Am I the only person who thinks Kallis was a better player than Tendulkar?

[BeeGee]

Chris Martin > Don Bradman because reasons. Now Bradman isn't undoubtedly the best batsman of all time because there isn't a consensus

Chris Martin has 52 "not out"s in his test career. Don Bradman only has 10.

The stats don't lie. Game over.

 

[smash84]

No, I don't hold it too harshly against him. I am just trying to make a point that if you try really hard you can find lots of chinks into pretty much anybody's record. Which is just what I was showing.

 

[Red]

The remarkable thing about Tendulkar has been his consistency, which comes from the fact that he's as near to a perfect batsman as you'll see. He succeeded against all opponents in all conditions over a very long time. Often people like to pick holes in a guy's career because "he didn't succeed playing in ______" or "he struggled against _____". Hard to do with Tendulkar.

He really was remarkable. Perfectly balanced player. Equally adept in attack or defence. Spin or pace. No obvious flaw.

Bradman aside, if you want a batsman to get the job done in random conditions against random opposition, Sachin is the man.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Tendulkar in his prime a tier above Kallis as a batsman.

But I expect plenty of revisionism on this subject from those who simply read career-end averages as everything

 

[akilana]

Woooooosh! Pot...kettle...

Point is he is not even close as a batsman, so the question of being a better cricketer doesn't arise AFAIC. Otherwise might as well say Prior is a better cricketer than Cook.

It seems you conceded you didn't get the point.
Wtf has Cook and Prior comparision has to do with it. Sanga doen't have to be even close to Sachin as a batsman to be a better player if he is a reasonably good keeper and kept for a good number of tests.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

It seems you conceded you didn't get the point.
Wtf has Cook and Prior comparision has to do with it. Sanga doen't have to be even close to Sachin as a batsman to be a better player if he is a reasonably good keeper and kept for a good number of tests.

It's a facile argument. You could say Shaun Pollock is a 'better player' than Tendulkar. But does all of that allround ability convert into results? No is the answer. Which is why SRT means more to cricket than Shaun Pollock

 

[akilana]

Meh, Kallis is obviously a much much better alround player than Tendulkar but you just can't compare him as a batsman to Tendulkar he's not even close. Maybe you guys see statistics to compare him but it's not good for comparing them as a batsmen. Tendulkar played about 15-20 tests when he was past and his form was going just downhill his form was dropping but he still continued, there is average and statistics got a roll down on other hand Kallis played almost 160 tests before his career began going downhill(This year obs) but still he cracked a ton cover it up.

2ndly Tendulkar dominated every where in the world! Let it be Australia, England or SA(Yeah he do average a lowly 48 as his standards). On other hand Kallis failed in England(was averaging >30 before last years tour where he cracked a daddy on The OVal (ROAD) to make it over 30) and yeah he was not that spectacular in Australia either. And one of his biggest luxury was that he was a South African so he couldn't face one of the deadliest bowling attack of his era which Tendulkar faced and dominated. Tendulkar was carrying the whole team on his shoulders for almost half a decade in 1990's and even faced some of the greats of 1990s like Ambrose etc.

Oh yeah one more thing Tendulkar was obviously a much better than Kallis at statistics if you compare both after 166 matches. And yeah Kallis has also one luxury he could face Indian bowling attack he even cracked a ton against them at his last test lol!

Nothing wrong with saying Sachin is better but your argument is weak. Btw Sachin faced mighty WI attack in India in his last test and didn't hit a hundred.

 

[akilana]

It's a facile argument. You could say Shaun Pollock is a 'better player' than Tendulkar. But does all of that allround ability convert into results? No is the answer. Which is why SRT means more to cricket than Shaun Pollock

Pollock was a 2nd tier ATG and he didn't achieve a lot with his batting so it's fair to say he is inferior to Sachin as a player. But here in CW there are people that consider Pollock to be a better player than Sachin.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

On CW there are people who believe in flat earth theory

 

[akilana]

Ya of course you are always right.

 

[Red]

Pollock was a 2nd tier ATG and he didn't achieve a lot with his batting so it's fair to say he is inferior to Sachin as a player. But here in CW there are people that consider Pollock to be a better player than Sachin.

Who?

 

[Jassy]

It seems you conceded you didn't get the point.
Wtf has Cook and Prior comparision has to do with it. Sanga doen't have to be even close to Sachin as a batsman to be a better player if he is a reasonably good keeper and kept for a good number of tests.

Using that logic Prior is a better player than Cook and Haddin is better than Clarke as a player...actually going by that line of reasoning, pretty much any wicket-keeper is a better player than a front-line batsman. If that is how you rate players - cool, onya mate.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Using that logic Prior is a better player than Cook and Haddin is better than Clarke as a player...actually going by that line of reasoning, pretty much any wicket-keeper is a better player than a front-line batsman. If that is how you rate players - cool, onya mate.

I'm arguing against this exact argument on at least 2 other threads

 

[Jassy]

I'm arguing against this exact argument on at least 2 other threads

Yeah, I think the reasoning is flawed.

 

[akilana]

Using that logic Prior is a better player than Cook and Haddin is better than Clarke as a player...actually going by that line of reasoning, pretty much any wicket-keeper is a better player than a front-line batsman. If that is how you rate players - cool, onya mate.

ya finally you got the point. good for you.

 

[kyear2]

There is only one player who would always have been universally considered to be the best in any category - Sydney Barnes as a medium pacer. Many of those who saw Hobbs considered him superior to Bradman because of his skill on bad wickets. Similarly, during Bradman's prime in the 1930's some old-timers compared him unfavorably with Trumper in terms of style. Few of those who saw Hobbs or Trumper are still alive, and as time goes by fans tend to rely more or less exclusively on statistics when rating players. That is why Ken Barrington, for example, is rated more highly in some circles than Peter May or Denis Compton, although virtually no one who saw those players live shares that view. (There is a very good article to be written about the changes in players' reputations over the years). I have no objection to using statistics when evaluating players - in fact, they are essential for that purpose - but in cricket circles (unlike baseball forums, for example) they tend to be used very crudely and mechanically with little regard for the context in which a player's feats were accomplished.

Debates on the relative merits of various players can be expected to continue. However, while we can't say that anyone is a universal choice in any category, there are some categories on which a clear consensus has been established among informed observers. This is an important qualification, because fanboys tend to be driven by flavor of the month excesses and enthusiasms of various types. The results of general Internet polls tend to be far less illuminating than the views of players, journalists and officials. In particular:

Best Batsman: Bradman - now close to a universal choice among experts. I recently read a Cricinfo thread full of comments from adoring Tendulkar fans who sought to cast doubt on Bradman's achievements.

Best All Rounder: Sobers - none of his alleged rivals garners much support for inclusion in all-time world XI's, or comes close to him in polls of players and journalists. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that the only people who doubt that Sobers is the greatest are those who have not seen him play.

Best Wicketkeeper-Batsman: Gilchrist - probably a consensus choice, although there is still debate about the relative weight to be assigned to wicketkeeping and batting ability. As mentioned in another thread, many former players seem to prefer Knott behind the stumps in their dream teams.

Best Off Spinner: Muralitharan - probably closest to Bradman in terms of being a universal choice. There are a few old-timers who would opt for Laker, but they are very much in the minority.

Best Leg Spinner: Warne - Bradman described O'Reilly as the best bowler he ever saw, but even most of O'Reilly's contemporaries acknowledge Warne as the greatest.

Best Fast Bowler: Marshall - no real consensus here. If you were to take a poll of informed opinion Marshall would probably win, but I would expect to see significant support for Lillee, McGrath and Wasim Akram.

You really should post more. Another excellent post.

Regarding your comment on Marshall, believe there is consensus just not unanimity, but yes I acknowledge that it is closer than the others mentioned. Don't think Akram belongs with those named unless one is factoring in his ODI exploits.

Good point with regard to Gilchrist and Knott.

 

[kyear2]

Well Bradman was one of them and clearly he didn't. Which contemporaries are you referring to? I think most were dead when Warne came onto the scene and almost certainly all were before Warne established a reputation.

One could count Benaud, he would have watched both though not a true contemporary of either.

I am clearly talking to someone who has no clue as to what they are talking about. Do you have any idea just when Sobers played Pakistan? No, you clearly don't. The only time Sobers played Pakistan was in the late 1950s. He never played them again

He did play against some of them, Fazal and Hanif in particular. Wouldn't bother going through the entire list.

And yet you hold his record vs Pakistan so harshly against him

Because he just does. It's far from the first time he has brought it up and his main argument that Sobers bowling isn't good enough to be seen as a great all rounder and Imran is better.

 

[kyear2]

No, I don't hold it too harshly against him. I am just trying to make a point that if you try really hard you can find lots of chinks into pretty much anybody's record. Which is just what I was showing.

I wasn't looking hard to find holes, my comment about Imran was that his numbers on the road pale in comparison to his numbers at home. He didn't average under 24 in any country outside Pakistan and averaged 28 in Australia and India with strike rates of 61 and 67 respectively. That's not cherry picking, that's pointing out a tread.

The remarkable thing about Tendulkar has been his consistency, which comes from the fact that he's as near to a perfect batsman as you'll see. He succeeded against all opponents in all conditions over a very long time. Often people like to pick holes in a guy's career because "he didn't succeed playing in ______" or "he struggled against _____". Hard to do with Tendulkar.

He really was remarkable. Perfectly balanced player. Equally adept in attack or defence. Spin or pace. No obvious flaw.

Bradman aside, if you want a batsman to get the job done in random conditions against random opposition, Sachin is the man.

That's why even I don't believe that it's without doubt or unanimous, he edges Lara for this era, despite Lara probably being more talented and the ability to achieve the seemingly impossible. Sachin is just not ideal for me in an ATG XI because he doesn't bring anything else to the table (unlike Lara, Chappell and Hammond his closest competition) but what he does bring is too valuable to overlook and his technique and calm is welcome in a line up featuring the carnage of Bradman, Richards, Sobers and Gilchrist.

Tendulkar in his prime a tier above Kallis as a batsman.

But I expect plenty of revisionism on this subject from those who simply read career-end averages as everything

I don't agree that revisionism will occur, that's why anecdotal and historical reference is so important in cricket. If not and it was all about stats Barrington would be a lock for as one of the very best ever and he isn't.

I believe Tendulkar's place is quite secure among Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Richards and Lara as a part of the very top tier of elite ATG batsmen.

 

[smash84]

I wasn't looking hard to find holes, my comment about Imran was that his numbers on the road pale in comparison to his numbers at home. He didn't average under 24 in any country outside Pakistan and averaged 28 in Australia and India with strike rates of 61 and 67 respectively. That's not cherry picking, that's pointing out a tread.

Really now? You seem to miss out the trend in Sobers's batting trend then? How convenient. What is Sobers's home average 67? And his average in the Sub-Continent is what, 90? Now coming to a little better bowing wickets like Eng, Aus and NZ. What are his averages over there? 53, 46, and 15? So why such a HUGE discrepancy there? I don't find you penalizing Sobers for having such a huge gap between his home and away averages especially if you exclude the Sub-continent? Why the double standards?

and Imran does average quite low in SL btw around 18.

And this is hilarious. An average of Less than 24 . Because Imran averages 25.13 in the West Indies and 24.64 in England so put the cut off at 24

 

[the big bambino]

That's true about Benaud but he only watched Grimmett and O'Reilly once as a 9 yo just before the war. Entitled to his opinion just as I'm entitled to be sceptical of the value of it in those limited and naïve circumstances. Another thing about Benaud is that he has an annoying tendency to promote the new in an effort to appear hip some of the time. .