Hadlee vs Kallis

[thierry henry]

Like….it may seem more important to argue about Tendulkar clearly being better Sangakkara, for example. And by comparison, arguing about Bryan Young vs Blair Pocock seems trivial…but the difference in the latter example is still greater.

 

[subshakerz]

Like….it may seem more important to argue about Tendulkar clearly being better Sangakkara, for example. And by comparison, arguing about Bryan Young vs Blair Pocock seems trivial…but the difference in the latter example is still greater.

Yeah but the difference in the latter example has far less impact in an actual game.

 

[Victor Ian]

Yeah but the difference in the latter example has far less impact in an actual game.

You keep spouting the same unfounded stuff. I'll tell you where Kallis kicks ass.
We might not have voted him top 10 but he has a better average and scores more hundreds per innings than Tendulkar. His numbers compare with the best.
Where he wins out is his secondary discipline. Why? Because his secondary is in the field. It's not just his bowling wickets but his slips wickets.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah but the difference in the latter example has far less impact in an actual game.

I would strongly disagree, that’s my whole point. With 2 elite players you are getting a fairly similar output in an actual game. With a scrub who averages 20 vs a mediocre player who averages 30 you are getting a demonstrably big difference.

 

[subshakerz]

I would strongly disagree, that’s my whole point. With 2 elite players you are getting a fairly similar output in an actual game. With a scrub who averages 20 vs a mediocre player who averages 30 you are getting a demonstrably big difference.

Yeah but the difference you are talking about is a bowler who averages 35 and takes 1.5 wickets a test minus a regular number 8 averaging 27. Whatever that equals isn't really a lot in real match terms.

Now if you translate the difference between Kallis being who he was and being a true top tier best ever bat, that would come with a more well-rounded record including runs in England and SL, more top notch innings and series, a higher SR, etc. I wager that difference is more than the former.

 

[shortpitched713]

Main reason I voted Kallis, was because Hadlee was a bit too inconsistent with the bat to really be considered an all-rounder. And I think they were both about equally gun at their main roles (bowling Hadlee, batting Kallis) but I'd take Kallis's bowling over Hadlee's batting.

Kallis was on a better team no doubt, and that helps him i think, but he's also a very slightly better Test cricket as well, in what he could contribute to his team in overall value.

 

[honestbharani]

I just think Hadlee would be more valuable to any team by a slight bit than Kallis but its really only because you NEED to take 20 wickets to win a test and you usually have 4 specialist bowlers to get them, so the percentage contribution usually skews towards the greater bowler anyways.

 

[trundler]

I don't get the whining about Kallis losing by too big a margin. A third of the vote against Hadlee flatters him and is inflated by pity votes too. It's a slam dunk. No one's picking Kallis R1 of a draft ahead of Hadlee.

 

[shortpitched713]

Hadlee to me, is a lot like Pakistani greats Imran / Ws. They play a lone hand, and were able to accumulate great counting stats because of it (especially the more durable Hadlee and Wasim).

However, that tends to overestimate in my mind how good they actually were on any given day. Certainly a great bowler playing a lone hand will be the center of the action more often than any great batsman, but he'll take a lot of punishment too as well, as there's some reluctance to relieve him when things get tough.

And sure, you need 20 wickets to win, which is a point in the favor of a great bowler, however for a bad team like NZ in particular, an ATG batsman has a benefit of making the team's results more consistent, even if he's not getting match-winning opportunities. It's no surprise to me that NZ were a very inconsistent Test side, even with Hadlee doing so much bowling for them, due to their batting weaknesses.

 

[Chrish]

Polls don’t mean zilch. I remember McGrath vs Marshall poll on this very forum where McGrath got like 8 votes vs Marshall’s 30.. Anyone who follows cricket knows gap between the two isn’t significant (if there is any gap at all in the first place)..

 

[trundler]

That is really bizarre logic. People don't look at Hadlee's ridiculous number of 5fers and 10fers and call him the clear best ever. Clearly, people do account for this and no one's overestimating him based on stats. Any notable NZ win in the 80s had Hadlee precisely at the center and on any given day they did well, you'd have him as the main character. Hadlee was the chief architect of NZ's first ever series wins against England and Australia as well as that famous win against WI. NZ were undefeated at home for a decade chiefly because he almost never missed any games (only 14 throughout his career IIRC) and took 5 wickets per match bowling 140kph+. NZ had never won 4 or more tests in a row before he debuted. There is literally no way to overestimate his impact. The implication that he sneaked in some pretty stats is baffling.

 

[shortpitched713]

That is really bizarre logic. People don't look at Hadlee's ridiculous number of 5fers and 10fers and call him the clear best ever. Clearly, people do account for this and no one's overestimating him based on stats. Any notable NZ win in the 80s had Hadlee precisely at the center and on any given day they did well, you'd have him as the main character. Hadlee was the chief architect of NZ's first ever series wins against England and Australia as well as that famous win against WI. NZ were undefeated at home for a decade chiefly because he almost never missed any games (only 14 throughout his career IIRC) and took 5 wickets per match bowling 140kph+. NZ had never won 4 or more tests in a row before he debuted. There is literally no way to overestimate his impact. The implication that he sneaked in some pretty stats is baffling.

Lol, that he "sneaked" stats is the exact opposite of my implication. He succeeded, and succeed spectacularly with himself at the center of wins. I've seen it from the Pakistani greats of old as well. What I'm more getting at, is he had those opportunities where others would not have. If a South African great like Donald or Steyn, just as an example of bowler's on great seam bowling lineups, has a bad run of it, does he get that extra spell towards the end of a tight match that Hadlee will get each time? Nah, they'll just give the ball to Pollock, or Rabada, or Morkle or whomever. Saying one got more opportunity than the other at accumulating counting stats isn't disrespecting what they achieved. It's just saying that the other competitors didn't have those opportunities.

 

[srbhkshk]

That is really bizarre logic. People don't look at Hadlee's ridiculous number of 5fers and 10fers and call him the clear best ever. Clearly, people do account for this and no one's overestimating him based on stats. Any notable NZ win in the 80s had Hadlee precisely at the center and on any given day they did well, you'd have him as the main character. Hadlee was the chief architect of NZ's first ever series wins against England and Australia as well as that famous win against WI. NZ were undefeated at home for a decade chiefly because he almost never missed any games (only 14 throughout his career IIRC) and took 5 wickets per match bowling 140kph+. NZ had never won 4 or more tests in a row before he debuted. There is literally no way to overestimate his impact. The implication that he sneaked in some pretty stats is baffling.

OK, but is it really clear cut to you that Kallis wouldn't be just as much of an outlier in the NZ if he was there instead of Hadlee?

yes the results will be different - they will probably win/lose matches different to the ones they won/lost with Hadlee and maybe they will draw some of the matches they lost with Hadlee (and the opposite of that as well), but there is every chance that Kallis would influence their results just as much.

 

[Chrish]

I just think Hadlee would be more valuable to any team by a slight bit than Kallis but its really only because you NEED to take 20 wickets to win a test and you usually have 4 specialist bowlers to get them, so the percentage contribution usually skews towards the greater bowler anyways.

Our current team is pretty capable of taking 20 wickets. On the other hand, a middle-order batsman capable of occupying a crease for a long period of time is exactly what we desperately need at the moment..

That’s the point. Each team has a unique need. There is no one universal player for every team..

 

[srbhkshk]

Our current team is pretty capable of taking 20 wickets.

Doubt.

 

[Chrish]

No team does it consistently. But that factor is the least of our concern..

 

[ashley bach]

Don't go there. If Aussies criticise Hadlee's mo, we'll do the same to Border and Lillee's facial hair.

It's when we start talking about Merv Hughes and David Boon that we can really start taking the piss.

 

[Slifer]

Our current team is pretty capable of taking 20 wickets. On the other hand, a middle-order batsman capable of occupying a crease for a long period of time is exactly what we desperately need at the moment..

That’s the point. Each team has a unique need. There is no one universal player for every team..

Agreed. Given the choice, as a West Indian we'd probably prefer a Jacques Kallis atm. Our bowling at home is fine but sucks outside the WI. Our batting is pre-school level whether at home, away, neutral, the moon wherever.

You'd probably have to go back to the late 60s early 70s before we'd need a Hadlee type over Kallis.

 

[ashley bach]

Polls don’t mean zilch. I remember McGrath vs Marshall poll on this very forum where McGrath got like 8 votes vs Marshall’s 30.. Anyone who follows cricket knows gap between the two isn’t significant (if there is any gap at all in the first place)..

It's true that any given poll on anything doesn't have to be the right answer. It's also true that any given poll can be far away and totally off the money.
But generally, with a relatively large source of votes, and without any bias involved, it will tend to lead you to the truth, most of the time.
My gut feeling about the posters here, is that 95+% of people are generally well educated cricket fans, who give an honest opinion.
I'm still new to the game here, and in a short time I've felt like I've learnt a lot, particularly regarding reflecting each players value to the team
in comparison to their opponent, and weighing up as many bits and pieces as possible. When I saw the Kallis/Border comparison I immediately
thought Kallis, but after reading all the comments etc I actually knew it was much closer than my initial reaction, so that thread in particular has
made me change views and thoughts on initial reactions.
The fun part for me is to try and back the winner, place your bets and then see what others have to say on the issue.
Don't think I have backed a loser yet, although Kallis /Border ended in a draw I believe. However if I see a poll where the figures are more than 2/1
against, I'll certainly think I'm wrong and will look forward to all the comments as to why my thoughts were astray.
So to say that these polls mean ZILCH is a tad unfair to all the decent posters here.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

You'd probably have to go back to the late 60s early 70s before we'd need a Hadlee type over Kallis.

Do you mean when you had Sobers?