Jacques Kallis vs Allan Border

[Jarquis]

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.

I think you could even argue blokes in weaker teams need to score quicker as there’s an increased chance of them getting stranded or at least losing blokes at the other end

 

[Coronis]

imo its Border’s glorious stache that has him rated so highly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

This circular discussion has already had about 3 rotations this thread. Now I'm jot saying strike rate should be relevant in a comparison between these 2 players, but this is completely missing the context. Border and Kallis had very different team situations, Kallis being more aggressive could have helped his team, Border not so. This has already been explained better than I would a few times in this thread. Needless to say "border scored slow too soooo" is a bit short-sighted

 

[subshakerz]

Yes it was very timid of Kallis to score all those thousands of runs at the top of the order that won his team a stackload of Test matches.

Kallis' brand was being one of the most reliable scorers of centuries in the history of the sport, while being a legit Test class bowler. Trying to spin that as a negative is crazy.

I think you need to be reminded we are talking in the context of ATG bats. So on that level, Kallis' batting style was noticeably conservative, defensive, etc.

Your post makes it clear why he is being overrated as a bat because some posters are conflating his allrounder status with his batting ability. Kallis as all-rounder is a league ahead of Kallis the bat.

 

[trundler]

This circular discussion has already had about 3 rotations this thread. Now I'm jot saying strike rate should be relevant in a comparison between these 2 players, but this is completely missing the context. Border and Kallis had very different team situations, Kallis being more aggressive could have helped his team, Border not so. This has already been explained better than I would a few times in this thread. Needless to say "border scored slow too soooo" is a bit short-sighted

Border for a part of his career had Taylor, Boon, Jones and later the Waugh twins yet he did not change his style to start scoring faster.

Kallis started out with a team riddled with no rounders that was rescued more often by the lower order than it laid a good platform. Kallis was great at these rescue jobs. Didn't learn to accelerate when he had decent batsmen around him though.

The correct (and based) take is to take the black pill and admit neither actually won his team matches and that slow scoring is for limited losers who can only do damage control. Dravid exempted for being handsome obviously.

 

[trundler]

Kallis as all-rounder is a league ahead of Kallis the bat.

Nah I'd say he was about Pollock level or slightly better as an all rounder. Would have Hadlee ahead of him. Comparisons with Sobers, Imran or Miller are completely over the top.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis was pretty much less regarded for his bland style of play most of his career until the end when people started noticing that he averaged 55 and had over 250 wickets, at which point they gave him his due.

 

[trundler]

Kallis was pretty much less regarded for his bland style of play most of his career until the end when people started noticing that he averaged 55 and had over 250 wickets, at which point they gave him his due.

I've heard exactly the same said of McGrath though. That towards the end of his career people noticed he had 500 wickets and started paying more attention. Those people are called filthy casuals. And virtually all peers hold Akram in higher esteem yet no one gives a toss about that case.. except PFK.

Also this might just be my hunch but I think Border's peer rating is being vastly overstated here.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Border for a part of his career had Taylor, Boon, Jones and later the Waugh twins yet he did not change his style to start scoring faster.

Kallis started out with a team riddled with no rounders that was rescued more often by the lower order than it laid a good platform. Kallis was great at these rescue jobs. Didn't learn to accelerate when he had decent batsmen around him though.

The correct (and based) take is to take the black pill and admit neither actually won his team matches and that slow scoring is for limited losers who can only do damage control. Dravid exempted for being handsome obviously.

Is Dravid being handsome a joke or do people actually think that

 

[trundler]

Is Dravid being handsome a joke or do people actually think that

He's decent looking but if we suppose he's handsome I get a criteria to rate him/YK over Kallis/Chanders. Besides winning matches and playing for the team.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Is Dravid being handsome a joke or do people actually think that

Yeah never got this either but Indian women weren't exactly spoiled for cricketers to drool over in the 90s, so here comes young, brooding, well-spoken Rahul and omg kill me already.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah never got this either but Indian women weren't exactly spoiled for cricketers to drool over in the 90s, so here comes young, brooding, well-spoken Rahul and omg kill me already.

Why would Indian women be looking at cricket for that lmao

 

[subshakerz]

I've heard exactly the same said of McGrath though. That towards the end of his career people noticed he had 500 wickets and started paying more attention. Those people are called filthy casuals. And virtually all peers hold Akram in higher esteem yet no one gives a toss about that case.. except PFK.

Also this might just be my hunch but I think Border's peer rating is being vastly overstated here.

Nah McGrath was pretty much seen as the numero uno fast bowler in the world 2000 onwards.

 

[Slifer]

Unless you are batting at the top, where it doesn't matter so much, the weaker your lineup, the more you need to accelerate as you will be running out of parners. See Chanders.

Pretty much Lara for most of his career. Funny enough, this probably lead him to have far fewer not outs than most batsmen.

 

[ankitj]

The batsman’s chances of playing a knock that is dubbed “match-winning” are vastly improved by a good bowling attack.

It's basically about what others do. The idea that run scoring can ever be not "match-winning" especially in test cricket is quite ludicrous (with odd exception of something like exposing #11 to face full over)

 

[Victor Ian]

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.

Might be onto something there, but how about with a draw as well (unless it supports subshakers point)

 

[Anil]

Border fairly easily for me…

 

[CricAddict]

Kallis fairly easily for me...

 

[srbhkshk]

Jadeja fairly easily for me...

 

[Anil]

Jadeja fairly easily for me...

this is of course the right answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything...