• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Hadlee vs Kallis

Hadlee vs Kallis in Tests.


  • Total voters
    38

StephenZA

Hall of Fame Member
Well he wouldn't have, simply cause with him instead of Hadlee in that NZ side, they would have struggled to take the 20 wickets to bowl sides out.
Just had a quick look through Hadlee's career... you would probably be amazed to see the number of times NZ lost even though Hadlee took wickets just because of the low NZ innings totals.
 

Neil Young

State 12th Man
Which I`m perfectly happy with... even if I would debate it for Kallis's early career. But that does not really tell us anything about the comparison of the players... unless you honestly believe that Kallis in the same NZ side would not have had the same sort of impact.
Well, yeah, of course Kallis would have had a big impact in that 80s NZ side. But he didn't play for them.

Though, as I said earlier, it's an oranges and apples comparison for me. Hadlee is an ATG bowler. Kallis isn't anywhere near, but he's an ATG allrounder for sure. And Hadlee isn't.
 

Bolo.

International Debutant
I think it's Hadlee by some distance. Hadlee is GOAT level with the ball and a useful lower order batsman. Kallis was an ATG batsman and a good fifth bowler. Their secondary skills cancel each other out basically by Hadlee is a level above in his primary skill. This is without getting into all the intangibles but I'll say they do matter since Viv came beat Lara by such a big margin.
Kallis is a much better bowler than Hadlee is a bat. He was (admittedly fairly mediocre) specialist quality quick for longer than almost every quick bar the greats. The fact that his team requirements meant he didn't bowl much doesn't detract from his quality (much).

Hadlee, even at his peak, was not a mediocre quality specialist bat (the fact that he was specialist quality by his own team standards doesn't add to this at all).
 

srbhkshk

International Captain
Genuinely surprised at such a blow-out for Hadlee, yes he is a better Bowler than Kallis is a batsman - but Kallis is very much an ATG batsman on his own, Kallis is also a far better bowler than Hadlee is a batsman.
 

subshakerz

International Captain
Kallis is a much better bowler than Hadlee is a bat. He was (admittedly fairly mediocre) specialist quality quick for longer than almost every quick bar the greats. The fact that his team requirements meant he didn't bowl much doesn't detract from his quality (much).

Hadlee, even at his peak, was not a mediocre quality specialist bat (the fact that he was specialist quality by his own team standards doesn't add to this at all).
Hadlee for half of his career was averaging 33 with the bat which for 80s standards is pretty decent.

Kallis may be a bit better in his second discipline, but not enough to make up for the gulf in their primary ones.
 

StephenZA

Hall of Fame Member
Hadlee was more celebrated by the media in the important countries and at home... Kallis unfortunately grew up in SA where media and culture is a bit more subdued. Therefore Hadlee must be better.
 

srbhkshk

International Captain
Hadlee for half of his career was averaging 33 with the bat which for 80s standards is pretty decent.
~That just means he was barely averaging 20 for the other half of it which would struggle to even qualify for an all-rounder.
 

ashley bach

International Regular
Man this is some kind of interesting match up for sure, 2 giants of the game, and each player a mile better than the other in each department.
Having read just a few comments I thought I'd pause and read the rest later, it's not as much fun giving an opinion after reading all and gaining biased thoughts. However I did see that red ink octopus pointed out Kallis has more man of the matches than anyone in test cricket.
Wow this cannot be ignored no matter which way you dissect it, such a record is no small thing.
As a kiwi fan Hadlee was gold, without doubt he was our Bradman of cricket. He was single-handedly responsible for the most remarkable decade
of cricket for NZ in the 80's where home defeat seemed almost impossible, and it all started against the powerful WI in 1980.
What really sets him apart from many other great bowlers though, was his master series in Australia in 85/86.
His 33 wickets at an average of 12 in that series has been unrivalled, and without him NZ would still be without a series victory in Australia.
Sir Paddles for me just tips over the great Jacques, and that's without any bias put into the equation.
 

Chrish

State Captain
Even if we say Hadlee’s bowling > Kallis’ batting, Kallis’ bowling >> Hadlee’s batting easily.

Hadlee was bit like Ashwin; a bowler who can bat once in a while but never really a true all rounder. Kallis on the other hand would have got into some international sides based on his bowling alone. Add to this, his sublime slip fielding and it’s really no contest for me..
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
So Hadlee only played 33 series to Kallis 61?....
I wonder when they introduced POTS awards, and how widely they were used after they were first introduced.

Hadlee did indeed take part in 33 series.

And Kallis did take part in 61 series

I was surprised too. But I'd also be surprised if there were any POTS awards in the 1970s.

EDIT
This from the bottom of cricinfo's list of POTS awards:
Series awards have only been a regular feature in Tests since the mid-1980s and the list is not complete for earlier matches

And here's the link:
 
Last edited:

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Not really surprised... was not really my point.
Er, OK. I thought you were less than convinced about the 33 vs 61 series, but I must have misunderstood you.
If you don't mind me asking, what was your point in that particular post?
 

StephenZA

Hall of Fame Member
Er, OK. I thought you were less than convinced about the 33 vs 61 series, but I must have misunderstood you.
If you don't mind me asking, what was your point in that particular post?
Sarcasm...

My irritation with these threads is the bull**** made up to try give a reason for a personal preference, particularly around Kallis, because of the high quantity of bull**** that I read every time his name is brought up.

Prefer Hadlee, no problem... no need to make **** up about Kallis and reduce his achievements to prove your preference is correct... that is largely pathetic. Personal preference needs no justification and that is all this is.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Sarcasm...

My irritation with these threads is the bull**** made up to try give a reason for a personal preference, particularly around Kallis, because of the high quantity of bull**** that I read every time his name is brought up.

Prefer Hadlee, no problem... no need to make **** up about Kallis and reduce his achievements to prove your preference is correct... that is largely pathetic. Personal preference needs no justification and that is all this is.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with that actually. I've been around long enough to know that a lot of Saffers object to what they see as Kallis being criminally underrated; not without reason, some of the time. So I just don't usually go there, but I thought I'd dip in today.
 

Top