Hadlee vs Kallis

[Neil Young]

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.

I was merely presenting a counter to the post (was it yours?) re Kallis having the most man of the match awards, and the folly of stats. It wasn't an argument for Hadlee.

 

[Neil Young]

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.

And who is doing this in this thread? This has pushed your buttons, but I don't know the history of Kallis being under-rated (is that on here?). Every cricket fan I know rates him particularly highly.

 

[trundler]

There is a qualitative gulf between the two. Hadlee's bowling being a level above Kallis isn't up for debate, no matter what metric you use. Hadlee is top 3 of all time, pretty clearly in my view. Kallis's bowling average is deflated heavily by Bangladesh. Hadlee had no minnows to feast on except SL whom he played for one series. He had more impactful knocks against top sides than Kallis had spells with the ball. There's an argument for Kallis being the better all rounder since the way I rate ARs is probably unpopular. I don't see how Hadlee isn't the better cricketer though. I'd have him in my top 5 of all time so that just be me again but still, I don't think this is one where personal preference is the only differentiator between the two unlike the batting comparisons.

 

[ashley bach]

And who is doing this in this thread? This has pushed your buttons, but I don't know the history of Kallis being under-rated (is that on here?). Every cricket fan I know rates him particularly highly.

To be fair, while it's plainly obvious to everyone Kallis was one of the great batsman and all rounders, in these threads he's involved in, I have noticed
he has been downgraded slightly here and there because of such and such, best example was probably the Kallis/Border comparison.

 

[Coronis]

Hell no. It's the other way around.

Well this brightened my day.

 

[trundler]

Well this brightened my day.

What I meant is Hadlee's bowling >> Kallis's batting.

 

[Chrish]

I don’t think even the most staunch Kiwi fans would dare to proclaim Hadlee’s bowling >> Kallis’ batting..

 

[trundler]

I don’t think even the most staunch Kiwi fans would dare to proclaim Hadlee’s bowling >> Kallis’ batting..

You don't think McGrath or Marshall are a cut above Kallis the batsman as bowlers? Hadlee is the same level. Unless you think Kallis was as good as Tendulkar, Viv or Sobers?

 

[Chrish]

You don't think McGrath or Marshall are a cut above Kallis the batsman as bowlers? Hadlee is the same level. Unless you think Kallis was as good as Tendulkar, Viv or Sobers?

I think, SRT, Viv, Sobers > Kallis. I don’t think they were >> Kallis.

When you put “>>”, you are implying a huge gap which isn’t the case. Kallis averaged 55 with bat with a reasonably well balanced record. I reckon his batting is underrated due to him being an amazing all rounder. I think he was just below Sachin and Lara and was perhaps as good as Ponting.

I would say McGrath’s bowling > Kallis’ batting..

 

[trundler]

I think, SRT, Viv, Sobers > Kallis. I don’t think they were >> Kallis.

When you put “>>”, you are implying a huge gap which isn’t the case. Kallis averaged 55 with bat with a reasonably well balanced record. I reckon his batting is underrated due to him being an amazing all rounder. I think he was just below Sachin and Lara and was perhaps as good as Ponting.

I would say McGrath’s bowling > Kallis’ batting..

Then you're overrating Kallis's bowling/underrating Hadlee's batting. Kallis's bowling stats are inflated quite a bit by Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Hadlee contributed more in matches against top sides with the bat than Kallis did with the ball IMO. You can take Kallis over Hadlee in their secondary disciplines but it certainly isn't >> by your definition.

 

[Chrish]

Then you're overrating Kallis's bowling/underrating Hadlee's batting. Kallis's bowling stats are inflated quite a bit by Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Hadlee contributed more in matches against top sides with the bat than Kallis did with the ball IMO. You can take Kallis over Hadlee in their secondary disciplines but it certainly isn't >> by your definition.

Kallis wasn’t a strike bowler. That was never his role. His role was to bowl 10-15 economical overs so that he can keep Donald/ Pollock/ Steyn well-rested and they can strike down the opposition. He directly contributed to these bowlers’ longevity and hence team’s success. Team went without loosing an away series for a decade and I reckon his bowling played a crucial role.

My point is, team SA heavily relied on Kallis to bowl those overs and he always delivered. Could the same be said of Hadlee’s batting?

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

I think you might be in a bit of denial. Kallis is an ATG cricketer but that doesn't mean that criticisms levelled in the context of comparing him to other ATG cricketers are "made up bull****"

You tend to react very strongly whenever someone compares Kallis to someone and finds him wanting. Just because he's not the best cricketer ever in history doesn't mean anyone is "making **** up" to rate him lower than other ATGs

 

[subshakerz]

Whether Hadlee the bowler was better or much better than Kallis the bat doesn't matter since that advantage in the main discipline is so much more important in the context of a real game than Kallis being better at bowling some stock ball overs or Hadlee giving some lower order runs.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis wasn’t a strike bowler. That was never his role. His role was to bowl 10-15 economical overs so that he can keep Donald/ Pollock/ Steyn well-rested and they can strike down the opposition. He directly contributed to these bowlers’ longevity and hence team’s success. Team went without loosing an away series for a decade and I reckon his bowling played a crucial role.

My point is, team SA heavily relied on Kallis to bowl those overs and he always delivered. Could the same be said of Hadlee’s batting?

I think he was very useful as a bowler but crucial is overstating it.

 

[subshakerz]

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..

You are really going to put Kallis in your side over arguably the greatest seam bowler ever because Kallis can bowl some stock overs well? That is the deciding factor?

I don't mind benching Kallis the slow bat and dibbly dobbly bowler every game while Hadlee cleans up shop.

 

[Coronis]

You are really going to put Kallis in your side over arguably the greatest seam bowler ever because Kallis can bowl some stock overs well? That is the deciding factor?

I don't mind benching Kallis the slow bat and dibbly dobbly bowler every game while Hadlee cleans up shop.

Nah cos I wouldn’t be choosing between them ever. Which is why this comparison is mostly pointless for me.

 

[Victor Ian]

A lot of emphasis being placed on importance to the team. That has nothing to do with the player and everything to do with what kind of **** their team can be.
Hadlee could not always contribute to his team in batting, whereas Kallis always contributed to keeping his teams bowlers fresh, while snagging a couple of wickets himself.
Most importantly, Kallis was not a wanker.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

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.

Huh? This is the weirdest post in the thread.

NZ cricketers are hardly celebrated at all. They are often (unfairly) criticised and maligned at home and ignored overseas. Even when they are doing well the praise is tempered here as Kiwis are probably the most subdued and least hyped up and emotional of all cricket countries. Overseas media write us off or ignore us. Even though we have beaten SA in every ODI WC this century (often knocking them out) we go into tournaments as "dark horses" who "punch above their weight", whereas they go in among the favourites.

Saffas are more confident and brash (like Aussies) and their players get a lot more recognition than NZ ones. Your media and culture are far less subdued than ours. For instance, before the 2nd Bok-AB match at Ellis Park your media were talking of thrashing NZ. Even after the ABs beat the Boks 57-0 a few years ago we have always feared and respected their team. It is the same with cricket. South Africa has a much stronger cricket history than NZ and it has been very hard for Kiwis to be recognised overseas.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Kallis vs Pollock (either Shaun or Graeme) would be closer. Peter, although very good, is far behind.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hadlee has Shaun Pollock covered very comfortably IMO