Sachin Tendulkar vs Jacques Kallis

[trundler]

Kallis. Slightly worse as a pure batsman but a much much better bowler and fielder. This isn't a serious contest.

Then by the same token Pollock is a better cricketer than Marshall. And taking this to its logical extreme, Holder is 7/5/7 on bowling, batting and fielding on a scale of 10 and thus better than McGrath who's a 10/1/6.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Kallis is basically Sanga + Zaheer

That has always been a bullshit claim. Kallis is closer to Tendulkar as a batsman than he is to zaheer as a bowler.

 

[honestbharani]

Then by the same token Pollock is a better cricketer than Marshall. And taking this to its logical extreme, Holder is 7/5/7 on bowling, batting and fielding on a scale of 10 and thus better than McGrath who's a 10/1/6.

6 is generous given McGrath's fielding tbh.

 

[trundler]

6 is generous given McGrath's fielding tbh.

You're right, it's a slam dunk in Holder's favour.

This is unironically PFK logic of Kapil being the equivalent of a 70 averaging batsman if you sum up his batting and bowling. Except he was taking the piss and pointing out that's not how any of this works.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Then by the same token Pollock is a better cricketer than Marshall.

Actually pretty interesting example tbh. I'm pretty sure most people(except flem) wouldn't actually rate Pollock as better than Marshall/McGrath.

Maybe the argument for Kallis could be that he's higher rated in his primary discipline than Pollock, but I dunno, it's clearly not as simple as just doing a "oh he's slightly worse at one thing but much better at another thing therefore he's better" analysis. PEWS has poisoned most people's minds tbh.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Kallis was a batsman who bowled rather than all-rounder, and the Zaheer Khan comparison is a conversation killer.

Kallis was a pretty good bowler in his earlier days pre 2004.

The last 10 years of his career he averaged 42 with the ball against non minnows. (Split: 4 Sep 2003)

Span	Mat	Inns	Overs	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BBI	BBM	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
1995-2003	63	105	1472.3	419	3983	134	6/54	9/92	29.72	2.7	65.9	3	0
2003-2013	92	149	1724	376	5146	123	4/42	6/78	41.83	2.98	84	0	0

 

[Coronis]

Kallis was a batsman who bowled rather than all-rounder,

Oh good, this crap again.

 

[trundler]

Oh good, this crap again.

Far closer to the truth than Kallis being as good as Sangakarra and Zaheer combined

 

[Coronis]

Far closer to the truth than Kallis being as good as Sangakarra and Zaheer combined

Not saying that both opinions aren’t crap at all.

 

[Chrish]

If I am selecting all time Xi, I would have a luxury of selecting players who excelled in their specialized discipline. That’s why guys like Viv, Sachin, McGrath or Marshall would be preferred over batting/ bowling all-rounders.

It’s a personal preference and got no issue with anyone rating Kallis higher

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Tendulkar = better batsman.
Kallis = better all-round cricketer.

Better cricketer = that's a hard one. Tendulkar was a great cricketer just as a batsman. Kallis was a great cricketer with both disciplines. I actually think there's no right or wrong answer with this one.

Cheers.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Lara measurably better on getting gargantuan scores, including more doubles, and having amazing series. SRT clearly more consistent.

My opinion, I have Lara slightly ahead of Tendulkar. Both still great batsman of course. I'd hate to bowl to them..it would be a nightmare.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis was a batsman who bowled rather than all-rounder, and the Zaheer Khan comparison is a conversation killer.

No bro, if Kallis isn't an all-rounder then the term is meaningless.

Anyone who can occupy a regular position as one of five bowlers and is capable of batting in the top 7 is an all-rounder.

 

[Slifer]

Then by the same token Pollock is a better cricketer than Marshall. And taking this to its logical extreme, Holder is 7/5/7 on bowling, batting and fielding on a scale of 10 and thus better than McGrath who's a 10/1/6.

That's fair and also Imran is a better cricketer than Marshall, McGrath, Cummins, Lillee etc. Now, am I choosing Pollock in my XI over Marshall, probably not. But if he were West Indian either Garner or Holding would have to make room for him our all time XI.

 

[Bolo.]

Conventional wisdom is that the batting difference between someone like Tendulkar and Kallis is relatively small. I dunno tho, I think Tendulkar is going to set up more matches with the bat then Kallis' support bowling will change match results.

Kallis' bowling is the equivalent of a no.7/8 bat. It only really comes into play once the first four bowlers haven't delivered.

Whereas a relatively small difference between Tendulkar and Kallis is magnified given that it is a key batting position at no.4.

Kallis' bowling is changing games before the ball is put into his hands. Are you fielding a 4 man attack when your spinner is Paul Harris etc. quality? I doubt it. His batting is a bonus in a sense- whoever RSA pick as their 5th bowler is going to be turd with the bat compared to Kallis.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Kallis easily.Slightly worse batsman which no way compares the gap between two as a bowler.A really good fielder too.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis' bowling is changing games before the ball is put into his hands. Are you fielding a 4 man attack when your spinner is Paul Harris etc. quality? I doubt it. His batting is a bonus in a sense- whoever RSA pick as their 5th bowler is going to be turd with the bat compared to Kallis.

A fifth bowler itself is not a necessity and a luxury.

Kallis' bowling is only having impact if the rest of the bowling is crap.

Otherwise his bowling is not going to impact series the way the difference in batting will.

Tendulkars better batting means scoring faster and also scoring in places like SL and England that Kallis won't. I will gladly trade that in for some bowling support.

 

[Bolo.]

A fifth bowler itself is not a necessity and a luxury.

Kallis' bowling is only having impact if the rest of the bowling is crap.

Otherwise his bowling is not going to impact series the way the difference in batting will.

Tendulkars better batting means scoring faster and also scoring in places like SL and England that Kallis won't. I will gladly trade that in for some bowling support.

A 5th bowler becomes a luxury when you have a good spinner. Without a lot of spin being bowled, the workload on the quicks is too great. Not only are their performances going to be worse, but you are going to have to sit them out of games and play a worse bowler, either due to injuries or the fear of injuries. We saw this with 80s WI- they often played a cleary inferior bowler

From the 2000s on, you might find games when RSA would replace Kallis with a bat, but a lot of the time they would be fielding some dire AR in his place.

 

[subshakerz]

A 5th bowler becomes a luxury when you have a good spinner. Without a lot of spin being bowled, the workload on the quicks is too great. Not only are their performances going to be worse, but you are going to have to sit them out of games and play a worse bowler, either due to injuries or the fear of injuries. We saw this with 80s WI- they often played a cleary inferior bowler

From the 2000s on, you might find games when RSA would replace Kallis with a bat, but a lot of the time they would be fielding some dire AR in his place.

Kallis has a workload on average of 10 overs an innings. More than that and you can assume it will affect his batting performance since it's not his classic role. As Kallis evolved into a worldclass bat as his career progressed, his bowling load decreased.

I will admit there are team formations in which Kallis would be more valuable than Tendulkar. I am just assuming that we have a reasonably good team with four main competent bowlers and Kallis is supporting them. I don't see that role as dramatically impacting games.

Sobers would be different since he was a proper fourth bowler.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

pollock vs mcgrath would be interesting