Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[chicane]

Yeah, I remember that game. India had no right to win that one after Gibbs' innings, but Kallis decided to ruin the party...again.

Look, I think he is a good ODI batsman, but I would struggle to have him in the top twenty ODI batsmen post 1990.

EDIT : Even among South African batsmen, I would have Herschelle Gibbs, Gary Kirsten, Lance Klusener and AB de Villiers above him.

Maybe. IMO those guys may have an edge over Kallis' record for having played more impact innings while scoring consistently too, but even if you have 20 names between Ponting and Kallis the actual gulf in their performance is not that large. Its within comparison.

 

[Mike5181]

Mate, Jacques Kallis hit a couple of sixes when the game was virtually done and dusted. He did just about enough to make his own figures respectable. I reiterate - at no point in that innings were South Africa realistically in the game. Graeme Smith was carrying an injury in that game, and he tried much harder than Kallis. Kallis, as is often the case , was content with taking the ones and letting the required run rate rise to stratospheric levels. AB de Villiers came and tried hard towards the end, but he was left with too much to do. I am fairly confident that South Africa would have come a lot closer to India's total - maybe even overhauled it - had Kallis got out early.

He has done 90% right and you are moaning about the extra 10%. If Smith was carrying an injury he shouldn't have been out there for 30+ deliveries wasting his teams chances. Botsman, Smith - didn't perform?

I didn't see any sparkling form from the batsmen below Kallis in the other three matches in that particular tournament to suggest that South Africa would have come closer to India's total had Kallis been dismissed early either.

Exhibit A

21st Match, Group E: Pakistan v South Africa at Gros Islet, May 10, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

18th Match, Group E: England v South Africa at Bridgetown, May 8, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

12th Match, Group C: Afghanistan v South Africa at Bridgetown, May 5, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

That guy has played close to 500 internationals and your picking out individual games where you think he failed because he didn't single-handedly win the game for them. There is a common element in those games. The other players also did not play to their abilities. You could find games where players have done something within a game that has had some negative effect on the result of the match for almost any player who has played that long.

 

[Blaze 18]

Maybe. IMO those guys may have an edge over Kallis' record for having played more impact innings while scoring consistently too, but even if you have 20 names between Ponting and Kallis the actual gulf in their performance is not that large. Its within comparison.

Ah well, let us just agree to disagree then

 

[chicane]

Ah well, let us just agree to disagree then

Fine -)

 

[Jarquis]

Exactly. So the statement "not getting out is never a bad thing" is wrong, it should be "not getting out is never a bad thing, providing the player is performing in a way which increases the chance of team success".

No, not getting out is still not a bad thing when comparing batsmen. One who averages infinity with a Sr of 30 is better than a batsman who averages 12 with a Sr of 30. Obviously neither are great ODI batsmen but one gets out and one doesn't. The latter harms his teams chances less but the former is undoubtedly a better player. When comparing individual players not getting out can never be used as a criticism of ability. It defies logic.

 

[Blaze 18]

He has done 90% right and you are moaning about the extra 10%. If Smith was carrying an injury he shouldn't have been out there for 30+ deliveries wasting his teams chances. Botsman, Smith - didn't perform?

Firstly, I was not moaning but merely stating my opinion. Secondly, he did not do "90% right" - that is the problem with coming to conclusions from scorecards.

I didn't see any sparkling form from the batsmen below Kallis in the other three matches in that particular tournament to suggest that South Africa would have come closer to India's total had Kallis been dismissed early either.

Exhibit A

21st Match, Group E: Pakistan v South Africa at Gros Islet, May 10, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

18th Match, Group E: England v South Africa at Bridgetown, May 8, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

12th Match, Group C: Afghanistan v South Africa at Bridgetown, May 5, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

I suggest you watch the India-South Africa match and see how AB de Villiers (and the other batsman following Jacques Kallis) batted right from the start.

That guy has played close to 500 internationals and your picking out individual games where you think he failed because he didn't single-handedly win the game for them. There is a common element in those games. The other players also did not play to their abilities. You could find games where players have done something within a game that has had some negative effect on the result of the match for almost any player who has played that long.

I don't think a player - any player - can single-handedly win a game. The criticism against Kallis is that he wastes too many balls and makes it near impossible for the batsmen following him. This criticism is not limited to the games I have listed; he has done it a fair few times.

 

[Ruckus]

No, not getting out is still not a bad thing when comparing batsmen. One who averages infinity with a Sr of 30 is better than a batsman who averages 12 with a Sr of 30. Obviously neither are great ODI batsmen but one gets out and one doesn't. The latter harms his teams chances less but the former is undoubtedly a better player. When comparing individual players not getting out can never be used as a criticism of ability. It defies logic.

It's only "not a bad thing" if the player in question is just as, or more, likely to increase the teams chance of success. In ODIs, just because a player is not getting out doesn't make them a better player. ODIs are equally about not getting out, but also pacing your innings.

In the example you provided, I just don't see how you can classify a player as 'better' if they are harming their teams chances more. Cricket is a team game - the ultimate goal is the success of the team, not the individual. The player who averaged infinity is a better player on an individual level, but not on a team level which is all that matters. When you make comparisons between batsmen like Ponting and Kallis, you are comparing how well they have served their team (not themselves). That's why how much these players dominate bowlers and how well they play under pressure etc. are good indicators of their value - those aspects of the game show how well a batsmen has contributed to his teams success.

 

[Jarquis]

It's only "not a bad thing" if the player in question is just as, or more, likely to increase the teams chance of success. In ODIs, just because a player is not getting out doesn't make them a better player. ODIs are equally about not getting out, but also pacing your innings.

In the example you provided, I just don't see how you can classify a player as 'better' if they are harming their teams chances more. Cricket is a team game - the ultimate goal is the success of the team, not the individual. The player who averaged infinity is a better player on an individual level, but not on a team level which is all that matters. When you make comparisons between batsmen like Ponting and Kallis, you are comparing how well they have served their team (not themselves). That's why how much these players dominate bowlers and how well they play under pressure etc. are good indicators of their value - those aspects of the game show how well a batsmen has contributed to his teams success.

No you're not. When you compare two batsmen you compare who was the better batsman. If that's not what you're doing then why are we even having this debate and why are you responding to this thread?
There's no arbitrary value for pressure or dominance, it's all subjective bull**** and a massive guise for people to put forth their own intrinsically biased viewpoint.
Makes sense to compare them on what they irrefutably have done and not what they might've been perceived to be doing or how they looked when doing it.

Besides, we've completely moved off the point where you said Kallis's not outs in Tests "inflate his average". lol.

 

[Flem274*]

God forbid a batsman doesn't get out.

 

[Ilovecric]

Kallis is way better, his record is superior for a reason.

 

[Ruckus]

No you're not. When you compare two batsmen you compare who was the better batsman. If that's not what you're doing then why are we even having this debate and why are you responding to this thread?
There's no arbitrary value for pressure or dominance, it's all subjective bull**** and a massive guise for people to put forth their own intrinsically biased viewpoint.
Makes sense to compare them on what they irrefutably have done and not what they might've been perceived to be doing or how they looked when doing it.

Besides, we've completely moved off the point where you said Kallis's not outs in Tests "inflate his average". lol.

I already said, you compare batsmen by seeing how well they have served their team. Nothing else. For some bizarre reason you think you should compare batsmen removed from the team context. If that's the case, you must rate minnow bashers very highly indeed...

"Makes sense to compare them on what they irrefutably have done". So you are saying when you watch batsmen play and dominate the opposition, for some reason that is refutable? My eyes must deceive me, I need raw stats to make a judgement!

 

[Jarquis]

I already said, you compare batsmen by seeing how well they have served their team. Nothing else. For some bizarre reason you think you should compare batsmen removed from the team context. If that's the case, you must rate minnow bashers very highly indeed...

"Makes sense to compare them on what they irrefutably have done". So you are saying when you watch batsmen play and dominate the opposition, for some reason that is refutable? My eyes must deceive me, I need raw stats to make a judgement!

Dominance doesn't matter. Go read Teja's post.

 

[Ruckus]

I don't agree with him. He is assuming dominating/not dominating good bowlers only affects the individual batsmen. When a player dominates good bowlers, it improves the performance of the other batsmen in the team. It not only puts less pressure on the batsmen at the opposite end to score off the good bowlers, but it demoralises the bowlers and can impair their performance for the rest of the match. How often have we seen someone bowl extremely well, putting immense pressure on the batting side, then a batsmen takes the attack to the bowler and he suddenly loses his form.

 

[Jarquis]

I don't agree with him. He is assuming dominating/not dominating good bowlers only affects the individual batsmen. When a player dominates good bowlers, it improves the performance of the other batsmen in the team. It not only puts less pressure on the batsmen at the opposite end to score off the good bowlers, but it demoralises the bowlers and can impair their performance for the rest of the match. How often have we seen someone bowl extremely well, putting immense pressure on the batting side, then a batsmen takes the attack to the bowler and he suddenly loses his form.

All hypothetical.

 

[Contra]

Still Ponting for me.. but if Kallis has a better 2011 than Ponting then I wouldn't mind putting Kallis ahead. The difference between their averages is widening rather quickly.

 

[Eclipse]

Ponting - for the same reason people rate Lara as a better batsman than Steve Waugh.

Kallis only has one or two gears, Ponting can adapt his game to the situation much better be it deffence or attack. Ponting has also played many more "great Innings" compared to Kallis who has scored bucket loads of runs against weeker attacks.

Kallis as an overall player, Ponting as a batsman.

 

[akilana]

I don't agree with him. He is assuming dominating/not dominating good bowlers only affects the individual batsmen. When a player dominates good bowlers, it improves the performance of the other batsmen in the team. It not only puts less pressure on the batsmen at the opposite end to score off the good bowlers, but it demoralises the bowlers and can impair their performance for the rest of the match. How often have we seen someone bowl extremely well, putting immense pressure on the batting side, then a batsmen takes the attack to the bowler and he suddenly loses his form.

Playing into our hands. Can argue that Hayden and Co made it easier for Ponting.

 

[Eclipse]

Playing into our hands. Can argue that Hayden and Co made it easier for Ponting.

I think that's counter acted by the fact Ponting bat's higher in the order than Kallis.

Ponting was never much good coming in at 1/200 anyway. Almost all of his hundreds came from the loss of an early wicket.

 

[Eclipse]

People here are so quick to forget the form of Ponting for a good 8-9 years. A longer period of sustained brilliance than almost anyone I can remember. He was named cricketer of the decade not long ago for a reason.

I suspect his batting will come good again soon and then everyone will be comparing him to Tendulkar again.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Ponting is a great player..no doubt about that..and the only batsman, who forced his way into the Tendulkar vs Lara debate. No one came close. Since the early-mid 90s, it was always Tendulkar vs Lara after the Richards, Chappells and Gavaskars. And Ponting is the only one among the modern batsmen, ahead of Steve Waugh, Inzamam, Dravid, Kallis who forced his way there.

Having said all that, Kallis as a batsman has always been my favourite..since the late 90s..early 2000.
The way this guy scores runs is just unbeleivable. I wont be surprised if he is the one who comes closes to Tendulkar's century tally.