Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[bagapath]

200s are not comparable with 5fas though. Hundreds are comparable with 5fas - Kallis has plenty of those...

I know my friend. Just trying to state that no one is unlucky for a long period. The flaws are always within.

 

[honestbharani]

HB and Bagapath..

Did you consider Sachin Tendulkar an all time great after playing 70 Tests??SRT's career up until 28 October 1999

I am not able to understand your point here, because I do think Kallis is an alll time great.



Problem is, here we are comparing him with other all time greats.

 

[Ikki]

you dont have a reason. it is just that you want to deny my point that he is slow. well, ikki. that is not enough for me. you can be unlucky for a few tests. not for 130. the fault lies with him.

He's not so slow that he can't score 200+. This has already been pretty much refuted by the Boycott example. IIRC, his SR is 30 or not much above that. Kallis' SR is 44 and his era's SR is 48. Although you can't get the era SR for Boycott it's not controversial to say that his SR has more difference than the difference between Kallis' SR and his era's.

Taylor scored a triple hundred and his SR is even worse than Kallis'. Sarwan scored 291 and has an SR of 46. Kirsten scored 275 and has a career SR of 43. Same goes for players like Dravid and Fleming. In fact, ironically, Dravid has 5 double hundreds (more than Ponting and Tendulkar) yet is even slower than Kallis.

if he manages to score to a double at any point, it would be an out-of-character innings. his playing method had not been good enough in 13 years. dont see him succeeding on this front without changing it.

That's simply an arbitrary estimation of his batting and is neither here nor there.

I think he will eventually score one if not more and it won't be surprising at all when he does.

on a much lower plane of class, srinath used to be called unlucky for not getting enough five-fers. the fact is he was bowling a yard short all his life. had he learned to pitch it up he would have benefited more from the swing and the discomfort he would have created for the batsman from a good length. he was not unlucky, he had issues that needed to be resolved. (i have said this is on a much lower plane. so dont accuse me of comparing srinath with kallis.) similarly kallis needs to improve his scoring rate. this is not good enough.

You can't compare 5fers to 200s. 200s are more like 15+ wicket hauls, if anything. So the whole comparison is off even on that facet.

 

[Ikki]

Sobers took 2.5 wickets per test; Kallis, not even 2. Even though Kallis had a superior strike rate, his average is better only by 0.07 runs. Had Kallis had a significantly better average or got more wickets per test or more five-fers (he took only 3 compared to 6 by sobers despite playing in 27 extra tests) then he would have been clearly a better bowler. he did not. so he is not. i would, at max, have them ranked equal as bowlers. there is no reason i want to rank kallis ahead of sobers so easily. I would be equally non-decisive if someone calls Sobers the better bowler of the two. there is no clear cut case here unlike in that of their batting skills.

Kallis has a much superior SR and his average, considering the era he plays in, is even better than Sobers' probably a few points better, all things considered.

The fact that you ignore the bowling SR which has like a 22 point difference between them and stick to criticising Kallis on the grounds of the SR when batting (which is actually a pretty small difference) and further argue his lack of 200s is quite astounding.

It's really selective and does a disservice to you because you're not the type that engages in those sorts of arguments.

 

[bagapath]

Kallis has a much superior SR and his average, considering the era he plays in, is even better than Sobers' probably a few points better, all things considered.

The fact that you ignore the bowling SR which has like a 22 point difference between them and stick to criticising Kallis on the grounds of the SR when batting (which is actually a pretty small difference) and further argue his lack of 200s is quite astounding.

It's really selective and does a disservice to you because you're not the type that engages in those sorts of arguments.

well. i am also taking his superior wkt/test ratio - which I always bring up - and the ability to take five-fers, into consideration. despite the extraordinary difference in SR in Kallis' favor, the bowling average has remained almost equal because of sobers' superior ER. we have been through this before and I am sticking to my same position as before in the oreilly/warne argument. kallis is yet to catch up with sobers' aggreagate despite playing in 27 more tests. also sobers can run through batting line-ups more frequently. (six 5-fers vs only 3 despite 27 extra games)

What I am completely agreeing with you on is that Kallis is bowling in a batsman friendly era. so that should count in his favor. but isnt sobers' 2.5 wickets per test more valuable compared to kallis taking less than two wickets per game? he cant even promise you one wicket per innings! i am not claiming sobers is better. just that i cant accept kallis' superiority in this so easily. they are probably equal.

 

[bagapath]

You can't compare 5fers to 200s. 200s are more like 15+ wicket hauls, if anything. So the whole comparison is off even on that facet.

oh, ikki. i am just saying one cant blame luck for these kind of short comings. the srinath example is supposed to show you that since you claimed kallis has been unlucky. no one is unlucky for 13 years.

also, there have been 258 double hundreds in history. and hardly 10 or 20, 15+ hauls. just because kallis hasnt done it doesnt make it superhuman. just that he is not good enough.

you still cant tell me why kallis has not managed a double hundred. if you think he is not too slow and there is nothing wrong with his game why has he not done it yet????

 

[Ikki]

oh, ikki. i am just saying one cant blame luck for these kind of short comings. the srinath example is supposed to show you that since you claimed kallis has been unlucky. no one is unlucky for 13 years.

A certain set of circumstances has to arise for someone to score a 200. It is really different to taking a 5fer. Sachin didn't have one until the turn of the century, and yet people would now say in hindsight his best period was in the 90s.

When a player can play 260+ innings and yet only have a handful of 200+ scores, that should show how infrequently it comes about. You seem to think it's something to have, simply for having it. When with 11 runs more it'd essentially mean nothing for Kallis other than having the distinction of having one.

So if it is for more than the sake of having it, and a measure of ability, then you'd also have to look at those who scored more 200+ scores, and those who did it in less innings. Then this would be a viable argument as to why Lara > Sachin because he has almost double more and did it in about the same number of innings.

It's merely icing on the cake.

also, there have been 258 double hundreds in history. and hardly 10 or 20, 15+ hauls. just because kallis hasnt done it doesnt make it superhuman. just that he is not good enough.

Pick whatever wicket-haul you think represents a 200+ score. Murali and Warne combined have 32 10fers between them so I was aiming for something a bit more unlikely than that.

you still cant tell me why kallis has not managed a double hundred. if you think he is not too slow and there is nothing wrong with his game why has he not done it yet????

You're going in circles: He won't make a 200+ score because he is not good enough and because he hasn't scored a 200+ score it shows he isn't good enough.

He is more than good enough to make the runs, that shouldn't be the question. Whatever technical facet that may hold him back would hold him back for 100+ so there is little to poke through there. You can argue about temperament but when he has the temperament to be among the top handful of century makers in history it is a silly thing to argue. So using deductible reasoning: he has not had the opportunity to score 200+ scores as much as others have and when he has, there have been declarations or he was left not-out.

If you think he is not good enough, could you please give us a proper reason (technical, psychological, etc), not circular reasoning regarding him not scoring a 200+ innings.

 

[bagapath]

you are telling me kallis has not had the opportunities to score a double hundred? well, he has played in 130 tests. if he thinks he has not got an opportunity it simply means he has not been good enough to spot one.

If you think he is not good enough, could you please give us a proper reason (technical, psychological, etc), not circular reasoning regarding him not scoring a 200+ innings.

he is too slow to force the issue. even an equally defensive batsman like dravid has managed to make use of such opportunities by batting quicker whenever he has crossed a certain amount of time spent on crease so that all the hard work pays off from that point. this attitude of shifting gears needs a bit of selflessness because you are risking your wicket after so much of hard work in return for quicker runs. kallis has not looked beyond protecting his wicket and as written in his cricinfo profile, runs have been a by-product of his crease occupation. only when he learns to make use of his countless hours of net practice in the middle of the ground into actual run scoring endeavors he will be able to score double hundreds. otherwise he is going to be left unbeaten on a 150+ score with the team declaring on him. or he will run out of partners. or he will continue to play defensively and still make a mistake and get out. and then his team mates will wake up from their slumber. in short, he should learn to shift gears whenever possible. he is in the team to score runs. the quicker he scores them, the better it is for the team. he should realize that. dravid used to have a similar problem in ODIs. so did gavaskar. they learnt to free their arms whenver possible and got better in that format also. dravid's success in the second IPL is another example of the attitude shift needed in kallis. Of course, Kallis is a great test batsmen as it is. but he could be in even superior company if he learns to add more aggression to his batting.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, and this attitude is what I disagree with so vigorously. When you compare two equally effective players, they are equal. Sobers was indeed better than Kallis, but it's actually pretty damn close - Sobers was the better batsman but Kallis is the better bowler of the two. I think the difference in their batting overshadows the difference in their bowling but I certainly think they're worth comparing. Strike rate, aggression, double hundreds and how many people liked watching them are all completely irrelevant to me.

HOw do you say that for sure though? Looking at over all SR figures of that period, Sobers was off by 10 or so and Kallis just about par... Averages, both of them seem to be at par for their period.. As I said, the diff. in their relative strike rates of the era is pretty much made up by the fact that Sobers could bowl more varieties and apparently, was much better as a seamer than spinner and only bowled spin to provide that option to his team... I don't think it is any fact that Kallis is a better bowler than Sobers at all....

 

[honestbharani]

you are telling me kallis has not had the opportunities to score a double hundred? well, he has played in 130 tests. if he thinks he has not got an opportunity it simply means he has not been good enough to spot one.



he is too slow to force the issue. even an equally defensive batsman like dravid has managed to make use of such opportunities by batting quicker whenever he has crossed a certain amount of time spent on crease so that all the hard work pays off from that point. this attitude of shifting gears needs a bit of selflessness because you are risking your wicket after so much of hard work in return for quicker runs. kallis has not looked beyond protecting his wicket and as written in his cricinfo profile, runs have been a by-product of his crease occupation. only when he learns to make use of his countless hours of net practice in the middle of the ground into actual run scoring endeavors he will be able to score double hundreds. otherwise he is going to be left unbeaten on a 150+ score with the team declaring on him. or he will run out of partners. or he will continue to play defensively and still make a mistake and get out. and then his team mates will wake up from their slumber. in short, he should learn to shift gears whenever possible. he is in the team to score runs. the quicker he scores them, the better it is for the team. he should realize that.

His 189 is the perfect example of Bagapath's point. How do I know? I watched the bloody game, every ball... And I watched the coach's interview post play too.

 

[Ikki]

you are telling me kallis has not had the opportunities to score a double hundred? well, he has played in 130 tests. if he thinks he has not got an opportunity it simply means he has not been good enough to spot one.

I said based on what I know - I could be wrong - it appears on the face that he did not have as many chances as the others.

he is too slow to force the issue. even an equally defensive batsman like dravid has managed to make use of such opportunities by batting quicker whenever he has crossed a certain amount of time spent on crease so that all the hard work pays off from that point. this attitude of shifting gears needs a bit of selflessness because you are risking your wicket after so much of hard work in return for quicker runs. kallis has not looked beyond protecting his wicket and as written in his cricinfo profile, runs have been a by-product of his crease occupation. only when he learns to make use of his countless hours of net practice in the middle of the ground into actual run scoring endeavors he will be able to score double hundreds. otherwise he is going to be left unbeaten on a 150+ score with the team declaring on him. or he will run out of partners. or he will continue to play defensively and still make a mistake and get out. and then his team mates will wake up from their slumber. in short, he should learn to shift gears whenever possible. he is in the team to score runs. the quicker he scores them, the better it is for the team. he should realize that. dravid used to have a similar problem in ODIs. so did gavaskar. they learnt to free their arms whenver possible and got better in that format also. dravid's success in the second IPL is another example of the attitude shift needed in kallis. Of course, Kallis is a great test batsmen as it is. but he could be in even superior company if he learns to add more aggression to his batting.

Dravid didn't force the issue. I don't think you could say any of his 200+ scores were fast and one was in the 40s. Ironically, when both players score 100+ runs, Kallis scores them a bit faster.

You're simply taking too many liberties with 2 aspects of Kallis' batting - his SR and 0 200+ scores. His speed is not a problem with scoring 200+; that's already been refuted with the many players who were even slower (and who also average less overall) scoring them.

 

[bagapath]

ikki. i am talking about accelerating after your hundred. these numbers dont show on stats. this is purely based on what u see. dravid, once gets settled, opens up better than jacques. kallis always bats in one gear. he needs to change that.

also, if u think kallis has not got enough opportunities, i dont know what else to say. he has scored 30 hundreds. played for 13 years in 130 tests. am sure he has not used the opportunities that came his way to score at least one double hundred. or he is not good enough to create opportunities. any which way since i believe this inability is directly connected to his slow SR i will hold it against him. as long as there is no other logical explanation for this (other than luck etc. which I dont buy) i am not willing to accept him in any position higher than top 30 in my books, which means he doesnt deserve a comparison with sobers. you can compare him with steve waugh, dravid, inzamam, hayden etc. but not with anyone on the plane above them. he is not that good.

His speed is not a problem with scoring 200+; that's already been refuted with the many players who were even slower (and who also average less overall) scoring them.

for my money, it is. even those who are as slow as him have the knack of changing gears after a hundred. he doesnt know how to do that.

 

[Ikki]

ikki. i am talking about accelerating after your hundred. these numbers dont show on stats. this is purely based on what u see. dravid, once gets settled, opens up better than jacques. kallis always bats in one gear. he needs to change that.

I am not sure how to get those stats.

However, if there is a need to score fast, it would be done in the first 100, rather than the second 100. I even commented that in scores of 200+ Dravid still isn't very fast. Scoring at a rate of 55 would easily put you in the mix.

also, if u think kallis has not got enough opportunities, i dont know what else to say. he has scored 30 hundreds. played for 13 years in 130 tests. am sure he has not used the opportunities that came his way to score at least one double hundred. or he is not good enough to create opportunities. any which way since i believe this inability is directly connected to his slow SR i will hold it against him. as long as there is no other logical explanation for this (other than luck etc. which I dont buy) i am not willing to accept him in any position higher than top 30 in my books, which means he doesnt deserve a comparison with sobers. you can compare him with steve waugh, dravid, inzamam, hayden etc. but not with anyone on the plane above them. he is not that good.

The circumstances for scoring a 100 are almost always present. Not so for a double 100. Not only do you need them to occur, but you also need to be in good knack at the same time for it to happen. Tendulkar only has a handful after playing for almost 20 years. Viv Richards only has 2. It doesn't really prove much, even if it is weird that Kallis doesn't have one yet.

And if Kallis is in the Waugh, Dravid and Hayden caliber, he is doing fine. Do you think there is much difference between a Dravid and a Tendulkar? A Waugh and a Ponting? Not really.

And, I'll repeat, if anything should trouble you it should be Sobers' bowling SR. For the same difference in their batting is in their bowling, if not more.

for my money, it is. even those who are as slow as him have the knack of changing gears after a hundred. he doesnt know how to do that.

Have you taken a look at all the players and their SRs when scoring 200+? Many score no differently to their career SRs which disproves you need to step up the scoring rate anyway.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Since Kallis scores at an SR of 50 when scoring 100+ anyway, it makes it even more of a silly gripe.

 

[Ikki]

Maybe this will be clearer:

In scores from 100-199, Dravid's SR is 48.73. In scores from 200+ his SR is 53.21. That's 4.48 runs more for every 100 balls. Can anyone seriously contend that because Dravid can raise his SR 4.48 balls, that's the reason he has 5 double 100s and Kallis 0?

In scores from 100-199, Kallis' SR is 50.24. To have the same SR as Dravid's, when he scores 200+, he'd have to change his game/speed it up by 2.97 runs for every 100 balls he faces. to say Kallis doesn't have this ability is laughable, with all due respect to you bagapath.

 

[honestbharani]

Maybe this will be clearer:

In scores from 100-199, Dravid's SR is 48.73. In scores from 200+ his SR is 53.21. That's 4.48 runs more for every 100 balls. Can anyone seriously contend that because Dravid can raise his SR 4.48 balls, that's the reason he has 5 double 100s and Kallis 0?

In scores from 100-199, Kallis' SR is 50.24. To have the same SR as Dravid's, when he scores 200+, he'd have to change his game/speed it up by 2.97 runs for every 100 balls he faces. to say Kallis doesn't have this ability is laughable, with all due respect to you bagapath.

see it this way Ikki... AT a SR of 48, he gets to a 100. To get it up to 53 means, he will have to score the next runs at around 58-60 per 100 balls... Anyways I get your point, but I think what bagapath means is that Dravid scores quite quicker AFTER he passes a 100 compared to his speed before he reaches his 100 and that this acceleration is something that is missing with Kallis...

 

[Ikki]

see it this way Ikki... AT a SR of 48, he gets to a 100. To get it up to 53 means, he will have to score the next runs at around 58-60 per 100 balls... Anyways I get your point, but I think what bagapath means is that Dravid scores quite quicker AFTER he passes a 100 compared to his speed before he reaches his 100 and that this acceleration is something that is missing with Kallis...

It couldn't be much faster; think about it. Because even if he were much faster in the 2nd half of his innings (100-199) it would reflect in his overall SRs in scores from 100-199. His career SR is 42 (let's say that is his normal rate), his SR when scoring 100-199 is 48, that's only 6 runs per 100 balls.

Speed is simply not a real issue here. And anyway, as I've said, if speed was necessary it'd be scored in the first 100. Often players get to 100 or 150 or 200 and then start letting loose for they've already made a hefty contribution.

 

[marc71178]

It couldn't be much faster; think about it. Because even if he were much faster in the 2nd half of his innings (100-199) it would reflect in his overall SRs in scores from 100-199. His career SR is 42, his SR when scoring 100-199 is 48, that's only 6 runs per 100 balls.

Except the non-100 career SR is surely a fair bit less than 42, making it more than 6 increase.

 

[zaremba]

Imagine if Kallis got a double century in his next Test. Would that mean that he has become a greater batsman now that this "gap in his CV" was filled? Was Tendulkar a less "great" player before he managed to achieve a score of 200? I find the idea very difficult to comprehend.

Whether or not a player happens to score a double century (as opposed, say, to 177 or even 199) is irrelevant to the issue of whether they are a great player. It's a good example of Arbitrary Numerical Landmark Fascism (let's call it ANLF for short) which is an approach that's devoid of any merit imo. What matters far more is (a) that you've scored lots of runs in your team's cause (which you have done if you score 177 or 199 in an innings, and which you have done if you score 31 Test centuries at an average in the 50s); (b) the conditions; (c) the quality of the opposition; (d) the match situation; etc etc etc.

The point I'm making is that scoring a one-off double century is, by itself, a more or less worthless guide to a player's greatness. That said, in the case of Bradman we may legitimately point to the fact that he scored 12 Test double-centuries in 80 innings. Now that's an impressive statistic. However whether a player who's got 31 Test centuries happens to have converted 1 of them to a double century as opposed to none is essentially meaningless.

 

[Ikki]

Except the non-100 career SR is surely a fair bit less than 42, making it more than 6 increase.

Probably because they'd have to play themselves in, unless they're Sehwag or Gilchrist. But that's also countered as the scores of 100-199+ wouldn't have that problem and their SRs would be a fair bit more, for simply not having to have done that*. So that's why I kept the SRs of 42 and 48 as that's more or less it anyway.

*I should clarify, I mean they'd of course have done that early in their innings, but once scoring a big amount, they'll not need to play themselves in to score at an even higher rate as they're already well and truly "in".

 

[Uppercut]

Imagine if Kallis got a double century in his next Test. Would that mean that he has become a greater batsman now that this "gap in his CV" was filled? Was Tendulkar a less "great" player before he managed to achieve a score of 200? I find the idea very difficult to comprehend.

Whether or not a player happens to score a double century (as opposed, say, to 177 or even 199) is irrelevant to the issue of whether they are a great player. It's a good example of Arbitrary Numerical Landmark Fascism (let's call it ANLF for short) which is an approach that's devoid of any merit imo. What matters far more is (a) that you've scored lots of runs in your team's cause (which you have done if you score 177 or 199 in an innings, and which you have done if you score 31 Test centuries at an average in the 50s); (b) the conditions; (c) the quality of the opposition; (d) the match situation; etc etc etc.

I've had a few rants about this before, but I like how you've given it a name.

The point I'm making is that scoring a one-off double century is, by itself, a more or less worthless guide to a player's greatness. That said, in the case of Bradman we may legitimately point to the fact that he scored 12 Test double-centuries in 80 innings. Now that's an impressive statistic. However whether a player who's got 31 Test centuries happens to have converted 1 of them to a double century as opposed to none is essentially meaningless.

Is it really though? The impressive statistic for me here is taht Bradman averaged 99.94. Now if he did that with no double centuries, that average would imply that he was scoring a century nearly every time he came to the crease. That would be incredible; for me, that'd be every bit as incredible as doing it with 12 test double-centuries. If you were to tell me that Bradman scored 6996 runs @ 99.94 with no double centures, I'd be just as impressed as I am when you tell me that he did it with twelve double centuries. Hence the number 200 in itself is rather irrelevant.