Jacques Kallis vs Steve Waugh

[subshakerz]

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.

The key point is batting lineup. Depending on the rest of the lineup, a slow batsman can be more valuable.

However, all things being equal, it is much more preferable to have a batsman who is more aggressive over the accumulator. If you are batting in the top four, you will likely be required to put the opposition bowlers on the backfoot and dictate the pace more than rebuild and consolidate.

Test cricket is very much about momentum. You need a batsman who can change it in a session with positive strokeplay. Accumulators dont do that.

Keep in mind that all these aggressive ATG bats were capable of blocking or going into accumulator mode, but had that extra gear when required.

 

[StephenZA]

Anybody who watched Kallis knows he played within himself, he always looked easy on the eye, had tons of time and did not look like he was going to get out. I would rate Kallis lower than Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara... but I also think he had the ability to be as good if not better, but he played within himself. And this is why any team facing SA prized his wicket more than any other SA batsmen.

The reason for this, SA cricket coaches and captains from early on in his career built the entire batting around Kallis and asked him to occupy the crease. As long as Kallis was still batting the chance of SA putting up a good score was high, particularly with the long aggressive allrounders that came in later in SA innings. For later in his career he shared the burden with Amla, but aggression was still more Smith and de Villers roles. But Kallis increased his SR and still kept his avg high later in his career when the support eventually came along.

If people want to say he was a lesser batsmen that is fine, but he did what his team needed and asked of him, probably better than any other player I`ve seen play the role.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Yeah, I dont think anyone is saying that every batting lineup should only be strokemakers. There is definitely a specialist role for the stodgy accumulator who can absorb pressure and deal with difficult conditions. However, in net, an aggressive bat will give more value to a side than an accumulator at the same level of batsmanship.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

Agree completely. Sachin, Lara, Ponting are have the ideal strike-rate for Test players. It's no mystery that they were considered the best for most (or part) of their careers and players like Kallis weren't

 

[subshakerz]

Anybody who watched Kallis knows he played within himself, he always looked easy on the eye, had tons of time and did not look like he was going to get out. I would rate Kallis lower than Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara... but I also think he had the ability to be as good if not better, but he played within himself. And this is why any team facing SA prized his wicket more than any other SA batsmen.

The reason for this, SA cricket coaches and captains from early on in his career built the entire batting around Kallis and asked him to occupy the crease. As long as Kallis was still batting the chance of SA putting up a good score was high, particularly with the long aggressive allrounders that came in later in SA innings. For later in his career he shared the burden with Amla, but aggression was still more Smith and de Villers roles. But Kallis increased his SR and still kept his avg high later in his career when the support eventually came along.

If people want to say he was a lesser batsmen that is fine, but he did what his team needed and asked of him, probably better than any other player I`ve seen play the role.

I mostly agree, especially with the point about Kallis being a product of a conservative SA cricket batting culture. But the highlighted point is why I am perhaps harsher than maybe other posters in judging him. Simply because for most of his career, he only had one gear of playing, though he was capable of being aggressive but never showed it until towards the end. The other ATGs were around as productive as Kallis but also scored those runs aggressively.

I also disagree with the narrative that playing within himself was a requirement of SA's team dynamics. I think their batting was solid enough even early on for him to score more freely, yet he didn't.

 

[h_hurricane]

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

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.

It wasn't my intention to say high SRs don't matter in tests. It was just a counter argument to indicate that it is not all cut and dry that just because someone bats at a higher pace, he is better. You have to analyze those examples one by one to see if high SR matters in those specific situations. In the specific example I mentioned, Ponting and his team were galloping at 70 runs per 100 balls through that innings. Had they taken it slower and scored those runs in 5 sessions (and not 4 sessions and a bit), India would not have got enough time to push for a win. That pitch was truly flat and a strong batting lineup should have lasted 150+ overs against a mediocre bowling attack. Ponting wasn't the only problem here, but he was part of it.

By the way, I value high SR in tests a lot as well. 2 of my favorite cricketers (Viv Richards and Kapil Dev) were famous for batting fast.

I don't agree that the SR difference between Sehwag and Hayden doesn't matter to the same extend as the one between Ponting and Kallis. In fact it matters even more. Sehwag scored some 20 runs /100 balls faster than Hayden whereas Ponting only scored 12 runs per 100 balls faster than Kallis.

 

[StephenZA]

I mostly agree, especially with the point about Kallis being a product of a conservative SA cricket batting culture. But the highlighted point is why I am perhaps harsher than maybe other posters in judging him. Simply because for most of his career, he only had one gear of playing, though he was capable of being aggressive but never showed it until towards the end. The other ATGs were around as productive as Kallis but also scored those runs aggressively.

That's the point when you take averages into account... they where not as productive, particular when you consider that Kallis played half his test in one of the most difficult to bat countries.

I also disagree with the narrative that playing within himself was a requirement of SA's team dynamics. I think their batting was solid enough even early on for him to score more freely, yet he didn't.

It was what was asked of him, and anybody who watched SA play in the 90s and early 2000s knows exactly why this was asked of him.

 

[Bolo.]

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)

Doubt many people on CW are comparing Kallis favourably to the aforementioned based on the single stat of career average. I'd pick any of them over him on this alone.

You need to break career average down into home and away for Kallis to start to look good, and contextualise how far ahead of contemporaries Kallis was in the home department. He's over 20% ahead of the next best home bat from the last 30 years. This isn't a peer quality problem... he had two teammates averaging mid 50s away. The other 3 are similar to the best from their teams.

Kallis/Sachin notably ahead of the Ponting/Lara on away average.

If this doesn't outweigh the negatives, cool, pick the others. But the averages argument is much stronger than career averages.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Reasonable to assume that if Kallis was more aggressive, his average would have dropped as well

I don't agree that the SR difference between Sehwag and Hayden doesn't matter to the same extend as the one between Ponting and Kallis. In fact it matters even more. Sehwag scored some 20 runs /100 balls faster than Hayden whereas Ponting only scored 12 runs per 100 balls faster than Kallis.

It's not a simple calculation like this, that's not how cricket works. Hayden struck at 60, that's not going to cost you test matches or build pressure around you. Higher strike rate is almost always better IMO, but there is diminishing returns. The difference between 45 and 60 is way bigger than the difference between 60 and 80 in the context of batting in Test cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

That's the point when you take averages into account... they where not as productive, particular when you consider that Kallis played half his test in one of the most difficult to bat countries.

Tendulkar, Ponting had better allround records than Kallis though. So in that sense they were more productive.

It was what was asked of him, and anybody who watched SA play in the 90s and early 2000s knows exactly why this was asked of him.

Yet others like Lara and Tendulkar had to shoulder the burden of weak batting lineups in their days and that didnt stop them from being aggressive.

 

[subshakerz]

Reasonable to assume that if Kallis was more aggressive, his average would have dropped as well

It didnt drop in the latter part of his career when his strikerate increased.

 

[StephenZA]

Tendulkar, Ponting had better allround records than Kallis though. So in that sense they were more productive.

Yet others like Lara and Tendulkar had to shoulder the burden of weak batting lineups in their days and that didnt stop them from being aggressive.

If you think Tendulkar had a weak batting line-up I have things to tell you... particularly in the subcontinent. Outside the subcontinent there is a reason, there did not do great. SA competed everywhere, even if they did not always win. And Lara played some brilliant innings, in a team that lost way more than it won... Kallis played the innings that allowed SA to compete, draw matches and later win series. Quite often in places nobody thought SA should or could compete.

 

[Coronis]

Waugh v Kallis might be debatable, but Kallis is undoubtedly better than Dravid

Not that I disagree with this post at all, persay, but one of my favourite things about cricket, and even just this forum is that almost nothing within cricketing history is necessarily undoubtable.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It didnt drop in the latter part of his career when his strikerate increased.

Which isn't really indicative of anything

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not that I disagree with this post at all, persay, but one of my favourite things about cricket, and even just this forum is that almost nothing within cricketing history is necessarily undoubtable.

Poor choice of words on my part

 

[subshakerz]

Which isn't really indicative of anything

After his dip in 2008, Kallis averaged 67 with a strikerate of 54 for 29 tests, almost 10 higher than his SR was previously. Not coincidentally, this was the time Amla and ABD were going strong, so Kallis was able to be more aggressive and maintain a higher average.

 

[TheJediBrah]

After his dip in 2008, Kallis averaged 67 with a strikerate of 54 for 29 tests, almost 10 higher than his SR was previously. Not coincidentally, this was the time Amla and ABD were going strong, so Kallis was able to be more aggressive and maintain a higher average.

Wow, very impressive!

 

[StephenZA]

In his later career, Kallis was pretty damn good... it was only his very final year that he dropped off. Then scored a parting 100 in his final test.

 

[Bolo.]

After his dip in 2008, Kallis averaged 67 with a strikerate of 54 for 29 tests, almost 10 higher than his SR was previously. Not coincidentally, this was the time Amla and ABD were going strong, so Kallis was able to be more aggressive and maintain a higher average.

Which indicates what?

RSA had moved from a place where him typically batting slowly was ideal to him batting at a fair pace was typically ideal. But he still generally lacked the ability to accelerate according to specific match situation, whatever his overall strike rate was at.

I don't think this stat tells anything, positive or negative, to anyone who understands what his role was in the team.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Batting strikerate without context is massively overrated. Lower SR batsmen with similar overall numbers consume more time at the crease which honestly is a positive if you're batting up the order. Also, I said it before about Sehwag too since he's been brought up. If he was averaging the same poor numbers overseas but consumed the new ball more, it'd have had a positive effect on our batting.