Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[bagapath]

1. To think in terms of "gaps in CVs" in this context is to apply a tick-box approach to analysing a player's worth. The example of Tendulkar shows how absurd that approach is. Was he as great a player before he scored his double hundred as he was thereafter? Of course he was. Hitting that particular landmark frankly changed nothing.

Remember when Sachin scored that fourth innings hundred against England as recently as last year, it was considered a box-ticking moment. When you analyze a player's career or when you compare two players you will be invariably ticking boxes. It is absolutely unavoidable. I am okay with anyone not considering a double hundred not so important as long as they are able to explain to me why so. It is important for me because it shows a batsman's ability to bat for long periods, score runs without getting bogged down, make the best of the batting surface, tire the opposition out and, a lot of times, bat in partnership with the lower order. Since Kallis hasnt achieved it even once, I want someone to tell me where he is failing.

as I have written in an earlier post, which you may have not read, I consider sachin's 99-00 australia tour as the moment that elevated him to a top 10 batsmen status from a top 30 status. he scored his first double century just before that. so, not because of that alone, i had not given sachin the exalted position in my mind till that time anyways.

2. It's only a "gap" if you attach some particular significance to an arbitrary numerical landmark - for no other reason than that it happens to be a round number. And what's more, you seem to be saying that if he had scored a one-off double hundred, that gap would be eliminated, as can be seen from your comment that "all great batsman have made at least one, except Sutcliffe" (my emphasis). Now, Kallis would obviously be in that category if when he scored 189 not out he had been able to go on and get 200. What does it matter that he didn't get those extra runs because the innings was closed? For me, that's an arbitrary and meaningless way to categorise how great a player he is.

Name five bonafide greats - no, name two - you would have in the top 20 batsmen of all time who has not managed to score a double hundred then I will back down. It is like saying 50 runs average as a cut off for greatness is arbitrary because it is just a round number. you are not going to consider that as a touchstone of greatness? can you name 5 top 20 batsmen who averaged under 50? or you are going to ignore that since it just happens to be a round number? 100 is a round number as well. Are you not going to consider how many hundreds a batsman has scored in order value his worth?

You said bradman's 12 double hundreds demonstrate his greatness, coupled with his other achievements in cricket. Considering kallis' 30 hundreds put him in a special category of batsmen, his lack of double hundreds puts him in the last position within that group. if your point is logical, so is mine.

 

[bagapath]

That's beside the point. We are arguing the rate of scoring he shifts to before he reaches 200, not the scoring rate he has after it. Kallis doesn't have a 200+ score so you can't compare. Hence the SRs of 100-199 - scores of settled batsmen who have made a big contribution and are now shifting towards 200. When you look at scores then, his SR is only 48 - lower than Kallis' 50. So Kallis actually scores even faster than Dravid post 100.

dude. he got to 200 because of his better SR. if dravid's 200+ scores were achieved with slower SR you wont be arguing like this. it doesnt matter what his SR is under 200. I am talking about scoring 200. If dravid's SR under 199 is below Kallis' then I am correct. He ended up with a sub 200 score because of a bad SR. when he bats faster than Kallis he gets to 200.

Take Dravid alone for instance. When his SR is 48 he doesnt cross 200. When it is 53 (similar to sachin and sobers' career figures) then he reaches his 200.

Now Kallis witha 50 SR is getting stuck under 200. he has to bat faster to cross the barrier.

That is my point.

 

[Ikki]

dude. he got to 200 because of his better SR. if dravid's 200+ scores were achieved with slower SR you wont be arguing like this. it doesnt matter what his SR is under 200. I am talking about scoring 200. When he scores slower than Kallis he doesnt get his double hundred. When he bats faster than Kallis he reaches his 200. That is my point.

One of Dravid's 5 200s has an SR in the 40s. So you're still pining over nothing.

In cases of high scoring, the SR rises as the player tends to get more runs. The fact that Kallis is faster to 100, and in between 200, should put away such talk. Even if the difference is miniscule. Which you don't seem to acknowledge. Even if we keep Dravid's SRs from 200+ scores, his SR is 53. Kallis' scores of 100-199 are 50. So only 3 runs per 100 balls faced. This is a ludicrous argument, sorry.

 

[zaremba]

sure he would have. but he could not do that because either the team declared or he ran out partners. neither would have happened if he had been a faster scorer of runs.

Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say without going through an exhaustive analysis of each of his innings. Maybe also he was sawn off in other innings when he would have gone on to score 300? Who knows?

But the point is, none of this matters. If you score 189no and your team is therefore put in a position where it can declare, it's to all intents and purposes as good as scoring 200.

As for strike rates, that's another aspect of the discussion that I don't particularly want to get sucked into as I don't have a strong view either way. FWIW I accept that he's slowish by modern standards, although as your own excellent research demonstrated, his SR is superior to that of all-time greats Hammond, Hutton, Harvey, Compton, Cowdrey and Border (among others).

 

[Ikki]

The reason S.Africa declared was because they were looking to bowl out Zimbabwe, since they had lost a day with no cricket.

 

[bagapath]

Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say without going through an exhaustive analysis of each of his innings. Maybe also he was sawn off in other innings when he would have gone on to score 300? Who knows?

But the point is, none of this matters. If you score 189no and your team is therefore put in a position where it can declare, it's to all intents and purposes as good as scoring 200.

As for strike rates, that's another aspect of the discussion that I don't particularly want to get sucked into as I don't have a strong view either way. FWIW I accept that he's slowish by modern standards, although as your own excellent research demonstrated, his SR is superior to that of all-time greats Hammond, Hutton, Harvey, Compton, Cowdrey and Border (among others).

zaremba. the whole thing started with the SR. i have spent a good part of the break I am enjoying today from work on this most aggressive, pointless, frustrating yet thoroughly enjoyable argument.

all the guys you have mentioned are from the earlier eras where it was possible for teams to give enough time to batsmen to accumulate their runs. some of them come from eras with far faster over rates. kallis is playing now where 3.5 RR is common and he is a slow slow guy. that is the only thing i am saying. when uppercut said SR doesnt matter i shared my contrary views on the issue and this lack of double hundreds is one of the points.

 

[bagapath]

One of Dravid's 5 200s has an SR in the 40s. So you're still pining over nothing.

In cases of high scoring, the SR rises as the player tends to get more runs. The fact that Kallis is faster to 100, and in between 200, should put away such talk. Even if the difference is miniscule. Which you don't seem to acknowledge. Even if we keep Dravid's SRs from 200+ scores, his SR is 53. Kallis' scores of 100-199 are 50. So only 3 runs per 100 balls faced. This is a ludicrous argument, sorry.

But Dravid has scored five double centuries. four out of five is pretty reliable.

yes. 3 runs per hundred balls is the difference between him and dravid. kallis has ended up with two innings above 180. 186 and 189 not out. they would have been double hundreds if he had batted faster. precisely my point.

 

[Ikki]

Yes but what about guys like Boycott or Gavaskar? They were as slow (in Boycott's case probably even slower) in their time as Kallis is in his. Yet they scored double 100s.

 

[zaremba]

Name five bonafide greats - no, name two - you would have in the top 20 batsmen of all time who has not managed to score a double hundred then I will back down.

Off the top of my head, Sutcliffe and Kallis. There may be others, I don't know. It doesn't prove anything though. Clearly the fact that you're a great player increases your chances of making big scores. It doesn't follow, however, that because your highest score happens to be 189no that you're a lesser player than one with a highest score of 200.

It is like saying 50 runs average as a cut off for greatness is arbitrary because it is just a round number. you are not going to consider that as a touchstone of greatness? can you name 5 top 20 batsmen who averaged under 50? or you are going to ignore that since it just happens to be a round number?

1) I don't consider 50 to be a touchstone for greatness. Plenty of recent players average over 50 who wouldn't be considered "great". If you're looking for a numerical touchstone for greatness, which I think is a foolish aim in the first place, you'd look to set the bar nearer to the mid-50s for a modern player.

(2) A batting average is however a measure of a player's performance and ability over the course of his career. It's a far more reliable guide in those respects than whether your top score happens to be 189no or 200.

You said bradman's 12 double hundreds demonstrate his greatness, coupled with his other achievements in cricket. Considering kallis' 30 hundreds put him in a special category of batsmen, his lack of double hundreds puts him in the last position within that group. if your point is logical, so is mine.

No, that's a false comparison.

Bradman has 12 double hundreds (or better). You are however talking about a bright dividing line between players with no double hundreds, and those with one. As you put it, "all great batsman have made at least one, except Sutcliffe". Your argument therefore appears to be that Kallis needs to tick the "double hundred" box on his CV by scoring one. And for the reasons I've given, I don't think any weight should be given to scoring a one-off double hundred.

If, however, you were to say that Bradman is a greater player than Kallis because, among other things, he scored 12 double hundreds to Kallis' none, then I'd agree with you.

 

[Ikki]

But Dravid has scored five double centuries. four out of five is pretty reliable.

Uh huh, but that's not the contention. We know scoring faster will increase the likelihood of getting a double 100. But you just showed the best piece of evidence that Kallis' scoring rate is fast enough for it to happen.

yes. 3 runs per hundred balls is the difference between him and dravid. kallis has ended up with two innings above 180. 186 and 189 not out. they would have been double hundreds if he had batted faster. precisely my point.

Sorry, that's a logical fallacy. Correlation =/= Causation. Especially in this case where to equate 3 runs per 100 balls as the difference - it's quite preposterous actually.

 

[bagapath]

The reason S.Africa declared was because they were looking to bowl out Zimbabwe, since they had lost a day with no cricket.

kallis had made 189 of 433 balls at a strike rate of 42. they probably declared because they could not bear to watch him anymore. if he could not score a double hundred in this innings how could I not point it out as a flaw.

Yes but what about guys like Boycott or Gavaskar? They were as slow (in Boycott's case probably even slower) in their time as Kallis is in his. Yet they scored double 100s.

two reasons. a draw oriented approach was considered alright in their days. for england against some of the west indian and australian teams and for india against any opposition, a draw in fact was the only result the team could aspire for. so these guys could set shop and bat on and on. that is not possible these days. even sachin was left stranded on 194 against pak. and except when the four pronged pace attack became regular, the overrates per day were reasonably higher than today. this enabled the batsmen to consume more deliveries without jeopardizing the time needed to bowl at the opposition.

 

[zaremba]

zaremba. the whole thing started with the SR. i have spent a good part of the break I am enjoying today from work on this most aggressive, pointless, frustrating yet thoroughly enjoyable argument.

Glad you're enjoying it! There's nothing like a good debate. I didn't mean it to be aggressive, btw. And I'm going to be late home now myself...

all the guys you have mentioned are from the earlier eras where it was possible for teams to give enough time to batsmen to accumulate their runs. some of them come from eras with far faster over rates. kallis is playing now where 3.5 RR is common and he is a slow slow guy. that is the only thing i am saying. when uppercut said SR doesnt matter i shared my contrary views on the issue and this lack of double hundreds is one of the points.

Fair enough. As I've said, the SR debate is not something I feel any particular desire to get imbroiled in, and Kallis is undoubtedly quite slow by modern standards. My real quarrel was with the use of a "have you scored a double hundred or haven't you" criterion in judging a player's greatness.

 

[bagapath]

If, however, you were to say that Bradman is a greater player than Kallis because, among other things, he scored 12 double hundreds to Kallis' none, then I'd agree with you.

again, my original argument was sobers is a greater player than kallis because he has scored 3 double hundreds including a triple hundred (apart from other reasons).

 

[bagapath]

We know scoring faster will increase the likelihood of getting a double 100.

yeah. I wish kallis would understand that as well.

 

[Ikki]

kallis had made 189 of 433 balls at a strike rate of 42. they probably declared because they could not bear to watch him anymore. if he could not score a double hundred in this innings how could I not point it out as a flaw.

Zimbabwe had scored 400+ they were in danger of losing the match had they not put up a good score. Kallis' runs were more than valuable. More valuable to save, if not give his team a chance, than scoring a double century.

two reasons. a draw oriented approach was considered alright in their days. for england against some of the west indian and australian teams and for india against any opposition, a draw in fact was the only result the team could aspire for. so these guys could set shop and bat on and on. that is not possible these days. even sachin was left stranded on 194 against pak. and except when the four pronged pace attack became regular, the overrates per day were reasonably higher than today. this enabled the batsmen to consume more deliveries without jeopardizing the time needed to bowl at the opposition.

Yes, I agree with many of those reasons. However, that means Gavaskar nor Boycott should be held as greats by your measure. Because their getting 200+ had less to do with their ability and more to do with the way the game was played.

They're slower than Kallis, even in relation to their era, and they also score less on average. Yet having 200+ scores has given them some special place for you?

 

[bagapath]

Yes, I agree with many of those reasons. However, that means Gavaskar nor Boycott should be held as greats by your measure. Because their getting 200+ had less to do with their ability and more to do with the way the game was played.

They're slower than Kallis, even in relation to their era, and they also score less on average. Yet having 200+ scores has given them some special place for you?

This is your interpretation, not mine. However slow they were, gavaskar and boycott managed to score double hundreds. however slow he is kallis has still not managed it. even 400+ deliveries against zimbabwe is not enough for him. what more does he want? Kallis is too slow for this era. Boycott was also slow for his era. He was dropped after making his highest score for going too slow. both are in the same level in my all time list.

gavaskar is higher. because gavaskar's career SR is similar to kallis's despite him playing in a slower era. Kallis is in a batsman friendly era. So his higher average compared to them is nullified by that factor. gavaskar>kallis=boycott

 

[Ikki]

This is your interpretation, not mine. However slow they were, gavaskar and boycott managed to score double hundreds. however slow he is kallis has still not managed it. even 400+ deliveries against zimbabwe is not enough for him. what more does he want? Kallis is too slow for this era. Boycott was also slow for his era. He was dropped after making his highest score for going too slow. both are in the same level in my all time list.
gavaskar is higher. because gavaskar's career SR is similar to kallis's despite him playing in a slower era. Kallis is in a batsman friendly era. So his higher average compared to them is nullified by that factor. gavaskar>kallis=boycott

Boycott had a career SR of 35*, and was seen as, even joked about, as slow by his own era. He scored his only double century with an SR of 44. If a difference of 3 in this era is what you propagate as big enough between having 5 double centuries and none, then what would you think of 9? Surely, that discounts the era of which even Boycott played in.

Gavaskar had a career SR of 44* and was also seen as slow.

Sorry, but you're highly selective and what is worse don't appreciate the minuscule difference between the SRs. There doesn't seem to be any reasoning with you on this topic.

*SR stats you posted pages back.

 

[bagapath]

of course gavaskar was seen as slow as well. his SR and Kallis' SR are very similar. but since gavaskar batted at a slower era I consider him to be better. what is wrong with my logic here? and I have said myself that boycott was a bore, as boring as kallis. probably even more. but who cares? that doesnt make kallis superfast! ikki. you are missing my point and accusing me of not listening to reason. i have been very patient with your "ridiculous" remarks and laughs. calm down and read again. you will get it.

 

[bagapath]

Boycott had a career SR of 35*, and was seen as, even joked about, as slow by his own era.

I dont know what the hell you are talking about. I have said boycott was dropped after making his highest score for slow batting. why are you writing as though I denied his infamy as a deadbat merchant?

 

[Ikki]

We're not talking about how you feel about them; but the fact that it is very possible to score double centuries even doing them slowly. That was the whole contention. Boycott not only was slow for his era, but pretty much any era. And even he scored a double century. So Kallis' speed is fine for scoring double centuries and to hold on that is simply baffling. Not even the era difference is a saving grace for your argument. Even when you say Gavaskar's era allowed him more time to score them, that essentially means that had Gavaskar batted in this era he wouldn't have scored them for it was not really his ability but the fact that he got much more time in the past and also got less flak for scoring slowly. How does this really differ them in ability?

Speed is not the differentiating factor here between these players, considering someone like Dravid has scored 5 200+ scores. And whatever difference you wish to imply, it is minuscule. So the fact that you think an SR of 53 when scoring 100+ will yield you 5 double centuries whereas an SR of 50 won't get you, any leaves me to think that there is no reasoning with you.