Jacques Kallis vs Rahul Dravid vs Kumar Sangakkara

[subshakerz]

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

All other factors equal, you would prefer an aggressive test bat who sets the tone of an innings and put the opposition on a backfoot to a defensive one who gets others to bat around him and who can't take the game away in a session. Defensive bats are only preferable when you already have a decently strong lineup with a couple of strokemakers, hence the need for one to do a holding job.

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

Aside from his first century to secure a draw in the nineties, Kallis doesn't have standout innings to compare with Dravid's victory knocks of the early 2000s or Sanga's Hobart and NZ knocks, plus he lacks the daddy tons compared to Dravid and Sanga.

The only real metric which Kallis stands ahead is his exceptional home average in difficult conditions.

 

[Coronis]

All other factors equal, you would prefer an aggressive test bat who sets the tone of an innings and put the opposition on a backfoot to a defensive one who gets others to bat around him and who can't take the game away in a session.


Aside from his first century to secure a draw in the nineties, Kallis doesn't have standout innings to compare with Dravid's victory knocks of the early 2000s or Sanga's Hobart and NZ knocks, plus he lacks the daddy tons of Dravid and Sanga.

But all other factors aren’t always equal and you can’t just assume they are when rating players.

Kallis again has multiple innings where he was the sole or major batting contributor to the team winning. Kallis was also easily a more aggressive batsman than Dravid, despite general opinion. Despite perhaps lacking the big daddy tons, he still scored centuries and significant innings at a far higher rate than Dravid throughout his career.

 

[anil1405]

Despite perhaps lacking the big daddy tons, he still scored centuries and significant innings at a far higher rate than Dravid throughout his career.

Centuries, yeah. But more significant than Dravid? I highly doubt.

 

[subshakerz]

But all other factors aren’t always equal and you can’t just assume they are when rating players.

Kallis again has multiple innings where he was the sole or major batting contributor to the team winning. Kallis was also easily a more aggressive batsman than Dravid, despite general opinion. Despite perhaps lacking the big daddy tons, he still scored centuries and significant innings at a far higher rate than Dravid throughout his career.

I think Dravid vs Kallis is closer while Sanga is clearly ahead of both.

Yeah, Kallis is his later career had an extra gear that Dravid didn't.

I don't deny Kallis may have been more consistent than Dravid overall too though it's debatable. But I think in their primes, Dravid was held in higher regards.

 

[Gob]

I think Dravid vs Kallis is closer while Sanga is clearly ahead of both.

Yeah, Kallis is his later career had an extra gear that Dravid didn't.

I don't deny Kallis may have been more consistent than Kallis overall too though it's debatable. But I think in their primes, Dravid was held in higher regards.

Is this a philosophical question?

 

[subshakerz]

Is this a philosophical question?

Pardon the error. Maybe I am too obsessed with Kallis

 

[anil1405]

The only criticism of Dravid and the one thing that stopped him from being in the ATG category was his inability to take advantage of ordinary situations.

When the team was under no pressure he kind of looked out of sorts.

But the number of times he delivered under pressure was immaculate.

 

[Gob]

The only criticism of Dravid and the one thing that stopped him from being in the ATG category was his inability to take advantage of ordinary situations.

When the team was under no pressure he kind of looked out of sorts.

But the number of times he delivered under pressure was immaculate.

Dravid is very much ATG

 

[anil1405]

Dravid is very much ATG

Or let's just say he isn't talked about in the same category as Sachin or Lara for that one reason.

 

[StephenZA]

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.

Once again clearly not knowing the player or what you are talking about... he became a more defensive player for his country out of necessity.

 

[trundler]

Once again clearly not knowing the player or what you are talking about... he became a more defensive player for his country out of necessity.

Kallis had Kirsten, Gibbs, and Cullinan around even early in his career. I think you majorly overstate how bad SA's batting was then. It had too many bits and pieces players before those guys came to the fore but that didn't overlap much, if at all, with Kallis's career.

 

[StephenZA]

I`m not sure if it has been posted before (be me or others) but again nice little article to actually understand what Kallis actually was to SA cricket...

Where would South Africa be if Kallis hadn't played the way he did?

Remembering the man who made modern South African success possible

www.thecricketmonthly.com

Kallis had Kirsten, Gibbs, and Cullinan around even early in his career. I think you majorly overstate how bad SA's batting was then. It had too many bits and pieces players before those guys came to the fore but that didn't overlap much, if at all, with Kallis's career.

Read the article, read the reality on the ground, read what was actually happening in SA cricket... stop using your perceptions of what you think SA cricket was like and listen to the people who watched SA cricket and lived through it. The fact you mention Kirsten and Gibbs shows you don't even know where those players where in their careers at that stage.

I make no comment about other players, I make no comment about how other unions/countries are doing or what is going on the ground for them, because I know how difficult it is to truly understand what is going on in your own countries systems even when you keep up with the news and understand broadly what's going on. It amazes me that people sitting miles away, with little knowledge of other countries systems, who probably only watched a few series when their team was playing have all this opinion on how things where.

You will notice I have never once spoken about who I think is the better player; my only thing I`ve done is pretty much explained in detail that most of the nonsense spoken about Kallis and his batting is largely due to ignorance from people that don't understand or know SA cricket well.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Calling someone a defensive batsman shouldn't be seen as some accusation anyway. If you're producing approximately as many runs who gives a **** if you take 10 extra balls to do it. It's nonsense criticism for batsmen who bat higher up the order, made by people whose brains have been broken by Bazball.

 

[honestbharani]

Is this a philosophical question?

Doesn't matter. The answer is still Ravi Jadeja.

 

[StephenZA]

Calling someone a defensive batsman shouldn't be seen as some accusation anyway. If you're producing approximately as many runs who gives a **** if you take 10 extra balls to do it. It's nonsense criticism for batsmen who bat higher up the order, made by people whose brains have been broken by Bazball.

That's not what I`m talking about... its that he was inherently defensive. He was a defensive batsmen for SA, he was SA anchor for 12+ years. But it was not an inherent thing it was not how he played as a youngster or even when he played in his early 20s. People criticize him for the way he played, not understanding why he did play that way. Now if you want to have a go at SA administration and culture and say they should have asked him to be more free and should not have asked that of him that is another discussion. If you want to talk about how conservative the SA cricket culture is great I`m all for it. But understand the context within which the player, played.

 

[subshakerz]

That's not what I`m talking about... its that he was inherently defensive. He was a defensive batsmen for SA, he was SA anchor for 12+ years. But it was not an inherent thing it was not how he played as a youngster or even when he played in his early 20s. People criticize him for the way he played, not understanding why he did play that way. Now if you want to have a go at SA administration and culture and say they should have asked him to be more free and should not have asked that of him that is another discussion. If you want to talk about how conservative the SA cricket culture is great I`m all for it. But understand the context within which the player, played.

Why he was defensive is irrelevant. The question is what kind of player was he compared to the kind of players he is being measured against.

Kallis was a defensive bat, maybe because his team instructed him to be that way, and he apparently complied and for the majority of his career batted in robotic accumulator fashion regardless of match context.

That he served SA well for the majority of time is not in dispute, but whether his way of playing had flaws compared to other greats is what is being argued.

 

[subshakerz]

Calling someone a defensive batsman shouldn't be seen as some accusation anyway. If you're producing approximately as many runs who gives a **** if you take 10 extra balls to do it. It's nonsense criticism for batsmen who bat higher up the order, made by people whose brains have been broken by Bazball.

Disagree. You don't have to be BazBall level to argue that batsmen who employ a more positive rate of scoring generally are better for their teams, except in situations when you already have several strokemakers in your lineup. Those extra 10 balls translates into a lot over an entire career.

I don't think anyone who watches test cricket can really argue over the merits of why scoring at 3.5/over is better than 2.5/over as a general approach.

To be clear, being more aggressive doesn't overcome other more serious issues such as run output and overall record across countries, but as a difference between greats of comparable records.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That’s probably because he was from South Africa.

This is something people say often but it never really stands up to scrutiny. Guys like Donald, Steyn, AB got plaudits from all around the world throughout their careers . Kallis got less credit because he was a boring batsman, not because he was from SA. Similar to how Pollock probably got overlooked.

 

[StephenZA]

Why he was defensive is irrelevant. The question is what kind of player was he compared to the kind of players he is being measured against.

Kallis was a defensive bat, maybe because his team instructed him to be that way, and he apparently complied and for the majority of his career batted in robotic accumulator fashion regardless of match context.

That he served SA well for the majority of time is not in dispute, but whether his way of playing had flaws compared to other greats is what is being argued.

And that is 100 % okay. "Say I would prefer a more aggressive batsmen"... or "I think more aggressive batsmen are more valuable." And therefore I prefer one over the other. End of discussion. Don't denigrate by making **** up about a player and implying things that are not true. And the only reason to do that is to try make you opinion more valid than another opinion.

 

[subshakerz]

And that is 100 % okay. "Say I would prefer a more aggressive batsmen"... or "I think more aggressive batsmen are more valuable." And therefore I prefer one over the other. End of discussion. Don't denigrate by making **** up about a player and implying things that are not true. And the only reason to do that is to try make you opinion more valid than another opinion.

Let's just leave it at the agreement that it is unfair to denigrate Kallis based on what we speculate would be motives for his style of play. I don't call him selfish.