Jacques Kallis vs Allan Border

[subshakerz]

Not really though. Lara averaged in the 40s. He had no hundred against Donald and Wasim. He had to wait for the easier batting era/ weak attacks to bring his average over 40 against SA and Pakistan. He did absolutely nothing of significant in India and NZ. Lara’s legend is based his couple of great knocks vs Australia.
Sachin averaged less than 40 vs SA before the turn of the century. He had a middling record in Australia too.

If you scrutinize Sachin and Lara the same way you do Sanga, Ponting or Kallis, you’d find Lara and Sachin, especially the former get overrated a lot.

The point is that Lara and Tendulkar were both considered ATG batsmen by the turn of the century after playing in the nineties and both were averaging in the 50s. This isn't really something disputed. Sure, we can point out individual flaws in their records but unlike Sanga their record doesnt solely rely on the run buffet era.

 

[subshakerz]

Th champ of the 90s era was S Waugh. Should be rated higher than both Sachin and Lara. Was better against better bowling attacks.

I agree Waugh should be rated higher than he is around this forum.

 

[Victor Ian]

Bit harsh on Vogue here tbh

But nobody rated him. Then he played his 20th test and the rest is history.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But nobody rated him. Then he played his 20th test and the rest is history.

Funny thing about Voges. If he played the exact same games but averaged 52 instead of 62, I reckon a lot of people would rate him higher.

 

[Xix2565]

Doubtful, considering how he finished. Frauds remain frauds to the end, especially if they're like Voges.

 

[weeman27bob]

They really ought to start considering it, especially in the case of Tendulkar, I think. Any way you slice their records, I think it's very hard to create an extended peak period where Tendulkar outperforms Sanga. If you look at their whole careers then Sanga's superior run scoring average rises above as well. It's only if you give an inordinate amount of stock to Sanga's lesser productive period when he was a wicketkeeper, that I think you could possibly place Tendulkar above, or if you place an inordinate value on aggregate counting statistics of longevity/runs/centuries.

 

[Himannv]

They really ought to start considering it, especially in the case of Tendulkar, I think. Any way you slice their records, I think it's very hard to create an extended peak period where Tendulkar outperforms Sanga. If you look at their whole careers then Sanga's superior run scoring average rises above as well. It's only if you give an inordinate amount of stock to Sanga's lesser productive period when he was a wicketkeeper, that I think you could possibly place Tendulkar above, or if you place an inordinate value on aggregate counting statistics of longevity/runs/centuries.

Good Lord, what have you been smoking?

 

[Prince EWS]

But nobody rated him. Then he played his 20th test and the rest is history.

Whoosh...

 

[Burgey]

But nobody rated him. Then he played his 20th test and the rest is history.

Very tough. I’ve always thought very highly of Vogue.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Very tough. I’ve always thought very highly of Vogue.

You would

 

[_00_deathscar]

doesnt everyone have an under 40 blip against one or two nations (rxcept tendulkar).? its not really as big a thing as people like to make out as looking at particular opposition means your sample size is reduced so it could just be a quirk that would have corrected with more games.

And Sachin only fixed his last one (South Africa) in his last series against them - at least IN the country I believe where he was just a shade under 40.

 

[_00_deathscar]

That is a good argument for him. It's a big enough disparity to be worth taking into account.

Isn’t that easily covered by eras?

 

[_00_deathscar]

They really ought to start considering it, especially in the case of Tendulkar, I think. Any way you slice their records, I think it's very hard to create an extended peak period where Tendulkar outperforms Sanga. If you look at their whole careers then Sanga's superior run scoring average rises above as well. It's only if you give an inordinate amount of stock to Sanga's lesser productive period when he was a wicketkeeper, that I think you could possibly place Tendulkar above, or if you place an inordinate value on aggregate counting statistics of longevity/runs/centuries.

Not sure if serious…

 

[Victor Ian]

Whoosh...

whoosh^2

 

[subshakerz]

So far the general arguments across posters seem:

Border: More rounded away record, faced better bowling, batted without much support

Kallis: Averages more, was there when SA beat Australia while Border couldn't beat WI

 

[ataraxia]

So far the general arguments across posters seem:

Border: More rounded away record, faced better bowling, batted without much support

Kallis: Averages more, was there when SA beat Australia while Border couldn't beat WI

I don't like things being compressed down into such arguments. What one should do is weigh up all factors; often nothing is particularly decisive, one option is simply better than the other if it is looked at holistically.

I've explained this incredibly horribly. Perhaps it would help if I were to say that the thing not to do is, as I did, quickly weigh them in one's head (hmm, Kallis is good. hmm, Border is good.) and use as the deciding factor the fact one should aspire to be as anti-Burgey as reasonable.

 

[StephenZA]

I don't like things being compressed down into such arguments. What one should do is weigh up all factors; often nothing is particularly decisive, one option is simply better than the other if it is looked at holistically.

I've explained this incredibly horribly. Perhaps it would help if I were to say that the thing not to do is, as I did, quickly weigh them in one's head (hmm, Kallis is good. hmm, Border is good.) and use as the deciding factor the fact one should aspire to be as anti-Burgey as reasonable.

That has as much merit as most of the arguments put forth...

 

[subshakerz]

I don't like things being compressed down into such arguments. What one should do is weigh up all factors; often nothing is particularly decisive, one option is simply better than the other if it is looked at holistically.

I've explained this incredibly horribly. Perhaps it would help if I were to say that the thing not to do is, as I did, quickly weigh them in one's head (hmm, Kallis is good. hmm, Border is good.) and use as the deciding factor the fact one should aspire to be as anti-Burgey as reasonable.

Just trying to bring the conversation back to topic

 

[BazBall21]

Sanga was mid in England, India, West Indies and South Africa. Too patchy an away record in a batting era to be rated above Sachin and Lara.

 

[BazBall21]

Not really though. Lara averaged in the 40s. He had no hundred against Donald and Wasim. He had to wait for the easier batting era/ weak attacks to bring his average over 40 against SA and Pakistan. He did absolutely nothing of significant in India and NZ. Lara’s legend is based his couple of great knocks vs Australia.
Sachin averaged less than 40 vs SA before the turn of the century. He had a middling record in Australia too.

If you scrutinize Sachin and Lara the same way you do Sanga, Ponting or Kallis, you’d find Lara and Sachin, especially the former get overrated a lot.

Struggled in two of his three England tours too.