Kallis vs. Dravid

[silentstriker]

Not quite. I mean, then you can say the same about centuries vs. doubles? Fifties vs. centuries?

In all cases, 100 isn't going to help your team out much more than a 99, as it's just an arbitrary number to cross. I think being able to score big is definitely a big plus for your team, especially if those big scores result in wins. It certainly counts against both Waugh and Kallis that they don't have those real big scores (the exact number of runs, e.g. 199 vs 200, doesn't matter).

 

[Uppercut]

I think all of that stuff gets balanced out in the averages. While Dravid has some seriously big ones, Kallis has more centuries in less tests, so their averages end up pretty similar. There's not really any need to dissect their records to that extent,

 

[silentstriker]

Yea I think I'd agree with that overall. They are very similar batsmen.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think all of that stuff gets balanced out in the averages. While Dravid has some seriously big ones, Kallis has more centuries in less tests, so their averages end up pretty similar. There's not really any need to dissect their records to that extent,

Yeah, I agree with that.

People who talk about Kallis's lack of a double ton seem to forget that he's still managed a comparable or sometimes even better average than players who he is compared with without doing so, meaning he gets to fifty and one hundred more often. And honestly, if I was told a batsman was going to score 230 runs in two innings, I'd split it into 115/115 (which is what Kallis does effectively, acknowledging his similar record without a double ton) rather than cop the 225/5 (which is what someone like Dravid is doing in comparison to Kallis given he makes those kind of scores). If the difference between Kallis and InsertBatsmanWithADoubleTon was purely that said batsman converted his tons to double tons, he'd have more runs at a better average, but they don't, so it all evens out.

I think it's arguable that not scoring a double ton is actually preferable if you still score the same amount of runs as someone who does so, TBH - it just means you're more consistent. I wouldn't necessarily argue that, but I certainly wouldn't argue the opposite which is what a lot of people seemingly want to do.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, completely AWTA.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I certainly wouldn't argue the opposite which is what a lot of people seemingly want to do.

Why not? The 2001 India Australia series could have been a lot different if Laxman had made scores of 20,132,59,161,65,66 instead of 20,12,59,281,65,66. There's room for arguing in favour of both sides of the argument instead of completely dismissing one.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why not? The 2001 India Australia series could have been a lot different if Laxman had made scores of 20,132,59,161,65,66 instead of 20,12,59,281,65,66. There's room for arguing in favour of both sides of the argument instead of completely dismissing one.

I completely dismiss both, really. I don't think scoring 200 and then 0 is any more or any less valuable than scoring 100 and then 100. I think it evens itself out. Obviously there are going to be examples in favour of either but I don't really think you can truly argue one is better than the other with such conviction as is often displayed, and I don't really know why we never see people actually argue the latter if the former has such a following.

 

[Uppercut]

You can say that about any series though. In reverse. Imagine if Sehwag had hit three tons against South Africa instead of one triple century?

 

[bagapath]

well... all I want to say is that kallis has not scored a double yet because there is some weakness in his game... i am not saying he is a lesser batsman than dravid because of that, or because of that alone.... but saying it is an irrelevant stat is ignoring the elephant in the room... the laxman 281 is an example of how such big knocks make a big difference to the team morale and affect the result of the match and series.... if your team is batting second after conceding 600+ runs in the first innings you want your main batsman to score a double to save your neck... on that count i would trust a dravid more than a kallis

 

[Uppercut]

You can't reel out the Laxman 281 as an example of a double-ton though. It was the ****ing greatest innings of all time. Dravid's never played an innings anywhere near as good as that. No one has. Should we consider that a weakness in Dravid's game?

 

[silentstriker]

Well, at the very same time Laxman was batting for 281*, Dravid was at the other end at 180 - not an insignificant innings there .

 

[Avada Kedavra]

well... all I want to say is that kallis has not scored a double yet because there is some weakness in his game...

So Ponting and SRT have a weakness compared to Jayasuriya, Inzamam , Sehwag and Younis ? Come on mate, you can do better than that. And it doesn't explain why Kallis has a higher average after scoring a century ? Did you have a look at that list ?

 

[Prince EWS]

well... all I want to say is that kallis has not scored a double yet because there is some weakness in his game... i am not saying he is a lesser batsman than dravid because of that, or because of that alone.... but saying it is an irrelevant stat is ignoring the elephant in the room... the laxman 281 is an example of how such big knocks make a big difference to the team morale and affect the result of the match and series.... if your team is batting second after conceding 600+ runs in the first innings you want your main batsman to score a double to save your neck... on that count i would trust a dravid more than a kallis

Equally, Dravid doesn't score hundreds as often as Kallis because there is a weakness in his game. And Vivian Richards for that matter, and Steve Waugh, and a host of other greats. Is there some massive weakness in the games of these players as well, or can we just face that Kallis makes up for his supposed weakness with a a different strength?

Kallis's batting average takes into account the fact that he hasn't scored a double hundred, but it's so high anyway because he's better at getting to the first fifty and the first hundred than the vast, vast, vast majority of batsmen going around. Players compile their runs in different ways; there's no sense in discriminating against a player for not reaching a random landmark if he scores as many runs as everyone else anyway via different means.

 

[silentstriker]

So Ponting and SRT have a weakness compared to Jayasuriya, Inzamam , Sehwag and Younis ?

Yes. They do. Definitely.

It doesn't make them better, but scoring triples, especially multiple ones like a few have done is, without a doubt, a thing that is in their favor and against everyone else. On the other hand, being more consistent in scoring (for example) fifties would be in favor of other batsmen. It all matters, and it's up to you how you want to weigh them relatively.

Especially the triples and big scores scored in victories. I do think having multiple double centuries is a requirement (with perhaps a couple exceptions) to be considered a great batsman. A triple helps.

 

[aussie]

Are you kidding, man? There's this thing called a declaration..

How often has IND found themselves in such a situation is Dravid's career though?. I remember him in that famous 2001 test hitting out fairly when set so i'm not sure if thats really a fault of this.

But having slept on it, i think i'm leaning towards Dravid just as a pure batsman based you know. Just remembering both Dravid/Kallis bat againts AUS i sort of reckon Dravid is more likely to play a BIG innings againts a very good/great attack i.e score double than Kallis was/is.

Plus although both are defensive players & have rock solid techniques. I think Dravid is more of "Wall" & harder to dislodge when set.

 

[Uppercut]

Well, at the very same time Laxman was batting for 281*, Dravid was at the other end at 180 - not an insignificant innings there .

I know. But you can't equate Kallis not having scored a double century with Kallis not having scored an innings like Laxman's, which no one has ever done AFAIC.

On an unrelated note, Dravid's 180 that day was fantastically valuable. Had he not scored a double in his career, why would you count this innings for so much less because he didn't get to the arbitrary figure of 200?

 

[silentstriker]

I know. But you can't equate Kallis not having scored a double century with Kallis not having scored an innings like Laxman's, which no one has ever done AFAIC.

On an unrelated note, Dravid's 180 that day was fantastically valuable. Had he not scored a double in his career, why would you count this innings for so much less because he didn't get to the arbitrary figure of 200?

That innings? No. But would I rate him as high overall as a player if he had zero doubles in his career? No.

The best I've ever seen Dravid play was when he got twin fifties in the fourth Test match against WI. Amazingly valuable and some great stuff. Better than any of his doubles. So it's not merely about the number of runs. But if you're going to be in the pantheon of greats, there are certain things that you have to be able to achieve at some point in your career.

 

[Prince EWS]

That innings? No. But would I rate him as high overall as a player if he had zero doubles in his career? No.

The best I've ever seen Dravid play was when he got twin fifties in the fourth Test match against WI. Amazingly valuable and some great stuff. Better than any of his doubles. So it's not merely about the number of runs. But if you're going to be in the pantheon of greats, there are certain things that you have to be able to achieve at some point in your career.

What if he scored zero doubles but had scored the exact same amount of runs at the same average?

I just don't see why scoring runs after you've already piled on a ton is regarded as more valuable than actually getting to the ton in the first place.

 

[silentstriker]

What if he scored zero doubles but had scored the exact same amount of runs at the same average?

He would not be as high in my estimation, no.

I just don't see why scoring runs after you've already piled on a ton is regarded as more valuable than actually getting to the ton in the first place.

Because big innings matter. Everyone talks about going on and getting a "big one" after a century, it helps the team and it's one of the marks of a great batsman.

 

[Ikki]

Yes. They do. Definitely.

It doesn't make them better, but scoring triples, especially multiple ones like a few have done is, without a doubt, a thing that is in their favor and against everyone else. On the other hand, being more consistent in scoring (for example) fifties would be in favor of other batsmen. It all matters, and it's up to you how you want to weigh them relatively.

Especially the triples and big scores scored in victories. I do think having multiple double centuries is a requirement (with perhaps a couple exceptions) to be considered a great batsman. A triple helps.

Kinda disagree. Scoring triples is so rare that it's hard to call it an ability - a replicable trait.