Jacques Kallis vs Steve Waugh

[subshakerz]

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.

Waugh had 46 tests averaging 36 tests until his peak began in 93 and he was more or less quality until he retired.
Kallis had a sluggish 22 tests averaging 30 early in his career, and then 17 tests dip around 2008-2009, outside of which he was worldclass.

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.

No. 4 is still considered a position to set the pace and dictate the tone. Other team alphas like Lara, Tendulkar, Kohli and Smith also batted largely on No.4 and were expected to be aggressive, not accumulate.

RSA were 3 or 4 down for nothing every second game from readmission until when Kallis started to come right. Wasn't till about 2008 that they had a reliable top other than Kallis.

Not true, he had Kirsten, Gibbs, Cullinan, Cronje and then Smith for much of the early period. It's not like he was Lara battling alone.

I don't think Kallis had too many stellar perfomances by ATG standards.

An ATG innings gives you an idea of a player's ceiling, but unless that player is Chris Martin, knowing there ceiling gives little indication of how good they are.

Yes, but we are comparing ATGs who are expected to have at least a few stellar performances over their career. At least you admit Kallis is lacking here.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

It is not cherrypicked though if you ask any cricket fan to give a list of great test innings of Tendulkar, Lara, etc. and there is instant recall and 95 percent agreement on what those knocks are. It is really quite simple. Great cricketers are capable of producing performances of superlative quality once in a while outside of just the predicted consistent contributions that form a bulk of a career. Performances under higher pressure, such as against strong attacks, in difficult conditions or difficult match conditions.

I said that Kallis obviously has important tons in his career, but how many qualify as standout, career-defining knocks like other ATGs have?

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Yeah but Kallis has already finished his career and at no point did his peer rating as a bat in my recollection approach that of Waugh in the mid-90s.

 

[StephenZA]

You do realize consistently saying the same thing over and over again, because you have believe something, does not make it correct...

 

[Xix2565]

It is not cherrypicked though if you ask any cricket fan to give a list of great test innings of Tendulkar, Lara, etc. and there is instant recall and 95 percent agreement on what those knocks are. It is really quite simple. Great cricketers are capable of producing performances of superlative quality once in a while outside of just the predicted consistent contributions that form a bulk of a career. Performances under higher pressure, such as against strong attacks, in difficult conditions or difficult match conditions.

I said that Kallis obviously has important tons in his career, but how many qualify as standout, career-defining knocks like other ATGs have?

Is VVS Laxman the greatest batter ever because of his 281? Or is it Kusal Perera for his 153*? Doesn't matter if it's one or a handful, 'great' performances are but one part of a batter's career and solely focusing on them to determine greatness is flawed because you're far more interested in storytelling than cricket analysis. Most of the time people don't play 'great' innings regardless of who they are, but they do have an impact everytime they bat. Quantifying and analysing this would be more interesting to see who was more impactful or whatever and from thereon the discussion could be much better.

I keep asking you for a more detailed argument that can't simply be dismissed as biased and yet you refuse consistently to offer up anything substantial. You say Kallis has nothing on the same level as Waugh and do nothing to back this up. Do you think we are 5 year olds who believe anything anyone familiar says? Treat us with some respect and actually try to make a reasonable case that isn't just a narrative.

Also try not to make bold claims and then avoid trying to show that they are not just nonsense for the next few pages please, it would be really interesting not to hear what is already close to becoming drivel over and over again.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Is VVS Laxman the greatest batter ever

I see no problem with this statement and resent that it's being said sarcastically

 

[TheJediBrah]

Is VVS Laxman the greatest batter ever because of his 281? Or is it Kusal Perera for his 153*? Doesn't matter if it's one or a handful, 'great' performances

Don't really care about the argument or anything else you're saying (also didn't read an of it past this), but it definitely does matter. A repeated history of great, influential innings in pressure situations is a very meaningful criteria to rate someone on, and is very different from just doing it once.

Don't care about how it relates to Kallis or Waugh, but you're wrong about this.

 

[Xix2565]

Don't really care about the argument or anything else you're saying (also didn't read an of it past this), but it definitely does matter. A repeated history of great, influential innings in pressure situations is a very meaningful criteria to rate someone on, and is very different from just doing it once.

Don't care about how it relates to Kallis or Waugh, but you're wrong about this.

You say this like making runs and winning Test matches the "normal" way is stress free. It's a small sample size and so it's going to be treated like one, aka less relevant when it comes to comparing careers and what impact they had. Bit rich to ignore everything else just to peddle a "clutch" narrative when my whole point is to stop doing that and actually make posts of some substance.

It's one thing to say X situation is more difficult and so an innings of worth then is valuable, it's another to only go by that when it comes to rating players.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You say this like making runs and winning Test matches the "normal" way is stress free. It's a small sample size and so it's going to be treated like one, aka less relevant when it comes to comparing careers and what impact they had. Bit rich to ignore everything else just to peddle a "clutch" narrative when my whole point is to stop doing that and actually make posts of some substance.

It's one thing to say X situation is more difficult and so an innings of worth then is valuable, it's another to only go by that when it comes to rating players.

No one is doing this, or has ever done this. They might use it to distinguish 2 players at a similar level (eg. Kallis and Waugh), but no one is claiming that Kusal Perera or VVS Laxman are better than Tendulkar or Ponting because they played a great innings. You're clearly very confident that you're right so you shouldn't need to resort to arguing a strawman while telling others to "actually make posts of substance". Maybe just make your point and move on.

 

[Xix2565]

No one is doing this, or has ever done this. They might use it to distinguish 2 players at a similar level (eg. Kallis and Waugh), but no one is claiming that Kusal Perera or VVS Laxman are better than Tendulkar or Ponting because they played a great innings. You're clearly very confident that you're right so you shouldn't need to resort to arguing a strawman while telling others to "actually make posts of substance". Maybe just make your point and move on.

Did you fail to understand what I've clearly said about how it's a flawed metric? Or are you trying to avoid understanding what I've repeated for some strange reason?

People using it =/= it being good or even reliable unlike the kind of stuff people like DoG do. And you've already had a conclusion in mind before bending backwards to justify it, even reaching for ridiculous things like Kallis not playing any impactful/"ATG" innings.



I never said to use pure numbers alone, I said do some actual analysis. Again actually read what I post. Your criteria is the complete opposite of anything I suggested, because it's all based on your view of Test cricket and what you considered important/great/impactful/etc.

If you can't read or don't want to read say so in the first place.

 

[subshakerz]

No one is doing this, or has ever done this. They might use it to distinguish 2 players at a similar level (eg. Kallis and Waugh), but no one is claiming that Kusal Perera or VVS Laxman are better than Tendulkar or Ponting because they played a great innings. You're clearly very confident that you're right so you shouldn't need to resort to arguing a strawman while telling others to "actually make posts of substance". Maybe just make your point and move on.

Exactly. I don't know why they keep bringing up Perera and Stokes when the conversation is clearly about such innings scored by those already identified as elite. Enough of these strawmans.

 

[subshakerz]

You say this like making runs and winning Test matches the "normal" way is stress free. It's a small sample size and so it's going to be treated like one, aka less relevant when it comes to comparing careers and what impact they had. Bit rich to ignore everything else just to peddle a "clutch" narrative when my whole point is to stop doing that and actually make posts of some substance.

It's one thing to say X situation is more difficult and so an innings of worth then is valuable, it's another to only go by that when it comes to rating players.

Yeah, if you are ATGs, then scoring runs consistently across the world is normal.

The question is whether they are capable of doing something that qualifies as superlative by normal standards in certain circumstances. And ATGs inevitably do have a handful of such performances. Except maybe Kallis.

And for the last time, this is not the sole criteria, it is only one of several to distinguish between players at an elite level.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Did you fail to understand what I've clearly said about how it's a flawed metric? Or are you trying to avoid understanding what I've repeated for some strange reason?

Haha there's nothing hard to understand about what you're saying, it's just not correct. Being somewhat subjective does not mean it's meaningless. Every metric is going to be somewhat subjective here, you can't quantify everything perfectly. You need to get over it.

 

[Xix2565]

Yeah, if you are ATGs, then scoring runs consistently across the world is normal.

The question is whether they are capable of doing something that qualifies as superlative by normal standards in certain circumstances. And ATGs inevitably do have a handful of such performances. Except maybe Kallis.

And for the last time, this is not the sole criteria, it is only one of several to distinguish between players at an elite level.

This applies to all of your criteria, and it's still incredibly hilarious that you can't seem to do more than try to defend your position by saying it's right rather than make any substantial post on Waugh/Kallis comparisons with records and such. Is it too difficult to even try or are you just not willing to do anything beyond saying Waugh is better?

Haha there's nothing hard to understand about what you're saying, it's just not correct. Being somewhat subjective does not mean it's meaningless. Every metric is going to be somewhat subjective here, you can't quantify everything perfectly. You need to get over it.

It's meaningless if it boils down to "I like X more than Y" rather than any sort of recognition of their career and records. You should just admit that it's all feelings based.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's meaningless if it boils down to "I like X more than Y" rather than any sort of recognition of their career and records. You should just admit that it's all feelings based.

It's not as simple as "I like this player", and though I guess it kind of is a bit feelings based, that's often the case when you're differentiating between 2 similar players. That's why people have differing opinions.

 

[Xix2565]

It's not as simple as "I like this player", and though I guess it kind of is a bit feelings based, that's often the case when you're differentiating between 2 similar players. That's why people have differing opinions.

I understand having different opinions, but I was actually hoping for a bit more than that. When people come in and are acting like their opinions are the objective reality and anything else is bizarre it's baffling to me because there's never any sort of proof or evidence to suggest that there is some merit to the thoughts.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I understand having different opinions, but I was actually hoping for a bit more than that. When people come in and are acting like their opinions are the objective reality and anything else is bizarre it's baffling to me because there's never any sort of proof or evidence to suggest that there is some merit to the thoughts.

That's what everyone does all the time. If some says something, it's usually their opinion. Do you really expect every human being to preface every sentence they say with either "this is just my opinion" or "the following is a widely accepted scientific fact"? Or maybe just let it go and be a little less precious

 

[Xix2565]

That's what everyone does all the time. If some says something, it's usually their opinion. Do you really expect every human being to preface every sentence they say with either "this is just my opinion" or "the following is a widely accepted scientific fact"? Or maybe just let it go and be a little less precious

I kind of expect more than just "It's my opinion" if I ask them for more than just an opinion.

 

[subshakerz]

This applies to all of your criteria, and it's still incredibly hilarious that you can't seem to do more than try to defend your position by saying it's right rather than make any substantial post on Waugh/Kallis comparisons with records and such. Is it too difficult to even try or are you just not willing to do anything beyond saying Waugh is better?

First you criticize that I only use one criteria and then you blast them all. The strange thing is that it is the Kallis supporters who havent really given a cohesive argument as to why he is better than Waugh outside of just a raw reading of their stats.

 

[CricAddict]

XiX and Subshaker should get a room.