• 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
    44

Bolo.

International Debutant
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
Different eras have different minnows. Neither NZ nor India won a single test against anyone in his career. Hammonds average drops to 55 by your criteria, same as Kallis with the same exclusions.

Kallis peaked as a bowler in 99-02. He was averaging 62 as a bat in that phase.

I don't have a problem with saying Hammond has a case for being the second best bat since Hobbs. Kallis definitely doesn't. Era makes it tough to compare though. I wouldn't be 100% confident in calling Hammond better than some modern bats who were worse than Kallis. Hard to rate a bat who hasn't succeeded against quality pace, even if that is (mostly) no fault of his own.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hammond's era was easier than Kallis' for batting
Does that take into account the Bradman factor?

ie. the logical fallacy that the era during Bradman's career was easier for batting based on the averages of the time, which were heavily influenced by Bradman's unusually high average itself
 

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Does that take into account the Bradman factor?

ie. the logical fallacy that the era during Bradman's career was easier for batting based on the averages of the time, which were heavily influenced by Bradman's unusually high average itself
Not basing it on the decade average
 

Bolo.

International Debutant
Does that take into account the Bradman factor?

ie. the logical fallacy that the era during Bradman's career was easier for batting based on the averages of the time, which were heavily influenced by Bradman's unusually high average itself
Bradman played only 1.x% of total test innings in Hammonds career. He isn't going to move the needle by that much relative to Hammond himself, who batted a lot more and scored a lot more runs.

There would be about a 2% shift in batting averages in Hammonds career if Bradman had averaged the same as Hammond. Not nothing, but at these levels, pitches and bowlers are a much better way to judge.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Everyone likes to ignore that Kallis played half his cricket in SA.... still the consistently most difficult place to bat since readmission.
Yeah that's why despite playing in a batting-friendly era and doing more than his fair share of minnow bashing, his standardised average actually goes up.

People seem to intuite this when rating Pollock or Philander, but ignore it when rating Smith or Kallis.

I do think Hammond was a marginally better batsman than Kallis (indeed the list I linked backs that up) but I'd definitely rather have someone who was a batsman the quality of Kallis and the bowler the quality of Kallis than I would Hammond. This isn't just 'better allrounder', it's 'better player'.
 

Victor Ian

Cricketer Of The Year
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
See Subs. I told you Kallis was better than Tendulkar. Tendulkar is just valued highly because he got a lot of hype because of his country. This shows that Kallis was way way better than Tendulkar. Waaaaaaaaaaaay better. Miiiiiiiiiiiles better. Kallis dumps on Tendulkar and flushes him down the toilet kinds of better.
 

Shady Slim

Cricketer Of The Year
So, do an era adjustment. His average will still be good.

He was not rated by pundits because he was not flashy. Kallis and Waugh were the type of players who batted in one mode and that mode was successful. But Waugh got recognition since he was a successful captain and also Aussie media while Kallis did not have those.

He was well rated by peers during his career as well.
also if we must era adjust kallis's batting average down surely that necessitates downward moderation of his bowling average as well right

or are we going to do the sanga and murali thing where the pitches are simultaneously super flat and rank dustbowls
 

the big bambino

International Captain
Does that take into account the Bradman factor?

ie. the logical fallacy that the era during Bradman's career was easier for batting based on the averages of the time, which were heavily influenced by Bradman's unusually high average itself
It seems. He has greater influence on one decade at least (30s) because of his average and the greater proportion of his innings he played versus the total. For the same second mentioned reason Hammond was more influential on the same decade than say SRT on the 90s despite both averaging near the same.

It's true Bradman doesn't move the needle that much but he doesn't have to. As the decade averages tend to be around low to mid 30s, removing Bradman would make the 30s one of the lower decades.
 

subshakerz

International Captain
Everyone likes to ignore that Kallis played half his cricket in SA.... still the consistently most difficult place to bat since readmission.
I think it is fair to give him some points for that but I wouldn't go too far. I don't see others giving Imran and Wasim extra credit for performing on Pakistani pancakes. My take is most posters expect a great cricketer to perform at home regardless of circumstances.
 

subshakerz

International Captain
See Subs. I told you Kallis was better than Tendulkar. Tendulkar is just valued highly because he got a lot of hype because of his country. This shows that Kallis was way way better than Tendulkar. Waaaaaaaaaaaay better. Miiiiiiiiiiiles better. Kallis dumps on Tendulkar and flushes him down the toilet kinds of better.
Kallis failed in England. Tendulkar didn't.
 

Bolo.

International Debutant
also if we must era adjust kallis's batting average down surely that necessitates downward moderation of his bowling average as well right

or are we going to do the sanga and murali thing where the pitches are simultaneously super flat and rank dustbowls
Ya, its fair to downgrade his bowling record. A smidgen more proportionally than his batting seeing as he bowled only seam, but faced some spin at home as well. He still ends up looking a lot better for it though- reckon he would be ranked a fair bit higher if he was a 60ish bat and a mid 30s bowler
 

Flem274*

123/5
i don't know why you guys are still arguing this when my link to "fast" bowler footage shows the standard of that era outside the two big dogs.
 

shortpitched713

International Regular
I'm sure you'd agree McGrath was a better cricketer than Holder even though Holder is the better allrounder. You can do this, SP!
I was about to make a joke about being a computer again, but actually it's not so straightforward. If we look at their value, it will always come down to team balance. A vast majority of the time I'm picking McGrath, sure but I can think of at least some examples where you might just want the extra batting depth for your 5th bowler and choose Holder (peak West Indies side). On balance, that makes McGrath the better cricketer sure, but you can understand where this becomes perilous. Is Holder better than a James Anderson then, how about an Andy Roberts? Jason Gillespie? Makhaya Ntini?

To avoid all that, I just don't compare players with different roles. And only compare bowling allrounders with each other, and batting allrounders with each other as well.
 

Victor Ian

Cricketer Of The Year
Seeing McGrath mentioned, is he the Kallis of bowling? Or hadllee. They are not exciting like Marshall waqar or Steyn, but just relentless accumulators. But with bowlers, we admire the brilliance of impeccable lines that you can rarely dominate. But not so with batsmen.
 

Top