Kallis vs. Dravid

[silentstriker]

You're pushing it when you get to triples, but mulitple people have done it multiple times. I don't think it's a coincidence that Sehwag has two and almost three and Tendulkar has none. I really don't. Sehwag has something insane like 9 out of his last 10 centuries being over 150! That's an ability, not a coincidence. Scoring multiple triples is definitely a replicable trait IMO.

 

[Ikki]

You're pushing it when you get to triples, but mulitple people have done it multiple times. I don't think it's a coincidence that Sehwag has two and almost three and Tendulkar has none. I really don't. Sehwag has something insane like 9 out of his last 10 centuries being over 150! That's an ability, not a coincidence. Scoring multiple triples is definitely a replicable trait IMO.

150 is 150 and 300 is 300. How many times does Younis Khan go to 300 and how many 150s does he have in comparison to Tendulkar? Exactly.

 

[silentstriker]

150 is 150 and 300 is 300. How many times does Younis Khan go to 300 and how many 150s does he have in comparison to Tendulkar? Exactly.

Hmm? I'm saying scoring big hundreds when you get one is a replicable trait. I already said a triple is pushing it but doing it multiple times is not a coincidence. The fact is Sehwag gets big centuries every time he scores a century is certainly not a coincidence, and going on to score a really big double, or even a triple, is merely an extension to that, and consider that Sehwag has played half as many matches as a Tendulkar.

 

[Ikki]

My point wasn't that it's a coincidence, but it's hardly a trait you can bank on. The likelihood that Younis Khan or Jayawardene score 150+ runs is more or less the same as Tendulkar or Ponting yet the latter pair don't have a 300 score and the former pair do.

Therefore, when it comes to these discussion, re Kallis and double tons, it shows that his average is kept up by a higher proportion of 100+ scores and that's probably a more bankable and useful trait than scoring ridiculously high scores.

 

[silentstriker]

Disagree. Forget triples, if we're talking about doubles, that's definitely replicable (there have been 160 double centuries in cricket). Now you can argue whether 100, 100 or 200, 0 is more important to the team. I say the big scores help your team more in terms of putting them in a commanding position and they are important for an elite batsmen to have achieved. Obviously lots of hundreds are good, but the difference isn't huge, while having five doubles vs. zero is pretty big.

Kallis has advantages that Dravid doesn't as well, and I am not demeaning anyone, and I said it's close. But I maintain doubles are important in judging greatness, and it's one of the reasons I have Dravid ahead of Kallis as a batsman.

 

[silentstriker]

Oh, and out of the 160, 46 have been scored since 2000. The fact that Kallis has zero out of those forty six that have been scored by his peers works against him if we're going to say he is one of the premier batsmen in the history of the game. Obviously, many people don't think it doesn't matter, and that's fine. But I like my elite players to have certain achievements, especially if we're talking about this decade of run scoring. And this is one of them.

 

[G.I.Joe]

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?

Of course he hasn't, but he's done the next best thing. The 180 in the same innings, the 240 odd at Adelaide, the 270 in Pakistan. They weren't on the same level as Laxman's 281, but anyone who followed the impact of those innings' on the respective series' would definitely take those 3 scores over 6 small hundreds. It simply isn't a matter of averaging numbers out and claiming they're the same. If Dravid had decided to split that 240 odd at Adelaide over the series, India would most probably have walked away with a 0-1 series loss instead of a 1-1.

 

[bagapath]

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?

dravid scored 230 + in adelaide after ponting had cracked a double hundred and helped australia post a massive first innings score... what india needed was a double hundred and dravid gave that... that kind of an innings is what i am talking about. a hundred alone wouldnt have helped india

EDIT: just noticed GI joe's post above making the same point...

 

[bunny]

Using a more statistical approach:

1. Dravid averages more when he is not opening.
He averages more if you remove the minnows.

2. Dravid has a better record when the opposition wins toss and fields, and he also has a better record when his own team wins toss and fields. A reasonable indication that he does well on seaming/troublesome wickets.

3. Dravid was clearly better in the 90s.

4. Dravid averages more (I mean as in 1) even though he has lesser not-outs, and more run-outs.

5. Dravid bats at #3 which requires more application, but still has a better record as in 1 and 4.

6. Kallis hasnt played against SA bowlers who usually bring down the average of good players (definitely more than Indian bowlers).

Overall Dravid has been more consistent, and a big match player. If the opposition doesnt have an in-form Warne on a fastish wicket, I will choose Dravid, otherwise go for Kallis.

 

[Ikki]

Disagree. Forget triples, if we're talking about doubles, that's definitely replicable (there have been 160 double centuries in cricket). Now you can argue whether 100, 100 or 200, 0 is more important to the team. I say the big scores help your team more in terms of putting them in a commanding position and they are important for an elite batsmen to have achieved. Obviously lots of hundreds are good, but the difference isn't huge, while having five doubles vs. zero is pretty big.

Kallis has advantages that Dravid doesn't as well, and I am not demeaning anyone, and I said it's close. But I maintain doubles are important in judging greatness, and it's one of the reasons I have Dravid ahead of Kallis as a batsman.

Even doubles...just how many doubles have Ponting, Tendulkar and Sehwag et al scored? Between these 3, for instance, they have 14 double hundreds in 621 innings - 2.3%, LOL.

You're really exaggerating this "skill". The reality is, they don't occur near enough for them to be a reliable skill. Whereas scores that are still high but not gargantuan (200+), are more likely to be replicated and of use, ultimately.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, it's rare. And it's important. Great batsmen should achieve it. Again - 46 doubles and none to Kallis.

 

[Ikki]

That's your opinion, although I'd say it's pretty arbitrary and not very rational.

 

[silentstriker]

Fair enough, I see the value in the real big scores by batsmen, you don't. We'll agree to disagree there.

 

[bagapath]

am sure kallis' own mother wants him to cross 200 once because his supporters can not defend him any more. getting tired of everyone devaluing double centuries just to accomodate him.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's your opinion, although I'd say it's pretty arbitrary and not very rational.

Yeah, I agree really. I've always been one to judge players based on what they've done across a large sample size and what you would reasonably expect them to do each time they go out to bat/bowl/catch. "Special" one-off efforts really don't hold that much weight with me compared to the consistent grind that is international cricket in this day and age. If two players have faced similarly difficult conditions and situations and score the same amount of runs at the same average, I rate them the same, even if one of the players has a special one-off day and the other one just doesn't. That one-off performance counts toward's the players run tally, average and difficulty of circumstance just like everything else.

 

[Ikki]

If Kallis scored a double century against England it'll not do anything great...it'll just mean he has a 200+ score. People can then argue that he only has one of those scores whereas other favourites have more. Achieving the score itself is nothing but a superficial landmark. Run scoring is relative - landmarks like 50 or 100 are irrelevant. If Kallis has a lack of scoring big scores, that means he has more consistency scoring lower scores.

 

[silentstriker]

Exactly, he does. And I see that as less important than the big runs. You'd ideally have a bit of both, but the slightly less consistant but with many more big (say 5 vs. 0) wins out for me. Obviously not for others in this thread.

But going on to make a big one as they say is so huge in the context of a game that I can't say it means nothing that someone has done it five times while someone else has done it zero.

 

[Ikki]

The problem is that those double hundreds are so uncommon that to even talk about 'consistency' is to not see the forest for the trees. You'd rather a batsman who does something once or twice every 100 innings than one who scores more runs in all the other innings in between.

 

[silentstriker]

Uncommon does not equal not important.

 

[bagapath]

The problem is that those double hundreds are so uncommon that to even talk about 'consistency' is to not see the forest for the trees.

every good batsman worth his salt has one. kallis doesnt.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/line_and_length/2009/12/kallisthenics.html

""the ugly" slow witted ogre with a face only a mother could love! "

patrick kidd rocks