Sachin Tendulkar vs Jacques Kallis

[akilana]

How the hell is Kallis gaining even more voters?????

because he's going against sachin.

 

[subshakerz]

If the raw numbers are that damn good, that’s good enough for most teams. And it’s not like Lara or Sachin were Bradmanesque.

It's not just runs but how they are scored over a significant length of time.

There is a reason Kallis was nowhere in the conversation for best bat in his absolute peak in the mid-2000s.

 

[sayon basak]

Because he is a great player?

If you really rate Kallis ahead of Sachin (who is supposed to be the best batter after Bradman), then what can I say?

 

[MasterBlaster24]

We are comparing him with Tendulkar in this thread.

Would you keep Kallis as a permanent 3/4th pace bowling option then and expect him to bat at 4 to allow an extra bat in your Indian team? He bowls 20 overs a game on average. Akash Deep bowled twice as much.

It is unfair to compare Kallis to Akashdeep.Because they don't have the same workload when it comes to bowling. Kallis was the team's 4th or 5th bowler, whilst Deep is typically the 2nd or 3rd seamer.
In contrast to earlier times, test matches now hardly ever finish without a result. This is a result of today's extremely bowler-friendly pitches. I believe Kallis fits in really well with the current Indian team given his batting and bowling abilities. Even though Kallis is the team's 3rd seamer and bowls an average of 20 overs per match, it isn't a major issue these days, because test matches end so quickly. Since he is an ATG test batter and improves the team's battling it is not a major problem.

 

[subshakerz]

It is unfair to compare Kallis to Akashdeep.Because they don't have the same workload when it comes to bowling. Kallis was the team's 4th or 5th bowler, whilst Deep is typically the 2nd or 3rd seamer.

Dude the conversation was comparing Akashdeep to Kallis as a replacement for literally just the last series only. That's why I brought up workload.

 

[DrWolverine]

There is a reason Kallis was nowhere in the conversation for best bat in his absolute peak in the mid-2000s.

Kallis was always considered to be Top 3 batsmen in 2000s.

 

[DrWolverine]

If you really rate Kallis ahead of Sachin (who is supposed to be the best batter after Bradman), then what can I say?

As an overall cricketer, yes.

Kallis is a rare talent - A top tier batsman who is also a fast bowler and a great slip fielder as well

 

[sayon basak]

As an overall cricketer, yes.

Kallis is a rare talent - A top tier batsman who is also a fast bowler and a great slip fielder as well

Ok, let me ask you this, where do you rate Kallis in your all time batters list? Top 10?

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis was always considered to be Top 3 batsmen in 2000s.

That's just not true. This is an article written in the middle of his peak and it starts by saying what everyone felt at that time, that despite his pretty numbers Kallis doesn't bat with intent and therefore wasn't hailed like others. In the mid 2000s at the very least Lara, Ponting and Dravid were more rated, likely others I can name too. Kallis was wallpaper in the background.

The enigma called Jacques Kallis

He has played almost 100 Tests, averages nearly 57, has scored runs against allcomers in all conditions, and was recently named the ICC's Player of the Year, but Jacques Kallis has hardly got the kind of acclaim you'd expect a batsman to receive after all

www.espncricinfo.com

Here's another useful article written in the midst of Kallis' peak, which goes to the heart of why he was a timid bat:

"For people who have watched him over the years, though, his approach has often been baffling: despite having almost every stroke at his command - to go with a watertight defensive technique - Kallis seldom dominates bowling attacks the way he should. The innings at Sydney was only the latest example of how he seems to bat in a bubble, oblivious to the team cause - less than a couple of months earlier, Kallis plodded his way to 91 off 146 balls in an ODI against India at Mumbai, as South Africa only managed 221 and ended up losing the match.

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."

This has been my point all along: Kallis was in a reasonably strong lineup of accumulators and his role as main bat called for him to dominate. He didn't and it's to his discredit.

No modern bat this un-dominant deserves to be considered an ATG in this discipline.

 

[DrWolverine]

Ok, let me ask you this, where do you rate Kallis in your all time batters list? Top 10?

All time? Top 15

 

[subshakerz]

The liability with Kallis' ultra conservative batting style have to be stretched over an entire career and then factored in when comparing with real top bats.

 

[sayon basak]

All time? Top 15

Now, don't you think that the batting difference is too much to overcome with the bowling?
Similar case with McGrath and Pollock (or even Marshall and Akram)

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis is around top 15 in my greatest cricketer list at best.

Ahead of him are at least five top tier bats (Bradman, Tendulkar, Hobbs, Viv, Lara), top two pacers (Marshall, McGrath), top two spinners (Murali, Warne) and at least four other ARs (Sobers, Imran, Hadlee, Miller).

 

[DrWolverine]

As a batsman : Sachin > Kallis

As a cricketer : Kallis > Sachin

In ATG team I would pick Sachin over Kallis

Now, don't you think that the batting difference is too much to overcome with the bowling?

If you are talking about Sachin, yes
If you are talking about Lara, no

 

[sayon basak]

If you are talking about Sachin, no.
If you are talking about Lara, yes.

Does that mean you rate Lara ahead of Sachin? Possibly you have mistakenly flipped the statements.

And do you think Wasim Akram is a better cricketer than Marshall?

 

[DrWolverine]

Possibly you have mistakenly flipped the statements.

Yeah

 

[Johan]

Kallis is around top 15 in my greatest cricketer list at best.

Ahead of him are at least five top tier bats (Bradman, Tendulkar, Hobbs, Viv, Lara), top two pacers (Marshall, McGrath), top two spinners (Murali, Warne) and at least four other ARs (Sobers, Imran, Hadlee, Miller).

Six.

not sure about the spinners tbh

 

[subshakerz]

Six.

not sure about the spinners tbh

Too much of a bowling portfolio with volume to ignore. They aren't close to top 5 though.

 

[Bolo.]

I don't want to get into a debate when I already rate Kallis ahead as a bat. My Tendulkar/Kallis and McGrath/Pollock thing was just an illustration that just listing raw numbers is not a good approach

No, it's not a very good approach. Raw numbers suggest the impact of Kallis' bowling was not that high per match due to his WPM. We know the impact was much higher as he was replaced by bowling options.

The conversation we were having now is about different sides, like India, in which Kallis would potentially replace a bowler and add a new bat to the lineup. Don't sidetrack.

[/QUOTE]

And no Kallis' is not test specialist standard to select an extra bat in a regular XI.

So you recognize that this actually happened in the side he actually played for, but are still making comments like these?

He played the role that was best for his team. What do you expect him to have done differently? Screw the team over to satisfy your checklists? In another team he may have played a different role according to requirements. And you would probably be complaining about that too.

You can create hypotheticals about any player like this. He's far better equiped to handle the hypotheticals than just about anyone else. Enough raw talent with both ball and bat to shift focus between diciplines somewhat.

He wasn't valuable as he didn't bowl enough when playing for one of the top pace countries? And he's going to be less valuable playing for countries he would be one of the top bowlers for? Interesting logic.

None of this is relevant to the argument I was replying to in which they said Kallis wouldn't be rated higher until Tendulkar and McGrath retired but higher by the end of his career, where I mentioned the last few good years.

Before inserting yourself, at least keep track of the chat.


We are talking overall career.

You are replying to a conversation thread between Thala and me. You and I were discussing a different issue. I need to stop inserting myself? Charming.

 

[kyear2]

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.

How did India do this last series without a proper 5th option?

The thing about lower order bats, are that they're lower order bats for a reason, they're inconsistent and often do nothing, boosting averages during skiing season and no's. So while they bat most innings, they also fail most innings.

A team needs a 5th option, more than that, it's literally built into team selections, and no team that hopes to be successful, goes into a series without having someone who can fulfill the duties of at least a decent bowling load, while not being taken apart. Doesn't have to be brilliant or even great. Just consistent and reliable.
That's the value.
The notion you have of "specialists" is nonsense, a Hammond (and I'm just taking the bowler here) is perfect. Throw down some overs and occasionally take a few wickets. And you want that from one of your specialist batsmen.

There's no specialist lower order bats either.

What there are are specialists slip fielders who are excellent to ATG at their jobs.

And again, the likes of Kallis, Simpson, Hooper, Sobers, Hammond, won and contributed more wins to their teams with their catching than bowling and than the "bowling all rounders" do with their batting.