second world war ended his career, and his peer reputation is something Kallis cannot match. All in all, Hammond is clearly the superior Batsmen, they are close but the answer on batting is obvious.

Hammond's reputation as a slip is absurd, and he has 0.71 catches an inning to Kallis's 0.63, I know this mostly comes down to bowling attack too, but Kallis is behind even though he had a far superior bowling attack, Hammond is superior in this regard too.

Kallis averages 35 without minnows, Hammond 38, they bowl a similar amount, are you really passing on arguably the Greatest #3 of all time for some small gains as the 5th or 6th bowler of an attack?

Greatest #3 is Bradman. I don't see how he could be replaced.

It will be fun to see Hammon's batting average without India and New Zealand too, since we are talking of minnows.

 

[subshakerz]

So yes. 16th was better

So that's 1, ESPN, I'll also give you Geoff Armstrong, that's 2.

The other side.

Christopher Martin Jenkins
Richards - 28th / Pollock - 37th / Gavaskar - 26th

David Gower
Richards - 15th / Pollock - 25th / Gavaskar - 26th

Woodcock
Richards - 15th / Pollock - 30th / Gavaskar - 23rd

TMS
Richards - 15th / Pollock - 36th / Gavaskar - 12th

Broken Dreams (not as familiar so...)
Richards - 19th / Pollock - 22nd / Gavaskar - 28th

So that's 5 - 2 so far. Let's continue.

Cricinfo also had an AT XI exercise, Richards and Gavaskar both made the 2nd team, Pollock didn't make any.

Martin Crowe also did an article for Cricinfo sometime after, Gavaskar made the first team, Richards the 2nd, Pollock didn't make either.

Bob Willis did a team as well, opening his team with Hobbs and Richards, but Pollock missing from the middle order.

John Snow also jumped into the fray selecting team that included Richards, Pollock and Gavaskar. He though makes it clear that he rates Barry (and Sobers as the perfect batsmen he's bowled to)

Dennis Lillee rates Barry as the greatest opener and the 3rd best batsman (after Sobers and Viv) that he bowled to.

Mike Procter and Graeme Pollock both called Barry the best batsman they've ever seen, Pollock though placing him in a tie with Sobers.

Now there's much more, but those are the most meaning full peers, there's still of course Bradman who rated him on par with Hobbs and Hutton, if not slightly ahead, Dicky Bird who called him the best he ever saw, and supposedly Hutton who rated him below only Hobbs.

So while none of this may mean anything to you, the score right now is closer to 10 - 2

So unless you're bringing any close to comparable sources where Pollock is rated higher, stop trying to create a false narrative.

I already told you, using ATG XIs is inherently unfair unless we know where Pollock is ranked since Barry has less competition.

The more prestigious rankings of Wisden (remember you have the TMS list that puts Marshall in 75th place or something, so stop complaining about using bad rankings) and ESPN already had Pollock ahead. There's also Armstrong. Then there is also Benedict Bermange of Sky Sports.

100 Greatest Cricketers by Benedict Bermange (Sky Sports)

Here's the list:- 1: W.G. Grace 2: Donald Bradman 3: Garry Sobers 5-4: Shane Warne (5), Sachin Tendulkar (4) 10-6: Imran Khan (10), Viv Richards (9), Sydney Barnes (8), Jack Hobbs (7), Jacques Kallis (6) 20-11: Kumar Sangakkara (20), Dennis Compton (19), Sunil Gavaskar (18), Adam Gilchrist...

www.cricketweb.net

Cricket South Africa rated him ahead.

What the heck is Broken Dreams? You might as well use CWs ranking then where Pollock is better. There is also random sites like Sportskeeda.

I know for a fact that Tony Greig, Benaud and Ian Chappell both rated Pollock better and up with Sobers. The same Bradman also rated Pollock with Sobers as did Barry himself.

 

[Johan]

Greatest #3 is Bradman. I don't see how he could be replaced.

It will be fun to see Hammon's batting average without India and New Zealand too, since we are talking of minnows.

Bradman is the exception to that statement Of Course.

Indian bowling wasn't minnow level, Amar Singh and Nissar were some of the highest rated bowlers in the world, if we take minnows out of their Record IE bowling average > 40...

Hammond – New Zealand
Kallis – Post Walsh West-Indies, Bangladesh, Zimabwe of the 2000s...

Hammond's average without NZ is 54.2
Kallis's average without those nations is 49.4

so...Yeah, that's that

 

[subshakerz]

If you have Hadlee and Murali, you really don't need a fifth bowler.

Just for part time use.

 

[subshakerz]

During Botham’s career, just under 34.

That is pretty much Botham.

 

[Bolo.]

both had fairly "batting friendly" eras if that is what is being discussed, the batting averages in their games are close, even though Hammond's goes higher due to the Bradman factor which no one has to deal with and Kallis had Steyn/Donald to bring his game's averages down. Hammond batted on plenty tricky wet and matting wickets and was successful on them. He also was averaging 61.5 before the second world war ended his career, and his peer reputation is something Kallis cannot match. All in all, Hammond is clearly the superior Batsmen, they are close but the answer on batting is obvious.

Hammond's reputation as a slip is absurd, and he has 0.71 catches an inning to Kallis's 0.63, I know this mostly comes down to bowling attack too, but Kallis is behind even though he had a far superior bowling attack, Hammond is superior in this regard too.

Kallis averages 35 without minnows, Hammond 38, they bowl a similar amount, are you really passing on arguably the Greatest #3 of all time for some small gains as the 5th or 6th bowler of an attack?

Catches per innings is not a legitimate way to rate slips. G Smith has a higher number of catches per innings than either. You could see he was clearly way worse than Kallis just by watching. But Kallis can't take catches off his own bowling, and was fielding 2nd slip, where the ball goes less often.

I have no idea how good Hammond was as a slip. But I don't think it's possible for a slip to be notably ahead of Kallis. Kallis caught practically everything, and got to balls that plenty of top rated slips would have issues with.

 

[Migara]

Bradman is the exception to that statement Of Course.

Indian bowling wasn't minnow level, Amar Singh and Nissar were some of the highest rated bowlers in the world, if we take minnows out of their Record IE bowling average > 40...

Hammond – New Zealand
Kallis – Post Walsh West-Indies, Bangladesh, Zimabwe of the 2000s...

Hammond's average without NZ is 54.2
Kallis's average without those nations is 49.4

so...Yeah, that's that

What is Hammon's average without India?

 

[Johan]

What is Hammon's average without India?

52.5, STILL higher

 

[DrWolverine]

No by 80s standards Botham was a regulation bat. In fact he was better than his final average.

True

 

[Migara]

52.5, STILL higher

52 vs 49. Given Kallis have played way more different conditions, I would consider them very close. The bowling however is way apart.

 

[Johan]

52 vs 49. Given Kallis have played way more different conditions, I would consider them very close. The bowling however is way apart.

No, because we're not removing India from Hammond's record without removing post Shoaib Akhtar Pakistan from Kallis's record

 

[Migara]

No, because we're not removing India from Hammond's record without removing post Shoaib Akhtar Pakistan from Kallis's record

You are trying very hard with filters.

The conditions they played however cannot be filtered and played with.

 

[Johan]

The conditions they played however cannot be filtered and played with.

Mate, you started the whole let's remove X thing after I talked about Ban and Zim

already told you, Hammond played on wet wickets and mattings, Kallis played some games in Asia, no condition advantage to be seen here.