Tendulkar vs Kallis

[silentstriker]

Kallis brings more value to a Test team, but over their careers, as a batsman, Tendulkar > Kallis by a reasonable distance.

 

[Richard]

Well since Test Cricket these days is all about rubbish bowling (apparently) shouldn't the players who excel at that be considered the best?

Erm... no, I rate that considerably lower than the ability to score against better bowling.

At a time of generally good bowling Tendulkar was superlative, Kallis good. This is far more important than one's ability to bash rubbish bowling - not that Tendulkar at the time he was a good player lost anything in comparison to Kallis there.

I really wish people would stop, meanwhile, bringing the Tendulkar of 2003 onwards into any equation. Tendulkar was no longer the player he had been - of course he couldn't cash-in on the rubbish bowling the way some have.

 

[NUFAN]

Erm... no, I rate that considerably lower than the ability to score against better bowling.

At a time of generally good bowling Tendulkar was superlative, Kallis good. This is far more important than one's ability to bash rubbish bowling - not that Tendulkar at the time he was a good player lost anything in comparison to Kallis there.

I really wish people would stop, meanwhile, bringing the Tendulkar of 2003 onwards into any equation. Tendulkar was no longer the player he had been - of course he couldn't cash-in on the rubbish bowling the way some have.

Of course? Your only saying that because he hasn't been good enough.

Do you think we should wipe away all batting stats from 2003 to 2007 due to the bowling not being at the right standard?


Look at the 112 bowlers who have taken the wicket of Sachin in test match cricket. You will find many bowlers who weren't anything special. It's impossible to have 11 great players in all teams..

 

[Ikki]

Erm... no, I rate that considerably lower than the ability to score against better bowling.

At a time of generally good bowling Tendulkar was superlative, Kallis good. This is far more important than one's ability to bash rubbish bowling - not that Tendulkar at the time he was a good player lost anything in comparison to Kallis there.

I really wish people would stop, meanwhile, bringing the Tendulkar of 2003 onwards into any equation. Tendulkar was no longer the player he had been - of course he couldn't cash-in on the rubbish bowling the way some have.

Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Kallis was rather Green in said period? No acknowledgement of players growing or becoming better? It is all about bashing rubbish attacks on flat pitches...something which Lara AND Tendulkar have proven ordinary doing. As said a million times, if we are going to hold in esteem their performances in a period where they faced 'better attacks' - although it was shown before Tendulkar wasn't too terrific facing them - we should be also just as harsh calculating the fact that they cannot bat better when the conditions are conducive to run-scoring. For, if such a thing is easy and should be looked at with a 'grain of salt', then failing in this era should also harm ones record.

 

[Richard]

Of course? Your only saying that because he hasn't been good enough.

Yes, I am... precisely. Had Tendulkar continued to be the player 2003-2007 that he was 1990-2002 he WOULD have averaged 70 or so, there's about as little doubt about that as there is of anything.

Do you think we should wipe away all batting stats from 2003 to 2007 due to the bowling not being at the right standard?

Of course we shouldn't wipe them away, but it must be accepted, AFAIC, that runs between 2001\02 and the current time are not worth anywhere near what they have been at most points in the game's history. Most, not all remember.

Look at the 112 bowlers who have taken the wicket of Sachin in test match cricket. You will find many bowlers who weren't anything special. It's impossible to have 11 great players in all teams..

So?

 

[Richard]

Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Kallis was rather Green in said period? No acknowledgement of players growing or becoming better? It is all about bashing rubbish attacks on flat pitches...something which Lara AND Tendulkar have proven ordinary doing. As said a million times, if we are going to hold in esteem their performances in a period where they faced 'better attacks' - although it was shown before Tendulkar wasn't too terrific facing them - we should be also just as harsh calculating the fact that they cannot bat better when the conditions are conducive to run-scoring. For, if such a thing is easy and should be looked at with a 'grain of salt', then failing in this era should also harm ones record.

I'm not doing this again. Everything I've said - in your direction - has been said more than enough times.

You cannot see things the way I find them; I will not accept that everything must be considered absolutely equal.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, I am... precisely. Had Tendulkar continued to be the player 2003-2007 that he was 1990-2002 he WOULD have averaged 70 or 80, there's about as little doubt about that as there is of anything.

 

[pasag]

Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Kallis was rather Green in said period? No acknowledgement of players growing or becoming better? It is all about bashing rubbish attacks on flat pitches...something which Lara AND Tendulkar have proven ordinary doing. As said a million times, if we are going to hold in esteem their performances in a period where they faced 'better attacks' - although it was shown before Tendulkar wasn't too terrific facing them - we should be also just as harsh calculating the fact that they cannot bat better when the conditions are conducive to run-scoring. For, if such a thing is easy and should be looked at with a 'grain of salt', then failing in this era should also harm ones record.

Spot on for mine on both points and I raised a similar point in my 'Why' thread.

 

[Richard]

80 might be a bit of an ask, but if Kallis, Ponting etc. can average 70, Tendulkar certainly could have had he not declined.

 

[NUFAN]

Yes, I am... precisely. Had Tendulkar continued to be the player 2003-2007 that he was 1990-2002 he WOULD have averaged 70 or 80, there's about as little doubt about that as there is of anything.

Of course we shouldn't wipe them away, but it must be accepted, AFAIC, that runs between 2001\02 and the current time are not worth anywhere near what they have been at most points in the game's history. Most, not all remember.

So?

70 to 80 that's a massive jump..

My point with the bowlers is that Sachin faced rubbish bowling which to me means there was a period in the 90s where he had it easy.

There are 8 test nations Sachin can play against currently. So about 32 bowlers in Test Cricket. What percent of the bowlers would you consider

1) Excellent
2) Good
3) Average
4) Poor

And what was it like in your opinion in the tougher conditions at the of last century?

 

[NUFAN]

80 might be a bit of an ask, but if Kallis, Ponting etc. can average 70, Tendulkar certainly could have had he not declined.

So Sachin could have done what Kallis has done.

I would rate a person who has done something higher then a person who could have done the same thing..

There's about as little doubt about that as there is of anything.

 

[Ikki]

80 might be a bit of an ask, but if Kallis, Ponting etc. can average 70, Tendulkar certainly could have had he not declined.

Sure, Tendulkar had the ability...but he didn't do it because he... didn't...not through lack of trying or time.

Your argument by inference demands, then, that Dravid is clearly Tendulkar's superior. Not only was he great coming into the past decade, in which he averaged 52, but also great in this era averaging 61.

 

[Richard]

So Sachin could have done what Kallis has done.

I would rate a person who has done something higher then a person who could have done the same thing..

There's about as little doubt about that as there is of anything.

It's nothing more than a case of whoever was good at the right time, though.

That's why it strikes me as such an injustice to rank the players lucky enough to be at their peak 2001-2007 ahead of those who happened to be at their peak, say, 1993-1999 (that's hypothetical, there's no specific case of said dates).

 

[Ikki]

It's nothing more than a case of whoever was good at the right time, though.

That's why it strikes me as such an injustice to rank the players lucky enough to be at their peak 2001-2007 ahead of those who happened to be at their peak, say, 1993-1999 (that's hypothetical, there's no specific case of said dates).

What's so lucky about it if people like you completely generalise and denigrate their efforts just because they happened to get into their respective test sides a few years late?

 

[Richard]

Sure, Tendulkar had the ability...but he didn't do it because he... didn't...not through lack of trying or time.

No, he didn't because no-one can be the same player forever.

Your argument by inference demands, then, that Dravid is clearly Tendulkar's superior. Not only was he great coming into the past decade, in which he averaged 52, but also great in this era averaging 61.

There's certainly a case for Dravid > Tendulkar and I'll be happiest forming a conclusion about the two when both played played their last game.

 

[Richard]

70 to 80 that's a massive jump..

It is actually, will edit the post to be more accurate.

My point with the bowlers is that Sachin faced rubbish bowling which to me means there was a period in the 90s where he had it easy.

There are 8 test nations Sachin can play against currently. So about 32 bowlers in Test Cricket. What percent of the bowlers would you consider

1) Excellent
2) Good
3) Average
4) Poor

And what was it like in your opinion in the tougher conditions at the of last century?

There was no "period" where he had it easy in the 1990s, though - there was a series here and there, no more than that.

 

[Ikki]

No, he didn't because no-one can be the same player forever.

EXACTLY. You just compare their peaks it seems and that's it. Longevity counts here; as well as reinvention.

Just because you weren't as great when you started off doesn't mean you couldn't grow into a better player and just because you were a much better batsman doesn't mean you couldn't become more fallible later on in your career - in fact, both seem regular.

There's certainly a case for Dravid > Tendulkar and I'll be happiest forming a conclusion about the two when both played played their last game.

So if Ponting can be rated as better than Dravid, and Dravid better than Tendulkar, why do you go all nutter when someone says that Ponting is better than Tendulkar? You've pretty much brought the same argument in this Kallis comparison for Ponting too.

 

[Ikki]

It is actually, will edit the post to be more accurate.

There was no "period" where he had it easy in the 1990s, though - there was a series here and there, no more than that.

In that 'period' only Pakistan, Windies and South Africa could have been said better THEN than now, the others have improved. Australia stayed the same.

Against Pakistan Tendulkar hadn't done well, neither South Africa. Against Australia he did and against Windies he did too. Although Walsh was aging and Ambrose only played 1 series. So really, this entire rant you have going about how Tendulkar would average 80 and Kallis' efforts should be taken with a grain of salt is based on Tendulkar's form V Aussies (who've stayed the same, so that of course can't count as Kallis and co. still face them) and an inconsistent Windies side that went from World #1 to almost minnows. That's it, no more no less. That 1 Windies side.

 

[Richard]

EXACTLY. You just compare their peaks it seems and that's it. Longevity counts here; as well as reinvention.

Just because you weren't as great when you started off doesn't mean you couldn't grow into a better player and just because you were a much better batsman doesn't mean you couldn't become more fallible later on in your career - in fact, both seem regular.

I could not care less if someone who was magnificent for 12 years then becomes lesser - it's not like you've demonstrated a lack of longevity.

So if Ponting can be rated as better than Dravid, and Dravid better than Tendulkar, why do you go all nutter when someone says that Ponting is better than Tendulkar? You've pretty much brought the same argument in this Kallis comparison for Ponting too.

I've never once said Ponting > Dravid, it's as laughable a claim as Ponting > Tendulkar, one only a "nutter" (or someone so blinded by Aussie-Aussie-Aussie that "if all else is equal, being Australian be the casting vote) could make.

 

[Richard]

In that 'period' only Pakistan, Windies and South Africa could have been said better THEN than now, the others have improved. Australia stayed the same.

Against Pakistan Tendulkar hadn't done well, neither South Africa. Against Australia he did and against Windies he did too. Although Walsh was aging and Ambrose only played 1 series. So really, this entire rant you have going about how Tendulkar would average 80 and Kallis' efforts should be taken with a grain of salt is based on Tendulkar's form V Aussies (who've stayed the same, so that of course can't count as Kallis and co. still face them) and an inconsistent Windies side that went from World #1 to almost minnows. That's it, no more no less. That 1 Windies side.

I have absolutely no wish, as I've stated already, to do this again. All it results in is people thinking, "ah, &%$£ that, CBA with CC". Which is the last thing anyone wants.