• 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.

Hammond vs Kallis

Who was better?

  • Total voters
    53
A

ashley bach

International Captain
First time in a comparison involving a player that I never saw play, nor any footage for that matter. So it's obviously a bit of a guess but...
If Border beats Kallis and Hadlee easily beats Kallis, then Hammond beats Kallis seems logical.
That is, if Hammond really is even slightly up for consideration to being 2nd best to the Don.
A key question no doubt is what was the value for a batsman averaging 58 back in the time, there were some sticky wickets around no doubt?
 
B

Bolo.

International Vice-Captain
shortpitched713 said:
I don't like this reductionism, and I think the comparison between two players Kallis and Hadlee, both nominal allrounders but with different team roles, brought this home to me. You really shouldn't compare players with different roles.

It feels wrong to say something like Imran was a better player than Malcom Marshall, but by your criteria it's just some sort of objective truth.

If you extended your reasoning to the logical conclusion, then the history of the top X great cricketers would only include Bradman representing batsmen, the odd transcendant bowlers like McGrath, and every allrounder that fit the description, from Jack Gregory to Mushtaq Mohammad to Jason Holder and everyone in between.
Click to expand...
There's a reason we only tend to compare players with similar roles.

I tend to think these ARs are better. But whether or not this reductionism is appropriate as a general principle, I think its fine for this comparison. These two had similar enough playing roles, even if Kallis was more of an AR.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
ataraxia said:
How is Hammond winning this, lol? Are people mad?
Click to expand...
Probably because he is up in the same tier as Tendulkar, Lara, Headley, G Pollock, and Viv as specialist bat (ahead of Kallis), a decent 5th bowler (but behind Kallis), and an excellent fielder. The vote, not surprisingly, is close.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
Fun fact Bradman also dismissed Hammond in tests (only once though).

But yeah iirc Hammond was being touted as Hobbs’ successor as the GOAT batsman as Hobbs was to Grace, he had the 28/29 series which seemed to prove that hype, then Bradman came to England in 1930 and that was all she wrote.
 
S

subshakerz

International Coach
shortpitched713 said:
I don't like this reductionism, and I think the comparison between two players Kallis and Hadlee, both nominal allrounders but with different team roles, brought this home to me. You really shouldn't compare players with different roles.

It feels wrong to say something like Imran was a better player than Malcom Marshall, but by your criteria it's just some sort of objective truth.

If you extended your reasoning to the logical conclusion, then the history of the top X great cricketers would only include Bradman representing batsmen, the odd transcendant bowlers like McGrath, and every allrounder that fit the description, from Jack Gregory to Mushtaq Mohammad to Jason Holder and everyone in between.
Click to expand...
Kallis isn't a nominal all-rounder and Imran is unquestionably a better player than Marshall.

Test cricket favors specialists. There should be an understanding that worldclass quality in one discipline cannot simply be overtaken by utility-level in a couple of disciplines. At the end of a day, there are only a few places for a batsman or bowler in a side, and once you occupy a position, you will be expected to contribute mainly by virtue of the position you occupy in the order. Being in the top six means your batting is more important and being in the last four means your bowling is more valuable.

Hence a guy like Chris Cairns won't be rated ahead of Lara.
 
R

Raz0r6ack

U19 12th Man
Start Date: 21st birthday (3 years after 18th birthday - picked too early for most players)
End Date: Day before 37th birthday (3 years before 40th birthday - terminal decline for most players)
Remove minnows (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Afghanistan).

Statsguru Link

Hammond is right up there for 2nd best batsman of all time. Basically Steve Smith before Steve Smith.

I can see why people might pick him over Kallis considering Hammond's bowling standard/average was the same as Kallis post 2004 when Kallis' batting really kicked into gear.

whjk2.png
 
C

Chrish

International Debutant
I have hard time believing Hammond to be better batsman than Kallis based on everything I have read..
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Raz0r6ack said:
Start Date: 21st birthday (3 years after 18th birthday - picked too early for most players)
End Date: Day before 37th birthday (3 years before 40th birthday - terminal decline for most players)
Remove minnows (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Afghanistan).

Statsguru Link

Hammond is right up there for 2nd best batsman of all time. Basically Steve Smith before Steve Smith.

I can see why people might pick him over Kallis considering Hammond's bowling standard/average was the same as Kallis post 2004 when Kallis' batting really kicked into gear.

View attachment 32916
Click to expand...
That NZ team Hammond scored his 336* against were minnows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top