Wally Hammond vs Jacques Kallis

[subshakerz]

I have him top 10.

You're the only one on this forum who refused to acknowledge that his home record is greatly impacted by malfeasance in multiple ways.

A 8 point gap between home and away.

So you accept that the 25 away thing is wrong once we factor in WSC? We can agree there?

 

[Coronis]

Dude the Wisden and ESPN rankings represented the Brit and Intl pundit establishment group think respectively and both had Pollock ahead. And Cricket SA themselves chose Pollock (your Kapil excuse is weak sauce, if there was widespread notion that Barry was better there would be an outcry). And plenty of peer ratings had Pollock as a Sobers level bat.

All of the above gives Pollock the edge.

I’m curious if the Kapil one was Indian cricketer of the century or test cricketer? (something that wouldn’t affect say, Pollock vs Richards) Given his ODI exploits I’m sure captaining your team to a WC would weigh heavily on people’s minds.

 

[Bolo.]

His body was still aging. I am not arguing workload but if one fast bowler has a 70-90 test career concentrated around their prime years of early 20s to early 30s and another has it over a 20 year period of teenager to early 40s it obviously gives an unfair stat advantage to the former. This is pretty obvious.

Imran was an unusually late bloomer for a quick. His prime was late 20s to late 30s. Early to late 30s if you want his peak. It's only 89 that he did a meaningful amount of bowling in when past it. Most players have more than a year at the end when they are past their peak.

76-89 is a pretty long stretch as a regular bowler, but nothing crazy for ATGs. And he was injured/retired for a couple of years of it.

How long do you say Barrington's career was?

 

[Coronis]

Imran was an unusually late bloomer for a quick. His prime was late 20s to late 30s. Early to late 30s if you want his peak. It's only 89 that he did a meaningful amount of bowling in when past it. Most players have more than a year at the end when they are past their peak.

76-89 is a pretty long stretch as a regular bowler, but nothing crazy for ATGs. And he was injured/retired for a couple of years of it.

How long do you say Barrington's career was?

Hadlee was also in this vein. Prime of 27-39.

 

[OverratedSanity]

76-89 is a pretty long stretch as a regular bowler, but nothing crazy for ATGs. And he was injured/retired for a couple of years of it.

That's 14 years. Among the ATG quicks, only Hadlee and Wasim had meaningfully longer careers right? And Wasim suffered from the same early/end of career slumps that affect his overall numbers.

 

[subshakerz]

Hadlee was also in this vein. Prime of 27-39.

Hadlee was a fast medium type.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I’m curious if the Kapil one was Indian cricketer of the century or test cricketer? (something that wouldn’t affect say, Pollock vs Richards) Given his ODI exploits I’m sure captaining your team to a WC would weigh heavily on people’s minds.

It was overall cricketer

 

[subshakerz]

Imran was an unusually late bloomer for a quick. His prime was late 20s to late 30s. Early to late 30s if you want his peak. It's only 89 that he did a meaningful amount of bowling in when past it. Most players have more than a year at the end when they are past their peak.

76-89 is a pretty long stretch as a regular bowler, but nothing crazy for ATGs. And he was injured/retired for a couple of years of it.

How long do you say Barrington's career was?

Imran debuted unusually young for a quick too. I argue for 74 to 88 which is already longer than the careers of Marshall, Ambrose, Donald.

76 to 89 also works.

 

[kyear2]

No, but we don’t rank players based on consensus, which you mention as one of the major factors for a lot of the players and where you rate them, however you don’t always follow the consensus, only referencing it in some cases, which I think is subz issue.

On a different topic, Hammond didn’t just like the Australian pitches. This is him on the 28/29 tour, about 5 months before he got married.

View attachment 46373

1. I don't rate players most on peer ratings, but I do use it to confirm where I rate players. How they were viewed at the time they played adds a tremendous amount of context.

2. Who do I ignore it for?

 

[subshakerz]

1. I don't rate players most on peer ratings, but I do use it to confirm where I rate players.

How convenient a way to pat yourself on the back.

 

[Coronis]

Hadlee was a fast medium type.

Actually he began as a tearaway, like Lillee

 

[Bolo.]

That's 14 years. Among the ATG quicks, only Hadlee and Wasim had meaningfully longer careers right? And Wasim suffered from the same early/end of career slumps that affect his overall numbers.

I'm not saying it is short. Just that it's not 20 years, or unsually long for a top bowler. Other than Garner and Donald (due to ban), I think everyone modern is 12+ years, and a few were quite a bit longer (add Walsh and Anderson in here).

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm not saying it is short. Just that it's not 20 years, or unsually long for a top bowler. Other than Garner and Donald (due to ban), I think everyone modern is 12+ years, and a few were quite a bit longer (add Walsh and Anderson in here).

Like, can you really call Jimmy Meaningfully longer as well in the same vein?? Walsh also was never poor like early Jimmy, but also probs not better than early Imran for a good chunk.

 

[subshakerz]

Actually he began as a tearaway, like Lillee

Yup. But cut back his pace fairly early on and got more effective.

 

[Bolo.]

Imran debuted unusually young for a quick too. I argue for 74 to 88 which is already longer than the careers of Marshall, Ambrose, Donald.

76 to 89 also works.

76 works much better for assessing longevity. He bowled in 4 innings in 74 and got dropped for the next 2 years.

 

[subshakerz]

76 works much better for assessing longevity. He bowled in 4 innings in 74 and got dropped for the next 2 years.

Sure. Here is how his record looks:

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/40560.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+1989;spanmin1=01+Jan+1976;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

Uh oh, now he averages under 25 away. Kyear won't like that.

 

[Bolo.]

Like, can you really call Jimmy Meaningfully longer as well in the same vein?? Walsh also was never poor like early Jimmy, but also probs not better than early Imran for a good chunk.

It's a debate on longevity, not quality. Anderson regularly played for significantly longer.

 

[sayon basak]

Has he still said that Qadir is viable as the #4 spinner Ever???

No shame in that. My father does too.

 

[subshakerz]

No shame in that. My father does too.

Kyear doesn't actually believe it though. He just said that to downplay the discrepancy in overvaluing peer rating for some versus others.

 

[Bolo.]

Sure. Here is how his record looks:

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/40560.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+1989;spanmin1=01+Jan+1976;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

Uh oh, now he averages under 25 away. Kyear won't like that.

You absolutely should be dropping the tests from 1990 from his record as a bowler, seeing as he was playing as a bat.

He didn't play enough tests before 76 for it to be particularly meaningful, but you can't just drop them from his record. Longevity and quality are distinct measures. He played half a year worth of tests prior to 76, and played half the year in 76. You can give him some level of sympathy points for playing outside of his prime, but that applies to basically every player ever.

I doubt you would give Hayden or Barrington a bunch of longevity credit for playing a bit and getting dropped for a long time? Or want to expunge their early failures from their records?