Jacques Kallis vs Allan Border

[subshakerz]

Yes. Preferring the more stoic, significantly slower scoring Border to Kallis definitely shows your love for attacking cricket.

Looking at SR without team context is a shallow analysis. Border played in a slow scoring era with a weaker batting lineup in which he often did damage control. Kallis played in a faster scoring era with a solid lineup in which he batted at the same pace regardless of match circumstances.

Border's brand was gritty, back-to-the-wall and uncompromising. Kallis' brand was timid, conservative and safety-first.

 

[subshakerz]

He started under Cronje, not Wessels. Very different captains in tests. Yes, he was told to be solid, and with good reason... RSA openers were all averaging in the 20s or 30s from readmission until long after he was established. Even if you didn't follow enough RSA cricket to realize how many games guys like bacher and hudson got, or how weak a number of the upper-middle order were early career cos they finished with decent numbers, neither you nor Kallis get to make an executive call on team strategy.

Cronje was also quite conservative in approach as captain. He had mostly Kirsten, Gibbs, Cullinan and Cronje around him early on. Quite solid and better than most countries at the time.

This idea that Kallis batted this way because he played in a fragile batting lineup is probably the worst argument in his favor.

 

[Himannv]

You mean both are not as good as Sanga, right?

Sanga was even more of a prank batsman and overrated hack. As such, he was not fit to shine the shoes of Kallis. Kallis, although far superior to Sanga, was also a prank batsman and overrated hack when compared to Border and was not fit to shine the great man's shoes. None of them, and I think you'll agree with me here, are fit to shine Lara's shoes, because said shoes are perfect and don't require shining at all.

 

[Gob]

By that measure, we should give Steyn less credit for doing well in that era too

Yes we should if Steyn hadn't done as well as he had done on Subcontinent roads. Refer Makaya Ntini

 

[Gob]

Sanga was even more of a prank batsman and overrated hack. As such, he was not fit to shine the shoes of Kallis. Kallis, although far superior to Sanga, was also a prank batsman and overrated hack when compared to Border and was not fit to shine the great man's shoes. None of them, and I think you'll agree with me here, are fit to shine Lara's shoes, because said shoes are perfect and don't require shining at all.

Go home and get your shinebox

 

[Himannv]

Go home and get your shinebox

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Looking at SR without team context is a shallow analysis. Border played in a slow scoring era with a weaker batting lineup in which he often did damage control. Kallis played in a faster scoring era with a solid lineup in which he batted at the same pace regardless of match circumstances.

Border's brand was gritty, back-to-the-wall and uncompromising. Kallis' brand was timid, conservative and safety-first.

It's ok, we understand.

It was ok for Border to score slower than Kallis because he played in a weaker team that needed him to stay in.

It was ok for Dravid to score slower than Kallis because he played in a stronger team which could bat around him.

It was ok for Waugh to score at the same speed as Kallis because he was a lower order counter attacker, which quite obviously lends itself better to slow scoring than batting in the top order.

It was not ok for Kallis to score slowly because he was an alpha batsmen whose team needed him to score quick runs and he didn't, because he didn't want to win games of cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

It's ok, we understand.

It was ok for Border to score slower than Kallis because he played in a weaker team that needed him to stay in.

It was ok for Dravid to score slower than Kallis because he played in a stronger team which could bat around him.

It was ok for Waugh to score at the same speed as Kallis because he was a lower order counter attacker, which quite obviously lends itself better to slow scoring than batting in the top order.

It was not ok for Kallis to score slowly because he was an alpha batsmen whose team needed him to score quick runs and he didn't, because he didn't want to win games of cricket.

The main critique with Kallis was that he,as the main bat in his side, only had one mode of slow batting and couldnt step up gears when needed to, which occasionally cost SA. This is pretty obvious to anyone who watched him in the 2000s.

Do you dispute this?

 

[Bolo.]

Cronje was also quite conservative in approach as captain. He had mostly Kirsten, Gibbs, Cullinan and Cronje around him early on. Quite solid and better than most countries at the time.

This idea that Kallis batted this way because he played in a fragile batting lineup is probably the worst argument in his favor.

I don't think RSA had a bat with more than a couple of innings who averaged over 40 between 92 and early 99. Gibbs was averaging about 20 at that stage. Bacher and Hudson played 50 something games and averaged about 30 between them. Cullinan and Cronje batted in the top 3 in only a few matches for Kallis' career and were even worse. Having a (at that stage) pretty good opener in Kirsten changes the quality of the top order from abominable to extremely poor before Kallis started coming right.

You are looking only at the best bats, and ignoring the weak ones. You are looking at the overall careers of players, not how they had been performing at that stage. And you are simply ignoring batting position. Its hard to believe you could be getting this much wrong by accident.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Subshakerz weird criticism of Kallis' SR is so baffling. He batted 4 and many times at 3. For a top order bat it's more acceptable, and in some situations even useful to have a batsman who can dig in and consume time. Surely Waugh and Border (less so because he was in a weak lineup) who batted 5 and 6 are the ones should generally be expected to score quicker? This whole discussion is ass backwards.

 

[shortpitched713]

Did you really mention Lara in a post about maximizing runs?

He got some pretty big scores in his innings if I remember correctly. Might hold a couple of records, from what I've been told.

 

[shortpitched713]

As for the poll results, I consider these two (as batsmen), pretty much equal and both in the "second tier" of ATG.

I would like to clarify that I voted for Border, when he was behind, in accordance to my strategy of "vote for whoever is behind in these ridiculously subjective polls of personal preference between giants of the game".

But now that Border is ahead, this just suits my agenda of "CW only rates players from Australia, India, and England" anyway. And I will refuse to acknowledge any role or blame in supporting such an outcome, in accordance with my being an American. In other words, the poll has been an absolute win.

 

[shortpitched713]

Looking at SR without team context is a shallow analysis. Border played in a slow scoring era with a weaker batting lineup in which he often did damage control. Kallis played in a faster scoring era with a solid lineup in which he batted at the same pace regardless of match circumstances.

Border's brand was gritty, back-to-the-wall and uncompromising. Kallis' brand was timid, conservative and safety-first.

You realize you're just editorializing, what in many cases could be exactly the same thing in very comparable match situations, for a majority of cases. Great batsmen generally just know how to bat well, and bat to help their team. Anything else is a rare exception to that rule.

 

[subshakerz]

Subshakerz weird criticism of Kallis' SR is so baffling. He batted 4 and many times at 3. For a top order bat it's more acceptable, and in some situations even useful to have a batsman who can dig in and consume time. Surely Waugh and Border (less so because he was in a weak lineup) who batted 5 and 6 are the ones should generally be expected to score quicker? This whole discussion is ass backwards.

What is baffling is that I am just repeating standard critiques of Kallis' batting being overly conservative and in a shell that have dogged him since early in his career and you guys are treating it as a new take.

Again, if Kallis' actually did accelerate now and then when the situation demanded it, his slow batting would be less of an issue. But he was in a lineup with basically everyone batting around the same slow pace.

 

[Bolo.]

Subshakerz weird criticism of Kallis' SR is so baffling. He batted 4 and many times at 3. For a top order bat it's more acceptable, and in some situations even useful to have a batsman who can dig in and consume time. Surely Waugh and Border (less so because he was in a weak lineup) who batted 5 and 6 are the ones should generally be expected to score quicker? This whole discussion is ass backwards.

Yup. I await his post about why Chanders should not have scored faster/moved up the order because his gritty batting was more important than leaving runs behind.

I think the easiest example of a quality bat leaving runs on the board to the detriment of his team is by remaining not out in a loss. Kallis did it 3 times, Waugh and Border 8 and 9, and Chanders 19. OFC you are more likely to do it by batting lower, but you should just be moving up into a more difficult slot if there is a strength delta between you and the other bats that makes it likely.

 

[ankitj]

As far as test batting goes, there are simply no pre defined roles that teams want to get filled. Sehwag played a "role" in the team but once he retired India didn't look to fill that role. They played the best possible openers of any style.

Players based on their styles assume certain roles and team captains make peace with that and occasionally make strategic moves keeping that in mind. E.g. If they have a Gilchrist or Pant in lower middle order, they might decide in 3rd batting innings that they can look to post a big total quickly and go for win.

But I don't think batters assume predefined roles in general, much less modify their roles based on other players' "roles" and abilities. All this is just back fitting by us viewers.

 

[Bolo.]

What is baffling is that I am just repeating standard critiques of Kallis' batting being overly conservative and in a shell that have dogged him since early in his career and you guys are treating it as a new take.

Again, if Kallis' actually did accelerate now and then when the situation demanded it, his slow batting would be less of an issue. But he was in a lineup with basically everyone batting around the same slow pace.

What is baffling is using it as a criticism in relation to a guy who batted lower, batted slower, and was even worse at accelerating.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think RSA had a bat with more than a couple of innings who averaged over 40 between 92 and early 99. Gibbs was averaging about 20 at that stage. Bacher and Hudson played 50 something games and averaged about 30 between them. Cullinan and Cronje batted in the top 3 in only a few matches for Kallis' career and were even worse. Having a (at that stage) pretty good opener in Kirsten changes the quality of the top order from abominable to extremely poor before Kallis started coming right.

You are looking only at the best bats, and ignoring the weak ones. You are looking at the overall careers of players, not how they had been performing at that stage. And you are simply ignoring batting position. Its hard to believe you could be getting this much wrong by accident.

First off, it is a fallacious argument in the first place to say that a batsman is forced to bat conservatively because he has a fragile top order. No great batsman will curb their style that way, Tendulkar didnt in the 90s and Lara didnt in the 2000s. Kallis batted the way he did because that is simply how he naturally bats.

Second, you are seriously off base if you consider the SA batting of the late 90s and early 2000s poor. They were the second best side in the world at that time. You already admit they had Kirsten, Cullinan and Cronje by the time Kallis became a regular fixture in the side. On top of that, that had the strongest tail in the world with guys like McMillan, Pollock, Klusener and others down the order. Then later came in quality bats like Gibbs, Smith and Ashwell Prince.

The bottom line is that he regularly had at least one quality opener and 1-2 quality middle order bats and a super long tail around him in the first half of his career.

Please drop this silly excuse that he needed to be a bore of a bat because he was actually playing for Zimbabwe. Even if he came at 10/2 every innings he would have support around him to accelerate at some point in his innings.

 

[subshakerz]

What is baffling is using it as a criticism in relation to a guy who batted lower, batted slower, and was even worse at accelerating.

And who actually batted in a weaker lineup needing him to do so, unlike what is claimed about Kallis.

However, I do think Border batting lower in the order is a fair critique. Not sure why he did so.

 

[Bolo.]

First off, it is a fallacious argument in the first place to say that a batsman is forced to bat conservatively because he has a fragile top order. No great batsman will curb their style that way, Tendulkar didnt in the 90s and Lara didnt in the 2000s. Kallis batted the way he did because that is simply how he naturally bats.

Second, you are seriously off base if you consider the SA batting of the late 90s and early 2000s poor. They were the second best side in the world at that time. You already admit they had Kirsten, Cullinan and Cronje by the time Kallis became a regular fixture in the side. On top of that, that had the strongest tail in the world with guys like McMillan, Pollock, Klusener and others down the order. Then later came in quality bats like Gibbs, Smith and Ashwell Prince.

The bottom line is that he regularly had at least one quality opener and 1-2 quality middle order bats and a super long tail around him in the first half of his career.

Please drop this silly excuse that he needed to be a bore of a bat because he was actually playing for Zimbabwe. Even if he came at 10/2 every innings he would have support around him to accelerate at some point in his innings.

Sutcliffe and Waugh will be extremely surprised to learn that no great bat changes his style. I never really watched him, but he was by all accounts free flowing pretest.

Stop misrepresenting what I am saying. I am talking about the weakess in the top order. RSA had a top order collapse in what felt like pretty much every test before Kallis came right. The lower order was good enough to recover it most of the time, but you can't pretend needing to recover from frequent top order collapses is not an issue that teams really want to solve.