Sachin Tendulkar vs Jacques Kallis

[honestbharani]

Yeah but he would also put Katich and Watson ahead of both SRT and Lara.
(joke)

Yeah coz they are openers, they would obviously bat 1 and 2 Lara 3 and SRT 4.

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

I think this is key. Kallis did tend to rack up the DNBs. Strangely though, they wouldn't tend to be in both innings of a match, but light bowling loads are a hallmark of his career.

For mine I do think he has quality which makes up for that, so to me he's a great "borderline" batting focused allrounder, rather than a great out and out allrounder, whereas I'd be less hesitant to call Sobers an out and out allrounder due to his bowling volume (think Kallis had a slightly better bowling impact though).

 

[Bolo.]

I think this is key. Kallis did tend to rack up the DNBs. Strangely though, they wouldn't tend to be in both innings of a match, but light bowling loads are a hallmark of his career.

For mine I do think he has quality which makes up for that, so to me he's a great "borderline" batting focused allrounder, rather than a great out and out allrounder, whereas I'd be less hesitant to call Sobers an out and out allrounder due to his bowling volume (think Kallis had a slightly better bowling impact though).

The end of his career was peak Philander and Steyn. There were a lot of innings where at least one of them absolutely ripped through the opposition. Even Morkel's SR is 53, which faster than a lot of ATGs.

Plenty of times when there was no work for the 4th/5th bowler to do- basically needs the bowlers to be having an off day on a spicy pitch.

 

[subshakerz]

The end of his career was peak Philander and Steyn. There were a lot of innings where at least one of them absolutely ripped through the opposition. Even Morkel's SR is 53, which faster than a lot of ATGs.

Plenty of times when there was no work for the 4th/5th bowler to do- basically needs the bowlers to be having an off day on a spicy pitch.

Beginning of his career was peak Donald and Pollock and he was averaging 2 wickets a test.

 

[Bolo.]

Beginning of his career was peak Donald and Pollock and he was averaging 2 wickets a test.

It's comment on the number of DNBs, not WPM. Pollock and Donald took their wickets very regularly. Steyn and Philander took theirs in clumps.

Whatever the relative quality of the attacks, Steyn struck faster than Donald. Philander and Morkel both struck faster than Pollock.

His amount of playing time obviously impacted WPM more at the end though. It's a pretty short list of quicks with > 50% of his games. Of those, only I think only Hammond was a bat. And he only took 3 wickets in his last (war interrupted) decade.

 

[subshakerz]

It's comment on the number of DNBs, not WPM. Pollock and Donald took their wickets very regularly. Steyn and Philander took theirs in clumps.

Whatever the relative quality of the attacks, Steyn struck faster than Donald. Philander and Morkel both struck faster than Pollock.

His amount of playing time obviously impacted WPM more at the end though. It's a pretty short list of quicks with > 50% of his games. Of those, only I think only Hammond was a bat. And he only took 3 wickets in his last (war interrupted) decade.

I saw him at the beginning of his career and he was a lot quicker, sharper and more dangerous than the last one third. I think that accounts for the difference more than this info.

 

[Bolo.]

I saw him at the beginning of his career and he was a lot quicker, sharper and more dangerous than the last one third. I think that accounts for the difference more than this info.

Unless you think slowing down has nothing to do with playing 167 tests, you have just paraphrased my last paragraph.

 

[subshakerz]

Unless you think slowing down has nothing to do with playing 167 tests, you have just paraphrased my last paragraph.

I don't think we disagree then.

 

[kyear2]

I defend him because he is a great player that people like yourself talk bullshit about... and yes as a SA supporter I like to defend the players that I have watched throughout their career. Unlike yourself who makes things up about players you know obviously little about but think your own opinion is greater than all others. And I certainly don't need for people like you to feel sorry for me.

Exactly this.

Things never change, and of course the reason Kallis is the target of his "critiques".

 

[kyear2]

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.

Inherently not true.

You need a fifth bowler, period. It's for the rotation, keeping you bowlers rested, etc etc. It's the only non primary skill for which there's an allocated spot for team selection.

 

[Johan]

Sachin Tendulkar

 

[kyear2]

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

This is the crux of the matter. I generally go with the better specialists, for teams and rankings. The little extra that the better specialists brings is often more than the stats convey.

And even with his bowling alone, don't think that's enough to get past Sachin. The fact though that he was very likely a top 10 slip catcher of all time and was just as valuable there as he was bowling, it really makes it a difficult choice.

That it's so difficult though is testament to how great Sachin was as a batsman alone.

 

[subshakerz]

Inherently not true.

You need a fifth bowler, period. It's for the rotation, keeping you bowlers rested, etc etc. It's the only non primary skill for which there's an allocated spot for team selection.

You need a fifth bowling option and mostly it's a part timer.

It doesn't mean you need a specialist 5th bowler. That's a luxury. Don't conflate.

Because they mostly bowl a limited number of rest overs in the majority , the marginal value of having a more quality 5th bowling option is less than a quality lower order bat who bats every innings.

 

[subshakerz]

This is the crux of the matter. I generally go with the better specialists, for teams and rankings. The little extra that the better specialists brings is often more than the stats convey.

Yeah you don't mind contradicting your stated position on the importance of specialists now that it is Kallis and not Imran.

Fact is Tendulkar is batting key no.4 in most sides and replacing an aggressive bat like him who is the best since Bradman with a bat who is at best top 15 in your listing and lacks the ability to accelerate and dominate attacks is a far worse tradeoff than getting some extra rest overs. You have literally compromised your batting core.

Kallis' bowling outside minnows is nowhere near as impressive as you are making it out to be and kicking the no.2 bat of all time out of your side for slips is just silly frankly.

 

[DrWolverine]

Better cricketer? Kallis

Jacques Kallis is slightly behind Sachin with the bat but more than makes up for it with his bowling and slip fielding

 

[DrWolverine]

In an all time great team where I have the likes of Richard Hadlee & Muttiah Muralitharan, I may not need the bowling ability of Jacques Kallis.

Sachin is my choice in all time great team since he is arguably the greatest batsman since Don.

That being said Jacques Kallis is a better test cricketer. A batsman with 13000+ runs and 45 centuries at an average of 55 with the ability to bowl at 90mph who has taken almost 300 wickets at an average of 32 and on top of it a great slip fielder with 200+ catches. Amazing.

 

[subshakerz]

In an all time great team where I have the likes of Richard Hadlee & Muttiah Muralitharan, I may not need the bowling ability of Jacques Kallis.

Sachin is my choice in all time great team since he is arguably the greatest batsman since Don.

That being said Jacques Kallis is a better test cricketer. A batsman with 13000+ runs and 45 centuries at an average of 55 with the ability to bowl at 90mph who has taken almost 300 wickets at an average of 32 and on top of it a great slip fielder with 200+ catches. Amazing.

It kinda goes to how we rate Kallis as a bat and bowler. I view rating Kallis over Tendulkar as akin to rating Pollock over McGrath. I know folks here rate Kallis' batting higher than Pollocks bowling though to me they aren't far off.

If we just reduce it to raw numbers I can say a bowler with over 400 wickets averaging 23 and over 3000 runs averaging 32 with tons should easily be ahead of a McGrath. But we know that's just reductive.

As for Kallis and slips, this is an overdone point and frankly somehow we only bring in fielding for ARs which is inconsistent.

ABD was an even better slip catcher and fielder than Kallis and could keep on top of that. Yet few are going to factor that in and rate him a better cricketer than more accomplished bats.

 

[Bolo.]

It kinda goes to how we rate Kallis as a bat and bowler. I view rating Kallis over Tendulkar as akin to rating Pollock over McGrath. I know folks here rate Kallis' batting higher than Pollocks bowling though to me they aren't far off.

If we just reduce it to raw numbers I can say a bowler with over 400 wickets averaging 23 and over 3000 runs averaging 32 should easily be ahead of a McGrath. But we know that's just reductive.

For the period the were both top quality in primary, Kallis isn't far ahead of Pollock. But Kallis was top quality for twice as long. We wouldn't rate Mcgrath anywhere near that highly if his peak was chopped in half.

Kallis was more talented and more valuable than Pollock in secondary.

It's a poor comparison.

 

[Thala_0710]

For the period the were both top quality in primary, Kallis isn't far ahead of Pollock. But Kallis was top quality for twice as long. We wouldn't rate Mcgrath anywhere near that highly if his peak was chopped in half.

Kallis was more talented and more valuable than Pollock in secondary.

It's a poor comparison.

I think it's quite debatable whether Kallis' bowling is of more value than Pollock's batting. I think I would agree that Kallis was a slightly better bowl than Pollock as a bat but just in the nature of the roles, a 4/5th bowler vs 7/8th bat. Either way it's close. But I would take McGrath over Pollock and Sachin over Kallis too, and probably most people would have while their careers were ongoing

 

[subshakerz]

For the period the were both top quality in primary, Kallis isn't far ahead of Pollock. But Kallis was top quality for twice as long. We wouldn't rate Mcgrath anywhere near that highly if his peak was chopped in half.

Kallis was more talented and more valuable than Pollock in secondary.

It's a poor comparison.

It's pretty ridiculous to compare career or peak duration of a fast bowler with a bat. You might as well rate Kallis ahead of Marshall by this standard. Pollock took 310 wickets @20 in 70 tests in his peak btw.

I already acknowledged that Kallis as a bat is ahead of Pollock as a bowler but it's marginal.

As for secondary disciplines, apparently everyone can see Pollock has a soft batting record but few can acknowledge that for Kallis with his minnow bashing.

Regardless, my main point stands. We wouldnt entertain Pollock over McGrath based on raw numbers of wickets and runs nor should we Kallis over Tendulkar.