Jacques Kallis vs Sachin Tendulkar

[trundler]

Like I definitely voted for Sachin (not that close IMO) but 'muh holes in records' and 'muh peer review' are such pointless arguments for it. GAGF. Makes me want to vote for Kallis.

Nah this was incredibly annoying when applied to Steyn but it's fun when applied to Kallis at this point. You just have to detach yourself and go with the ride.

 

[StephenZA]

There is no context to explain away Kallis' record in England. It's not just the scores, he also looked terrible for some reason on most tours there.

He averaged 42 in '98 when he was 23 and just coming into his own. He avg 33 in '01 when he was struggling with injury. He avg 17 in 08 with his biggest slump (having also just come off injury), this was the series he really failed in. And in 2012 he avg 65 but that was a batting paradise.

So for 'some reason' was generally he unfortunately had injury issues through two of the 4 series he played in Eng. The other two he avg 42, as a youngster, and 65 on some flat dry pitches.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Regardless of any variables Tendulkar with his average is never easily better than Kallis with his. That’s a simple fact.

Adam Voges with his average is easily better than both of them. That's a simple fact. And don't get me started on Daryl Mitchell.

 

[trundler]

Adam Voges with his average is easily better than both of them. That's a simple fact. And don't get me started on Daryl Mitchell.

Now if only you could stop overrating Barry Richards and Shane Bond too

 

[Godard]

Kallis played for half the 90s.

Played a grand total of two test matches till 97, and scored 1800@41 at a SR of 36.18(abysmally low even by Kallis’ standards), in the 90s

 

[TheJediBrah]

My biggest consistent issue in these comparison thread is quite simple... people have personal biased opinion, that is not a problem. We all have opinions on different players and how to rate them. Its the attempt at consistent quantitative bull**** to try explain why your opinion is better than someone else. Simple answer... it is not a better opinion, its just retroactive nonsense trying to denigrate or lift a player to make oneself feel better in their personal opinion.

You think pointing out a near 10-run difference in strike rate over the course of a career is an attempt to find a reason to suit a pre-conceived opinion? That's just a ridiculous take and I don't know why you are trying to assert it. Is it really that hard for you to accept that it might be the other way around? Don't try and "cOnTeXt" me either. I watched live Kallis cost SA Test matches on multiple occasions with unecessarily defensive batting when they were on top in the game.

I don't agree with all the "holes in the record" bull**** that gets thrown around these threads though. Even though he played 166 Tests the samples are still susceptible to happenstance. Kallis averaging poorly in England over his career could be heavily affected by other factors.

 

[subshakerz]

Analysis by checklist is the only reason averaging 'only' 35 in England matters though.

We all have checklists. Dont deny it. Context still matters but checklists also.

 

[subshakerz]

He averaged 42 in '98 when he was 23 and just coming into his own. He avg 33 in '01 when he was struggling with injury. He avg 17 in 08 with his biggest slump (having also just come off injury), this was the series he really failed in. And in 2012 he avg 65 but that was a batting paradise.

So for 'some reason' was generally he unfortunately had injury issues through two of the 4 series he played in Eng. The other two he avg 42, as a youngster, and 65 on some flat dry pitches.

I also wonder how bad form is used as an excuse for not performing.

 

[StephenZA]

You think pointing out a near 10-run difference in strike rate over the course of a career is an attempt to find a reason to suit a pre-conceived opinion? That's just a ridiculous take and I don't know why you are trying to assert it. Is it really that hard for you to accept that it might be the other way around? Don't try and "cOnTeXt" me either. I watched live Kallis cost SA Test matches on multiple occasions with unecessarily defensive batting when they were on top in the game.

I won't try context you... t pretty blatantly obvious that nuance and context is pretty beyond you.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I won't try context you... t pretty blatantly obvious that nuance and context is pretty beyond you.

- get called out
- can't think of reasonable response
- ad hominem

Be better than that

 

[StephenZA]

I also wonder how bad form is used as an excuse for not performing.

Where did I use it as an excuse I pointed out he had a bad series... players have bad series for various reasons. What you ignore is his other two decent series and say he is bad! You have decided he is a bad player not worthy of coming in top 20... you will find everything that supports that view and ignore any other information or understanding. That is clearly how you operate and its pretty obvious to most people on this forum that is how you operate.

 

[Prince EWS]

We all have checklists. Dont deny it. Context still matters but checklists also.

Weightings > checklists.

 

[StephenZA]

- get called out
- can't think of reasonable response
- ad hominem

Be better than that

You did not call me out... you made a statement that you think is correct and are not interested in how that statement is bullshit. Kallis has a low SR, it is lower than some other great players, sure, does that effect peoples opinion of him, understandably. Is there context to that low SR yes very much so. But you are not interested in that you have decided that the context is irrelevant and only your opnion counts. Which is fine. Just don't pretend you opinion is better than anybody elses.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You did not call me out... you made a statement that you thing is correct and are not interested in how that statement is bull****. Kallis has a low SR, it is lower than some other great players, sure, does that effect peoples opinion of him, understandably. Is there context to that low SR yes very much so. But you are not interested in that you have decided that the context is irrelevant and only your opnion counts. Which is fine. Just don't pretend you opinion is better than anybody elses.

What have I said that you actually disagree with though? I can't see anything here other than vague accusations of modus operandi

I've heard, and considered, your arguments defending Kallis' SR in the past, about his role in the team, the state of SA cricket etc. and I definitely don't dismiss it out of hand, I am very open-minded and appreciate the insight.

But it's not enough to make him a Lara or Sachin-level bat. Again, I literally saw him cost SA Test-match wins through overly defensive batting while in a strong position, on multiple occassions. It matters.

 

[Jack1]

What have I said that you actually disagree with though? I can't see anything here other than vague accusations of modus operandi

I've heard, and considered, your arguments defending Kallis' SR in the past, about his role in the team, the state of SA cricket etc. and I definitely don't dismiss it out of hand, I am very open-minded and appreciate the insight.

But it's not enough to make him a Lara or Sachin-level bat. Again, I literally saw him cost SA Test-match wins through overly defensive batting while in a strong position, on multiple occassions. It matters.

Kallis is a Lara and Sachin level bat.

 

[anil1405]

He averaged 42 in '98 when he was 23 and just coming into his own. He avg 33 in '01 when he was struggling with injury. He avg 17 in 08 with his biggest slump (having also just come off injury), this was the series he really failed in. And in 2012 he avg 65 but that was a batting paradise.

So for 'some reason' was generally he unfortunately had injury issues through two of the 4 series he played in Eng. The other two he avg 42, as a youngster, and 65 on some flat dry pitches.

Shane Warne gets a pass for his poor performance in India because he apparently got injured almost everytime he toured here. That's used as an excuse to cover up his pathetic record by some posters.

If what you said about Kallis is true then there is no way his record in England should be held against him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Shane Warne gets a pass for his poor performance in India

lol wut when has this ever happened

It gets beaten into the dirt every time his name comes up.

"Gets a pass" wow

 

[StephenZA]

What have I said that you actually disagree with though? I can't see anything here other than vague accusations of modus operandi

I've heard, and considered, your arguments defending Kallis' SR in the past, about his role in the team, the state of SA cricket etc. and I definitely don't dismiss it out of hand, I am very open-minded and appreciate the insight.

But it's not enough to make him a Lara or Sachin-level bat. Again, I literally saw him cost SA Test-match wins through overly defensive batting while in a strong position, on multiple occassions. It matters.

Nowhere did I say that Kallis SR is not a negative compared to some great players... its just not as big a negative as people make it out to be. I'm not even commenting on on whether Kallis is as good or better a bat than Tendulkar. What I`m commenting on is how people try to make apparent objective quantitative arguments on something that is in the end a pure personal opinion on what players you preferred. Its not required nobody is taking anybody to task for referencing certain great players over other great players. But taking this 'quantitative analysis' as anything but bullshit to try make a personal opinion appear more valid is nonsense and needs to get called out. Cricket careers are a complex mixture of circumstance ability and hard work... it varies between players, and its almost impossible to quantify.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nowhere did I say that Kallis SR is not a negative compared to some great players... its just not as big a negative as people make it out to be. I'm not even commenting on on whether Kallis is as good or better a bat than Tendulkar. What I`m commenting on is how people try to make apparent objective quantitative arguments on something that is in the end a pure personal opinion on what players you preferred. Its not required nobody is taking anybody to task for referencing certain great players over other great players. But taking this 'quantitative analysis' as anything but bull**** to try make a personal opinion appear more valid is nonsense and needs to get called out. Cricket careers are a complex mixture of circumstance ability and hard work... it varies between players, and its almost impossible to quantify.

How does this apply to my comments in here? I can't see it

 

[anil1405]

lol wut when has this ever happened

Stephen used to bring this up and there are other posters who agreed with his case in one of the threads I can't remember.