Hadlee vs Kallis

[Victor Ian]

Kallis scored 100 every 6.22 innings compared to Tendulkar every 6.45. both scored 50 every 4.8. better average.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I can't recall anyone ever saying that Kallis' average was too low or that he didn't make enough runs

 

[Victor Ian]

Do you have any real intent and a superior strike rate to drive this point into subshakerz mind? Because if you don't, you're wasting your time.

Not so much intent, but I'm going to hang around to make sure my point is not in vain, just like the great man, Kallis.

 

[Victor Ian]

I can't recall anyone ever saying that Kallis' average was too low or that he didn't make enough runs

No, but the point is to show he is better than Tendulkar, who is phenomenal.

 

[TheJediBrah]

No, but the point is to show he is better than Tendulkar, who is phenomenal.

Come on he's not better than Tendulkar

 

[subshakerz]

No, but the point is to show he is better than Tendulkar, who is phenomenal.

If you think Kallis is better than Tendulkar, there is no point debating you.

 

[subshakerz]

Good point this. Most people will say Hadlee was better in his primary skill that Kallis was in his and I would agree. But Kallis also had clearly the better secondary skill. It does make this a mighty close contest. They are both top 10 players of all time for mine.

This is a bit reductive. Kallis being much better at a far less important skill in terms of the actual match doesn't make up for the gap in the skills in which they will be contributing 80-90% of their output.

Hadlee has a case for being the best pacer ever, Marshall and McGrath are more firsts among equals. Kallis aint close to that level as a bat. The idea of Kallis bowling some useful stock bowling overs to swing his case is quite silly.

 

[srbhkshk]

293 wickets is not "some useful stock bowling overs", that's a legitimate contribution.

 

[subshakerz]

293 wickets is not "some useful stock bowling overs", that's a legitimate contribution.

So are Hadlee's runs. But these are support roles.

In the majority of his matches, Kallis was stock bowling, not strike bowling. Much less difference on the result of matches compared to his primary role.

A fair difference in the primary roles matters more than a big difference in their support roles IMO. Though frankly I am not convinced the difference in support roles is that big.

 

[srbhkshk]

A 27 averaging batsman is much much worse compared to a 33 averaging bowler, there's plenty of difference here.

 

[thierry henry]

heh, I immediately thought ‘clearly Kallis’ and see that is obviously a Wrong Opinion. Strangely as a Kiwi I’ve never really spent much time debating Hadlee, so I’m not entirely clear on what separates him from the pack of elite bowlers in a way that Kallis can’t match with the bat.

 

[ankitj]

This is a bit reductive. Kallis being much better at a far less important skill in terms of the actual match doesn't make up for the gap in the skills in which they will be contributing 80-90% of their output.

Hadlee has a case for being the best pacer ever, Marshall and McGrath are more firsts among equals. Kallis aint close to that level as a bat. The idea of Kallis bowling some useful stock bowling overs to swing his case is quite silly.

Yeah, you are right. Will grant you that.

 

[thierry henry]

Hadlee with the ball might be well above Kallis with the bat in terms of ‘percentage of people who would have him top 5 of all time’, but surely in terms of ‘compared to all test cricketers’ they are both broadly in the elite category? Whereas I think there’s an argument that there’s quite a stark difference in their lesser disciplines ?‍

 

[ankitj]

Hadlee with the ball might be well above Kallis with the bat in terms of ‘percentage of people who would have him top 5 of all time’, but surely in terms of ‘compared to all test cricketers’ they are both broadly in the elite category? Whereas I think there’s an argument that there’s quite a stark difference in their lesser disciplines ?‍

Yeah, you are right. Will grant you that.

PS. Can you guys please stop swaying my opinion with every post?

 

[subshakerz]

A 27 averaging batsman is much much worse compared to a 33 averaging bowler, there's plenty of difference here.

Again, Kallis' numbers flatter him. He average 35 outside Zimbabwe and Bangladesh with 254 wickets in 154 matches.

He is still better than Hadlee's batting but again is it really that much that justifies him ahead of Hadlee the ATG bowler?

 

[srbhkshk]

They are both ATGs at their primary discipline, maybe Kallis is not the absolutely top tier one but I don't really see him as a major downgrade on other ATGs.

 

[subshakerz]

They are both ATGs at their primary discipline, maybe Kallis is not the absolutely top tier one but I don't really see him as a major downgrade on other ATGs.

According to our CW list, Hadlee is number 3 of all pacers, Kallis is number 18 of all bats, though for me he shouldnt be in the top 20.

That is at least one to two tier levels of greatness difference depending on how to rank.

 

[CricAddict]

According to our CW list, Hadlee is number 3 of all pacers, Kallis is number 18 of all bats, though for me he shouldnt be in the top 20.

That is at least one to two tier levels of greatness difference depending on how to rank.

While I have already mentioned how the bowler Hadlee is better than batsman Kallis, the ranking is also due to the fact that there are much more batsmen than pacers in cricket. So that is not necessarily a criterion.

If you do the same ranking for their secondary disciplines, Hadlee will be 50 places or something below Kallis.

 

[subshakerz]

While I have already mentioned how the bowler Hadlee is better than batsman Kallis, the ranking is also due to the fact that there are much more batsmen than pacers in cricket. So that is not necessarily a criterion.

If you do the same ranking for their secondary disciplines, Hadlee will be 50 places or something below Kallis.

Hadlee is arguably the best pacer ever, with little between him and Marshall and McGrath.

Kallis is outside not just the top tier of undisputed best bats of all-time, but also outside the next tier of bats who were spent significant stretches of their career as no.1s, or solid no.2 behind the best ever. He is more of a generic great batsman, high scoring overall but short of the best of his time and with enough holes in his record to keep him from top rating. His placid batting style doesn't help.

Even if the secondary difference is that big, in terms of real impact in a match, Hadlee being a tier ahead in a primary discipline means a lot more.

Kallis wasn't good enough to be a full-time bowler and Hadlee wasn't good enough to bat in the top six. Therefore their actual match impact in these regards is limited.

So saying a great batsman can overtake arguably the best pacer ever based on being a more reliable support bowler than the other was a handy bat seems just odd.

 

[thierry henry]

Hadlee is arguably the best pacer ever, with little between him and Marshall and McGrath.

Kallis is outside not just the top tier of undisputed best bats of all-time, but also outside the next tier of bats who were spent significant stretches of their career as no.1s, or solid no.2 behind the best ever. He is more of a generic great batsman, high scoring overall but short of the best of his time and with enough holes in his record to keep him from top rating. His placid batting style doesn't help.

Even if the secondary difference is that big, in terms of real impact in a match, Hadlee being a tier ahead in a primary discipline means a lot more.

Kallis wasn't good enough to be a full-time bowler and Hadlee wasn't good enough to bat in the top six. Therefore their actual match impact in these regards is limited.

So saying a great batsman can overtake arguably the best pacer ever based on being a more reliable support bowler than the other was a handy bat seems just odd.

To me it seems odd to emphasise the difference between two greats of the game and then minimise the difference where at least arguably there is a glaring, fundamental difference.

Like sure, being number 1 all time seems like a big difference compared to being number 25 all time, because we discuss these things and split hairs all the time. But in the grand scheme of things, it is splitting hairs between players of *relatively* similar quality, whereas the difference between being say 300th best all time and 800th best all time in the secondary discipline might be far more glaring and statistically significant.