Wally Hammond vs Jacques Kallis

[capt_Luffy]

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?

BTW what are you guys arguing about really ??

 

[subshakerz]

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?

Yeah I don't want to drop his early tests from Imran's record except for his 1st debut test as a teenager, and perhaps as you mentioned the 74 tests. 76 should definitely be there.

 

[kyear2]

You are willing to accept Qadir being ranked as the 4th greatest spinner ever but have had months long arguments where you refuse to accept the arguments where someone might select Imran in an ATG XI? Surely you can see the latter is a much more reasonable opinion.

Stuff like this just makes me want to take nothing you say seriously tbh. You just bury your absurd opinions in long walls of text to make it look less absurd somehow.

I genuinely wouldn't and do not care if someone rated Qadir highly, why should I. It doesn't impact on any of the conversations that we regularly have.

It's like having an argument over the 9th best opener, after a certain point it's open to perspective and what an individual is looking for.

You also missed the part where I said he isn't for me. I already said the two that comes to mind for me, I would even add Kumble, Grum and Laker, as I said at this stage it's fully open.

8 out of 10 Pakistan jurors selected him for their all time XI, you should probably have a word with them as well.

Now if you can't see the difference between an argument for who makes an all time XI and if someone ranks Qadir relatively higher, that's on you.

1. The argument about the first team to me is more about team building philosophy than the individual, and to me it's equally as crazy to select a bowler that most rate at 8th, into a first team because he can bat better. His no. 1 and most important job is the take wickets, and if you're a tier behind in that category the entire thing to me makes no sense, I will always say that.

It goes as well when Luffy had an even more ridiculous take that Andy Flower would be a candidate for an AT XI. A wicket keeper that than be at best, optimistically described as test standard, but most likely below average, but because he can bat he's eligible?

Those are things that bothers me, and if names are taken away the scenario is become clearer.

But back to the point. I've made it clear he isn't 4th for me, he isn't in contention for 4th for me, before today I've probably typed his name 4 times in this forum.

So basically all this furor is basically because I said that I wouldn't take great offence if someone had him that high.

This in a day when Subz basically said that a special cover fielder is more important and impactful than anyone in a slip cordon and has repeatedly said that he believes Imran's home record is clean, and I'm the one who you can't take seriously?

And to repeat, not because I'm arguing that Qadir is 4th, or deserves to be be 4th, or adamant that he's underrated or anything, because yeah that would be as stupid as claiming Flower has an argument to be in a first AT team. But rather because I said I would be ambivalent if someone did consider him for there? As Benaud did btw, as disingenuous as it was.

Yeah, this just proves so much that arguments and stances here are personality driven. But you've proven that before, so no surprise there.

Have a great day Sir.

 

[subshakerz]

BTW what are you guys arguing about really ??

I think we agree?

 

[kyear2]

No, you said you’d have less issue with someone naming him a top 5 spinner than Sutcliffe being in an ATG XI. Which makes no sense if you clearly agree that Qadir is further away from the top 5 than Sutcliffe is from making the XI. You understand that right?

You do know I was being facetious and just joking poking the bear right?

Was lightening the mood.

Yes, I don't rate Sutcliffe nearly as highly as you do, no one does, and don't believe he should be in a first XI. But he's an ATG(ish) top 5 opener even for me.

 

[subshakerz]

But back to the point. I've made it clear he isn't 4th for me, he isn't in contention for 4th for me, before today I've probably typed his name 4 times in this forum.

In other words, your statement earlier was just BS.

Just admit it.

 

[capt_Luffy]

In other words, your statement earlier was just BS.

Just admit it.

As usual when his farfetched takes and silly defenses are questioned

 

[Coronis]

You do know I was being facetious and just joking poking the bear right?

Was lightening the mood.

Yes, I don't rate Sutcliffe nearly as highly as you do, no one does, and don't believe he should be in a first XI. But he's an ATG(ish) top 5 opener even for me.

I mean CW rates him as 11th greatest batsman of all time. I rank him 8th. iirc You don’t even have him in your top 20. Seems far more egregious and contrary than me ranking Viv 12th compared to CW’s 7th, no?

 

[Coronis]

8 out of 10 Pakistan jurors selected him for their all time XI, you should probably have a word with them as well.

Clear example of consensus peer/media rating being awful, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah I don't want to drop his early tests from Imran's record except for his 1st debut test as a teenager, and perhaps as you mentioned the 74 tests. 76 should definitely be there.

A single test in 71 makes no difference to his career record, or how he should be assessed as a player. Keep it or leave it. It's not worth bringing up in the context of either longevity or performances.

 

[Coronis]

A single test in 71 makes no difference to his career record, or how he should be assessed as a player. Keep it or leave it. It's not worth bringing up in the context of either longevity or performances.

Does Cummins’ 2011 test count for him?

Interesting since unlike say, Barrington it positively effects his record. Similar time periods for them both too.

 

[kyear2]

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.

The Wisden argument is idiotic and the sad part is that you know this.

Unless now you're using it to prove that Lillee and Worrell are better cricketers than Imran. It was to establish a top 5, and that's basically what we can take from that.

So from that do you also rate Worrell and Lillee ahead of Imran? Not to add that my that metric Sobers with his 90 votes is closer to Bradman than Imran's what, 12 votes? How far ahead then is he? Surely can't be even in the same stratosphere.

Is that the stance we're taking? If not, shut the **** up.

The ESPN vote is one compared to the almost 10 I presented you with and you will ignore 10 for 1? Even when the ESPN list was a lead up to their much larger and more hyped and important event that you're apparently ignoring. When they had a much larger and more prestigious panel of former captains that for together to choose a first and second all time team. Barry made the 2nd team, you know, the same one that Imran was in and Pollock didn't?

You're clutching at straws with the cricket SA thing and you know it. It was for who was more important to SA cricket, and it was without doubt Pollock. He played more tests, and most importantly, after isolation when he could easily have left he stayed behind and propped up and remained loyal to SA cricket.
Barry left, and plied his trade around the world. So yes Pollock would have been higher rated at home, while Barry was higher rated internationally to the point where he was the best batsman in the world for more than half of the decade of the 70's.

I'm not going to go through again the list of players and pundits who rated Barry the greatest ever, including Pollock himself, I've done that already. But you can't bring one single list from ESPN to say that one was rated higher, when almost every other list went the other way, when the vast majority of the great and ATG bowlers of the era all select Barry as the better.

But this is the important part. While you're arguing that Pollock is better and Richards a non factor, while claiming that I'm disrespecting Pollock... I rank Pollock either 15th or 16th, not that far from where you do. 15th or 16th.

You on the other hand, while arguing for some level of advantage for one over the other, don't rank the other at all.

I think Pollock is a fabulous batsman, and an ATG and right up there with Ponting, Kallis, Headley, Gavaskar, Chappell etc etc.

There are quite a few reasons why I rate Barry ahead of Pollock and many of them have nothing to do with peer ratings, but that doesn't mean I don't rate him at all.

But as usual you're like a dog with a bone and is insistent that I rate him the same way you do, but why??? Why do you always do that?

 

[Coronis]

But as usual you're like a dog with a bone and is insistent that I rate him the same way you do, but why??? Why do you always do that?

I mean, you also do this.

 

[Bolo.]

Does Cummins’ 2011 test count for him?

Interesting since unlike say, Barrington it positively effects his record. Similar time periods for them both too.

Not for his longevity, or at least not more than than the percentage of his career it makes up.

To quality, sure, although that one game doesn't make a meaningful difference either. The only games I think should be axed from bowler records are for people like Imran and Rhodes in the games they were playing as bats.

 

[kyear2]

6.5 being rounded up to 8 is some new age maths brother

Your bother in arms have insisted that we only rate Imran as a bowler and cricketer from '74 to '88, which I have no problem doing. And again, he's well aware of this and I've mentioned it countless times.

During that time he averaged 17 at home and 25 away.

Without getting into decimal points which I'm not looking at right now, that's not 8?

But also, instead of addressing the post itself you choose to focus on the pedantic.

 

[The Sean]

Even when the ESPN list was a lead up to their much larger and more hyped and important event that you're apparently ignoring. When they had a much larger and more prestigious panel of former captains that for together to choose a first and second all time team.

Not sure I follow here - are we talking about the ESPN Legends of Cricket ranking list and the the Cricinfo All Time XIs? Because they were two entirely separate exercises conducted nearly a decade apart. One was very much not a lead up to the other.

As far as prestige and importance goes, from my perspective I remember more hype around the ESPN Legends of Cricket list. It was even accompanied by its own book and tv series.

 

[kyear2]

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.

He played 1 match in 3 years. Please stop with that.

Sobers also debuted as a teen and actually played 20 years.

The difference being that while Imran was prepped for that, Sobers was still literally teaching himself to bat and bowl, never receiving any formal coaching before making the team. It took him 4 years to sort it out, and never once has anyone asked to have those numbers taken from his career.

Bowling 40 overs a match also started to take it's toll on his body and wasn't at his best from around '69 /, 70, let's say 1970. Never has anyone asked to have those numbers taken from his career.

He entered into the team as a LHO spinner, eventually realizing pace was more advantageous on more wickets.

Those are extenuating circumstances, and valid ones. None of which are used...... nor asked for.

 

[kyear2]

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

No one in that called him top 4 though.

When you do through it, none of the assessments were off base.

You're just being you.

 

[kyear2]

In other words, your statement earlier was just BS.

Just admit it.

Can you read?

I know you don't actually watch the sport, I'm just verifying if you can comprehend.

 

[kyear2]

I mean CW rates him as 11th greatest batsman of all time. I rank him 8th. iirc You don’t even have him in your top 20. Seems far more egregious and contrary than me ranking Viv 12th compared to CW’s 7th, no?

I don't rate him that highly as a batsman.

Despite playing in the easiest era for batting, and batting alongside the GOAT, completing his career fully before the LBW rule change, he still batted at a pedestrian rate and wasn't nearly rated as high as Hammond, Hobbs or Hutton.

He didn't nearly have the challenges, pitches or bowlers to contend with that Hutton.

It's a personal ranking choice as with you and Viv, who I have 4th and you have mid teens. One though was the best batsman in the world for over a decade, and more than arguably the greatest player against fast bowling while playing in one of the great eras for fast bowling.