Jacques Kallis vs Steve Waugh

[TheJediBrah]

I think we've had plenty of context re. the specific batting strike rates discussed in this thread

 

[StephenZA]

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.

If you have batsmen that can put even an extra 20 overs into an opposition team its amazing what that does later in the match... and even in a 3 match series. The big thing for Sehwag type batsmen if they did bludgeon the ball for a few overs, how often it could soften the ball quickly and take away any movement. As you say context is all.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you have batsmen that can put even an extra 20 overs into an opposition team its amazing what that does later in the match... and even in a 3 match series. The big thing for Sehwag type batsmen if they did bludgeon the ball for a few overs, how often it could soften the ball quickly and take away any movement. As you say context is all.

It's not just that either:

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.

I've been on both sides of it many times. It makes a massive difference when a batsman gets after you, making you change bowlers and spread the field. You can't put a number on it. I've done it as a batsman a lot as well and the change you get in the opposition is huge. They misfield, drop catches, talk disappears and it shifts the balance dramatically.

There are specific situations where occupying the crease can be very useful as well, of course, but on balance it's doesn't come close.

 

[StephenZA]

I've been on both sides of it many times. It makes a massive difference when a batsman gets after you, making you change bowlers and spread the field. You can't put a number on it. I've done it as a batsman a lot as well and the change you get in the opposition is huge. They misfield, drop catches, talk disappears and it shifts the balance dramatically.

I was talking Sehwag specifically there as a hard hitting opener...

But this is also why you need to put Kallis in context, he was asked to occupy the crease because other batsmen in SA team where more aggressive, particularly lower in the order with the long batting line-up of allrounders. So him staying in allowed those batsmen to put the pressure back on the opposition. Its not that he was not capable of it, which is why people talk about his later career SR, its because its what he was asked to do.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

Massively contextual.

Depends on batting position, team composition and, most importantly, match situation.

As a really lose rule (which a thousand exceptions will disprove), a SR of just under 60ish is probably ideal. Far above this and you probably don't stonewall enough. Below this and you probably don't hit out enough.

 

[TheJediBrah]

As a really lose rule (which a thousand exceptions will disprove), a SR of just under 60ish is probably ideal. Far above this and you probably don't stonewall enough. Below this and you probably don't hit out enough.

Agree with this, but yes a very lose rule.

 

[Bolo.]

Agree with this, but yes a very lose rule.

Can't tell if you are mocking my typo or actually agreeing with me

 

[subshakerz]

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.

I agree that Kallis lacked the ability to accelerate based on match situation which is my main critique of him.

However, in that post 2008/9 phase, I do recall Kallis letting loose occasionally in a way he never did before in his career, especially in a few innings against Australia. He had quite a few cameo knocks in that phase when he would score in the 70/80 SR range.

 

[subshakerz]

Massively contextual.

Depends on batting position, team composition and, most importantly, match situation.

As a really lose rule (which a thousand exceptions will disprove), a SR of just under 60ish is probably ideal. Far above this and you probably don't stonewall enough. Below this and you probably don't hit out enough.

What would be the issue in having a SR in the 70/80 range, assuming all other stats are equal? Yeah maybe you don't stonewall enough but you would be winning more games based on knocking the opposition down.

The only issue I could potentially see with the high SR is that it is not conducive for building bigger partnerships since your partner can't bat in sync. Sehwag for example has a few near double tons in which the team was bowled out in the 300s.

 

[cnerd123]

how the **** has this thread gone on for 15 pages

can someone TLDR this for me please

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

how the **** has this thread gone on for 15 pages

can someone TLDR this for me please

Some people prefer Waugh, others Kallis.

 

[subshakerz]

A classic example of how SR influences match results was the 2006 Sydney test between SA and Australia.

On a batting wicket, Kallis scored 111 but at a strikerate of 40 and the first innings took up a big chunk of the match. Then despite getting a lead, SA with not much time left could only scramble to set 288 for Australia to chase, Kallis himself batting slower than everyone when quick runs were needed. Australia chased it easily with Ponting scoring a ton at nearly a run a ball.

 

[CricAddict]

Some people prefer Waugh, others Kallis.

One of the rare threads that have gone for several pages while staying on topic. So kudos for that.

 

[StephenZA]

One of the rare threads that have gone for several pages while staying on topic. So kudos for that.

It got dodgy for a while there... I expected a Tendulkar vs Pointing debate to start!

 

[TheJediBrah]

A classic example of how SR influences match results was the 2006 Sydney test between SA and Australia.

On a batting wicket, Kallis scored 111 but at a strikerate of 40 and the first innings took up a big chunk of the match. Then despite getting a lead, SA with not much time left could only scramble to set 288 for Australia to chase, Kallis himself batting slower than everyone when quick runs were needed. Australia chased it easily with Ponting scoring a ton at nearly a run a ball.

I watched that whole game and you're right it's a perfect example. South Africa lost after declaring twice, which is pretty ****ed. They were 1-0 down in the series so they had to force a result which is why they set a gettable 4th innings target.

You couldn't ask for a better example of why Ponting > Kallis

 

[Xix2565]

Not really staying on topic with that lol.

 

[h_hurricane]

I watched that whole game and you're right it's a perfect example. South Africa lost after declaring twice, which is pretty ****ed. They were 1-0 down in the series so they had to force a result which is why they set a gettable 4th innings target.

You couldn't ask for a better example of why Ponting > Kallis

And yet no attempt has been made to look at against whom those runs were scored. If you had watched the match, you would know that Kallis scored those runs against Mcgrath, Warne, Lee and Macgill. Kallis also had to deal with Symonds as a fifth bowler, which was quite a task itself.

Ponting scored against a declining Pollock and the trio of Langevedlt,Nel and Botha with Kallis and Rudolph making up some overs.

Ponting was definitely a more dominating batsman than Kallis (not necessarily better), but this is nowhere close to the perfect example, due to the wide gulf between the bowling strengths.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And yet no attempt has been made to look at against whom those runs were scored. If you had watched the match, you would know that Kallis scored those runs against Mcgrath, Warne, Lee and Macgill. Kallis also had to deal with Symonds as a fifth bowler, which was quite a task itself.

Ponting scored against a declining Pollock and the trio of Langevedlt,Nel and Botha with Kallis and Rudolph making up some overs.

Ponting was definitely a more dominating batsman than Kallis (not necessarily better), but this is nowhere close to the perfect example, due to the wide gulf between the bowling strengths.

If you stopped trying so hard to find something to fit your agenda you might not completely miss the point so badly

The exact innings in those games, against who it was, isn't the point. It's the difference that styles of play and scoring makes in the context of a Test match. It's a microcosm of their careers.

This is what happens when you decide who you want to come out on top and go looking for reasons to suit it, rather than the inverse

 

[subshakerz]

And yet no attempt has been made to look at against whom those runs were scored. If you had watched the match, you would know that Kallis scored those runs against Mcgrath, Warne, Lee and Macgill. Kallis also had to deal with Symonds as a fifth bowler, which was quite a task itself.

Ponting scored against a declining Pollock and the trio of Langevedlt,Nel and Botha with Kallis and Rudolph making up some overs.

Ponting was definitely a more dominating batsman than Kallis (not necessarily better), but this is nowhere close to the perfect example, due to the wide gulf between the bowling strengths.

No doubt Ponting faced a weaker attack, but it wasnt about why Ponting is a better bat.

Kallis' go slow approach in the first innings, despite being set, ate up too many overs. But he was even worse in the second innings, batting at 50 SR when the rest of the team was going at 5 an over. Had he upped the pace, SA could have scored a 320 plus score and had a fighting chance.

That match was indicative of what was wrong with Kallis for much of his career. He only knew one way to bat which was to be an anchor, and couldn't adapt outside of that.

 

[TheJediBrah]

No doubt Ponting faced a weaker attack, but it wasnt about why Ponting is a better bat.

Kallis' go slow approach in the first innings, despite being set, ate up too many overs. But he was even worse in the second innings, batting at 50 SR when the rest of the team was going at 5 an over. Had he upped the pace, SA could have scored a 320 plus score and had a fighting chance.

That match was indicative of what was wrong with Kallis for much of his career. He only knew one way to bat which was to be an anchor, and couldn't adapt outside of that.

He did get better at times later in his career, but it was pretty painful to watch in that game. SA were in such strong positions but he just didn't, or couldn't, up the scoring rate. It was a Test win for Australia that I didn't feel they particularly deserved. The 4th innings chase was dominant but you don't deserve to win a Test when you don't even bowl the opposition out once.