Kallis vs. Dravid

[R_D]

Dravid slightly ahead as a batsman for me as well.

Are PEWS and Uppercut duplicates ... seem to do agree with alot of things

 

[Prince EWS]

Are PEWS and Uppercut duplicates ... seem to do agree with alot of things

Pratters to rage.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

1) I was clarifying how I got 159.

2) I have not said one bit about 200+ scores till now. I have got into this debate since you posted that 200+ thingy of Kallis which was not-out and minnow-inflated.

3) Dude, you need a course in statistics now. When somebody averages 152 that doesnt mean his every score is a 152. You get that? Otherwise a player who averages 45 is as good as a player who averages 50 because 5*2=10 runs difference wouldn't matter in almost 99.9% of the test matches.

1) Doesn't matter how you got it. It is wrong. Just because Dravid doesn't do as well against minnows as he does against other teams, it doesn't mean you just remove them.

2) Again the same minnow rubbish. Not outs should count. It is to the batsman's credit that he hasn't been dismissed. As I understand, Kallis' team has a better chance of winning/saving the match if he is out there in the middle then if he were back in the hut.

3) LOL their overall averages are the same. Is this hard to understand ? Kallis actually averages marginally higher. The 152 average is the average of Dravid's 100s. So yes, when Dravid makes a 100, he does more for the team (blindly ignoring not outs), but as Kallis actually averages a point or two higher overall, it means he makes up for the "smaller hundreds" which makes him more consistent.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Dravid slightly ahead as a batsman for me as well.

Are PEWS and Uppercut duplicates ... seem to do agree with alot of things

PEWcambrian and SUpperdear imo.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Meh, two hundred != big hundred.

 

[GIMH]

Ha, yep!

 

[honestbharani]

This.

I often give crap to Kallis for being a selfish batsman and not a game winner of the same ilk as Ponting or Tendulkar, but he IS a very fine batsman and almost certainly the best all rounder of the last twenty years.

This..

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I really dunno, Prince.. I mean, with 115 in each innings, there is a good chance the opposition may still draw or win the game but a 230 generally really sets you up to dominate the whole game.

I would take a player who can make his good form count a lot more than someone who cannot... Failures are common and it doesn't matter to me if you can get 20 runs more when you are in bad nick. The best batsmen producing 20 extra runs doesn't really change anything.. But between a 130 and a 210, there is a BIG difference..

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I kinda agree about 100s but it really depends on the context. On a flat track, a guy getting a hundred and then getting out, esp. if he is one of the permier bats of your team, is actually doing you a disservice.. YOu gotta carry on.


But then again, when we talk of big innings, we have to look at the time thing too. Gambhir's 130 against NZ is one of THE BIGGEST innings I have seen. He batted for 8 hours and helped India draw the game from losing position (starting the 4th inning with 2 days to go)... It is worth as much as his double against Australia, for mine, if not more... So it is all pretty relative to the game situation and stuff.


Having said all this, I think, over the period of watching both mens' career, I feel Dravid is slightly more likely to play a better knock than Kallis, under most, if not all, circumstances (pitch, bowlers etc. ). I don't think there is much that seperates them and they are as close in comparison to each other as Sachin and Lara are to each other for me.. But still, Dravid by a whisker.

 

[honestbharani]

And why should I ignore not outs ? How is Kallis at fault if he scores say 160* and the captain declares ?

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

It did happen once and it WAS because he was batting too slowly.. Pollock gave him a time of the day when he was gonna declare and it was up to Kallis to go for it or to sit back on the not out.. Unsurprisingly, he took the latter.


Many guys close to him, including Geoff Boycott who is a big fan of him, have commented on how much the stats, averages and NOs mean to him. I mean, Boycott said it on air during the 98 Windies RSA series.. He is trying to make up for his bad start with a lot of not outs so that his average is up there.. I mean, there is nothing wrong in wanting your average to be up there but it shows the guy does care for the average more than the double century.


I am not gonna pull him on it though.. It was his choice and never really afffected his team in any way. But I do think he has not produced the BIG innings (not juz in terms of runs, but time and the sense of occassion) on the many occassions when RSA have needed him to. But he has been much better in that regard in the past 2 years though.. Seems to play with a bit more freedom and tries to ensure his team can get on top of the game and control it.

 

[honestbharani]

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 ?

You are speaking as if Dravid and Kallis are the ONLY batsmen in the team in this hypothetical instance you are bringing up.


Dravid scoring 186 could mean anything, but given the way he bats and given how the team goes when he does well, it is more than likely that India are 500+ and thus pretty SAFE in the game. Most batsmen play around Dravid and hence, he is more likely to have helped India amass a huge score.


Kallis on the other hand, with 102 it is well possible that his team can be bowled out for 300 and a 102* in the second dig could be for a fighting draw or a win or a loss when he is stranded... The onus is on the bowlers while with Dravid's case, the bowlers simply decide whether it is a win or a draw.. Here the bowlers decide if it is a draw, a win or a loss.. I know which I would prefer.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

You are speaking as if Dravid and Kallis are the ONLY batsmen in the team in this hypothetical instance you are bringing up.


Dravid scoring 186 could mean anything, but given the way he bats and given how the team goes when he does well, it is more than likely that India are 500+ and thus pretty SAFE in the game. Most batsmen play around Dravid and hence, he is more likely to have helped India amass a huge score.


Kallis on the other hand, with 102 it is well possible that his team can be bowled out for 300 and a 102* in the second dig could be for a fighting draw or a win or a loss when he is stranded... The onus is on the bowlers while with Dravid's case, the bowlers simply decide whether it is a win or a draw.. Here the bowlers decide if it is a draw, a win or a loss.. I know which I would prefer.

Dravid scores 186/500 but Kallis scores 102/300 ?

Again, the example can be twisted around in many ways. I know that I would take two smaller centuries over a big one more often than not, particularly when the sum of the smaller hundreds is more than the big one.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

It did happen once and it WAS because he was batting too slowly.. Pollock gave him a time of the day when he was gonna declare and it was up to Kallis to go for it or to sit back on the not out.. Unsurprisingly, he took the latter.


Many guys close to him, including Geoff Boycott who is a big fan of him, have commented on how much the stats, averages and NOs mean to him. I mean, Boycott said it on air during the 98 Windies RSA series.. He is trying to make up for his bad start with a lot of not outs so that his average is up there.. I mean, there is nothing wrong in wanting your average to be up there but it shows the guy does care for the average more than the double century.


I am not gonna pull him on it though.. It was his choice and never really afffected his team in any way. But I do think he has not produced the BIG innings (not juz in terms of runs, but time and the sense of occassion) on the many occassions when RSA have needed him to. But he has been much better in that regard in the past 2 years though.. Seems to play with a bit more freedom and tries to ensure his team can get on top of the game and control it.

Lots of batsmen have been called selfish; I am not going to look too much into that. Even guys like Sehwag have sometimes have been referred to as selfish. My point is that if he had had more time, he would have likely gone on to get a big score. Not outs should not be ignored. And Boycott calling anyone selfish is rich. Didn't Botham deliberately run him out once ?

 

[honestbharani]

Lots of batsmen have been called selfish; I am not going to look too much into that. Even guys like Sehwag have sometimes have been referred to as selfish. My point is that if he had had more time, he would have likely gone on to get a big score. Not outs should not be ignored. And Boycott calling anyone selfish is rich. Didn't Botham deliberately run him out once ?

lol.. Boycott never called him selfish.. He made the point on air that he is trying hard to get his averages up because he had told him so once and by remaining not out, you give yourself a higher average.. Boycott is a pretty big fan of Kallis, even more so than some of the CWers. So you have taken it completely in the wrong context.


As I said earlier, double hundreds do not mean BIG hundreds for me. They may be or they may not be. It is all dependant on game situation. But I do think Dravid has stood up to be counted a few more times for India than Kallis has for RSA... And that is why I rate Dravid slightly better than Kallis.

 

[Uppercut]

Dravid scores 186/500 but Kallis scores 102/300 ?

Again, the example can be twisted around in many ways. I know that I would take two smaller centuries over a big one more often than not, particularly when the sum of the smaller hundreds is more than the big one.

Yeah, that is strange.

It could be Kallis scoring a match-winning 100/200 in consecutive low-scoring games on minefields while Dravid scores 200/600 and 0/100 in a drawn game and a big Indian loss. Inventing a scenario in which one huge score is better than two big ones (or vice versa, as I have just done) proves nothing. It's best to just count runs as runs as far as I'm concerned.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, that is strange.

It could be Kallis scoring a match-winning 100/200 in consecutive low-scoring games on minefields while Dravid scores 200/600 and 0/100 in a drawn game and a big Indian loss. Inventing a scenario in which one huge score is better than two big ones (or vice versa, as I have just done) proves nothing. It's best to just count runs as runs as far as I'm concerned.

That was my point, in fact. As I said, unless you think Dravid and Kallis are the ONLY batsmen in the side, that scenario proves nothing.. I just went by what normally happens when Dravid scores 180+ and when Kallis scores 102... I think, off the top of my head based on how they have gone over the years, these are the likely scores their team will end up with. I don't have any statistical confirmation but I will be surprised it was too different...

 

[Avada Kedavra]

lol.. Boycott never called him selfish.. He made the point on air that he is trying hard to get his averages up because he had told him so once and by remaining not out, you give yourself a higher average.. Boycott is a pretty big fan of Kallis, even more so than some of the CWers. So you have taken it completely in the wrong context.


As I said earlier, double hundreds do not mean BIG hundreds for me. They may be or they may not be. It is all dependant on game situation. But I do think Dravid has stood up to be counted a few more times for India than Kallis has for RSA... And that is why I rate Dravid slightly better than Kallis.

I am not sure how much to trust Boycott; he has been known to talk crap. Even if Kallis did say that, I wouldn't take it all that seriously. Most batsmen, with very very few exceptions, care about stats even if they don't publicly state it.

Fair enough HB, you rate Dravid slightly ahead of Kallis. I rate Kallis slightly ahead of Dravid, and that's only really because of Dravid's horrible slump recently.

 

[honestbharani]

I am not sure how much to trust Boycott; he has been known to talk crap. Even if Kallis did say that, I wouldn't take it all that seriously. Most batsmen, with very very few exceptions, care about stats even if they don't publicly state it.

Fair enough HB, you rate Dravid slightly ahead of Kallis. I rate Kallis slightly ahead of Dravid, and that's only really because of Dravid's horrible slump recently.

definitely.. But in Kallis' case, it went to the extent of him choosing to be 178* instead of a 200 odd with the risk of getting out.. Again, I don't hold it against him too much but juz find it astonishing that a guy would pass up an opportunity of a double for the slightest risk of getting out (the opponents were Zim...).

 

[Avada Kedavra]

definitely.. But in Kallis' case, it went to the extent of him choosing to be 178* instead of a 200 odd with the risk of getting out.. Again, I don't hold it against him too much but juz find it astonishing that a guy would pass up an opportunity of a double for the slightest risk of getting out (the opponents were Zim...).

Again even if he had got the 200 there, people would have said - Oh, but his only 200 came against Zimbabwe or something like that. It is impossible to please some people

 

[honestbharani]

Again even if he had got the 200 there, people would have said - Oh, but his only 200 came against Zimbabwe or something like that. It is impossible to please some people

lol.. I see that. But my astonishment is at a player of Kallis' calibre turning down an easy double just because there was like 5% risk of him getting out, given the quality of the opposition bowling. I find it incredible..