Wally Hammond vs Jacques Kallis

[akilana]

imran is overrated.. nobody with that ridiculous away average should be rated that high. Ponting gets penalised for averaging 45 away.. how's imran an exception?

 

[subshakerz]

Because quite honestly as others have already pointed out, they're really stupid points.

If you are going to have such long replies you might as well address my points. If not, why did you take me out of ignore mode?

 

[subshakerz]

imran is overrated.. nobody with that ridiculous away average should be rated that high. Ponting gets penalised for averaging 45 away.. how's imran an exception?

Because most who rate him that highly understand the context of his career.

 

[akilana]

Because most who rate him that highly understand the context of his career.

imagine needing context for an ATG bowler lol.

 

[subshakerz]

imagine needing context for an ATG bowler lol.

You mean like saying Steyn bowled in a batting era? Etc.

Yeah it helps with bowlers in the same group.

 

[akilana]

You mean like saying Steyn bowled in a batting era? Etc.

Yeah it helps with bowlers in the same group.

imran didn't bowl in a batting era or anything. There were plenty of ATG bowlers at that time that had better record that Imran.

 

[subshakerz]

imran didn't bowl in a batting era or anything. There were plenty of ATG bowlers at that time that had better record that Imran.

Well if you can accept context for Steyn you should for Imran.

 

[akilana]

Well if you can accept context for Steyn you should for Imran.

when did i ever argue about steyen? why are you asking me that?

imran didn't play in a batting era.. he doesnt need context.

 

[subshakerz]

when did i ever argue about steyen? why are you asking me that?

imran didn't play in a batting era.. he doesnt need context.

You laughed at the idea of an ATG bowler needing context. Then I gave an example of Steyn context in a batting era and you immediately accepted it.

Imran does have context. For an outright pace bowler, he had the longer career of nearly 20 years which did affect his stats, compared to a dozen years or so for Marshall, Donald, Ambrose, etc.

Would you call it silly to account for that?

 

[akilana]

You laughed at the idea of an ATG bowler needing context. Then I gave an example of Steyn context in a batting era and you immediately accepted it.

Imran does have context. For an outright pace bowler, he had the longer career of nearly 20 years which did affect his stats, compared to a dozen years or so for Marshall, Donald, Ambrose, etc.

Would you call it silly to account for that?

why are you lying?

Imran doens't need a context. He was bowling in the bowlers era with many other ATGs. There were many other ATGs that were successful in that era.
Why don't we use this context for Ponting then? He was averaging nearly 60 after 100 or something tests.

 

[subshakerz]

why are you lying?

Imran doens't need a context. He was bowling in the bowlers era with many other ATGs. There were many other ATGs that were successful in that era.
Why don't we use this context for Ponting then? He was averaging nearly 60 after 100 or something tests.

Dude your words are below. And at least try to address the argument rather than repeating yourself.

imagine needing context for an ATG bowler lol.

 

[akilana]

what are you even saying?

 

[subshakerz]

what are you even saying?

That an unusually longer career than others affected Imran's bowling stats.

 

[akilana]

That an unusually longer career than others affected Imran's bowling stats.

nah.. he wasn't that good. It probably helped him maintain his average..

 

[subshakerz]

nah.. he wasn't that good. It probably helped him maintain his average..

Yknow you can check the record and see that it didn't.

His bowling stats got hit in the last three years when he was mainly batting.

Like be honest, you really think comparing a fast bowler who played 20 years with one who played 12-13 is a level playing ground?

 

[kyear2]

'Not in play' does double work here- the ball goes to them less often, and you are fielding a 3rd slip less often. I don't think it's easier at 3rd+, just less valuable.

No argument that it is in play less often.

Still want a plus guy there, but not as critical as the other two.

 

[Coronis]

I have major issues with Laker and Grum, but most of them are what keeps them from the top 3 and ATG status, and less applicable here I guess. So I withdraw my earlier Grimmett objections.

So with regards to your question, I went back and read the original comments and mine as well.

First thing is I need to be asleep at 1am, especially when sick and drugged up on sinus meds.

Next one is that I genuinely don't know, and is not something that I ever cared enough to take exception with. He had some success against us and wasn't seen as the worst spinner around these parts.

But I'll start at the beginning and cover the statements first.

As I said the first time, I don't think the Bird statement was correct as from everything I've read he rated Gibbs and Warne higher.

Richie ranking him 3rd was him tripling over his feet not to choose Murali, and wanting to select a leggie. I've spoken to this countless times and have always found it silly, hilarious and intellectually dishonest, but silly.

Gooch was the only one that's a bit off base, and tbh, he's basing it on his own experiences and from what I can glean he basically said Qadir was more difficult to face than Warne. That's not too far off saying Wasim was more difficult to face than McGrath, Pigeon was still better.

No issue with CMJ's statement at all. Seems fair to me.

Imran was talking about taking more wickets, not in any way being better. A captain pushing his players legacy.

Having heard Bumble's explanation I have no issue with it. He wants to be entertained and to watch attacking cricketers, all matches back.

Marsh called him the best leggie he faced, don't see what's wrong with that. Likely true.

O'Reilly called him a great bowler which he arguably was and Berry basically said that spell was peak leg spin.

First off, none of those statements were in any way comparable to the ones I listed for Barry, not remotely close. Not in scope nor weight.

My original post also said the same, basically after 3rd it's a free for all, which is true. In no way is that saying he's 4th or a candidate for same.

I've said for me when I was thinking about it last week, I narrowed my choices to between Gibbs and Tayfield, I'm pretty much the same place now.

I recall a few months back I had him as my spinner of choice for a Pakistani All time XI, and you said that his selection was in no way viable. Think that was basically the only discussion I've ever had with regards to Qadir and the extent to which I thought about him.

So while the phrasing was clumsy, I didn't say he was a candidate for 4th, I don't think he's a candidate for 4th, but also I wouldn't care or be distressed if someone said that he was. For me it really is a free for all after the top 3, that's honestly how I see it.

But yeah If I could be a little cheeky, but kinda serious at the same time, I would have a greater issue with someone placing Sutcliffe in an AT XI than someone ranking Qadir in the top 5.

And yes, part of that is because I generally have even less regard for spinners, especially those outside the top 3, than @Johan

Yeah you really didn’t need to relist all those reasons for ignoring those peer reviews. Also lol, Sutcliffe is a lot closer to an ATG XI than Qadir is to a top 5 spinner.

Nice post, and all part of what peer reviews are all about and how they give us insight into players we get to see, way too little of.

Yes it is. Insight into them and their playing style, rather than any objective view of their record which shouldn’t really change our perspective.

See the line from Morris - Shane Warne is a great legspinner but if you look at Tiger's wickets to number of runs, it will be half of Warne's. I've never seen a better bowler.

The part about his bowling style is what most interests me there, to come to a better understanding of a player with limited footage.

The other parts don’t change my view on Warne vs O’Reilly at all.

Also for anyone interested in the full interview

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/arthur-morris-feet-are-the-most-important-thing-in-batsmanship-673947

Couple of other interesting things are said. (I actually stumbled upon it when looking for Sid Barnes stuff, see if you can spot his one mention)

 

[Coronis]

No reason to remove it, Grimmett when faced with Hammond in Australia averaged 48.3, there's a reason for that struggle.

To be completely fair about that 28/29 series, it was quite a batting friendly series, only two bowlers averaged below 30 (both pacers) - even Larwood and Tate both averaged 40.

btw Grimmett that series bowled an average of 79 overs a match. Insane workload. Though tbf, the top English spinner bowled a few more overs, in the same number of innings. Gotta love timeless tests.

It is a downer for Grimmett though. But as we all know, Wally loved the Aussie wickets.

 

[kyear2]

Dude you are missing the entire point. The whole contention against you rating Barry so high was that there isn't even consensus he is SA's best bat. I don't know why you can't admit that.

Pretty strong consensus.

And do you have consensus here or anywhere that Imran is a top 5 bowler

Does Coronis have consensus here or anywhere that Sutcliffe is the 2nd best opener?

Does that stop either of you from rating him where you do?

You're the one who said every single Imran / Ambrose poll or ranking ever done here is wrong despite the fact that there is a consensus on the forum and everywhere imaginable that Ambrose is rated higher than Imran.

And yes there's more of a consensus that Barry is a top tier ATG bat and rated slightly ahead of Pollock than there is that Sutcliffe belongs ahead of Hutton or Imran ahead of Ambrose.

So either follow your own newly found standard or shut tf up.

 

[Bolo.]

Yknow you can check the record and see that it didn't.

His bowling stats got hit in the last three years when he was mainly batting.

Like be honest, you really think comparing a fast bowler who played 20 years with one who played 12-13 is a level playing ground?

This 20 years stuff is pretty disingenuous in terms of his bowling. He was in the side and bowling for about 13.

You can use his high workload as a more legitimate form of praise if you want to go this route.