Jacques Kallis vs Jack Hobbs

[subshakerz]

Define dominate

Get on top of attacks once he is settled in like you would expect from your best bat at number four in a pretty good batting lineup.

www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-enigma-called-jacques-kallis-231837%3fplatform=amp

The stat that best illustrates Kallis's tendency to cruise in second or third gear instead of imposing himself on the game - something that all great batsmen tend to do - is his scoring rate in innings when he gets to hundreds. In his 23 Test centuries, he has only scored at 48 runs per 100 balls, nowhere near the rates of Sachin Tendulkar (59.5), Inzamam-ul-Haq (61.5), Ricky Ponting (63) or Brian Lara (70). Among today's top players, Kallis's rate is closest to Rahul Dravid's (49.75), but in a line-up filled with extravagant strokeplayers, Dravid plays a specific, and much-needed, anchoring role. In a South African line-up loaded with grafters, Kallis, as the best batsman of the side, has often failed to impose himself - and thus his team - upon the opposition. Here's another damning stat: in the 15 centuries he has scored since September 2001, even after he's got a hundred against his name, Kallis only cruises along at a scoring rate of 57.54, that's less than the career strike rates of Ponting and Lara.

 

[Coronis]

Get on top of attacks once he is settled in like you would expect from your best bat at number four in a pretty good batting lineup.

www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-enigma-called-jacques-kallis-231837%3fplatform=amp

The stat that best illustrates Kallis's tendency to cruise in second or third gear instead of imposing himself on the game - something that all great batsmen tend to do - is his scoring rate in innings when he gets to hundreds. In his 23 Test centuries, he has only scored at 48 runs per 100 balls, nowhere near the rates of Sachin Tendulkar (59.5), Inzamam-ul-Haq (61.5), Ricky Ponting (63) or Brian Lara (70). Among today's top players, Kallis's rate is closest to Rahul Dravid's (49.75), but in a line-up filled with extravagant strokeplayers, Dravid plays a specific, and much-needed, anchoring role. In a South African line-up loaded with grafters, Kallis, as the best batsman of the side, has often failed to impose himself - and thus his team - upon the opposition. Here's another damning stat: in the 15 centuries he has scored since September 2001, even after he's got a hundred against his name, Kallis only cruises along at a scoring rate of 57.54, that's less than the career strike rates of Ponting and Lara.

Would you also then consider players such as Hammond, Hutton, Gavaskar, Sutcliffe, Headley all not dominant and therefore not ATGs too?

I think describing dominance in terms of scoring rate is silly btw.

 

[kyear2]

Get on top of attacks once he is settled in like you would expect from your best bat at number four in a pretty good batting lineup.

www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-enigma-called-jacques-kallis-231837%3fplatform=amp

The stat that best illustrates Kallis's tendency to cruise in second or third gear instead of imposing himself on the game - something that all great batsmen tend to do - is his scoring rate in innings when he gets to hundreds. In his 23 Test centuries, he has only scored at 48 runs per 100 balls, nowhere near the rates of Sachin Tendulkar (59.5), Inzamam-ul-Haq (61.5), Ricky Ponting (63) or Brian Lara (70). Among today's top players, Kallis's rate is closest to Rahul Dravid's (49.75), but in a line-up filled with extravagant strokeplayers, Dravid plays a specific, and much-needed, anchoring role. In a South African line-up loaded with grafters, Kallis, as the best batsman of the side, has often failed to impose himself - and thus his team - upon the opposition. Here's another damning stat: in the 15 centuries he has scored since September 2001, even after he's got a hundred against his name, Kallis only cruises along at a scoring rate of 57.54, that's less than the career strike rates of Ponting and Lara.

That's a bit hypocritical, bit to add inaccurate.

Can't praise one and condemn the other when they played the same role. And I rate Kallis well ahead of Dravid due to the quality of home pitches Kallis had to endure.

And SA did have Smith and de Villiers among others who were very aggressive scorers.

 

[kyear2]

Would you also then consider players such as Hammond, Hutton, Gavaskar, Sutcliffe, Headley all not dominant and therefore not ATGs too?

I think describing dominance in terms of scoring rate is silly btw.

It really isn't, and getting tired of this argument.

I'm not saying all batsmen have to be the same, but to pretend that there isn't a benefit to being able to accelerate or change the course of a game in a session isn't a benefit is equally silly.

The goal of any skill in any sport is to do the opposite of what the opposition wants to accomplish, and one major thing that bowlers and a bowling team s try to accomplish is to keep the scoring rate as low as possible.

A Barry Richards can do more damage in a session and and put the attack on the back foot in ways that Hutton nor Sutcliffe never could. The ability to score runs quickly isn't purely for cosmetic purposes, it puts the bowlers off their lines, not allowing them to settle, forces bowling changes, field placements and sets the tone for the entire innings.

Viv could and did change the course of matches in a few overs far less a session and was without doubt the 2nd most important factor for one of the two greatest teams of all time, and a session of him and his namesake could (and have) demoralize an attack and set up a victory when the result was previously in doubt.

A session of Sobers and Richards can change a game in a way that most players in history just couldn't. You can't under estimate a captain having to cycle through plans A to E like a Ferrari pit wall. There's a place for all types in the game, but this denial of this benefit is disingenuous.

 

[Coronis]

It really isn't, and getting tired of this argument.

I'm not saying all batsmen have to be the same, but to pretend that there isn't a benefit to being able to accelerate or change the course of a game in a session isn't a benefit is equally silly.

The goal of any skill in any sport is to do the opposite of what the opposition wants to accomplish, and one major thing that bowlers and a bowling team s try to accomplish is to keep the scoring rate as low as possible.

A Barry Richards can do more damage in a session and and put the attack on the back foot in ways that Hutton nor Sutcliffe never could. The ability to score runs quickly isn't purely for cosmetic purposes, it puts the bowlers off their lines, not allowing them to settle, forces bowling changes, field placements and sets the tone for the entire innings.

Viv could and did change the course of matches in a few overs far less a session and was without doubt the 2nd most important factor for one of the two greatest teams of all time, and a session of him and his namesake could (and have) demoralize an attack and set up a victory when the result was previously in doubt.

A session of Sobers and Richards can change a game in a way that most players in history just couldn't. You can't under estimate a captain having to cycle through plans A to E like a Ferrari pit wall. There's a place for all types in the game, but this denial of this benefit is disingenuous.

It can be a benefit sure. It can also be a detriment, which is apparently impossible to grasp. Note I never said that a high strike rate was a bad thing. I also said describing dominance in terms of strike rate is silly and I’ll stand by that. I think you could equally dominate an attack by grinding the bowlers into exhaustion. If you’ve made the bowlers all bowl an extra 10 or 15 overs they’re going to be far more fatigued and worse for wear in their second innings imo.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It can be a benefit sure. It can also be a detriment, which is apparently impossible to grasp. Note I never said that a high strike rate was a bad thing. I also said describing dominance in terms of strike rate is silly and I’ll stand by that. I think you could equally dominate an attack by grinding the bowlers into exhaustion. If you’ve made the bowlers all bowl an extra 10 or 15 overs they’re going to be far more fatigued and worse for wear in their second innings imo.

This. Thanks.

 

[kyear2]

It can be a benefit sure. It can also be a detriment, which is apparently impossible to grasp. Note I never said that a high strike rate was a bad thing. I also said describing dominance in terms of strike rate is silly and I’ll stand by that. I think you could equally dominate an attack by grinding the bowlers into exhaustion. If you’ve made the bowlers all bowl an extra 10 or 15 overs they’re going to be far more fatigued and worse for wear in their second innings imo.

You can also do that scoring at a rate that also makes it harder for them to work themselves into their lines and stay on plan.

What you're describing is a stalemate with little list by the bowling team but time, the alternative is being "dominated", placed on the back foot and scrambling for alternative plans.

Even during his time Hutton was criticized for not dominating his opponents, the reason Gilchrist was seen as a cheat code and dangerous was his s/r not his average.

There's a tremendous value to someone who can consistently contribute Ang do so at an accelerated rate.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You can also do that scoring at a rate that also makes it harder for them to work themselves into their lines and stay on plan.

What you're describing is a stalemate with little list by the bowling team but time, the alternative is being "dominated", placed on the back foot and scrambling for alternative plans.

Even during his time Hutton was criticized for not dominating his opponents, the reason Gilchrist was seen as a cheat code and dangerous was his s/r not his average.

There's a tremendous value to someone who can consistently contribute Ang do so at an accelerated rate.

And there is tremendous value to someone who can stick to the wicket, provide valuable runs and wear down opposition bowlers.

 

[kyear2]

And there is tremendous value to someone who can stick to the wicket, provide valuable runs and wear down opposition bowlers.

You have a choice of Hutton and Sutcliffe or Bradman and Richards at the crease for an entire session, which are you choosing for your team?

Or let's not even go that far, Barry and Hutton or Hutton and Sutcliffe,.which are you choosing for a test match you have to win.

This pretense that while both has their merits, that one isn't more valuable than the next is bordering on delusion.

 

[kyear2]

By the way, Bradman and Sobers can bat out a day to save you a match, can Sutcliffe and Hutton accelerate as needed to win a run chase on the 5th day? Or even set a quick foundation for the guys to come?

 

[capt_Luffy]

You have a choice of Hutton and Sutcliffe or Bradman and Richards at the crease for an entire session, which are you choosing for your team?

Or let's not even go that far, Barry and Hutton or Hutton and Sutcliffe,.which are you choosing for a test match you have to win.

This pretense that while both has their merits, that one isn't more valuable than the next is bordering on delusion.

Bradman makes the 1st discussion irrelevant.
I would choose the batsman who had proved himself in the highest level.
The pretense that, "Oh my God, just attack" is also delusional, as was the strawman of picking between combos of two defensive players and an attacking and a defensive player, with no mention to match situation.

 

[kyear2]

Bradman makes the 1st discussion irrelevant.
I would choose the batsman who had proved himself in the highest level.
The pretense that, "Oh my God, just attack" is also delusional, as was the strawman of picking between combos of two defensive players and an attacking and a defensive player, with no mention to match situation.

Where did I say just attack?

And I did mention match situation, chasing down a total on day 5 of a test.

Outside of trying to save a match against insurmountable odds, again on day 5, is scoring runs slower an advantage? Even then, counter attacking can help to relax attacking fields and remove catchers.

And again, even the great attacking batsmen could shut down and try to save a match, guys like Hutton, Sutcliffe, Boycott struggled to do the reverse.

That's the difference and gap in ability and value.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Where did I say just attack?

And I did mention match situation, chasing down a total on day 5 of a test.

Outside of trying to save a match against insurmountable odds, again on day 5, is scoring runs slower an advantage? Even then, counter attacking can help to relax attacking fields and remove catchers.

And again, even the great attacking batsmen could shut down and try to save a match, guys like Hutton, Sutcliffe, Boycott struggled to do the reverse.

That's the difference and gap in ability and value.

Nope. Counter attacking has a much higher risk factor and any captain with a backbone won't loose up the field.
And also, great attacking batsmen shutting down for their life is also very rare. The difference in ability is your biased perception above all else.

 

[kyear2]

Nope. Counter attacking has a much higher risk factor and any captain with a backbone won't loose up the field.
And also, great attacking batsmen shutting down for their life is also very rare. The difference in ability is your biased perception above all else.

Think you meant higher requirement of ability.

Barry, Viv, Lara, Tendulkar, Sobers, Smith etc... were all capable of, and had examples of "shutting shop" and playing for survival.

Where do we have examples of Boycott, Sutcliffe or Hutton upping the rate as required?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Think you meant higher requirement of ability.

Barry, Viv, Lara, Tendulkar, Sobers, Smith etc... were all capable of, and had examples of "shutting shop" and playing for survival.

Where do we have examples of Boycott, Sutcliffe or Hutton upping the rate as required?

Nope, I meant a higher degree of concentration. None of Sachin, Smith and Sobers are really that fast of a scorer, not to mention. Give me a good survival story of Richards and Ponting, I can give you a good counter attacking one of Gavaskar and Dravid.....

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Gavaskar had a few innings where he dominated Marshall and Holding

 

[sayon basak]

Gavaskar had a few innings where he dominated Marshall and Holding

Yeah he did.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah he did.

Man, I love that Holding bowling action!!

 

[kyear2]

Nope, I meant a higher degree of concentration. None of Sachin, Smith and Sobers are really that fast of a scorer, not to mention. Give me a good survival story of Richards and Ponting, I can give you a good counter attacking one of Gavaskar and Dravid.....

There are multiple innings of Richards slowing down and taking a more defensive posture. One of those was an unbeaten hundred in and vs Pakistan where he scored 120 no at a s/r of 45 on a worn pitch vs a rampaging Imran where he scored half of the team's runs and was the only person who scored over 60 in the match. The team was collapsing around him and he held firm.

Punter in '99, scored 104 at a s/r of 35 to rescue the team from an initial collapse vs Ambrose and Walsh. Ponting also wasn't that much faster a scorer than Smith / Sobers etc.

Re Sachin, Smith and Sobers, and yes Ponting, that's my point. They could regularly either go defensive, score moderately or attack all out and dominate a game.

To say that guys like Sutcliffe or Hutton scored slowly because they had a higher degree of concentration, not because they were incapable or unwilling to do so.

Seriously though, you think I takes.more "skill" to exhibit concentration or to be able to consistently destroy attacks?

 

[capt_Luffy]

There are multiple innings of Richards slowing down and taking a more defensive posture. One of those was an unbeaten hundred in and vs Pakistan where he scored 120 no at a s/r of 45 on a worn pitch vs a rampaging Imran where he scored half of the team's runs and was the only person who scored over 60 in the match. The team was collapsing around him and he held firm.

Punter in '99, scored 104 at a s/r of 35 to rescue the team from an initial collapse vs Ambrose and Walsh. Ponting also wasn't that much faster a scorer than Smith / Sobers etc.

Re Sachin, Smith and Sobers, and yes Ponting, that's my point. They could regularly either go defensive, score moderately or attack all out and dominate a game.

To say that guys like Sutcliffe or Hutton scored slowly because they had a higher degree of concentration, not because they were incapable or unwilling to do so.

Seriously though, you think I takes.more "skill" to exhibit concentration or to be able to consistently destroy attacks?

A SR of 45 is not "slow". Anyways, the Gavaskar example was provided already.
Sachin, Smith and Sobers don't necessarily even compares that well as fast scoring players like Richards. They scored at a reasonable rate, Lara was fast scoring, but not that fast generally.
Yes, Sutcliffe and Hutton scored slowly because that worked the best for them. They were champion players with an excess of memorable innings and honestly, I haven't even read of a situation where they needed to score fast but didn't. Read of those of Boycott, can criticize him for that, but show me a match Hutton failed England to win/draw for scoring slowly and this discussion will have merit.
No, I think both require different sets of skills and saying one of Richards or Hutton was more skillful is delusional imo.