Kallis vs. Dravid

[Prince EWS]

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.

Look, it's one thing to value double centuries highly and not rate Kallis up there with other batsmen because of it. I mean, I disagree really really strongly, but I see it as a valid viewpoint with backing.

Patronising posts like this are just crap though, really. I didn't just wake up one day and decide I was going to be Kallis's online bodyguard and neither did anyone else who agrees with me - you can't really accuse of of bias because we aren't on his payroll or even South African (in most cases). Despite what you seem to think, my rating of Kallis is a byproduct of what I see as important when analyse batsmen. I didn't decide to not put much value on artificial landmarks just because Kallis hasn't achieved one and I resent the implication - I rate Kallis higher than most because he satisfies the criteria of what I find important when I look at someone's career; it's completely consistent with how I analyse and rate everyone else. You've got your cause and effect backwards here.

I could just as easily turn around and say you've misrepresented yourself in how you feel about the importance of double centuries because you have some inherent bias against Kallis and the pace he scores his runs at or something of the like.. but I don't because I respect your opinion and the way you have formed it. I stick to the actual debate rather than inventing some pseudo-bias that doesn't really exist, even though I could easily do the latter. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

 

[Ikki]

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

And? If a batsman averaged 90 but never had a 100, what would your argument be then?

Uncommon does not equal not important.

It depends. You'd rather 1 big score that helps once in every 50 or so innings rather than more runs in between those innings to help you in many more matches?

 

[Prince EWS]

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

Your second sentence contradicts your first.

 

[G.I.Joe]

People here are too hung up on the irrelevancies of 199 vs 200. Its about placing the huge innings' in context. Dravid would be a much lesser player if he didn't have those innings' in clutch situations, even though it means he apparently hasn't distributed his runs as neatly as Kallis has and ended up with 5 less 100's as a consequence. Exceptional batsmen are remembered for exceptional performances. With Kallis, its about scoring consistently, but without those signature innings' where he's held the game by the scruff of the neck and altered its course to the extent Dravid has.

 

[Ikki]

Your second sentence contradicts your first.

It depends. He may not think Kallis is a good batsman and might think Jason Gillespie is.

 

[bagapath]

In wins and draws against major test nations


R Dravid (India) 1996-2009 86 143 21 8108 270 66.45 23 42 2
JH Kallis (SA) 1995-2009 83 136 24 6911 186 61.70 24 35 6


dravid averages 5 points more than kallis. and he has played 20 more completed innings than him. that speaks of consistency too. all those big hundreds do make a lot of difference in the I guess.

 

[bagapath]

It depends. He may not think Kallis is a good batsman and might think Jason Gillespie is.

that would be like calling michael clarke a better spinner than warne because he took a six fer against india and warne didnt. i am not going to do that. dont worry.

 

[G.I.Joe]

that would be like calling michael clarke a better spinner than warne because he took a six fer against india and warne didnt. i am not going to do that. dont worry.

But Clarke is definitely more consistent than Warne. He's consistently taken less than one wicket over more innings' than Warne has. That makes him the better bowler.

 

[Ikki]

that would be like calling michael clarke a better spinner than warne because he took a six fer against india and warne didnt. i am not going to do that. dont worry.

But you see, that's kind of the point with your argument re double-hundred scores. Take a look at the list of players that have scored 200+ runs in an innings...Kallis is better than at least 50% of them.

 

[Prince EWS]

But Clarke is definitely more consistent than Warne. He's consistently taken less than one wicket over more innings' than Warne has. That makes him the better bowler.

Haha, there's a difference between being consistently good and being consistently **** though.

Your point would only be relevant if Dravid scored a hundred as often as Kallis does and a fifty as often Kallis does. But he doesn't. He makes up for this by scoring more really big scores - honestly, the most I look at the numbers the more I'm leaning towards Dravid as a batsman, but double hundreds merely contribute to the average. Looking at the average and then looking at the double hundreds accounts for them twice - consistently scoring hundreds is just as, if not more important.

 

[Ikki]

I actually think Dravid is just better as a batsman, but I think something must be said of the home records of these two. Dravid has a pretty average one and considering the kinds of tracks and matches he's been privy to in the last decade it's a wonder it's below 50. Whereas Kallis has been batting on the most competitive pitches at home his entire career and averages in the high 50s.

 

[bagapath]

Look, it's one thing to value double centuries highly and not rate Kallis up there with other batsmen because of it. I mean, I disagree really really strongly, but I see it as a valid viewpoint with backing.

Patronising posts like this are just crap though, really. I didn't just wake up one day and decide I was going to be Kallis's online bodyguard and neither did anyone else who agrees with me - you can't really accuse of of bias because we aren't on his payroll or even South African (in most cases). Despite what you seem to think, my rating of Kallis is a byproduct of what I see as important when analyse batsmen. I didn't decide to not put much value on artificial landmarks just because Kallis hasn't achieved one and I resent the implication - I rate Kallis higher than most because he satisfies the criteria of what I find important when I look at someone's career; it's completely consistent with how I analyse and rate everyone else. You've got your cause and effect backwards here.

I could just as easily turn around and say you've misrepresented yourself in how you feel about the importance of double centuries because you have some inherent bias against Kallis and the pace he scores his runs at or something of the like.. but I don't because I respect your opinion and the way you have formed it. I stick to the actual debate rather than inventing some pseudo-bias that doesn't really exist, even though I could easily do the latter. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

I would be more than happy to let go of my argument if a kallis supporter explains why he hasnt scored a double yet and accept that as a chink in his armor. as long as
'what is so important about a double" question keeps coming up here I have to assume people are dodging the issue to save kallis' reputation.

example: if I say tendulkar has achieved success everywhere or that lillee is the most complete pacer of all time, you can counter me with sachin's record against SA at home or Lillee's record in Pak. I can come back with sachin's three centuries in SA or Lillee having played only three tests in Pak. But I cannot simply say it is irrelevant to see a pacer's record in Pak or an Indian middle order batter's performance against SA in India. So, when I say Kallis hasnt scored a double and it is a blank box in his CV, accept it. If guys keep saying it is irrelevant then I am going to accuse them of protecting Kallis. and, yes, i do think he is too slow. but there are other slow batsmen who score doubles. why cant this guy? he is not a long distance horse. and that is a problem if he wants to be considered a great.

 

[bagapath]

But you see, that's kind of the point with your argument re double-hundred scores. Take a look at the list of players that have scored 200+ runs in an innings...Kallis is better than at least 50% of them.

sure he is. but we are talking about the other 50% who are better than kallis.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

The average of Dravid's 100s is 186

The average of Kallis' 100s is 204

 

[silentstriker]

I actually think Dravid is just better as a batsman, but I think something must be said of the home records of these two. Dravid has a pretty average one and considering the kinds of tracks and matches he's been privy to in the last decade it's a wonder it's below 50. Whereas Kallis has been batting on the most competitive pitches at home his entire career and averages in the high 50s.

Haha, damned if you do, damned if you don't. For value to your team, isn't away record more important? All the other Indian batsmen do fine in India.

 

[Ikki]

Haha, damned if you do, damned if you don't. For value to your team, isn't away record more important? All the other Indian batsmen do fine in India.

I don't think you're damned if you do, if you have a very good away record. I think both are important, though it's generally harder to play away because of the unknown conditions.

 

[bagapath]

The average of Dravid's 100s is 186

The average of Kallis' 100s is 204

but the point is, if the opposition scores 600 and your team needs a big hundred from your main batsman who will you turn to? dravid has crossed 200, 5 times. kallis, 0 times. better put your money on rahul, mate.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Haha, there's a difference between being consistently good and being consistently **** though.

Its the same as the Kallis-Gillespie comparison .

Your point would only be relevant if Dravid scored a hundred as often as Kallis does and a fifty as often Kallis does. But he doesn't. He makes up for this by scoring more really big scores - honestly, the most I look at the numbers the more I'm leaning towards Dravid as a batsman, but double hundreds merely contribute to the average. Looking at the average and then looking at the double hundreds accounts for them twice - consistently scoring hundreds is just as, if not more important.

I still wouldn't exchange the Dravid of the 230, 180, 270 for a Dravid with 100, 120, 100, 120, 100, 120. I mean, if Dravid was a Kallis type of player, he'd probably have split his 5 double hundreds into 10 hundreds, which would give him roughly the same number of centuries as Kallis. But he'd be a lesser player for it. It's not about the rigidity of the number 200 for me, its about scoring big when the team needs him to. A small hundred is not the answer to every situation. I cannot believe that Kallis has never been in situations where SA really required someone to play a Dravid type back to the wall innings. And the lack of 200's in his record, for me, is more a pointer towards him consistently failing to rise to the occasion in those instances, rather than a failure to achieve an arbitrary milestone in itself.

 

[Ikki]

sure he is. but we are talking about the other 50% who are better than kallis.

The other 50%? It's arguable. He certainly is better than 50% of them beyond reasonable argument. He's probably better than many of the other remaining batsmen in there too.

In fact, substitute Dravid for Kallis and I'd be saying the same thing .

I still wouldn't exchange the Dravid of the 230, 180, 270 for a Dravid with 100, 120, 100, 120, 100, 120. I mean, if Dravid was a Kallis type of player, he'd probably have split his 5 double hundreds into 10 hundreds, which would give him roughly the same number of centuries as Kallis. But he'd be a lesser player for it. It's not about the rigidity of the number 200 for me, its about scoring big when the team needs him to. A small hundred is not the answer to every situation. I cannot believe that Kallis has never been in situations where SA really required someone to play a Dravid type back to the wall innings. And the lack of 200's in his record, for me, is more a pointer towards him consistently failing to rise to the occasion in those instances, rather than a failure to achieve an arbitrary milestone in itself.

Why would he be a lesser player? Surely not because of the pure fact of the number 200, but because of the importance of the runs. I am sure there are many 150 scores that could have the same effect on a match.

Agree with the bolded bit though.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I would be more than happy to let go of my argument if a kallis supporter explains why he hasnt scored a double yet and accept that as a chink in his armor..

A statistical chink, that is all. Like I said, Kallis' average of centuries is 28 runs > Dravid's. It's the same as asking why Viv Richards, Ponting, SRT and Dravid don't have triples. I would say it's a statistical aberration especially if you look at some of the no-names that have doubles and triples.