Wally Hammond vs Jacques Kallis

[Cricket Bliss]

We aren't talking total slip catches. We are talking the extra blinders a top slipper will catch versus extra run outs and it's much closer.

We are talking about total slip catches. We are talking which fielding position is important, so the position were most catches happen is greater than any other fielding position.

 

[subshakerz]

We are talking about total slip catches. We are talking which fielding position is important, so the position were total catches happen is greater than any other fielding position.

Not disputing the most catches part. Just that elite covers is more valuable than elite slips because slips are seen as more important.

 

[Johan]

still Hammond

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Not disputing the most catches part. Just that elite covers is more valuable than elite slips because slips are seen as more important.

elite catches do happen more than elite run outs. Better fielders are all round fielders, but as far as match winning is concerned catches are important which (normal or elite) happens mostly at slip...so slip fielders deserve a special mention...especially when those who rarely drops at slip.

 

[subshakerz]

elite catches do happen more than elite run outs. Better fielders are all round fielders, but as far as match winning is concerned catches are important which (normal or elite) happens mostly at slip...so slip fielders deserve a special mention...especially when those who rarely drops at slip.

I think elite catches impact is excelled by elite cover catches, run outs and runs saved impact.

But we can disagree.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

I think elite catches impact is excelled by elite cover catches, run outs and runs saved impact.

But we can disagree.

If the occurance of elite cover catches is that much..and if you say elite catches mostly happen at covers...still elite catches cover just 1/10th of total catches and the rest 9 are normal...to take those 9 without dropping any or rarely throughout their career wins point for me.

 

[subshakerz]

If the occurance of elite cover catches is that much..and if you say elite catches mostly happen at covers...still elite catches cover just 1/10th of total catches and the rest 9 are normal...to take those 9 without dropping any or rarely throughout their career wins point for me.

Yeah but you don't need to be elite to take those 9 fairly comfortably.

And even if there are more elite slip catches than elite cover catches, it doesn't outweigh the effect of adding runouts and runs saved.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Yeah but you don't need to be elite to take those 9 fairly comfortably.

And even if there are more elite slip catches than elite cover catches, it doesn't outweigh the effect of adding runouts and runs saved.

taking slips catches, although normal isn't easy like other fielding positions. Reaction time is less... wicket keepers even wear gloves..slips dosen't although they stand a bit behind the keeper and is relatively easier than keeping. You have to have great reflexes. It just looks normal... Kallis even after 35 rarely dropped one. His reflexes didn't detiorate till his retirement.

 

[kyear2]

Please read my statement again.

I said you choose to ignore consensus when it's against you.

But I also said Pollock is rated by most as ahead. I never said unanimously. But ESPN ranking, Wisden ranking, Cricket SA, and several others all put him ahead.

You just have this inability to acknowledge when you're wrong and so incredibly disingenuous.

The ESPN list is probably the only one I've seen where Pollock is rated higher. I think I have you about 10 lists or examples where Barry was listed well ahead. And the crazy thing is that you think Barry shouldn't be in these discussions, but ESPN only listed 25 players of all time and Barry was there.

So while you re arguing that Pollock is borderline, what, top 15 guy, a majority of pundits, historians and a vast majority of former players ranks Barry ahead.

You're talking about ESPN, but the Cricinfo team, which was a much more expansive and recognized exercise, Richards makes the 2nd team. Pollock doesn't.

We've discussed Wisden and the idiocy and lack of understanding it would take to take anything from it beyond the stated function of choosing a top 5. Unless of course you're calling Frank Worrell the 6th greatest player of all time. Out of 100 votes, Pollock got 4.

Where the hell did cricket SA rate Pollock ahead as a batsman? I'll assume you're back to the argument that because he was named cricketer of the century. By that same argument Kapil is greater than Sachin and Sunny?

During the period of isolation, Pollock stayed home, propping up domestic cricket and becoming the standard bearer. Barry became an international mercenary. This is obvious to anyone without an agenda. But...

In any event you named one, ESPN, which was contradicted by their premier exercise when Barry made the 2nd team. I named about 10, you named 1, you said multiple.

I'll settle for 3 others.

 

[subshakerz]

You just have this inability to acknowledge when you're wrong and so incredibly disingenuous.

The ESPN list is probably the only one I've seen where Pollock is rated higher. I think I have you about 10 lists or examples where Barry was listed well ahead. And the crazy thing is that you think Barry shouldn't be in these discussions, but ESPN only listed 25 players of all time and Barry was there.

So while you re arguing that Pollock is borderline, what, top 15 guy, a majority of pundits, historians and a vast majority of former players ranks Barry ahead.

You're talking about ESPN, but the Cricinfo team, which was a much more expansive and recognized exercise, Richards makes the 2nd team. Pollock doesn't.

We've discussed Wisden and the idiocy and lack of understanding it would take to take anything from it beyond the stated function of choosing a top 5. Unless of course you're calling Frank Worrell the 6th greatest player of all time. Out of 100 votes, Pollock got 4.

Where the hell did cricket SA rate Pollock ahead as a batsman? I'll assume you're back to the argument that because he was named cricketer of the century. By that same argument Kapil is greater than Sachin and Sunny?

During the period of isolation, Pollock stayed home, propping up domestic cricket and becoming the standard bearer. Barry became an international mercenary. This is obvious to anyone without an agenda. But...

In any event you named one, ESPN, which was contradicted by their premier exercise when Barry made the 2nd team. I named about 10, you named 1, you said multiple.

I'll settle for 3 others.

I gave you the Wisden list, ESPN and Cricket SA. Using ATG XIs isn't a good guide because Pollock has more competition in the middle order. Armstrong and Bernbadge also have Barry behind in their lists. We have debated this already too many times.

 

[kyear2]

Its interesting how the excuses come out for other player’s ratings.

Also really? You yourself honestly think Qadir is a good candidate for #4 spinner of all time?

I didn't give excuses. I said I doubted that was Bird's take considering who he chose for his all time team, Benaud never claimed his team to be the best, but who he wanted to represent him, and Bumble that Bumble likes to be entertained and that fits. All personal preferences and all perfectly fine for me.

There's a bid difference between asking or stating who's the 4th best spinner or the best batsman or opening batsman you've ever seen.

If I asked every single person in the thread who's the 4th greatest spinner, well get about 15 answers. Me personally was just putting together a 4th all time team and had to narrow it down between Gibbs and Tayfield.

We're taking about the 4th best spinner, I'm sure you see the difference between that and the information, lists and AT teams I presented.

No one's call Qadir the greatest spinner ever. I think one of the lists included him in a top 100. You really don't see the difference?

In the lists presented to you, a batsman with, as you live and love to point out, had 4 tests, made all.rime teams besides Hobbs, Gavaskar and Hutton, to set up the stage for Bradman and co. The lowest ranking presented had him in the high 20's, the highest in the mid teens, and almost always within touching distance of or ahead of Gavaskar.

I know it's fun to try to **** on my opinions when it comes to Barry or slip fielding etc. but I've showed you guys like Willis, Snow and Grieg who rates him high as hell and equally first AT team worthy, some with, and some ahead of Gavaskar.

We've heard guys with Boycott and read refences from guys in the early 70's putting together an contemporary greatest XI and using slip fielding as a primary consideration.


By the way, who's your 4th greatest spinner?

 

[subshakerz]

By the way, who's your 4th greatest spinner?

Dude stop dancing around.

Do you seriously consider Qadir a contender for 4th greatest spinner, or not?

 

[Johan]

Laker is the Fourth Greatest spinner

 

[Coronis]

I didn't give excuses.

Proceeds to list excuses again.

By the way, who's your 4th greatest spinner?

Threeway battle between Grimmett, Laker and Tayfield. Similar to Hammond, Lara and Smith, on any given day I could rank them in a different order.

By the way

Also really? You yourself honestly think Qadir is a good candidate for #4 spinner of all time?

I noticed you deliberately avoided answering this. Considering I answered your question, I’d appreciate a response.

 

[kyear2]

He cares about player ratings with Barry, Imran (kinda), Wasim.

He doesn't care about player ratings with Marshall, Pollock, Hobbs, Barnes and now Qadir apparently.

Ahh, let's go through the names.

Marshall, he's regarded by most as the greatest bowler of all time, even more so as the greatest pacer. Don't know what I'm missing there.

Pollock, I just showed you a parade of lists that had Pollock below Barry, so again just talking out if your ass, as I have him as an ATG, and my list generally extends to only about 40. Since when are you a Pollock defender? Or is it that in your small petty mind, that if I say something against Imran, then you must respond against Richards? Don't know why it should bother you how I rate two apartheid isolation era batsmen.

You love peer ratings, especially from bowlers. Bob Willis bowled to both batsmen and came out with Barry in all time team, neither Pollock nor Barry made that team. Lillee rates him alongside Viv and Sobers, John Snow said that the two perfect batsmen he bowled to were Sobers and Richards.

Hobbs, I rate him 2nd all time, so higher than you.

Barnes, I don't rate players than purely existed before WWI and his numbers vs Australia aline aren't nearly enough ro transcend like Hobbs can. SA were minnows or just above that level.

 

[The Sean]

Threeway battle between Grimmett, Laker and Tayfield. Similar to Hammond, Lara and Smith, on any given day I could rank them in a different order.

They were my 4-5-6 for a long time, and might still be - though I the more I think about it the more I also lean into Verity.

 

[kyear2]

Debatable. Other fielding positions have both catches as well as saving runs as a consideration.

This is where you trying to be contradictory just shows up as silly.

Even saying the vast majority comes up short, but the vast majority of catches in cricket comes behind the wicket. No other positions comes within miles, nor are they nearly as difficult. Hence why it's a specialist position.

 

[Johan]

They were my 4-5-6 for a long time, and might still be - though I the more I think about it the more I also lean into Verity.

give it to Laker

 

[capt_Luffy]

give it to Laker

Ashwin and Grum, then Laker, Verity, Kumble, Tayfield and Gibbs

 

[Johan]

Ashwin and Grum, then Laker, Verity, Kumble, Tayfield and Gibbs

Nah, for me it's Laker, then Grum, then Gibbs, then Tayfield, then Ashwin, then Verity, then Kumble.