I don't believe that Boycott is a full tier behind Kallis. A bit behind but not so far. Kallis had the chance to boost his number v Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at the start of those countries test playing years, when often they were so way behind adequate test match level. He averages 79 v Banglas and nearly 170 v Zim. Boycott never had the chance to play against opposition as weak as those and Kallis also averaged 73 against West Indies. Windies sadly, by the time Kallis got to play against them hardly had a fast bowler worthy of that name for many years, which is a night and day comparison to whom Boycott was up against.
Boycs had a chance to cash in against NZ before Hadlee was properly good but couldn’t manage too.
I’m not sure he really had the career to be rated in the same class as Kallis tbh. Kallis averaged like 61 over a 136 test stretch which is still significantly longer than boycotts entire career. Unsure of whether he’s closer to Kallis and Sehwag tho.
I simply don't agree that bagging loads of runs against weak bowling to boost the record does what you think it does. In a different era, where Boycott played fewer games and a higher proportion of his matches against the best teams, Boycott's record stands up well. We simply don't know exactly what he would have got if he had the chance to play against some of the very weakest sides that Kallis did. I take the point that his efforts v NZ without Hadlee were somewhat disappointing, but the other side of the coin is that I think you are devaluing his efforts against the two high quality sides he did play against. In that aspect alone, he is far closer to Kallis, indeed his record against the two leading fast bowling sides is quite something, especially given the era.
Sometimes Kallis could have been seen to be that way, especially in the 5th test of the SA v England series in 2004/5.
Much rarer. Kallis had a few moments he failed to accelerate; but Boycott batting was detrimental much more often.
Eh, I'd take a 35-40sr opener in England/Newzealand very happily. a Slow opener can take the shine off the ball, can counteract the early swing and render the strike bowlers of the opposition tired, it's not a bad thing at all.
Given the performance of the other batsmen in the side in that innings I’d say he more likely saved them a match.
Can't find the s/r for Boycott and yes I agree that he was definitely slow, even for his era, but I wouldn't have called Kallis quick, he was circa 46, in an era where many good players were closer to 60.
Definitely not fast but for most of his career he was around 50 which is pretty healthy IMO. I prefer it to Boycott’s 35 personally.