Jacques Kallis vs Kumar Sangakkara ( as Test batsmen )

[subshakerz]

No we didn’t?

Yes by bringing up others players performing in SA.

Did you even watch that match?

Yes unfortunately. Did you?

 

[Cricket Bliss]

End of the day though, I expect Kallis to do well at home. Granted he did exceptionally well but I don't see why this point is the clincher given that he faced a mix of attacks at home, and performed to different levels against them.

Posters here are pretending that Kallis consistently faced Donald and Pollock at home or something. He averaged 33 against Australia at home and cashed in mostly against the weaker attacks. Yes, in bowling friendly conditions, to his credit, but not the same thing as Ponting or Tendulkar coming as tourists.

And you pretend as if he only performed well in minnows apart from home conditions…
No South African averaged 58 in India and 83 in Pakistan… even today surviving in sub continent for a South African batsman is difficult , even for SENA batsmen….

 

[subshakerz]

I was a bit disappointed by his record against SENA teams. He has even less hundreds against Aus, Eng, and SA than KW.

Because he played them less.

 

[Coronis]

Yes by bringing up others players performing in SA.

His performance was compared to other South African’s who faced the same attacks.

Yes unfortunately. Did you?

Yes, and if you think Kallis somehow cost South Africa that match you are an absolute moron

 

[capt_Luffy]

Ok but you would have rated him higher, no?

Would you rate Sangakkara higher had never kept wickets and averaged 65+ ? Arbitrary question.

 

[Bolo.]

It's a weird thing to say about a bloke who has 45 test hundreds but Kallis left a lot of runs out on the table ..

Of his 45 Test hundreds only 2 were converted to double hundreds which came at the back end of his career ..

Sangakkara converted 11 of his 38 test tons to 200+ scores ..


I think this is where Sanga edges Kallis , the appetite to score huge runs once in, like really demoralise the opposition, he never really had that in him ..Nice problem to have though !

Ya, Kallis left runs on the table, partly by failing to accelerate when set, particularly early career.

Scoring a double hundred is typically going to be a pretty crappy substitute for 2 hundreds though. The bigger the score, the greater the odds of it being wanker runs. Sanga's doubles were typically against very weak attacks/attacks that were very weak in the conditions, and him scoring a hundred less runs would not have had an impact on result for almost all of them.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

End of the day though, I expect Kallis to do well at home. Granted he did exceptionally well but I don't see why this point is the clincher given that he faced a mix of attacks at home, and performed to different levels against them.

Posters here are pretending that Kallis consistently faced Donald and Pollock at home or something. He averaged 33 against Australia at home and cashed in mostly against the weaker attacks. Yes, in bowling friendly conditions, to his credit, but not the same thing as Ponting or Tendulkar coming as tourists.

Kallis averaged 48 in Australia… averaging nearly 50 in Australia against the likes of Warne, McGrath etc is definitely impressive

 

[OverratedSanity]

If Sanga averaged 60, then people would.

Is your position that Ponting's time of retirement wouldn't change his rating at all? It's painfully.obvious his rating went down based on the less productive five career end years.

This is a weak hearted way to argue anything, dont use how some random collection of people would have thought to make your point. Tell us how you would have rated Ponting.

 

[subshakerz]

This is a weak hearted way to argue anything, dont use how some random collection of people would have thought to make your point. Tell us how you would have rated Ponting.

Definitely would have rated Ponting higher, in the top ten, but not as high as Tendulkar personally.

 

[Socerer 01]

Sangakkara retired with an average of 57.4; I don't think their are many who rate him higher than Sachin.

you would be surprised at how many people do this for Sangakkara and Kallis

 

[subshakerz]

Ya, Kallis left runs on the table, partly by failing to accelerate when set, particularly early career.

Scoring a double hundred is typically going to be a pretty crappy substitute for 2 hundreds though. The bigger the score, the greater the odds of it being wanker runs. Sanga's doubles were typically against very weak attacks/attacks that were very weak in the conditions, and him scoring a hundred less runs would not have had an impact on result for almost all of them.

Sorry but this is a bit unfair on Sanga. Yes, plenty of runs against Bangladesh, but his doubles also include a classic in Pakistan against Shoaib, a matchsaving one in UAE against Ajmal, one in NZ too. Contrast that with Kallis who only has two at home against Ind/SL attacks.

Also, Sanga's ratio of hundreds overall is pretty much equal to Kallis I believe. He just was more capable of piling on more which along with his aggression made him a bigger threat frankly

 

[subshakerz]

you would be surprised at how many people do this for Sangakkara and Kallis

Yes. If Kallis never played Bang/Zimb and ended up averaging 52/53, he would instantly be downgraded here.

 

[capt_Luffy]

you would be surprised at how many people do this for Sangakkara and Kallis

I know that people out there do this; but hardly anyone rates them over Tendulkar or Lara. And if someone those, saying their opinion is precious is equivalent to saying Sanjay Manjrekar is an unbiased commentator.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Definitely would have rated Ponting higher, in the top ten, but not as high as Tendulkar personally.

So even you yourself wouldn't rate Ponting as high as Tendulkar but just vaguely gestured at "people" who would have done it as proof that you yourself are wrong? What.

 

[kyear2]

And I don't think I have to prove now that that perception was wrong....

But it wasn't. He was legitimately dominant and consistent. But I guess stat guru dint tell you that.

 

[kyear2]

Not by anyone who actually knew and watched cricket.

No one's saying he was as good, but he was surely in the conversation.

Why does everyone refuse to acknowledge that the guy was seriously good.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's a dumb point even if we assume Ponting was rated on par by people back then. Two decades later, now that we have a full picture of Ponting as a career and hopefully @kyear2 and @subshakerz now agree that he wasn't as good as those two, surely the actual conversation should be that maybe people who rated him on par with Sachin/Lara were incorrect to do so and got a bit carried away. Not reverting back to the 2006 opinion of him as a player which was subsequently proven to be wrong.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

No one's saying he was as good, but he was surely in the conversation.

Why does everyone refuse to acknowledge that the guy was seriously good.

What? No one is saying he wasn’t an ATG. He was one of the top 20 batsmen to play the game.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why does everyone refuse to acknowledge that the guy was seriously good.

Strawman expert at it again. Yes we think Ponting wasn't very good.

 

[subshakerz]

It's a dumb point even if we assume Ponting was rated on par by people back then. Two decades later, now that we have a full picture of Ponting as a career and hopefully @kyear2 and @subshakerz now agree that he wasn't as good as those two, surely the actual conversation should be that maybe people who rated him on par with Sachin/Lara were incorrect to do so and got a bit carried away. Not reverting back to the 2006 opinion of him as a player which was subsequently proven to be wrong.

Bro, Lara/Tendulkar are better now that their careers are over, but it's not like during the course of a career these opinions are set in stone hence the point of bringing up 2006. I don't begrudge those in 2006 for thinking he was on par anymore than I begrudge those after Ashes 2019 for thinking Smith was the best after Bradman.