Jacques Kallis vs Steve Waugh

[anil1405]

South Africa largely had a conservative approach to batting since their readmission into cricket. And the management is to be blamed for a bizarre reason I would never understand.

Their bowling in general was so aggressive but that didn't translate into batting. Not pushing for a win when they had the opportunity (again and again over the years) was strange and annoying at the same time because they could've been a bigger force with that approach.

Kallis would've benefited with that approach too. Imagine an experienced Kallis, in the second half of his career, batting with the likes of Amla, AB and KP (yeah let's imagine had he not migrated) in the middle order with a little bit more aggressive intent when needed. I believe all these players would've been rated 10-15% better than what they are rated now with a slightly more aggressive approach.

This approach probably affected AB too in tests while he was a beast in the LOI game.

 

[subshakerz]

Waugh's batting with the tail is absolutely not a point in his favour as he often exposed it and didn't try to get as many runs as possible as quickly as possible. Laxman, for example, was much better at this.

That is somewhat fair, I would also take Laxman over Waugh with the tail. Though I always took this as the Aussie approach to trust tailenders to hang around and not shield them.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis for most of his career was essentially in the position of being SA's Ponting, Lara or 90's Tendulkar, yet batted with the style of Dravid or Chanderpaul instead.

 

[anil1405]

Kallis for most of his career was essentially in the position of being SA's Ponting, Lara or 90's Tendulkar, yet batted with the style of Dravid or Chanderpaul instead.

You understand that it wasn't his fault but largely down to the team tactics right? I wouldn't hold that against him as I believe he had his hands tied and did the dirty work (especially in first half of his career) to perfection while going on to score bucket load of runs.

 

[subshakerz]

You understand that it wasn't his fault but largely down to the team tactics right? I wouldn't hold that against him as I believe he had his hands tied and did the dirty work (especially in first half of his career) to perfection while going on to score bucket load of runs.

Perhaps but that is also partly speculation. It's not like as a batsman he had no agency or independent judgment of his own. I mean, there were occasions when his team were looking for quick runs and he batted sedately. Regardless, he still has to own those performances.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think there's much value in scoring quickly in test cricket. At least not in the general case, it's very situational. All else equal I would maybe prefer the batsman who scored more slowly at 1-3, the more attacking batsman from 5 down, and at 4 it's a wash. At the top of the order the benefit of wearing down the bowlers and the new ball outweighs the risk of being stranded.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think there's much value in scoring quickly in test cricket. At least not in the general case, it's very situational. All else equal I would maybe prefer the batsman who scored more slowly at 1-3, the more attacking batsman from 5 down, and at 4 it's a wash. At the top of the order the benefit of wearing down the bowlers and the new ball outweighs the risk of being stranded.

The greatest teams ever, 80s WIs and 2000s Australia, had very attacking top threes of Haynes, Greenidge Viv and Hayden, Langer, Ponting. You need to set the pace in test cricket early on. But having an odd stodgy accumulator is good for the mix.

 

[trundler]

I disagree and here's why. At the lower end, you have guys like Boycott and Azhar Ali patting back half volleys to point and actively wasting easy scoring opportunities thus costing their teams runs. Would Boycott have averaged 1 run less if he didn't bat so conservatively? Maybe, maybe not but he'd have much more valuable to his team if he had batted faster. Putting runs on the board quickly is better in the vast majority of cases, especially in the first innings. Batting super slowly is generally better in teams that can only hope to scrape away draws, I think. Or if you're hoping to wear out tricky conditions. Additionally, players with higher SRs generally have more gears and pace their innings much better. Except freaks like Sehwag and Pant, other high SR blokes like Viv, ABdV, Ponting, and Lara could generally switch to the other extreme when the situation demanded but this is generally less likely for defensive players. I know this isn't a direct consequence but quick scorers stonewall much better than vice versa generally. Quick first innings runs set up the game perfectly. Dravid being slow worked because he was sandwiched between Sehwag and Tendulkar so SR is only part of the puzzle but I'll take a bloke who averages 1-2 runs less if his strike rate is 60 not 40. Ignoring longevity, this is basically the only difference between a Sobers and a Barrington.

Most of this is just my opinion and perception so make of it what you will.

 

[anil1405]

I disagree and here's why. At the lower end, you have guys like Boycott and Azhar Ali patting back half volleys to point and actively wasting easy scoring opportunities thus costing their teams runs. Would Boycott have averaged 1 run less if he didn't bat so conservatively? Maybe, maybe not but he'd have much more valuable to his team if he had batted faster. Putting runs on the board quickly is better in the vast majority of cases, especially in the first innings. Batting super slowly is generally better in teams that can only hope to scrape away draws, I think. Or if you're hoping to wear out tricky conditions. Additionally, players with higher SRs generally have more gears and pace their innings much better. Except freaks like Sehwag and Pant, other high SR blokes like Viv, ABdV, Ponting, and Lara could generally switch to the other extreme when the situation demanded but this is generally less likely for defensive players. I know this isn't a direct consequence but quick scorers stonewall much better than vice versa generally. Quick first innings runs set up the game perfectly. Dravid being slow worked because he was sandwiched between Sehwag and Tendulkar so SR is only part of the puzzle but I'll take a bloke who averages 1-2 runs less if his strike rate is 60 not 40. Ignoring longevity, this is basically the only difference between a Sobers and a Barrington.

Most of this is just my opinion and perception so make of it what you will.

As flamboyant and attacking Sachin and Sehwag were, it was Dravid's presence that significantly improved India's overseas test record.

Personally I rate doing dirty work to ensure batters coming in are facing significantly easy conditions on par with playing attacking cricket.

Records and stats alone don't measure up to what players like Kallis and Dravid have done for their respective teams.

 

[trundler]

As flamboyant and attacking Sachin and Sehwag were, it was Dravid's presence that significantly improved India's overseas test record.

Personally I rate doing dirty work to ensure batters coming in are facing significantly easy conditions on par with playing attacking cricket.

Records and stats alone don't measure up to what players like Kallis and Dravid have done for their respective teams.

Dravid had a unique gift of playing swing as well as dodgy seamers exceptionally well which complemented the rest of the team perfectly. As I said, SR is only one factor.

 

[StephenZA]

I have a question. I always thought the reason that we don't hear much about (e.g.) Kallis's 04/05 England tour was because we don't have many South African members. But then, you don't hear very much about South African cricketing heroics anywhere else either. In the last decade SA cricket went on a string of thrilling away series wins and dramatic last-day rearguards to become world #1, but it never seemed to generate any kind of legend, or even much of a narrative.

Is this... cultural? It's noticeable that fans of certain sports teams (cough Liverpool cough) try to turn everything that happens to them into a deeply sentimental seven-act epic. South African cricket almost strikes me as the opposite end of the spectrum? Like the stories are there to be written, but for whatever reason, nobody writes them. Do South Africans infuse test matches with less meaning than fans of other countries?

South African culture is generally more self-effacing, for various reasons, but tends to also be very much internal facing. I think its partly to do with the isolationist period and thus things become more about what is happening in SA than anything else. And nothing good about that at the moment. Genuine SA cricket supporter numbers are also relatively low in number, and many cricket supporters in SA are of Asian origin and tend to support those countries first. SA cricket has also benefited from that though, with many Asian countries supporters also big fans of the SA cricketers (IPL has helped).

But ultimately where does SA cricket fall on a historical or pinnacle perspective from the point of Aus, Eng and Indian supporters. No matter how well SA does as a cricketing nation, we don't have the Indian support or clout and we do not have the Aus and Eng rivalry and historical perspective. When any of those teams play against SA, as amazing as the Tests are/ tend to be, there will never get the hype that those Test nations get. People joke about if you have not scored an Ashes 100 it Test career does not count... but it is half true. NZ benefit a little from the association with Aus, but are in a similar boat, and WI have the exuberance or swagger that gets people excited. SA cricketers are the consistent plodders both in the way they play and the way they approach the sport on and off the field.

The cricketing culture and rugby culture, as an example, is also somewhat different with SA rugby being more effusive, and that might come back to having won a couple of WCs. Maybe if SA cricket really started to dominate for an extended period the supporters would crow a bit more, but I don't see that happening any time soon and it really is not generally in the nature of SA cricket supporters.

 

[Uppercut]

I disagree and here's why. At the lower end, you have guys like Boycott and Azhar Ali patting back half volleys to point and actively wasting easy scoring opportunities thus costing their teams runs. Would Boycott have averaged 1 run less if he didn't bat so conservatively? Maybe, maybe not but he'd have much more valuable to his team if he had batted faster. Putting runs on the board quickly is better in the vast majority of cases, especially in the first innings. Batting super slowly is generally better in teams that can only hope to scrape away draws, I think. Or if you're hoping to wear out tricky conditions. Additionally, players with higher SRs generally have more gears and pace their innings much better. Except freaks like Sehwag and Pant, other high SR blokes like Viv, ABdV, Ponting, and Lara could generally switch to the other extreme when the situation demanded but this is generally less likely for defensive players. I know this isn't a direct consequence but quick scorers stonewall much better than vice versa generally. Quick first innings runs set up the game perfectly. Dravid being slow worked because he was sandwiched between Sehwag and Tendulkar so SR is only part of the puzzle but I'll take a bloke who averages 1-2 runs less if his strike rate is 60 not 40. Ignoring longevity, this is basically the only difference between a Sobers and a Barrington.

Most of this is just my opinion and perception so make of it what you will.

I don’t think it’s really true that Boycott would have been more valuable if he’d scored the same amount of runs, but faster. English opener is probably the job in test cricket where scoring slowly is the most valuable.

Are attacking batsmen generally more adaptable? I’m not sure. I find it kind of insane how often batsmen get out playing attacking shots in match-saving situations. Just a completely crazy thing to do that the sport has talked itself into being ok with. I think adaptability is very underrated, probably because there are no stats for it. By extension I think that ABDV is very underrated. But I don’t think an attacking style proxies for adaptability.

There’s a lot of noise to cut through. Scoring quickly can be the best way to score more runs, so we encourage players to be attacking for that reason. But that’s not the same thing as runs being worth more if they’re scored quickly. I also think that most of the best batsmen choose to play an attacking style, because they’re good enough to play any way, and attacking is much more fun and earns much more respect. The best defensive players then tend to have introverted, anti-social, or obsessive personalities, which means their style then gets wrapped up in questions about their leadership ability or value as a team mate. People switch off their TVs when they arrive at the crease, and nobody tells their grandkids about them. Insofar as sport is also art, they provide much less artistic value.

Nevertheless, the idea that someone would use career strike rate to split batsmen with similar records is strange to me. I just don’t think there are any theoretical benefits, and if there are, they’re very small.

 

[trundler]

I don’t think it’s really true that Boycott would have been more valuable if he’d scored the same amount of runs, but faster. English opener is probably the job in test cricket where scoring slowly is the most valuable.

Are attacking batsmen generally more adaptable? I’m not sure. I find it kind of insane how often batsmen get out playing attacking shots in match-saving situations. Just a completely crazy thing to do that the sport has talked itself into being ok with. I think adaptability is very underrated, probably because there are no stats for it. By extension I think that ABDV is very underrated. But I don’t think an attacking style proxies for adaptability.

There’s a lot of noise to cut through. Scoring quickly can be the best way to score more runs, so we encourage players to be attacking for that reason. But that’s not the same thing as runs being worth more if they’re scored quickly. I also think that most of the best batsmen choose to play an attacking style, because they’re good enough to play any way, and attacking is much more fun and earns much more respect. The best defensive players then tend to have introverted, anti-social, or obsessive personalities, which means their style then gets wrapped up in questions about their leadership ability or value as a team mate. People switch off their TVs when they arrive at the crease, and nobody tells their grandkids about them. Insofar as sport is also art, they provide much less artistic value.

Nevertheless, the idea that someone would use career strike rate to split batsmen with similar records is strange to me. I just don’t think there are any theoretical benefits, and if there are, they’re very small.

Scoring the same runs but faster is surely more valuable. No team would choose 450 over two days instead 400 one day. Boycott was famously dropped for taking 2 days to score a double century. You can watch him wasting rank half volleys in the process. His scoring rate was most certainly to the detriment of England at least in conditions which weren't overwhelmingly bowling friendly. Being more circumspect in English conditions makes sense but Boycott had a strike rate under 40. At least at such extremes batting slow is detrimental unless you're playing for a rank awful team. Forcing the pace has a whole set of trickle down effects like putting the bowling under pressure, messing up their plans and having more time to bowl out the opposition, all of which seem theoretical but absolutely do matter a lot. I think high SR = talent is definitely a meme especially when it comes to picking young talent but really the only thing separating Lara, Tendulkar and Sobers from the rest is that they could attack the good balls too instead of letting the bowler come at them. I think that's a big part of what people call 'genius'. Just how valuable Hayden and Sehwag were at home is definitely being overlooked IMO. They were arguably their team's MVPs at home. I have no hard data for faster scoring being a proxy for adaptability but this seems to hold true at least among the great batsmen in my view. There's Gavaskar on the opposite end I suppose but it's merely a proxy.

 

[subshakerz]

As flamboyant and attacking Sachin and Sehwag were, it was Dravid's presence that significantly improved India's overseas test record.

Personally I rate doing dirty work to ensure batters coming in are facing significantly easy conditions on par with playing attacking cricket.

Records and stats alone don't measure up to what players like Kallis and Dravid have done for their respective teams.

The thing is, attacking batsmen are also doing the dirty work by getting bowlers off their rhythm, they are just scoring more runs at the same time.

Dravid could get away with blocking away at no.3 because Sehwag was already blasting away as opener. You need someone in that top order to attack.

In a real test match situation, quality bowlers prefer to bowl at guys like Dravid and Kallis over Ponting and Sachin because they can plan their wickets without worrying about leaking runs. Dravid and Kallis arent going to take the game away from you in a session. Bowlers like Murali and McGrath who base their whole game on control will prefer batsmen who are reactive every day of the week.

Crease occupation is an important skill but not as a norm. In most test match scenarios, quicker runs are preferred. Even the way a batsman plays a dot bowl, with runscoring intent or just a block, sends signals to the opposition.

 

[subshakerz]

I think high SR = talent is definitely a meme especially when it comes to picking young talent but really the only thing separating Lara, Tendulkar and Sobers from the rest is that they could attack the good balls too instead of letting the bowler come at them. I think that's a big part of what people call 'genius'.

Good point. People are forgetting the value of Ponting pulling a good length ball to the boundary or Lara latecutting a sharp spinner. That really messes up a bowler who is in form.

On the other side you have Dravid and Kallis who would always play balls on their merit which is a whole lot less threatening.

 

[anil1405]

The thing is, attacking batsmen are also doing the dirty work by getting bowlers off their rhythm, they are just scoring more runs at the same time.

Dravid could get away with blocking away at no.3 because Sehwag was already blasting away as opener. You need someone in that top order to attack.

In a real test match situation, quality bowlers prefer to bowl at guys like Dravid and Kallis over Ponting and Sachin because they can plan their wickets without worrying about leaking runs. Dravid and Kallis arent going to take the game away from you in a session. Bowlers like Murali and McGrath who base their whole game on control will prefer batsmen who are reactive every day of the week.

Crease occupation is an important skill but not as a norm. In most test match scenarios, quicker runs are preferred. Even the way a batsman plays a dot bowl, with runscoring intent or just a block, sends signals to the opposition.

This post is so apt for LOI cricket.

 

[Uppercut]

Scoring the same runs but faster is surely more valuable. No team would choose 450 over two days instead 400 one day. Boycott was famously dropped for taking 2 days to score a double century. You can watch him wasting rank half volleys in the process. His scoring rate was most certainly to the detriment of England at least in conditions which weren't overwhelmingly bowling friendly. Being more circumspect in English conditions makes sense but Boycott had a strike rate under 40. At least at such extremes batting slow is detrimental unless you're playing for a rank awful team. Forcing the pace has a whole set of trickle down effects like putting the bowling under pressure, messing up their plans and having more time to bowl out the opposition, all of which seem theoretical but absolutely do matter a lot. I think high SR = talent is definitely a meme especially when it comes to picking young talent but really the only thing separating Lara, Tendulkar and Sobers from the rest is that they could attack the good balls too instead of letting the bowler come at them. I think that's a big part of what people call 'genius'. Just how valuable Hayden and Sehwag were at home is definitely being overlooked IMO. They were arguably their team's MVPs at home. I have no hard data for faster scoring being a proxy for adaptability but this seems to hold true at least among the great batsmen in my view. There's Gavaskar on the opposite end I suppose but it's merely a proxy.

But you want more time left in the game in that situation because 400-450 is a good score. If you scored 200 you’d rather have taken a day and a half over it than a couple of sessions. It’s situational and symmetric.

Does the pressure of scoring quickly create more scoring opportunities for the other batsmen than grinding the bowlers down? Maybe? In England I’d say definitely not, but the difficulty of batting in England tends to fall dramatically as an innings goes on. I watch less cricket elsewhere, but there must be some benefit to keeping bowlers in the field in hot weather. I’d prefer to be an opposing bowler during a Sehwag hundred than during a Dravid hundred. But opinions on that probably vary.

 

[Calm_profit]

South Africa largely had a conservative approach to batting since their readmission into cricket. And the management is to be blamed for a bizarre reason I would never understand.

Their bowling in general was so aggressive but that didn't translate into batting. Not pushing for a win when they had the opportunity (again and again over the years) was strange and annoying at the same time because they could've been a bigger force with that approach.

Kallis would've benefited with that approach too. Imagine an experienced Kallis, in the second half of his career, batting with the likes of Amla, AB and KP (yeah let's imagine had he not migrated) in the middle order with a little bit more aggressive intent when needed. I believe all these players would've been rated 10-15% better than what they are rated now with a slightly more aggressive approach.

This approach probably affected AB too in tests while he was a beast in the LOI game.

Quinton says hello.

 

[trundler]

But you want more time left in the game in that situation because 400-450 is a good score. If you scored 200 you’d rather have taken a day and a half over it than a couple of sessions. It’s situational and symmetric.

Does the pressure of scoring quickly create more scoring opportunities for the other batsmen than grinding the bowlers down? Maybe? In England I’d say definitely not, but the difficulty of batting in England tends to fall dramatically as an innings goes on. I watch less cricket elsewhere, but there must be some benefit to keeping bowlers in the field in hot weather. I’d prefer to be an opposing bowler during a Sehwag hundred than during a Dravid hundred. But opinions on that probably vary.

How often do teams actually get 200 in a day and a half in tricky conditions though? You're much more likely to be all out for much less in that situation. The absolute chaos inflicted by a Sehwag hundred can't be overstated. Bowling to Dravid is probably more frustrating and Sehwag when set more deflating. Sehwag turned many a draw into a win. Opening the batting in England is only one particular situation. I'd rather have an attacking middle order generally.

 

[anil1405]

Quinton says hello.

Managed to dig up one name in 30 years? Proves my point of the team having a "largely" conservative approach.