Brian Lara vs Jacques Kallis

[kyear2]

In actual real games, this meant losing Kallis plus another bat as the team brought more bowling in. Only Bradman is worth this kind of sacrifice.

Not to mention the 200 catches, which is for some reason is oft forgotten.

 

[sayon basak]

Sachin the batsman > Kallis the batsman
Kallis the cricketer > Every batsman except Don
Same applies to Gary Sobers except it is >>

I would rate SRT, Hobbs, Richards, Marshall (and maybe Murali) ahead of Kallis.

 

[kyear2]

I would rate SRT, Hobbs, Richards, Marshall (and maybe Murali) ahead of Kallis.

I would add Lara, McGrath, Hammond to that list.

 

[DrWolverine]

There is a difference in batting between Sachin/Richards over Kallis

That difference is not bigger than the value Jack bring with his bowling and slip fielding.

 

[Bolo.]

Not to mention the 200 catches, which is for some reason is oft forgotten.

I don't rate catching as highly in player assessments as you. But catching might be enough for the 4 top 2000s bats to pull ahead of Lara as a player. He's better as a bat, but not by a big margin.

 

[subshakerz]

The highlighted part is the exact opposite to reality. The no. 8 spot isn't designated as an all rounder spot, rather just the best bat among the bowlers. There is however a designated spot in every team and selection scenario that calls for an all rounder, ie. 5th bowler.

To clarify bro, I never said no.8 is a designated AR spot for normal teams, but no.8 is expected to have batting ability at least to the level of useful tailender. So Warne or Marshall is good enough at no.8 for normal teams.

In an ATG team context, that batting ability will be near or at AR level rather than useful tailender.

I think you would agree rather than having a tail of bunnies.

And as I've said, a competent no. 8, 5th bowler and 2nd slip are all equally integral parts of any team. Don't know what makes the no. 8 more important than the others, especially considering it's the one most likely to fail in said task.

That's your call. Logically though they should be of different values.

In the real world I have seen far more harm to having a bunny tail than a less competent 5th bowler. Virtually every team has a no.8 who at least is a useful tailender.

Let's not debate slips now.

 

[Coronis]

Yes though as we have discussed I view a competent no.8 bat as slightly more important than a competent no.5 bowler. Its a designated spot for the team.

This is just really poor

 

[DrWolverine]

He's better as a bat, but not by a big margin.

True

 

[ankitj]

Lara has great peak, ability to make big scores and some ATG series over Kallis. In every other respect Kallis has him covered. Close call. Now watch people lose their ****

 

[subshakerz]

This is just really poor

I think that is the heart of our difference.

I see the harm of a bunny tail more than a bad 5th bowler.

 

[Coronis]

I think that is the heart of our difference.

I see the harm of a bunny tail more than a bad 5th bowler.

Calling a #8 batsmen a “designated spot for the team” and implying a 5th bowler isn’t is about the height of ignorance

 

[DrWolverine]

Lara has great peak, ability to make big scores and some ATG series over Kallis. In every other respect Kallis has him covered. Close call. Now watch people lose their ****

Kallis had a few ATG series as well. I remember him scoring 700+ runs in a series once.

But yeah agree with everything you said.

 

[subshakerz]

Calling a #8 batsmen a “designated spot for the team” and implying a 5th bowler isn’t is about the height of ignorance

Fair enough, maybe designated was the wrong word. It's more of an expectation.

I am just saying a team would be less likely to compromise for a weak tail than a fifth fifth bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis had a few ATG series as well. I remember him scoring 700+ runs in a series once.

But yeah agree with everything you said.

High scoring series are not automatically ATG.

 

[DrWolverine]

If you score 712 runs in 6 innings with 4
centuries and 1 fifty, it is an all time great series.

Just because he doesn’t have fans or it is less spoken about it doesn’t make it less great.

He also took 8 wickets as well in those 4 Tests

 

[Coronis]

If you score 712 runs in 6 innings with 4
centuries and 1 fifty, it is an all time great series.

Just because he doesn’t have fans or it is less spoken about it doesn’t make it less great.

He also took 8 wickets as well in those 4 Tests

Was only a 4 match series too so no excuses tor Tendulkar. Even Kallis can make 500+.

 

[Dendarii]

Not to mention the 200 catches, which is for some reason is oft forgotten.

Number of catches isn't the most useful metric when comparing players as it's a function of many things, including the number of matches played and the ability of the bowling attack to create catching opportunities.

 

[Coronis]

iirc Lara has a few catches himself.

 

[kyear2]

I don't rate catching as highly in player assessments as you. But catching might be enough for the 4 top 2000s bats to pull ahead of Lara as a player. He's better as a bat, but not by a big margin.

I'm not altogether sure who you mean.

Kallis was definitely better than Lara, Ponting possibly as well, but Lara was an accomplished slip fielder as well, with an immaculate technique. I don't recall Sanga in the slips and I don't rate Dravid any better than him.

Plus I rate Lara closer to Sachin than those guys close to him. Ponting may have come closest though.

 

[kyear2]

To clarify bro, I never said no.8 is a designated AR spot for normal teams, but no.8 is expected to have batting ability at least to the level of useful tailender. So Warne or Marshall is good enough at no.8 for normal teams.

In an ATG team context, that batting ability will be near or at AR level rather than useful tailender.

I think you would agree rather than having a tail of bunnies.


That's your call. Logically though they should be of different values.

In the real world I have seen far more harm to having a bunny tail than a less competent 5th bowler. Virtually every team has a no.8 who at least is a useful tailender.

Let's not debate slips now.

Want to address every point.

For most of history, I don't believe most teams picked their attacks taking batting into consideration. You just align them in the order of their ability.

Again, there's a split even here on whether or not batting even factors into AT bowling selections, the last time we did a vote, Hadlee and McGrath tied for 2nd, Imran and Wasim was a fair bit behind tied for 4th.

True no one wants a tail of bunnies, no one wants a 5th bowler that relives pressure and gets taken apart or a slip cordon that drops everything either.

Umm, that's interesting. If your team is harmed and actively negatively impacted by your tail, I would suggest that you have bigger middle order issues, but yeah. There's no doubt that the tail can from time to time provide some useful runs and save a match, but it's not something that's they're consistently relied upon for.

A poor fifth bowler on the other hand can derail an entire attack. If they come on and gets taken apart, it relieves pressure, gets the batsmen into a rhythm and if they have to be taken off, totally wrecks the rotation and forces either a worse bowler into action, or one of your primary guys back sooner than you would like. And yes, every attack needs at least 5 useable options.

It's weirdly coincident that as I'm writing this and rewatching the play from last night that it was mentioned that Australia dropped 74% of chances in the last series which was the highest percentage since 2008, and they lost the series. I find it hard to believe, that anything of these 3 disciplines causes more real world harm, that having a cordon that drops everything, or even half of everything.

So yeah, in terms of causing real world harm, think having a competent no. 8 may actually be last.

In terms of having real world positive impact they may all be equal.

Yes, virtually every team has a useful tailender, most also have a decent 5th and cordon etc. though I would prefer the cordon to be considerably better than decent.

Just because the masses repeats something, doesn't make it true. Guys like Hammond and Kallis who contributed to two of those fields are are just as useful if not more so than those no. 8 guys that are so revered here.