Wasim Akram Vs Kallis

[Bolo.]

I think that was the point of the post you replied to.

The point of this thread is to find the best player. You are saying his peer rating (or Kallis') was wrong by putting Kallis closer to the top of the pile.

 

[subshakerz]

The point of this thread is to find the best player. You are saying his peer rating (or Kallis') was wrong by putting Kallis closer to the top of the pile.

No Kallis as a bat didn't have nearly as high a peer rating as Wasim. Even at his peak, there were several other rated ahead of Kallis.

 

[Bolo.]

No Kallis as a bat didn't have nearly as high a peer rating as Wasim. Even at his peak, there were several other rated ahead of Kallis.

You rate a notably higher proportion of bowlers from Wasim's era above him than you do for bats above Kallis.

You can't hold the position that Wasim's peer rating was correctly higher, and that your own ratings are correct. Only one is possible.

 

[subshakerz]

You can't hold the position that Wasim's peer rating was correctly higher, and that your own ratings are correct.

My rating is based mostly on record but also factors in peer rating and playing style too as an assessment.

 

[kyear2]

Difficult to compare bat and bowlers records that way but I will say that Kallis as we know had the advantage of a significantly easier era to bat much if his career. He played in an era where every Tom, Dick and Harry was averaging over 50. Unlike Wasim, Kallis wasn't a high impact match player. The fact that he has two doubletons in an entire long career is an indictment.

And of course you already agreed that Wasims figures took a major hit from lack of good slip catchers.


Maybe Ambrose was ahead in his peak, but overall, Wasim as far as overall post career peer review goes is ahead of Ambrose and even McGrath, and rivals Lillee and Marshall from the pacers.


This depends on each poster. I have Wasim in the top 10 but I would add to your list Sutcliffe, Headley, Pollock, Border, Waugh and Sanga who I have over the overrated Kallis.

What is interesting though is that you yourself put Wasim in your ATG XI, citing the fact that many pundits have done so s well, whereas there is no chance any of us would put Kallis in our first ATG XI since his overall package isn't good enough.



Simple. You are overstating the value of secondary skills. The fact that Wasim was a near Hadlee level bat takes away much of Kallis' AR argument and puts more focus on Wasims advantage in primary skills. Our default should be to go with the notably better primary skills player unless it's overwhelmingly in favor of the AR based on secondary skills, which it's not in this case.


Most of us consider slips a tertiary skill like captaincy. Perhaps you should try converting slip catches into runs again.



You're right, Kallis should lose to both on the same principle.

Kallis played in a high scoring era, but he also played home tests in the one place that was difficult.
Plus it's disingenuous to say that Kallis played in a high scoring era and not to point out that Wasim played in the live ball era, two of them back to back actually. And he was only seen as the best between Ambrose's peak and McGrath's.

Also as to high impact players, who had more man of the match awards than Kallis? Wasim? Pretty sure not, so that argument doesn't hold sway for me.

Kallis basically played in the same era as Sachin and came out with similar numbers. Not to again mention, played in tougher home conditions.

And I don't have any of those players toy have mentioned over Kallis, a player you've never been objective towards.

I place Wasim in my all time team because he was the best old ball bowler ever, brought left hand variation, could bat a bit and perfectly compliments Marshall and McGrath. And Kallis is literally one player not being born away from a spot in an AT XI, and a lock for CW's 2nd team.

Wasim was not a near Hadlee level bat, he's closer to Marshall and Warne with some big (not out) innings to boost his average. There was an argument not 2 days ago where it was stated that Wasim wasn't all rounder quality with the bat, while Kallis is a top 3 all rounder ever. There is no comparison between his bowling and Wasim's batting.

Well I very much rate slip catching as a secondary skill, and as a collective one more important than a 5th bowler or upper lower order batting, specially 8 & 9. So yes, it very much factors in for me.

 

[Bolo.]

My rating is based mostly on record but also factors in peer rating and playing style too as an assessment.

You understand that you are saying that the peer rating is wrong, and still using it to shape your own opinion?

 

[subshakerz]

You understand that you are saying that the peer rating is wrong, and still using it to shape your own opinion?

Not that it is completely wrong but it is limited and peers may not have the full career context, etc but their opinions if there is consensus still hold weight. Those caveats needs to be considered before incorporating peer review in one's assessment.

I just consider it hubris to ignore the views of those who actually played in assessing abilities of players.

Surely this doesn't sound crazy to you even if you disagree?

 

[kyear2]

Addressing this one point - the reason Wasim is selected so much in ATG XI’s is because of the left arm variety, not necessarily the pure quality he brings to the attack.

In Kallis’ case, he’s unfortunate that Sobers exists really. He’s basically* the same player, but superior in each discipline.

Wasim is lucky to make it into ATG XIs as more of a unicorn. There’s only one other left armer that approaches/equals his quality and Wasim has a huge amount of longevity and is much more recent and present in people’s minds compared to him.

imo, Kallis would be a shoe in for most ATG XIs if Sobers wasn’t an option, certainly for me. If hypothetically, Marshall/Hadlee was a left armer would anyone be picking Wasim?

In any case, I generally don’t like bowler vs bat comparisons.

Ok, basically this.

 

[Bolo.]

Not that it is completely wrong but it is limited and peers may not have the full career context, etc but their opinions if there is consensus still hold weight. Those caveats needs to be considered before incorporating peer review in one's assessment.

I just consider it hubris to ignore the views of those who actually played in assessing abilities of players.

Surely this doesn't sound crazy to you even if you disagree?

I think giving weight to wrong opinions is wrong.

I also think the vast majority of peer opinions are based on skillsets that players admire rather than a means of assessing the most effective players.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis played in a high scoring era, but he also played home tests in the one place that was difficult.

Would you give Wasim credit for tougher home tests?

Plus it's disingenuous to say that Kallis played in a high scoring era and not to point out that Wasim played in the live ball era, two of them back to back actually. And he was only seen as the best between Ambrose's peak and McGrath's.

That's is just disingenuous when you know that peers of his era, post-career, edge Wasim ahead of those two.

Also as to high impact players, who had more man of the match awards than Kallis? Wasim? Pretty sure not, so that argument doesn't hold sway for me.

MoM is a pretty lousy way of determining this, but even then Wasim has 17 in 104 matches, Kallis 23 in 166, with more of the latter in Zimbabwe/Bangladesh games. So Wasim is more impressive even by that account. But in terms of memorable career highlights and standout performances, Kallis has little to show.

Kallis basically played in the same era as Sachin and came out with similar numbers. Not to again mention, played in tougher home conditions.

Except Tendulkar debuted 6 years before Kallis and averaged nearly 60 in the 90s.

And I don't have any of those players toy have mentioned over Kallis, a player you've never been objective towards.

Boohoo. Stop complaining about this.

I place Wasim in my all time team because he was the best old ball bowler ever, brought left hand variation, could bat a bit and perfectly compliments Marshall and McGrath. And Kallis is literally one player not being born away from a spot in an AT XI, and a lock for CW's 2nd team.

I think CW doesn't have as many issues with Kallis in team 2. But I think if Sobers was not there, Kallis would have more competition in an ATG first XI with folks like Hammond as posters wouldnt want to water down the middle order for the sake of some rest overs.

Kallis next to guys like Bradman and Tendulkar is an odd fit and few would sacrifice top tier batting quality while some may even opt for Miller. So Kallis ain't a lock.

Wasim was not a near Hadlee level bat, he's closer to Marshall and Warne with some big (not out) innings to boost his average. There was an argument not 2 days ago where it was stated that Wasim wasn't all rounder quality with the bat, while Kallis is a top 3 all rounder ever. There is no comparison between his bowling and Wasim's batting.

Funnily enough you said you rate Marshall and Warned batting abilities as more than sufficient for you. So if Wasim is better than them, then that definitely means you can't dismiss his runs.

Kallis is top 3 on this board by virtue of his batting skills compared to other more rounded ARs, not his bowling skills when he doesn't even average 2 wickets a game.

Well I very much rate slip catching as a secondary skill, and as a collective one more important than a 5th bowler or upper lower order batting, specially 8 & 9. So yes, it very much factors in for me.

You're in the minority and have failed to provide any convincing argument for this. In fact, you embarassed yourself by trying to convert runs into slip catches and had to walk that back.

 

[subshakerz]

I think giving weight to wrong opinions is wrong.

They aren't wrong if they say they found a bowler or bat more difficult to play. We factor their views in rather than solely reading off stats sheets.

I also think the vast majority of peer opinions are based on skillsets that players admire rather than a means of assessing the most effective players.

Some perhaps. But if there is a general consensus or an understood hierarchy in how they rate players to me it is indicative of something.

 

[Bolo.]

They aren't wrong if they say they found a bowler or bat more difficult to play. We factor their views in rather than solely reading off stats sheets.


Some perhaps. But if there is a general consensus or an understood hierarchy in how they rate players to me it is indicative of something.

We are saying they are wrong in terms of assessing how good a player is by rating players differently. Sure, they are entitled to an opinion on who they personally didn't like playing against, and we can't argue with that. But this is not an assessment of how good a player is- it just shows that they are assessing something different. No amount of players (and there were a bunch) saying they preferred facing Steyn to Morkel should ever convince anyone that Morkel was a better bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

.

Sure, they are entitled to an opinion on who they personally didn't like playing against, and we can't argue with that. But this is not an assessment of how good a player is- it just shows that they are assessing something different. No amount of players (and there were a bunch) saying they preferred facing Steyn to Morkel should ever convince anyone that Morkel was a better bowler.

I disagree here.

First, how difficult to play a cricketer is one assessment of their worth. For example, it's not the same that a player doesn't get out to a bowler because they are stuck in a shell or plays cautiously because he is scared of losing his wicket versus them being comfortable playing against him without fear of losing his wicket. There is a qualitative difference that isnt reflected in the record.

Second, I never said peer rating is the sole criteria to decide a better bowler. But, as a supplementary factor, it does help to rate a bowler better vs those in his weight class. So for example, if many players said they found Morkel harder to face than even Steyn, in a Morkel vs Broad contest, I think that factor comes to play.

 

[kyear2]

And? Even you are arguing that more players from Wasim's era are ahead of him, and you aren't exactly the most neutral poster when it comes to Kallis.

No, no he is not.

And we all know the list.

 

[Coronis]

.
I disagree here.

First, how difficult to play a cricketer is one assessment of their worth. For example, it's not the same that a player doesn't get out to a bowler because they are stuck in a shell or plays cautiously because he is scared of losing his wicket versus them being comfortable playing against him without fear of losing his wicket. There is a qualitative difference that isnt reflected in the record.

Second, I never said peer rating is the sole criteria to decide a better bowler. But, as a supplementary factor, it does help to rate a bowler better vs those in his weight class. So for example, if many players said they found Morkel harder to face than even Steyn, in a Morkel vs Broad contest, I think that factor comes to play.

iirc Lara said Wasim was the most difficult bowler he faced. Yet in the 7 matches they played Wasim only got him out twice. Waqar only played him in 6 of those matches and got him 3 times. Hell Saqlain only played him in one of those matches and got him twice.

McGrath got Lara out 15 times in 24 matches, including 2 ducks.

Should I take from all this that Wasim > McGrath on Lara’s say-so?

 

[kyear2]

I am not sure if Kyear put him in his ATG XI for the left arm thing.

But I also think it's unfair to just make it a left arm fetish, and not acknowledge that Wasim is also seen for his quality and high reputation, and that Wasim has a lot more competition for that no.8 spot including Hadlee and Imran. It certainly means something that he features in so many ATG XIs.

As for Kallis, I think if Sobers wasn't there a lot of us on CW would have opted for Hammond instead since his batting seems less of an ill fit in an ATG middle order. Or you might have seen more ATGs with Miller too at no 6. Kallis isn't a shoe-in.

Not just for the lh thing, but also not because he's a top 3 or even top 5 guy. He isn't.

With regards to Kallis, yes Hammond would have been an alternative for the spot, but the majority would undoubtedly go for Kallis.

Strange though you advocating for Hammond since you've stated in multiple occasions that he's not close to being an all rounder.

But yes, Imran, Hadlee and Wasim are contenders for the no. 8 spot, equally without Sobers, Kallis and Hammond would be the only viable options for the no. 6 spot.

 

[kyear2]

Not that it is completely wrong but it is limited and peers may not have the full career context, etc but their opinions if there is consensus still hold weight. Those caveats needs to be considered before incorporating peer review in one's assessment.

I just consider it hubris to ignore the views of those who actually played in assessing abilities of players.

Surely this doesn't sound crazy to you even if you disagree?

Kallis want as popular because he wasn't as exciting and deemed to be selfish, didn't mean he wasn't as good. Well except for Punter of course.

 

[subshakerz]

iirc Lara said Wasim was the most difficult bowler he faced. Yet in the 7 matches they played Wasim only got him out twice. Waqar only played him in 6 of those matches and got him 3 times. Hell Saqlain only played him in one of those matches and got him twice.

McGrath got Lara out 15 times in 24 matches, including 2 ducks.

Should I take from all this that Wasim > McGrath on Lara’s say-so?

No. That's not how my assessment of peer rating works. Please reread my comments where I have addressed this.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis want as popular because he wasn't as exciting and deemed to be selfish, didn't mean he wasn't as good. Well except for Punter of course.

That's just reductive. Dravid was more rated than Kallis in his peak without being flashy.

Kallis wasn't as rated because he was an accumulator without an extra gear in a role for the lineup normally meant for an aggressive top bat. Less dominant players are also lesser rated, and for good reason.

Of course, in your assessments, it seems you disregard playing style entirely.

Not just for the lh thing, but also not because he's a top 3 or even top 5 guy. He isn't.

With regards to Kallis, yes Hammond would have been an alternative for the spot, but the majority would undoubtedly go for Kallis.

Strange though you advocating for Hammond since you've stated in multiple occasions that he's not close to being an all rounder.

But yes, Imran, Hadlee and Wasim are contenders for the no. 8 spot, equally without Sobers, Kallis and Hammond would be the only viable options for the no. 6 spot.

I would go for Hammond because he can still be a 5th bowler option without conceding on batting quality in an ATG lineup. In fact, I think you would too if it's a first ATG XI. You wouldn't want to compromise an inch of batting quality in the top six regardless of the hits you take for 5th bowler, no?

Correct me I am wrong.

Then you agree Kallis is not a lock for no.6 as previously stated. There may even be a decent number of posters going for Miller at 6 if Sobers is not there.

 

[Northerner]

I rate Lindwall quite highly, but behind them. As overall cricketers, I will go:

Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
McGrath
Akram
Steyn
Ambrose

Donald
Lindwall
Pollock
Davidson
Lillee
Garner
Holding
Trueman
Younis
Cummins

Walsh
Roberts
Anderson
Bumrah
Rabada
Bedser

Interesting list, i would add Statham, Willis and Starc to block 3,