Jacques Kallis vs Steve Waugh

[ankitj]

There's a reason Ponting was rated so far ahead of nearly everyone in that period.

"In that period" being around 2007-08. At that point I rated Ponting better too (heck, I started feeling he was better than Tendulkar too). Most people did not update their opinions based on how the 2 batsmen fared after that, I did.

 

[subshakerz]

It's cool if you think Ponting was better batsman than Kallis. Please don't act shocked if someone thinks otherwise.

It's not shocking, but surprising sure.

 

[TheJediBrah]

"In that period" being around 2007-08. At that point I rated Ponting better too (heck, I started feeling he was better than Tendulkar too). Most people did not update their opinions based on how the 2 batsmen fared after that, I did.

2002-2006 IMO

He was probably better than Tendulkar for that brief period (Tendulkar obviously better for the other ~15 years)

 

[subshakerz]

"In that period" being around 2007-08. At that point I rated Ponting better too (heck, I started feeling he was better than Tendulkar too). Most people did not update their opinions based on how the 2 batsmen fared after that, I did.

Yeah I think Ponting loses some points for that long career dip too. But I would still put him ahead of Kallis based on his style of play, dominance, etc. In the end, we each have our own selection criteria.

 

[TheJediBrah]

On the flipside, Ponting had a somewhat better start to his career than Kallis.

Would you rate Kallis ahead of Lara based on career consistency?

Kallis isn't on the same level as any of Lara, Tendulkar or Ponting. He was just too slow

classic case of judging purely based on one stat (career average)

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis isn't on the same level as any of Lara, Tendulkar or Ponting. He was just too slow

I agree, but it was a question to ankitj given longevity and consistency as his criteria.

 

[h_hurricane]

Ponting's ability to bat fast was one of the reasons why Australia lost the Adelaide test 2003.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ponting's ability to bat fast was one of the reasons why Australia lost the Adelaide test 2003.

Won them way more Tests than it lost (if any, which is frankly rubbish), very poor argument

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Strike rate definitely matters imo. England might have lost if Root batted like Kallis after Stokes got out yesterday.

 

[h_hurricane]

Won them way more Tests than it lost (if any, which is frankly rubbish), very poor argument

I was talking about one test though. Was pointing out that you can lose tests too if you bat too fast. So where is the poor argument here ?

On a side note, interesting to see you giving importance to SR. Never seen you do that in the past. So how about Sehwag > Hayden ?

 

[Migara]

Yeah but going just by that criteria, Kallis should be ahead of every modern day batsmen. It also ignores that he played plenty of cricket in England and didn't succeed there.

I can point out that Waugh sisn't play enough in Sl where he was terrible, and ended up with a Average, higher than he should have.

Kallis at least played a lot in historically tougher conditions for his team.

Lillee will still end up in the top ten pacers ever though, even on this forum.

He will be mighty lucky to do so.

Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Imran, Ambrose, Steyn, Wasim, Lindwall, Holding, Donald all are above him. Once careers are done Bumrah and Cummins will be ahead of him too. Pity Asif was done early. He would have beaten him too.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I was talking about one test though. Was pointing out that you can lose tests too if you bat too fast. So where is the poor argument here ?

It's a poor argument if you're trying to compare 2 players whole careers, or just the concept of scoring speed as a whole. If that wasn't your intention then not sure why you would even mention it tbh

On a side note, interesting to see you giving importance to SR. Never seen you do that in the past. So how about Sehwag > Hayden ?

Really? This is widely accepted. Generally speaking the higher the strike rate, the better (to an extent of course) over the course of a career. The only real exceptions that I can think of is if you're playing mostly in a very weak side.

Rating Sehwag higher than, say, Hayden based on Strike-rate is a perfectly valid opinion. Though Hayden wasn't exactly a slouch and had quite a high strike-rate himself which helped his side win a lot of games. Not quite the same as comparing to someone like Kallis but still a fair enough point to bring up in a comparison.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And yes there is benefit to facing a lot of balls, wearing bowlers down, saving Tests etc. we've been through all this many times before

But it's generally accepted, and rightly so, that if you score quicker your a more valuable bat, and in the case of Kallis and Ponting who both played in strong teams it makes a huge difference.

 

[honestbharani]

Cant believe I am doing this, but TJB has always been a "SR is important in tests" guy. So I dont think we can put it down to bias here. And IIRC he rates Sehwag pretty high too.

 

[CricAddict]

Strike rate definitely matters imo. England might have lost if Root batted like Kallis after Stokes got out yesterday.

You should have a chat with KL if possible.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ponting's ability to bat fast was one of the reasons why Australia lost the Adelaide test 2003.

ftr this is also bullshit. That's not how cricket works. Anyone that's played a decent amount of moderate-level cricket will tell you dot balls build pressure and generally suit the bowling side. If you have a guy scoring regularly it puts pressure back on the bowlers and captain, you have to set more defensive fields, you get more loose balls and most important of all it helps the batsman down the other end.

You can't just pretend that if a guy, like Ponting, has scored 20 runs/100 balls slower everything else in the match would have been the same. It would change things phenomenally for the rest of his team and the opposition as well.

 

[CricAddict]

And strike rate does matter. If a line-up has Gavaskar, Hanif, Dravid, Pujara, Kallis, Chanders as the top 6, they will very rarely win tests, though they might draw a lot.

 

[CricAddict]

ftr this is also bull****. That's not how cricket works. Anyone that's played a decent amount of moderate-level cricket will tell you dot balls build pressure and generally suit the bowling side. If you have a guy scoring regularly it puts pressure back on the bowlers and captain, you have to set more defensive fields, you get more loose balls and most important of all it helps the batsman down the other end.

You can't just pretend that if a guy, like Ponting, has scored 20 runs/100 balls slower everything else in the match would have been the same. It would change things phenomenally for the rest of his team and the opposition as well.

And you have to speak to Dean Elgar. Till the SA series, even I was of the same opinion that dot balls will build pressure and all these slow goers only lose more matches than they win. But Elgar proved me wrong in the India-SA series.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And strike rate does matter. If a line-up has Gavaskar, Hanif, Dravid, Pujara, Kallis, Chanders as the top 6, they will very rarely win tests, though they might draw a lot.

It's also very dependent on the rest of your team. There are specific team balances where having a slower-scoring guy can actually be better. A team of 7 Brendon McCullums would be worse than a team of 4 Brendon McCullums and 3 Mark Richardsons.

 

[CricAddict]

It's also very dependent on the rest of your team. There are specific team balances where having a slower-scoring guy can actually be better. A team of 7 Brendon McCullums would be worse than a team of 4 Brendon McCullums and 3 Mark Richardsons.

Yeah. At the end, balance is the answer to everything in life. You can't have an extreme of anything. That is why players like Lara and Sachin who did a balance of both attack and defence very well are great players at a separate level.