Sachin Tendulkar vs Jacques Kallis

[kyear2]

It inherently disadvantages those in lower middle order.

Almost as if they were less impactful.

 

[kyear2]

I think in Tests it would be Kallis. Picking 296 wickets suggests to me that he was always giving you an additional seam bowling option. Add his slip catching/ fielding into the mix.

Look at Stokes , he has played 100+ tests but how much his bowling has reduced. He is playing as a specialist batter who bowls occasionally.
Kallis is arguably the best test cricketer of his era, although I think McGrath could be #1 combining all format due to his legendary achievements in both formats. As soon as he retired, Aussies lost their invincible tag.

In ODIs, Sachin is a better cricketer and a better batsman both.

Agree with all of the highlighted bits. That much wickets over that period of time is ridiculous, and then we add his catching as one of the ATGs in that area as well.

And yeah, McGrath is probably is the greatest player of that era and someone I have as top 5 all time.

This is a great point you raised here.

Only 13 pacers have bowled more balls than Kallis in entire history. See below,

View attachment 44406

Yes, Kallis played a lots of test, but if you are appearing in the top 15 in volume of balls in entire history despite being a support bowler then it means you were consistenly available to bowl and did bowl.

It's a whole lot different than just having a pretty average due to bolwing in some games or batting in some games for many others in history. Kallis with nearly 300 test wickets and 20K balls, means he was contributing with weaker skill in his very long career.

I think many of us may be underrating how big this is for any team. If you are picking an XI then it's a huge huge luxury to have a 5th bowler who can be used all the time in his career and not just for 40 odd tests.

The same holds true for bowling all rounders. How many were continuosly contributing in their career and figure in the top 15 volume of balls faced and 7-8K runs. I would guess none did.

Kallis being available and contributing for such a long time with his weaker skill is pretty big. We may be underestimating this factor as a group.

I may think a bit more here and rate him higher as a cricketer. The same holds true for all rounders, I think he makes a strong case after Sobers.

Nice to have some new posters with newer less ingrained perspectives.

But imagine a top 15 ATG batsman, possibly the 2nd best 5th bowler in history and when he's not bowling he's manning the most critical fielding position on the park and at a top 10 ATG level.

What's more valuable than that.

 

[subshakerz]

You need to stop repeating this because it's not true.

He didn't even bat at 6 at all for the vast majority of his career, and he batted at 7 and 8 more than he batted at 6.

No you are BSing again.

Imran batted mostly at no.7 and then a good chunk at 6 and higher where he averaged well over 50. His RPI was commensurate with a lower order 6/7 bat. He was clearly better than 7/8s like Hadlee and Kapil.

If you want to insist that because he batted more at 8 than 6, I will counter than many of those no.8 knocks were because of a nightwatchman and him being bumped a position ahead, or Pakistan early on batting seven specialist bats as they toured.

So when you say Kallis's performances is the equivalent to a 7/8 bat, that's what Imran was. And again Kallis bowled more 2nd change (4th), than any other bowling position. The 2nd most was 3rd spot, then 5th. He hardly ever bowled 6th. You're basically just making this **** up.

The question is where do you rate Kallis overall based on his output. He clearly wasn't a fourth seamer based on output but firmly a 5th bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

But there's this narrative that Imran was closer to Sobers than he was to Kallis and I don't think that's at all true. I would say he was a little better than Kallis, no one is disputing that, but he was definitely more comparable.

Kallis competition is Miller.

Imran is up there with Sobers, just a bit behind.

But imagine a top 15 ATG batsman, possibly the 2nd best 5th bowler in history and when he's not bowling he's manning the most critical fielding position on the park and at a top 10 ATG level.

What's more valuable than that.

A top 10 bowler, lower order specialist and great captain.

People like to negatively compare Kallis's work load to Sobers's to then criticize. But Sobers was one of the full time, front line bowlers and the equivalent to a no. 5 of no. 4 batsman. He bowled 40 overs a match, a ridiculous amount for the team's best batsman.

And this is part is important, it's not something to be aspired to.

Kallis was handled well , his load reduced as he hit older, as it should have, and it extended his batting career, what happened to Imran's body and bowling?

Sobers gets credit for maintaining worldclass batting with that bowling load.

Kallis couldn't manage that which is why he will always be rated lower.

 

[Coronis]

But imagine a top 15 ATG batsman, possibly the 2nd best 5th bowler in history and when he's not bowling he's manning the most critical fielding position on the park and at a top 10 ATG level.

What's more valuable than that.

This is a great argument for Kallis > Marshall

 

[kyear2]

Tendulkar is a perfectly good slip fielder, don't agree with the idea being implied that he's unviable there. He did it less often than Dravid and VVS because they were better and partly because Sachin was more mobile and had a great throwing arm (especially in the first half of his career). I genuinely don't think you lose much just putting him and Hammond/Kallis/Sobers in the slips in an ATG XI instead of Viv if you think he's a significantly better batsman than Viv (which I think @Prince EWS and @Coronis do).

Ultimately, this is why I think @kyear2 misrepresents my opinion on this entire dumb slip fielders in ATG XI selection thing. My actual opinion is not that slip fielding isn't important, it very obviously is. Rather, that there is huge diminishing value the better the slip fielder is. Going from incopetent to competent is a huge jump in value for a slip fielder, going from competent to elite is going to affect results less. Imo, as long as the slips are competent, it's more than good enough. Wanting the elite of the elite to be in your slip cordon at any perceived sacrifice of batting is a waste.

I'm not going to make this into a big deal, but this is an argument that's used only when convenient. By this argument there's no appreciable difference between Tendulkar and Lara either. They were literally neck and neck throughout their careers, doesn't stop anyone from trying to determine who's better. Subz spent this entire forum trying to convince everyone that despite both averaging about the same while they played together, that ATG Kallis is a huge drop off with the bat from Sachin.

Also the point of Viv over Sachin was a hypothetical question that was presented with a point to drop him for Hammond. If you're being intellectually honest and not looking for likes, you would have noted that the argument for Viv over Sachin that I made, had more to do with the batting styles than the catching. Hammond and Tendulkar are more similar in style plus the fact that no one replaces the ability to destroy any pace attack that Viv provides.

Similarly with Barry, I said there's three reasons why he walks into my team, again, only one was his ability at 1st.

So there's absolutely no drop off in batting to fit in any of the slip fielders in my cordon. That was the point that I was making, saying I wouldn't force in Hammond (the way you and others want to force in Imran) over Sachin to make the perfect cordon. It's literally what I said. Primary always takes precedence.

With that being said, Warne isn't good enough to stand in the cordon for such a team, he had too many lapses and never got near the half chances. And yes Warne was "competent", but Hayden, as @TheJediBrah would attest, was way better, and it was noticable.

The point of "wanting the elite of the elite" is to not only, not mess up the regulation catches, but to take the half ones that only the elite ones even get to. Dropped catches and missed opportunities cost matches as well. Khawaja is also a decent and a competent slip, he dropped at least two critical chances in the last series. Guys like Hammond, Simpson, Hooper, Sobers, Kallis, Chappell, Waugh, Richardson not only took, but created chances. Viv Richards along with Richardson (super elite) and de Villiers were the best three 3rd slips I've seen. Richardson routinely made some catches early on in his career that only one or two others were even capable of getting to. Viv in the 70's was almost as good. But guys like Sobers, Taylor, Simpson, Waugh were that special chess piece that would be your 2nd vs pace and 1st vs spin that's 2nd only in value to your wicketkeeper on the field, and they caught the impossible. To quote an article I'm integrating into a post, Sobers caught every thing, the half chances and even ones that were barely chances at all. Sachin was solid, competent even, he isn't getting to the balls Viv did at 3rd, not routinely anyways, and he's not even in the same stratosphere as Sobers at 2nd. If you want to argue for 1st, sure, but that's a position I don't even trust Warne in, and he was there way more frequently.

So yes, while I wouldn't force drastic depreciation of primary skills to make my cordon, it will be a tie breaker if needed. And while you don't believe there's a difference between competent and elite, it makes as much of a difference in real games as the batting of the bowlers you actually do choose over bowlers who are actually better. And willingly sacrificing actual (not perceived) bowling strength of one of your 3 front line seamers for a batting advantage when you have as good a batting lineup as possible is the waste. I mean once your bowlers are competent with the bat, isn't that enough?

Or we can just acknowledge that we have differing perspectives.

 

[kyear2]

Yes you nailed it and I have tried to explain this to him as well. Elite slips are not a prerequisite for a team, they are an added bonus.

Of course, he considers Smith to be an elite slipper, so not exactly sure which standard he is following.

I mean, is "elite" lower order batting a prerequisite or an added bonus?

I mean Marshall, Warne, Lindwall, hell even Cummins managed to play key roles for good to ATG teams. Can't even recall the "great" teams that relied heavily on lower order batsmen.

I can tell you the great teams and bowlers that relied on great cordons. Since the dawn of the post war pace bowlers? All of them.

Simpson made the Australian team because they were dropping Lindwall's catches, Hooper was never going anywhere once he was holding onto Ambrose's offerings, it's how Sobers kept his place in the team as a teenager and grew his confidence and made him feel.like he belonged.

Every gabe Australia lost and even the drawn game was due to key dropped catches by "competent" slip fielders.

I will again present you with two scenarios.
So very simple. Would the WI or Australian juggernauts have given up their elite cordons if it meant they could have an elite lower order batting lineup. Switch out Lee and Warne / Marshall and Holding for Imran and Wasim level batting? No.

ATG scenario. You have a batting line up with Richards, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers & Gilchrist, is it better to go for your best possibly bowling attack or stack up on batting there as well.

And same ATG scenario, and this is the one I want you to answer... With the aforementioned batting line up, and with an attack of Marshall, McGrath, Warne and any of Hadlee or Steyn, all of which primarily got their wickets from catches behind the wicket, or even Wasim who suffered so badly from missed opportunities. It is more vital to get the lower order batting buffed up, or to get the cordon right, where all the chances are going.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Would the WI or Australian juggernauts have given up their elite cordons if it meant they could have an elite lower order batting lineup. Switch out Lee and Warne / Marshall and Holding for Imran and Wasim level batting? No.

If I'm getting your question right, Australia would switch Brett Lee for Imran Khan immediately, yes. And WI would 100% switch Joel Garner ( a great gully catcher IIRC) for Imran too if given the choice. This is an astonishingly easy choice to make imo.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, is "elite" lower order batting a prerequisite or an added bonus?

Well if you are an ATG unit expected to play other ATG XI, your batting order is nerfed, your keeperbat is nerfed and yes your no.8 would be nerfed.

I mean Marshall, Warne, Lindwall, hell even Cummins managed to play key roles for good to ATG teams. Can't even recall the "great" teams that relied heavily on lower order batsmen.

Yes because they were so much superior to their opposition they didn't need better lower order batting.

I can tell you the great teams and bowlers that relied on great cordons. Since the dawn of the post war pace bowlers? All of them.

They evolved those cordons from their existing teams, didn't select them based on slip ability.

I will again present you with two scenarios.
So very simple. Would the WI or Australian juggernauts have given up their elite cordons if it meant they could have an elite lower order batting lineup. Switch out Lee and Warne / Marshall and Holding for Imran and Wasim level batting? No.

Again, Australia were so superior they wouldn't need lower order batting the same way they didn't need a proper 5th bowler.

ATG scenario. You have a batting line up with Richards, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers & Gilchrist, is it better to go for your best possibly bowling attack or stack up on batting there as well.

Assuming they play another ATG XI, they need lower order batting too.

And same ATG scenario, and this is the one I want you to answer... With the aforementioned batting line up, and with an attack of Marshall, McGrath, Warne and any of Hadlee or Steyn, all of which primarily got their wickets from catches behind the wicket, or even Wasim who suffered so badly from missed opportunities. It is more vital to get the lower order batting buffed up, or to get the cordon right, where all the chances are going.

Again, Imran isn't a drop down in bowling in the 3rd pacer role and his batting fits perfectly.

You already stated that you would drop Hammond a better slipper for Kallis. So I don't think you are consistent on this.

 

[subshakerz]

So there's absolutely no drop off in batting to fit in any of the slip fielders in my cordon.

Except putting in Kallis for Hammond for being marginally better 5th bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

Question @kyear2 you make a big deal about Kallis coming as 2nd or 3rd change.

How come him taking 5 fifers in 166 games (two against Bangladesh) is not a bigger deal given how you are so scrutinizing over Imran's tons?

And while you don't believe there's a difference between competent and elite, it makes as much of a difference in real games as the batting of the bowlers you actually do choose over bowlers who are actually better.

Prove it.