Jacques Kallis vs Steve Waugh

[Bolo.]

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.

He let loose more at this stage in his career. I am not sure he proportionally let loose more according to team requirements though. He adapted according to team requirements in a general sense in terms of overall SR, but I'm not sure he adapted much according to specific match situations. His general best role ealry career was to bat slow, with the occasional change to batting quicker. Late career it would have been medium to fast.

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.

You win games by scoring runs. You also win games (and series) by wearing bowlers down. Partnerships count. Seeing off dangerous periods counts, like the new ball or bad light etc. Assuming the same average, there are times when a SR of 0 would be best, and times when a SR of 600 would be best. Ppl who have a more balanced SR more typically represent the ability to do both, context dependent.

 

[h_hurricane]

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

I have made no attempt to get one up on you, but only chose to respond to your own inherent bias for players of your nationality, which obviously most long term posters and readers here know for sure.

It is nowhere near the microcosm of both their careers, probably just Kallis. This was among the highest quality quartet Kallis had to face through his career, not with Ponting though.

Sometimes, batsmen can only be as good as what bowlers allow them to be. A few months earlier, Kallis himself had blasted the fastest test fifty of all time until then (against Zimbabwe). He wouldn't dare doing that against this attack, not with any degree of success either if he attempted.

 

[subshakerz]

When judging players, I think it is useful to think of them from the position of an opposition captain. Which batsman would worry you more? An aggressive batsman of the same class will always be a bigger concern than an accumulator like Kallis.

Obviously Kallis would be a prize wicket, but he is also very predictable. You can pretty much work on getting the rest of the lineup out while assured that Kallis will keep batting at a measured pace, never rushing, and allowing the bowlers time to lay their plans. He is going to bat the same way, regardless of pitch or conditions, every game. That is a liability.

Whereas a Tendulkar or Ponting are capable of counterattacking the main bowler and demoralizing the attack, or bashing the weaker bowlers, or batting slowly if needed. They have those extras gears that are important.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I have made no attempt to get one up on you, but only chose to respond to your own inherent bias for players of your nationality, which obviously most long term posters and readers here know for sure.

"No u". This might have the case when I first joined here, hasn't been true for years. If anything I am harsher on Aus players now than any other nationality, you just don't see it or notice it because of your own biases.

There's no need to even make these accusations though, it shows a lot about your mindset that you did. Ponting v Kallis isn't a comparison where you need to be biased to favour Ponting, it's a widely held view.

It is nowhere near the microcosm of both their careers, probably just Kallis. This was among the highest quality quartet Kallis had to face through his career, not with Ponting though.

Sometimes, batsmen can only be as good as what bowlers allow them to be. A few months earlier, Kallis himself had blasted the fastest test fifty of all time until then (against Zimbabwe). He wouldn't dare doing that against this attack, not with any degree of success either if he attempted.

Bro how are you still missing it? That's not relevant. You've clearly seen that post and thought "These guys think Ponting is better because of this game . . . *trying to think of a reason to favour Kallis in this game*"

This strike rate difference was over their whole careers. Kallis didn't face stronger bowlers over his whole career. The game is just an example of how innings of different strike rates can affect the outcomes of Test matches, it's not about exactly how good you want to rate each innings in that game.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

I don't think there was an appreciable difference between the quality of the bowling they faced. Same era. Ya, RSA bowling was crap for a few years. That's one team, and there were times when RSA bowling was better. It's not like you are comparing who 80s India faced to who 80s WI faced.

 

[h_hurricane]

When judging players, I think it is useful to think of them from the position of an opposition captain. Which batsman would worry you more? An aggressive batsman of the same class will always be a bigger concern than an accumulator like Kallis.

Obviously Kallis would be a prize wicket, but he is also very predictable. You can pretty much work on getting the rest of the lineup out while assured that Kallis will keep batting at a measured pace, never rushing, and allowing the bowlers time to lay their plans. He is going to bat the same way, regardless of pitch or conditions, every game. That is a liability.

Whereas a Tendulkar or Ponting are capable of counterattacking the main bowler and demoralizing the attack, or bashing the weaker bowlers, or batting slowly if needed. They have those extras gears that are important.

Not disagreeing any of this, but how much weightage it holds, is all about perspectives isn't it ?

Here is one from mine.

While up against Ponting in Australia, I feared him. He was always dominant, ripping apart the Indian attacks. Up against Ponting in India, I wouldn't lose my sleep as he wouldn't last long.

Kallis was different. When up against him, I knew he would do well regardless of where the match is held. That imo is more valuable. Also was consistent for a much longer duration as @ankitj mentioned earlier.

Either way, I wouldn't have even entered this debate if people weren't shocked/surprised if someone rated Kallis higher than Ponting. His statistical superiority while playing stronger attacks on an average is one of the reason for some to rate him higher.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not disagreeing any of this, but how much weightage it holds, is all about perspectives isn't it ?

Here is one from mine.

While up against Ponting in Australia, I feared him. He was always dominant, ripping apart the Indian attacks. Up against Ponting in India, I wouldn't lose my sleep as he wouldn't last long.

Kallis was different. When up against him, I knew he would do well regardless of where the match is held. That imo is more valuable. Also was consistent for a much longer duration as @ankitj mentioned earlier.

How you felt about that against your country isn't everything, or "more valuable". Stop being Indian and become English and suddenly Ponting becomes the more dangerous player when playing him in your home conditions.

Either way, I wouldn't have even entered this debate if people weren't shocked/surprised if someone rated Kallis higher than Ponting. His statistical superiority while playing stronger attacks on an average is one of the reason for some to rate him higher.

So now we're just making things up?

 

[subshakerz]

Back to Steve Waugh, I think it is fair to say that he wasn't the most aggressive bat, but I have never seen a better pressure player. He always seemed to save his best for the big occasions too.

Technically and otherwise, Kallis was simply better to watch though. But he is way to safe and conservative a player to rate that great.

 

[trundler]

I think people on here make the claim that batting time is just as important scoring fast often because it sounds like a sound position to take intellectually but it doesn't actually play out that way. I mean, look back to the first Pak vs Oz test. If Pakistan hadn't taken 2 whole days to score 400 they would've had a much better chance of winning. Teams rarely lose from scoring 400 odd in a day and a bit. And yes, clearly batting faster makes your average go down. Peak Ponting was the perfect #3.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Technically and otherwise, Kallis was simply better to watch though. But he is way to safe and conservative a player to rate that great.

I can't agree with that. Let's not confuse saying that he's not as good as Lara/Sachin/Ponting with saying that he's not that great in general. He's still an ATG or at the very least ATVG batsman. There's no shame in coming out second best in a comparison against the very best.

 

[h_hurricane]

How you felt about that against your country isn't everything, or "more valuable". Stop being Indian and become English and suddenly Ponting becomes the more dangerous player when playing him in your home conditions.


So now we're just making things up?

I clearly mentioned it was my perspective, obviously driven by what I saw of him in India vs Australia. I agreed that there are other perspectives as well.

I didn't make anything up. Kallis averaged 7% higher than Ponting in the same era, while also having a much superior away average. I also never really saw him lose form post 2001 or so, which counts a lot to me, rather than career of highs and lows.

 

[subshakerz]

Not disagreeing any of this, but how much weightage it holds, is all about perspectives isn't it ?

Here is one from mine.

While up against Ponting in Australia, I feared him. He was always dominant, ripping apart the Indian attacks. Up against Ponting in India, I wouldn't lose my sleep as he wouldn't last long.

Kallis was different. When up against him, I knew he would do well regardless of where the match is held. That imo is more valuable. Also was consistent for a much longer duration as @ankitj mentioned earlier.

Either way, I wouldn't have even entered this debate if people weren't shocked/surprised if someone rated Kallis higher than Ponting. His statistical superiority while playing stronger attacks on an average is one of the reason for some to rate him higher.

Kallis wasn't invulnerable though. He struggled a fair bit against Murali which Ponting did not. Didn't do that well in England though he was expected to. And you wouldnt fear that Kallis would go for a mega ton either.

And frankly, I always felt Kallis padded his record slightly more than Ponting and his overall record flatters him tremendously. He was in an era where even guys like Mohd Yousuf and Jaya were comfortably averaging 50 plus.

Taking Kallis' 55 average seriously as some posters do is silly. I mean, does Sanga deserve a 57 average? These numbers are so obviously inflated, the difficult part is that there is no magic equation to determine what the approximate average should be. That is why it is so important to not just look at record, but peer testimony, etc.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I clearly mentioned it was my perspective, obviously driven by what I saw of him in India vs Australia. I agreed that there are other perspectives as well.

I didn't make anything up. Kallis averaged 7% higher than Ponting in the same era, while also having a much superior away average. I also never really saw him lose form post 2001 or so, which counts a lot to me, rather than career of highs and lows.

so by "statistical superiority", you just meant "career average", thanks for clearing that up.

Are you also aware that Kallis played 6 Tests v Bangladesh averaging 80 and 6 Tests against Zimbabwe averaing 170? I would be guessing but I have a feeling that would account for virtually the whole difference in their career averages (although Ponting dominated them to a similar degree, but over half the matches)

 

[subshakerz]

I can't agree with that. Let's not confuse saying that he's not as good as Lara/Sachin/Ponting with saying that he's not that great in general. He's still an ATG or at the very least ATVG batsman. There's no shame in coming out second best in a comparison against the very best.

I see him as ATVG. But then I am more stingy on the ATG title than others.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Are you also aware that Kallis played 6 Tests v Bangladesh averaging 80 and 6 Tests against Zimbabwe averaing 170? I would be guessing but I have a feeling that would account for virtually the whole difference in their career averages (although Ponting dominated them to a similar degree, but over half the matches)

You know the more I think about it, that might not be the case. I may have jumped the gun on that one.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

You know the more I think about it, that might not be the case. I may have jumped the gun on that one.

Should've posted slower. Posting too quick can cost a Test match argument.

 

[h_hurricane]

Kallis wasn't invulnerable though. He struggled a fair bit against Murali which Ponting did not. Didn't do that well in England though he was expected to. And you wouldnt fear that Kallis would go for a mega ton either.

And frankly, I always felt Kallis padded his record slightly more than Ponting and his overall record flatters him tremendously. He was in an era where even guys like Mohd Yousuf and Jaya were comfortably averaging 50 plus.

Taking Kallis' 55 average seriously as some posters do is silly. I mean, does Sanga deserve a 57 average? These numbers are so obviously inflated, the difficult part is that there is no magic equation to determine what the approximate average should be. That is why it is so important to not just look at record, but peer testimony, etc.

I don't disagree that Kallis's average is inflated (so is Sanga's).

I do think Ponting's is inflated as well(though I agree it is controversial). For a start, he averaged a full 11 run more at home than abroad.

And I hate to bring up India again, but can't help because the difference is glaring. Ponting averages 88 at home against India but 26 away.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And I hate to bring up India again, but can't help because the difference is glaring. Ponting averages 88 at home against India but 26 away.

I actually respect your opinion more knowing it's based on this personal experience, it makes a lot more sense. Everyone is going to let things involving their own team have a high weighting on the way they see things, it's inevitable.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't disagree that Kallis's average is inflated (so is Sanga's).

I do think Ponting's is inflated as well(though I agree it is controversial). For a start, he averaged a full 11 run more at home than abroad.

And I hate to bring up India again, but can't help because the difference is glaring. Ponting averages 88 at home against India but 26 away.

Getting to not face the best attack in the world is also a bit of a luxury that many people ignore. Tbf, Kallis was a beneficiary of this (especially later on in the Steyn/Morkel and then Philander years too) but not as much as Waugh and Ponting who have the reputation of doing well against good attacks but never actually had to face the best one for most of their careers.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Getting to not face the best attack in the world is also a bit of a luxury that many people ignore. Tbf, Kallis was a beneficiary of this (especially later on in the Steyn/Morkel and then Philander years too) but not as much as Waugh and Ponting who have the reputation of doing well against good attacks but never actually had to face the best one for most of their careers.

I actually don't think that the South Africa attacks Waugh or Ponting faced were any weaker than the Australian attacks Kallis faced, if you look at their whole careers, and not enough to call it a point of difference. Kallis faced a few of Australia's ordinary attacks and did a lot better against them post 2007. He had a couple series vs Aus where our attack was something along the lines of Hilfenhaus/Bollinger/Siddle/terrible spinner