Jacques Kallis vs Glenn Mcgrath

[Anil]

P.S. I picked Kallis for fun and to piss off few posters.

i think a few posters did this or the pity vote thing and somehow it went out of control...only reason i can think of why someone would vote for kallis over mcgrath...

 

[StephenZA]

Damn I thought he only played alongside scrubs

No he only played along side scrubs for the first half of his career… second half he played as part of a world class top order still avg 55+ while scored at a 50+ SR, while also retaining no 1 all rounder position for 10 years.

 

[trundler]

No he only played along side scrubs for the first half of his career… second half he played as part of a world class top order still avg 55+ while scored at a 50+ SR, while also retaining no 1 all rounder position for 10 years.

You mean when he averaged 20 with the bat?

 

[StephenZA]

You mean when he averaged 20 with the bat?

You truly are ignorant of the players you like to criticise.

I mean you even miss the point that when he was batting he was holding the top of the batting together. Clearly shown by having 3 of the top 5 partnerships of highest runs scored with 3 different other batsmen.

 

[trundler]

You truly are ignorant of the players you like to criticise.

He spent 15 odd tests being a no rounder (as do all rounders tbf) when SA had a questionable top order. It's complete hyperbole to brush off Gibbs, Kirsten and Cullinan as scrubs.

 

[StephenZA]

He spent 15 odd tests being a no rounder (as do all rounders tbf) when SA had a questionable top order. It's complete hyperbole to brush off Gibbs, Kirsten and Cullinan as scrubs.

Again showing your ignorance. Kirsten was just getting good when Kallis came in and solidified the No 3 position. And the reason Gibbs was eventually given the opening position opportunity was because they felt Kallis would cover. Gibbs was an experiment as an opener. Cullinan was the only solid experienced batsmen when Kallis started and he generally underperformed his career.

 

[trundler]

Again showing your ignorance. Kirsten was just getting good when Kallis came in and solidified the No 3 position. And the reason Gibbs was eventually given the opening position opportunity was because they felt Kallis would cover. Gibbs was an experiment as an opener. Cullinan was the only solid experienced batsmen when Kallis started and he generally underperformed his career.

Mmkay so at worst he was sandwiched between 2 world class batsmen. In any case that's less than 10% of his career, let alone 'half'. At no point in Kallis's career was SA even outside the top 3 tests teams regardless.

 

[StephenZA]

Mmkay so at worst he was sandwiched between 2 world class batsmen. In any case that's less than 10% of his career, let alone 'half'. At no point in Kallis's career was SA even outside the top 3 tests teams regardless.

Again as I said in the other thread read the article see the reality on the ground in SA cricket in the late 90s early 2000s, see how often Kallis was holding the top order together. Which failed to score runs frequently until he solidified the No 3 position with Kallis; later moving to 4. Kirsten found a partner in Kallis. The backbone of the order was Kallis. And even when the great players of Smith, Amla and De Villers came along they still built the innings around Kallis.

And SA 100% relied on great bowlers and a long batting line up to be competitive in test until the early 2000s; not a strong top 6, where as much would be scored by 7,8,9 as the top order for years. It was Kallis that started the change of creating a stable top 6.

 

[trundler]

Again as I said in the other thread read the article see the reality on the ground in SA cricket in the late 90s early 2000s, see how often Kallis was holding the top order together. Which failed to score runs frequently until he solidified the No 3 position with Kallis; later moving to 4. Kirsten found a partner in Kallis. The backbone of the order was Kallis. And even when the great players of Smith, Amla and De Villers came along they still built the innings around Kallis.

And SA 100% relied on great bowlers and a long batting line up to be competitive in test until the early 2000s; not a strong top 6, where as much would be scored by 7,8,9 as the top order for years. It was Kallis that started the change of creating a stable top 6.

In 1999, Kallis's first great year as a batsman each of Gibbs, Kirsten, and Cullinan did very well. Cullinan even got more runs than Kallis.

https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/db/STATS/BY_CALENDAR/1990S/1999/TEST_BAT_MOST_RUNS_1999.html

Kirsten and Cullinan again averaged 40+ in 2000.

https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/db/STATS/BY_CALENDAR/2000S/2000/TEST_BAT_MOST_RUNS_2000.html

In 2001, Gibbs did better than Kallis whilst both Kirsten and McKenzie averaged 40+

https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/db/STATS/BY_CALENDAR/2000S/2001/TEST_BAT_MOST_RUNS_2001.html

You make it sound like Kallis had Border-esque support before he was part of the strongest batting lineup in the world. That's simply not true. SA also had strong tails for most of his career though. The tail always having to dig SA out is a narrative that's years out of date by this point in Kallis's career and I suspect you're aware of that. So Kallis being forced to be dour is simply not true. That's just the way he batted.

 

[Flem274*]

i thought it was taken as a given south africa always had a couple of filler batsmen in the top 6 until their god mode run.

boeta dippenaar, jacques rudolph, jp duminy, jonty rhodes and so on.

rhodes played 52 tests for 3 tons and only passed 50 twenty times for example.

 

[shortpitched713]

Eh, there are levels to it. If you look at West Indies batting lineup for the last decade it's nothing but filler batsmen. You'd get a lot more credit scoring runs amongst that lot, as compared to the "not completely full of world class talent" SA sides.

 

[Coronis]

Runs are runs, no matter who scores them - anonymous 18th century poet.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Cummins overtakes Davidson by now, surely?

If I've got 4 seamers I'd rather have a left armer with quality batting to add to the side.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Can’t believe we are on page 5 of this thread lol

 

[Flem274*]

If I've got 4 seamers I'd rather have a left armer with quality batting to add to the side.

My thoughts too. It's very hard to split some of the aussie bowlers, so I go looking for what else they can bring to the side. Davo offers so much as a world class left armer who can bat.

It feels a bit sacrilegious but I also like lindwall over lillee.

 

[shortpitched713]

My thoughts too. It's very hard to split some of the aussie bowlers, so I go looking for what else they can bring to the side. Davo offers so much as a world class left armer who can bat.

It feels a bit sacrilegious but I also like lindwall over lillee.

Why would it be sacriligeous, Lindwall's got a very slightly better average than Lillee. Isn't that how it should work?

 

[Flem274*]

Why would it be sacriligeous, Lindwall's got a very slightly better average than Lillee. Isn't that how it should work?

Feel like you're being facetious but there's a bit more to it than bowling average.

Both atg quicks but one has 2 test tons and a collection of 50s. That's OP. If Lindwall played today he'd be the best player in the world, maybe close second to Smith at worst.

 

[shortpitched713]

I was actually only talking just as bowlers. I mean, not like I was alive to watch either, so I'm looking at it at face value. Lindwall has a lower bowling average, and he is a recognized great, so don't see why it would be sacrilegious.

But batting of course, is always an important consideration.

 

[Gob]

I was actually only talking just as bowlers. I mean, not like I was alive to watch either, so I'm looking at it at face value. Lindwall has a lower bowling average, and he is a recognized great, so don't see why it would be sacrilegious.

But batting of course, is always an important consideration.

Hey stop being stupid

 

[shortpitched713]

Hey stop being stupid

Alright, tell me your oh so obvious criteria to compare these two players of different eras other than first starting with face value averages, that definitively shows Lillee to be better.

Or just be a poo poo head. Your choice.