The Sky Commentary Team pick their team of the "Noughties"

[Cabinet96]

Beauty matters at the top end of sport. In football it's why we revere Pep's Barcelona, Saachi's Milan or the Ajax/Dutch team of the 70s.

Cricket wise, it's why I can't take Kallis seriously as a genuine great of the game because I find him utterly mechanical and joyless to watch. IMO there's no contest when you compare him to Lara or Ponting.

Plus he's a minnow basher. Tendulkar and Lara, for me are miles clear of Kallis because of their record against Warne and McGrath's Australia.

Those sides were also great teams that beat everyone in front of them. Good to watch is an enhancement on quality, skill and success, not a substitute for it.

I'd still rather watch Kallis bat than Flintoff anyway. Which is why it's so massively flawed to try and argue greatness with extremely subjective matters.

 

[Furball]

I know, I just can't stand Kallis.

 

[watson]

Beauty matters at the top end of sport. In football it's why we revere Pep's Barcelona, Saachi's Milan or the Ajax/Dutch team of the 70s.

Cricket wise, it's why I can't take Kallis seriously as a genuine great of the game because I find him utterly mechanical and joyless to watch. IMO there's no contest when you compare him to Lara or Ponting.

Plus he's a minnow basher. Tendulkar and Lara, for me are miles clear of Kallis because of their record against Warne and McGrath's Australia.

That's a very interesting point, and leads to the question: How much of cricket is sport and how much is art? The person with a pragmatic temperament will be more likely to select Kallis, but the person with an idealistic temperament will have no problem leaving him out.

Personally, I think that all useless human activities are art, and the demarcation often given between sport (or games) and art doesn't exist. After all, cows, bats, snakes, and sharks have survived in their environment for many millennia without hitting a ball around a paddock, scoring a goal, mating the King, painting a picture, writing a story or poem, carving a sculpture, or going to a religious house.

That said, in the context of human existence beauty (art) has to mean everything, otherwise why bother living? We may as well be cows eating grass.

Therefore, I agree with GF, Kallis is less than ideal.

 

[Uppercut]

Btw anyone picking Tendulkar and not Dravid is having a laugh. Dravid was easily India's best batsman of the 00s, look at all their overseas success over the decade and Dravid was integral to virtually all of them.

Plus he doesn't sound like a prepubescent girl, just in case the above doesn't convince you.

Haha Furball. Your rant about Kallis being dull would be more convincing if you didn't advocate Dravid immediately afterwards.

 

[hendrix]

If you're going to say that you don't need Kallis' extra 25 runs per innings at 6, then you might as well say that you don't need a 3rd seam bowler with McGrath, Steyn, Murali and Warne in the side. And even that is giving you the argument that Flintoff was a better bowler than Kallis (which I don't agree with).

Aside from that, all of Steyn, Murali, Warne and McGrath have shown the ability to bowl long, tight spells. The allrounder here is definitely the 5th bowling option, not first change unless it's a seriously green wicket. Why would you want a bowler with a >30 average bowling ahead of a bowler with a <25 average?

 

[Cabinet96]

Haha Furball. Your rant about Kallis being dull would be more convincing if you didn't advocate Dravid immediately afterwards.

Funny how Kallis is selfish but Rahul "lower scoring rate than Kallis" Dravid is the brick wall that holds India together. India have pretty much always had a stronger batting line up in Dravid's time than South Africa have in Kallis' time as well, which makes the comparison even more hilarious. I love Dravid but people who go on to hate Kallis as well is just so hypocritical. Happens with Trott and a couple of others as well. Can't help but feel it's more than the actual batting...

 

[Cabinet96]

That's a very interesting point, and leads to the question: How much of cricket is sport and how much is art? The person with a pragmatic temperament will be more likely to select Kallis, but the person with an idealistic temperament will have no problem leaving him out.

Personally, I think that all useless human activities are art, and the demarcation often given between sport (or games) and art doesn't exist. After all, cows, bats, snakes, and sharks have survived in their environment for many millennia without hitting a ball around a paddock, scoring a goal, mating the King, painting a picture, writing a story or poem, carving a sculpture, or going to a religious house.

That said, in the context of human existence beauty (art) has to mean everything, otherwise why bother living? We may as well be cows eating grass.

Therefore, I agree with GF, Kallis is less than ideal.

Surely you realise there's far more to sport than just aesthetics?

 

[Coronis]

Hayden
Sehwag
Dravid
Kallis
Ponting
Gilchrist +
Pollock
Warne
Steyn
Murali
McGrath

Would be mine. Pollock > Flintoff. Ponting and Kallis are easily the top two batsmen of the naughties.

 

[Flem274*]

Hayden
Smith
Ponting
Tendulkar
Lara
Kallis
Gilchrist
Warne
Steyn
McGrath
Murali

\_/ at having two spinners and two pacers when they're that bloody good.

 

[watson]

Surely you realise there's far more to sport than just aesthetics?

Yes, there's things like winning and good exercise. But these things pale when compared to aesthetics.

I want to see the best being brilliant. Kallis might be the best but he is not brilliant in the way that Sobers, Botham, or Flintoff are brilliant. Give me a century by Sobers, Botham, or Flintoff over a century by Kallis anyday.

Or to put it another way. Sobers, Botham, or Flintoff in full flight would clear a bar. Kallis at the crease is a reason to stay put and have another beer.

 

[Flem274*]

Yes, there's things like winning and good exercise. But these things pale when compared to aesthetics.

no

 

[hendrix]

gonna repeat that I love watching Kallis bat. Perfect technique, beautiful shots.

 

[watson]

no

Australia lost the first Test at Trent Bridge yet were still praised for playing a hard-fought and exciting match that included individual moments of brilliance with both bat and ball.

On-the-other-hand Australia lost the second Test at Lords and got **** upon by the media and public alike.

Yet on both occasions the result was exactly the same - we lost. So clearly winning and good exercise are NOT everything, they are only something.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Australia lost the first Test at Trent Bridge yet were still praised for playing a hard-fought and exciting match that included individual moments of brilliance with both bat and ball.

On-the-other-hand Australia lost the second Test at Lords and got **** upon by the media and public alike.

Yet on both occasions the result was exactly the same - we lost. So clearly winning and good exercise are NOT everything, they are only something.

Couldn't be anything to do with the margins of the respective defeats being slightly different?

 

[Flem274*]

Australia lost the first Test at Trent Bridge yet were still praised for playing a hard-fought and exciting match that included individual moments of brilliance with both bat and ball.

On-the-other-hand Australia lost the second Test at Lords and got **** upon by the media and public alike.

Yet on both occasions the result was exactly the same - we lost. So clearly winning and good exercise are NOT everything, they are only something.

no

 

[watson]

Couldn't be anything to do with the margins of the respective defeats being slightly different?

Well yes, but why be irritated by a mere margin? The margin of defeat signifies a lot more than the latter number being merely greater than the former number.

 

[Cabinet96]

Well yes, but why be irritated by a mere margin? The margin of defeat signifies a lot more than the latter number being merely greater than the former number.

Come off it. Australia had a more positive outlook after the TB test because they showed signs they could beat England. At Lords they looked like a side that would struggle to win any of the remaining eight games against England. It had nothing to do with how good to watch Ashton Agar's batting, or whatever, was. It's really not that hard.

Its such an elitist approach you're taking as well. If I play a club game that finishes early I'll regularly go back and watch the rest of the 1st team match. It's not because our 1st eleven middle order is full of Brian Lara's, it's because I enjoy watching the contest , with a prefered outco e its pretty gripping, and just like to watch cricket. All this talk about players you'd "pay to watch" or would "take people away from the bars to watch" is such snobbery. I pay to watch West Indies v Pakistan ODI's with my TV subscription FFS.

 

[kyear2]

I would personall never pick Kallis as a pure batsman above Sachin, Lara or Ponting. The way that they dominated attacks and had the ability to take the game a away from the opposition just sets them apart.

 

[watson]

Come off it. Australia had a more positive outlook after the TB test because they showed signs they could beat England. At Lords they looked like a side that would struggle to win any of the remaining eight games against England. It had nothing to do with how good to watch Ashton Agar's batting, or whatever, was. It's really not that hard.

Its such an elitist approach you're taking as well. If I play a club game that finishes early I'll regularly go back and watch the rest of the 1st team match. It's not because our 1st eleven middle order is full of Brian Lara's, it's because I enjoy watching the contest , with a prefered outco e its pretty gripping, and just like to watch cricket. All this talk about players you'd "pay to watch" or would "take people away from the bars to watch" is such snobbery. I pay to watch West Indies v Pakistan ODI's with my TV subscription FFS.

But given the choice of turning up at the ground with your ticket - would you rather sit down and watch the 2nd Test at Lords 2013, or 'Botham's Test' at Headingly 1981? All I am saying is that brilliant players provide the brilliant spectacle that makes cricket extra special. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to watch the likes of Boycott grind out a century, but ultimately I know what type of innings is obviously more entertaining and inspiring.

 

[G.I.Joe]

But given the choice of turning up at the ground with your ticket - would you rather sit down and watch the 2nd Test at Lords 2013, or 'Botham's Test' at Headingly 1981? All I am saying is that brilliant players provide the brilliant spectacle that makes cricket extra special. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to watch the likes of Boycott grind out a century, but ultimately I know what type of innings is obviously more entertaining and inspiring.

What if the chances of Boycott grinding out a century are greater than the chances of a Headingly '81? Everyone likes the highlight reel, but real life doesn't give you prior intimation of events to transpire.