Jacques Kallis vs Rahul Dravid vs Kumar Sangakkara

[OverratedSanity]

The checklist thing is boring on multiple levels. Not only does failing in one country not tell us much about the batsman, it's also that it's just a simplistic more than 40 is good, less than 40 is bad kind of analysis. As sample sizes get that small surely a better though imperfect way to analyze would be to try and see whether the innings the batsmen played to get that average were of real substance.

 

[Coronis]

The checklist thing is boring on multiple levels. Not only does failing in one country not tell us much about the batsman, it's also that it's just a simplistic more than 40 is good, less than 40 is bad kind of analysis. As sample sizes get that small surely a better though imperfect way to analyze would be to see try and see whether the innings the batsmen played to get that average were of real substance.

Oh I wasn’t meaning to say that I only rated them by checklist or anything. Just that Sanga and Dravid had comparable away records, succeeded in most places and were less effective in a couple. And of course, away average in general is just one way to measure a batsman.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That wasn't a shot at you haha

 

[anil1405]

As sample sizes get that small surely a better though imperfect way to analyze would be to see try and see whether the innings the batsmen played to get that average were of real substance.

Context of match situations under which a player performed is unfortunately not given enough weightage when analysing a player but at the same time it is also tough to remember the match circumstances of each of those knocks.

One would have to watch all the knocks to know the precise circumstances.

 

[Coronis]

That wasn't a shot at you haha

Yeah just wanted to clarify my post since I did start off the whole away and record in countries thing today.

 

[subshakerz]

The checklist thing is boring on multiple levels. Not only does failing in one country not tell us much about the batsman, it's also that it's just a simplistic more than 40 is good, less than 40 is bad kind of analysis. As sample sizes get that small surely a better though imperfect way to analyze would be to try and see whether the innings the batsmen played to get that average were of real substance.

Its not really a checklist, its looking at holes in a players' record which are minor in the grand scheme but matter in ATG comparisons.

Yeah, averaging 40 is considered a minimum standard of quality, assuming you have played in a country enough.

And it depends on the country. Kallis averaging less than 40 in WI means less than England.

 

[Coronis]

Its not really a checklist, its looking at holes in a players' record which are minor in the grand scheme but matter in ATG comparisons.

Yeah, averaging 40 is considered a minimum standard of quality, assuming you have played in a country enough.

And it depends on the country. Kallis averaging less than 40 in WI means less than England.

Well yeah cos Walsh > all England’s bowlers combined in Kallis’ career.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Sanga is the definition of overrated. A very good batsman that has been retrospectively thrust into the highest echelons. Nobody thought he was *that* good while he was still going until the last couple of years and especially after that spree he went on in the county season. The fake accent has naturally endeared him to white people too.

Nice batting average though.

 

[ankitj]

I really thought analysis by checklist was done to point out issues with someone's technique or some other kind of specific limitation. It has devolved to hurr durr he averages only 36 in that specific country and has gotten really stupid.

Who cares if Kallis averaged 5 in England, he spent his career batting in SA and averaging half a zillion there. It doesn't ****ing matter what he averaged in England, he could play swing just fine.

Absolutely. Checklist can be useful to call attention to weaknesses, highlighting symptoms of disease. On their own they are useless.

 

[ankitj]

Sanga is the definition of overrated. A very good batsman that has been retrospectively thrust into the highest echelons. Nobody thought he was *that* good while he was still going until the last couple of years and especially after that spree he went on in the county season. The fake accent has naturally endeared him to white people too.

Nice batting average though.

Ok @Himannv.

 

[shortpitched713]

Sanga is the definition of overrated. A very good batsman that has been retrospectively thrust into the highest echelons. Nobody thought he was *that* good while he was still going until the last couple of years and especially after that spree he went on in the county season. The fake accent has naturally endeared him to white people too.

Nice batting average though.

Y'all really just looking for reasons to be haters now.

 

[Coronis]

Y'all really just looking for reasons to be haters now.

Stop trying to appeal to American CW members.

 

[Arachnodouche]

^White Dixie only. Get your Americanese right, boy.

 

[shortpitched713]

Trust me, it's not just white southerners who use "y'all". Lol.

 

[centurymaker]

Sanga is the definition of overrated. A very good batsman that has been retrospectively thrust into the highest echelons. Nobody thought he was *that* good while he was still going until the last couple of years and especially after that spree he went on in the county season. The fake accent has naturally endeared him to white people too.

Nice batting average though.

100% agree!

For large parts of his career he was not even close to being a great, whereas Dravid and Kallis were seen as greats since their initial years!

Sanga's average means nothing when it was predominantly achieved on 600 v 500 roads of colombo. (Mahela was similar in that regard). Take out Colombo from his records and his minnow bullying, and his real level will come forth. No matter what stats obsessed geeks here say, I know from watching thoroughly throughout their careers that Kallis/Dravid/Ponting were all CLEARLY better than Sanga.

I don't even need to look at stats to know that. Dravid played on a bit longer than he should have similar to Ponting and hence their averages tailed off significantly. It takes nothing away from their global dominance for more than a decade.

During his career, Sanga was hardly in the conversation of being even a top 5 batsman in the world until maybe late on, whereas Dravid, Kallis, Ponting were always in that top batsmen conversation! Raw stats mean zero. It's about playing innings of substance. And runs/avg are not the only criteria! The amount of balls Dravid and Kallis faced -allowing their whole teams to play around him and to build significant totals is something individual stats will never capture. The amount of times they rescued the batting line up may not be captured by stats either. You got to have watched them bat to see how good Kallis and Dravid were especially in 'adverse' conditions! Sanga was a HTB for so long. Good that he managed to remove that tag with his performances in the last few years but it doesn't change the fact that he is not even in the conversation. He is a tier below!

Kallis/Dravid > Sanga

 

[subshakerz]

Sanga is the definition of overrated. A very good batsman that has been retrospectively thrust into the highest echelons. Nobody thought he was *that* good while he was still going until the last couple of years and especially after that spree he went on in the county season. The fake accent has naturally endeared him to white people too.

Nice batting average though.

Same with Kallis.

 

[subshakerz]

100% agree!

For large parts of his career he was not even close to being a great, whereas Dravid and Kallis were seen as greats since their initial years!

Sanga's average means nothing when it was predominantly achieved on 600 v 500 roads of colombo. (Mahela was similar in that regard). Take out Colombo from his records and his minnow bullying, and his real level will come forth. No matter what stats obsessed geeks here say, I know from watching thoroughly throughout their careers that Kallis/Dravid/Ponting were all CLEARLY better than Sanga.

I don't even need to look at stats to know that. Dravid played on a bit longer than he should have similar to Ponting and hence their averages tailed off significantly. It takes nothing away from their global dominance for more than a decade.

During his career, Sanga was hardly in the conversation of being even a top 5 batsman in the world until maybe late on, whereas Dravid, Kallis, Ponting were always in that top batsmen conversation! Raw stats mean zero. It's about playing innings of substance. And runs/avg are not the only criteria! The amount of balls Dravid and Kallis faced -allowing their whole teams to play around him and to build significant totals is something individual stats will never capture. The amount of times they rescued the batting line up may not be captured by stats either. You got to have watched them bat to see how good Kallis and Dravid were especially in 'adverse' conditions! Sanga was a HTB for so long. Good that he managed to remove that tag with his performances in the last few years but it doesn't change the fact that he is not even in the conversation. He is a tier below!

Kallis/Dravid > Sanga

Sanga debuted and played as a keeper and peaked later than the others which is why saying he wasn't rated as highly as them early on isnt fair.

He basically had a 10 year uninterrupted peak from 2006 to 2015 averaging in the mid 60s. By the late 2000s he was put in the upper echelon.

No doubt his home record give him stats padding but the others also benefited from minnows and the flat pitch era too. Even if you take his inflation away he still averages north of the 50s.

Sangas main advantage unlike the others was that he wasnt just an accumulator but was aggressive and more feared by opposition as a result, while the others simply let others bat around them.

Kallis btw was never put on a pedestal like Ponting or even Dravid during his peak by the way.

 

[ZK$]

Kallis btw was never put on a pedestal like Ponting or even Dravid during his peak by the way.

That’s probably because he was from South Africa.

 

[subshakerz]

That’s probably because he was from South Africa.

That didn't stop Steyn and ABD from getting plaudits, even Smith.

Kallis lacked any standout innings and batted in a robotic fashion regardless of match context. He was inherently a defensive player.

 

[Coronis]

100% agree!

For large parts of his career he was not even close to being a great, whereas Dravid and Kallis were seen as greats since their initial years!

Sanga's average means nothing when it was predominantly achieved on 600 v 500 roads of colombo. (Mahela was similar in that regard). Take out Colombo from his records and his minnow bullying, and his real level will come forth. No matter what stats obsessed geeks here say, I know from watching thoroughly throughout their careers that Kallis/Dravid/Ponting were all CLEARLY better than Sanga.

I don't even need to look at stats to know that. Dravid played on a bit longer than he should have similar to Ponting and hence their averages tailed off significantly. It takes nothing away from their global dominance for more than a decade.

During his career, Sanga was hardly in the conversation of being even a top 5 batsman in the world until maybe late on, whereas Dravid, Kallis, Ponting were always in that top batsmen conversation! Raw stats mean zero. It's about playing innings of substance. And runs/avg are not the only criteria! The amount of balls Dravid and Kallis faced -allowing their whole teams to play around him and to build significant totals is something individual stats will never capture. The amount of times they rescued the batting line up may not be captured by stats either. You got to have watched them bat to see how good Kallis and Dravid were especially in 'adverse' conditions! Sanga was a HTB for so long. Good that he managed to remove that tag with his performances in the last few years but it doesn't change the fact that he is not even in the conversation. He is a tier below!

Kallis/Dravid > Sanga

Rare example on here of someone actually seeing the benefits of a more defensive batsman at times. I like it.

That didn't stop Steyn and ABD from getting plaudits, even Smith.

Kallis lacked any standout innings and batted in a robotic fashion regardless of match context. He was inherently a defensive player.

Kallis has plenty of standout innings, and aggressive centuries. Do some research.