Hammond vs Kallis

[Fuller Pilch]

Hammond: A contender for the 2nd best batsman of all time and a handy 5th bowler (1 WPM)

Kallis: An ATG bat and a genuine allrounder - one of the best allrounders of all time (1.5 WPM)

Who was better?

 

[BazBall21]

Good comparison.
Hammond.

 

[thierry henry]

The shifting perceptions of Kallis over the last 20 years of internet posting are fascinating. We seem to have come back to an earlier phase where actually Kallis sucks.

 

[trundler]

He's viewed as being not as good as Hadlee but better than Waugh. Seems appropriate really. There was a brief period where it was insinuated that he was comparable to Sobers or Imran which, in hindsight, should be seen as OTT overrating and revisionism.

 

[Coronis]

As batsmen or overall players? Either way the answer is Hammond. Kallis never dismissed a batsman the calibre of Bradman, let alone 3 times. Hammond was a better fielder too iirc or at worst, equal

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't know but I'll choose Hammond just to annoy StephenZA

 

[Fuller Pilch]

As batsmen or overall players? Either way the answer is Hammond. Kallis never dismissed a batsman the calibre of Bradman, let alone 3 times. Hammond was a better fielder too iirc or at worst, equal

Overall

 

[trundler]

I don't know but I'll choose Hammond just to annoy StephenZA

Hammond actually won matches too.

 

[subshakerz]

Let's stop comparing Kallis with those above his weight class.

 

[thierry henry]

He's viewed as being not as good as Hadlee but better than Waugh. Seems appropriate really. There was a brief period where it was insinuated that he was comparable to Sobers or Imran which, in hindsight, should be seen as OTT overrating and revisionism.

It was because his stats were/are broadly similar to Sobers' in a manner which is unique in cricket history. It's not OTT, overrating, or revisionism, it's simply stating the obvious.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The shifting perceptions of Kallis over the last 20 years of internet posting are fascinating. We seem to have come back to an earlier phase where actually Kallis sucks.

No, not at all. Kallis was amazing as was Hammond. Both have batting averages over 55, both have bowling averages in the 30s. Both very good in the field. Hammond the better batsman, Kallis the better bowler. The vote is 4-4 at the moment as not surprising they are very close.

 

[subshakerz]

He's viewed as being not as good as Hadlee but better than Waugh. Seems appropriate really. There was a brief period where it was insinuated that he was comparable to Sobers or Imran which, in hindsight, should be seen as OTT overrating and revisionism.

Kallis aint better than Waugh. The main argument in their thread for Kallis was that he had a greater average. In fact, that is pretty much the only argument you can give to defend Kallis. But unless you're Bradman, the higher raw average isn't good enough.

 

[Anil]

what's with all the kallis comparisons? swear folks here are just trying to get stephen (the good one) riled up...

 

[subshakerz]

The shifting perceptions of Kallis over the last 20 years of internet posting are fascinating. We seem to have come back to an earlier phase where actually Kallis sucks.

Saying Kallis is overrated is not the same as he sucks. Posters went too far post-retirement in bigging him up based on his raw numbers and forgetting how he was rated when he actually played.

 

[thierry henry]

No, not at all. Kallis was amazing as was Hammond. Both have batting averages over 55, both have bowling averages in the 30s. Both very good in the field. Hammond the better batsman, Kallis the better bowler. The vote is 4-4 at the moment as not surprising they are very close.

But your comment proves my point, because 10 years ago no-one was comparing Hammond and Kallis as all-rounders

 

[thierry henry]

Saying Kallis is overrated is not the same as he sucks. Posters went too far post-retirement in bigging him up based on his raw numbers and forgetting how he was rated when he actually played.

"How he was rated when he played" was basically: this guy's numbers are kinda like Sobers' but no-one can be as good as Sobers ---------> he's still doing it ------------> he should stop now it's getting awkward ------------> ok this guy is actually pretty much the player his literal scoring of runs and taking of wickets says he is

Yeah we can argue around the margins of exactly how good he really was, but basically saying his raw numbers are a lie or a major distortion of his quality is pure mid-2000s "I don't want this to be true" revisionism

 

[thierry henry]

Man I'm really back arguing about Kallis again, again.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

But your comment proves my point, because 10 years ago no-one was comparing Hammond and Kallis as all-rounders

Neither am I. In OP I call WH "a handy 5th bowler" and JK "one of the best allrounders of all time". This thread is to compare them as cricketers.

 

[Slifer]

As pure cricketers it really isn't a contest: Jacques Kallis. Negligibly worse batsman, better bowler and about equal in fielding.

 

[CricAddict]

what's with all the kallis comparisons? swear folks here are just trying to get stephen (the good one) riled up...

Definitely. Poor Kallis, leave him alone. He did his best for his team and it is clear that this forum under-rates him compared to how he is rated world wide. So, we don't have to reiterate the under-rating again and again.