Except you are wrong. Lara had his second wind from 2001 onwards and averaged 60 until his retirement in 2006.
I am not saying that. Kallis as an allrounder was given his just rating towards the end of his career. But as a pure bat, if you say he was as feared by opposition as Ponting or Sanga, then I disagree.
I was referring to top 5 of the 2000s, but I think if you include 2001 to 2008, Lara should appear near there. I do recall Lara being considered among the best of the best, behind maybe Ponting, once he got his second wind.
Yet was he really seen that way in world cricket circles? The point wasn't to dispute that he had a period where he was a terrific runscorer. My point was that Waugh was rated higher in the 90s era than Kallis in the 2000s era. He never had 'The Guy' rating even when in his peak.
Best expression of skill =/= best chance of winning the game or having the most impact in winning the game. It's one thing to say they played brilliantly/perfectly but in the end what matters in Test cricket is the result and if they had a bigger impact by executing the basics in an unappealing way then I don't see why it should matter how many strokes they could play or if their wagon wheels had a million spokes to mark where they could score.
I count era as a bit longer period, so I put it as the decade. Timing an era to coincide with someone's peak is a bit too favorable, because as you said, push it a few more years and both Sanga and Tendulkar begin peaking again and Kallis' standing drops.
Sure, but the ATGs we are talking about all executed the basics exceptionally well, and on top of that produced several of the greatest innings in their career based on playing against strong attacks, difficult conditions or difficult match situations. So it is a fair expectation to expect an ATG to have some to showcase.
Ponting's peak ended in 2006 though. Lara was just behind but certainly top three.
Nah, if you are top tier, you will be seen by your opposition as top tier. I think peer rating does count for something.
Both started slow. Kallis topped and maintained a 40 average after 29 tests. Waugh after 61 (which took 8 years cos he was struggling to get a spot in the side). Kallis topped and maintained 50 after 73 tests, Waugh 161. Kallis spent the entire back half of his career averaging mid to late 50s. They are not comparable... however you rate them, Kallis was clearly a top level bat for a lot longer, and was considered as such.
This is wrong. The closer you get to the top of the order, the less important it is for quality bats to score fast. The top sees off the new ball, tires attacks and is less likely to run out of partners. You can argue that it is still better for the top to score quickly (its debateable), but there is no arguing that it is relatively more important than the middle.
I don't think Kallis had too many stellar perfomances by ATG standards.
You say that like it is meaningful when it's comparing cherrypicked examples vs cherrypicked examples and not careers vs careers. Sorry but being impactful is not just about making runs in popularised series, which is the feeling I get from all of your picks. To boldly say that there is no Kallis ton that had impact is to be totally clueless about how cricket functions. And you've already made similarly bold statements with little to no evidence while pretending to be somehow legitimate in your assessments of both players.
People will scoff at Pant being better than Gilchrist in batting currently and they will be right, given what both have achieved so far. But if Pant goes on to do great things and improve his keeping also significantly, he could well end up the best keeper of all time and get praised by the same people. So, timing of the peer rating matters.