Did you ignore not outs? How can Kallis average 204 when he doesnt even have a single 200? Using not-outs for big 100s inflates the average big time especially if you are only considering 100+ scores. Also it'd be good to ignore Zim and Bangla.
Its possible for Kallis's 100+ average to be higher even without taking not outs into account, bunny.
who needs a 100 not out when you need 200 to get closer to the opposition score? cricket is played for a team not for individual glory.
Dravid will give you a 186 out. Kallis on the other hand will give you 102* and 102. Which one of the two will help more ?
well.... when SRT and BCL are compared Lara's triple century and the 400 n.o. do come into equation. the fact that he could do what the other great names you have mentioned in the post does give him additional points. no one can deny that.
first one. kallis might lead me to a follow on. and a slender lead in second innings. and i will lose. with dravid i am not batting again. much safer.
Kallis scores more than Dravid overall and remains unbeaten in one of the innings. Surely scoring more runs and remaining unbeaten helps the team more than scoring less runs and getting out ?
I was questioning how Kallis can have a 200+ average when he hasnt scored a 200. Obviously it's because he has too many not-outs which usually means too many flat wickets or lowly teams. Once you remove Zim and Bangla, Kallis's average drops down big time (still the notouts remain that he compiled against the lowly WI).
Yeah, there are many, just that Dravid has been involved in so many where even a 150 wouldn't probably have been enough. The 180 at Kolkata was a superb innings by itself, but it wouldn't have altered much were it not for the fact that 281 had been added from the other end too. The 233 at Adelaide comes to mind. The extra 83 runs made a lot of difference to India's last innings chase. Ponting scored a huge double again in the very next test, who knows how it might have panned out had he scored a 150 instead? I know these are statistically rare instances, but almost every great batsman has managed a great innings' or two out of those opportunities. Kallis hasn't. There isn't a definitive Kallis innings to speak of twenty years down the road. It isn't much to speak of when comparing batsmen averaging 40 and 50, but when its as close as this, it should count, imo.
I already posted his stats against Zim and Bangla inflate his average which you seemed to have ignored. Not-outs inflate one's average when counting only 100+ scores because a 150* per say is counted almost equivalent to a 300 out (You can do the math and figure that out). This is a big boost. It doesnt matter that much when you calculate an overall average, but if you are only calculating 100+ average, a not out leads to a big big boost.
if you translate your example into a real match situation dravid's team will not lose. but kallis' team can.
Kallis still averages higher than Dravid when you remove minnows from both.
1. So Dravid cannot inflate his average against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh ?
That's a big stretch. Depends on the match entirely. In normal conditions, those scores posted by Avada, Kallis has done better.
