-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Am I the only person who thinks Kallis was a better player than Tendulkar?
- Thread starter Tygra
- Start date
GuyFromLancs
State Vice-Captain
Confirmation bias
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't think it was that bad a piece. But honestly, Kallis DID make the SA side as both batsman and bowler imo, so the main point the writer intends to portray is wrong. Kallis is the 4th/5th bowler. He's basically making the batting lineup as an irreplaceable batsman and if he was only a bowler, he'd make the team ahead of a bowler who performs a similar job, like say, Kleinveldt.
Also, imagine if Sobers had Steyn, Donald, Pollock, Morkel and Philander as teammates. Guess what his role would've been.... Exactly the same as kallis. Kallis is not selected as front line batsman and bowler. He's picked as front line batsman and support bowler and he does that superbly
Ftr, some of the points mentioned I do agree with, which is why I think Sobers was the greater all rounder. I'd also take Imran and Botham ahead of kallis as all rounders. But to say he isn't an all rounder at all is ridiculous.
Also, imagine if Sobers had Steyn, Donald, Pollock, Morkel and Philander as teammates. Guess what his role would've been.... Exactly the same as kallis. Kallis is not selected as front line batsman and bowler. He's picked as front line batsman and support bowler and he does that superbly
Ftr, some of the points mentioned I do agree with, which is why I think Sobers was the greater all rounder. I'd also take Imran and Botham ahead of kallis as all rounders. But to say he isn't an all rounder at all is ridiculous.
S Rajesh posted this article upon Kallis's retirement:
I can remember giggling to myself when reading it trying to imagine the collective apoplexy of die hard SRT fans. For those who can also remember, there was a segment on ESPN's match point where a feature was done between SRT and Kallis and comparison's were made with No. 4 batter by point-of-entry scores. The stats show that Kallis is better equipped to deal with the new ball and pressure situations when quick top order wickets fall. It was hilarious watching Sanjay Manjrekar vehemently advocating that SRT was the man to bat for his life given such significant evidence to the contrary. Personally? I think that honor belongs to Lara and there is a wonderful analysis done by one of the forum members (Days of Grace I think?) which statistically seeks to prove the point.
If you are a stats man/woman, you would be hard pressed to actually prove that Tendulkar was better than Kallis. So then why is everyone chorusing the contrary?
I think it has alot to do with perceptions. There are a lot of myths floating around the internet with regard to Kallis some notable ones being:
1. Kallis is not a match winner! He has the most amount of MoM awards. 50% of his games resulted in wins, 25% draws, 25% losses. Impressive especially when compared to SRT and even someone like Sobers.
2. Kallis bats slow! True! And yet, with the advent T20 and Amla ubove him and and ABdV below him, his strike rate has climbed into the 50's.
3. Kallis does not perform when his team needs him? Refer to S Rajesh stats article for evidence to the contrary.
4. Kallis is a minnow basher? Remove Zim + Bang from Kallis stats and he still tops SRT
5. Kallis is Selfish. Do I really need to answer this?
When we move away from stats into the realm of subjectivity, then bias enters into the debate and there is alot of bias on the issue of whether SRT > Kallis.
From a personal point of view, Kallis >>>>>> SRT. But I'm a saffa so I'm unnaturally biased :P.
If you could climb into the head of the saffer cricketing public and poll them to choose who was better between SRT, Lara and Ponting...the overwhelming response would be Ponting. Why you ask...? Every time Kallis + SRT played in a Bilateral series, JK either matched or did better than SRT. SRT never outright dominated. Lara was a no show during bilateral series and no-one will forget the slaughter of 2003/2004. Ponting in his pomp slaughtered us! I think at one time Ponting was competing with Steve Waugh for the most hated and respected aussie cricketer award from the Saffa public! So...did that make SRT bad...? Nope...just ordinary in Saffa eyes.
All that being said, If I had to take off my Saffa cricket hat and put on my purist cricketer hat, the biggest compliment I could pay JK is that if the Saffa's were playing at Newlands and after watching JK bat for 15-30 minutes, I could properly assess whether JK was gonna go big and promptly go to Castle corner and get properly sloshed! If I was watching the Saffa's on the television and saw JK was solid, I could either go sleep and wake up the next morning knowing that JK's got this or go do the shopping.
One of the most wondrous feelings that you could ever have is watching the cricket at Newlands, Saf in a crap load of trouble with 2 down, the ball doing banana swinging and out walks JK. It doesn't matter what happened before but the whole Newlands crowd just breaths one sigh of relief and this wave of calm descends on the ground. Its kinda creepy and if I was honest, most probably feels like everyone smoked a collective slow boat (thats marijuana to the non Cape Tonians). The fact that 1 man can have such an effect on a cricketing public...remarkable!
Jacques is and will be the embodiment of cricket SA for some time. He is also most probably the originator and/or prime embodiment of the principle "Important not to lose" philosophy that was very evident in the first test match at the Wanderers. It is this sentiment that will most probably relegate Jaques Kallis to obscurity. I'm not saying that this is wrong or anything but it does leave a somewhat empty feeling in one's cricketing imagination.
We as the cricketing public are not automatons. We want to be inspired and entertained and to know joy and sorrow. We also want to know that our heroes can do the impossible and take us with them into waters uncharted. We live our dreams through our heroes. Somehow you just get the feeling that there was only space for Jacques on his magical journey.
Which brings me back to the original question. Was Kallis better than Tendulkar? No he wasn't but only by a whisker and only for the reason's I mention above. I would however let this question rest for 5-10 years and then ask it again. Odds are, when rationality, common sense and anti-fanaticism starts prevailing in cricketing circles, we might be surprised as to the verdict of whether Kallis > SRT.
P.S., there was an interesting poll run in a Aussie Online newspaper asking who was the better all-rounder...sobers or kallis. Kallis won with 50% to 36%. Is that a sign of the times or an honest assessment? Don't know but it would make for an interesting discussion with the aussie public.
I can remember giggling to myself when reading it trying to imagine the collective apoplexy of die hard SRT fans. For those who can also remember, there was a segment on ESPN's match point where a feature was done between SRT and Kallis and comparison's were made with No. 4 batter by point-of-entry scores. The stats show that Kallis is better equipped to deal with the new ball and pressure situations when quick top order wickets fall. It was hilarious watching Sanjay Manjrekar vehemently advocating that SRT was the man to bat for his life given such significant evidence to the contrary. Personally? I think that honor belongs to Lara and there is a wonderful analysis done by one of the forum members (Days of Grace I think?) which statistically seeks to prove the point.
If you are a stats man/woman, you would be hard pressed to actually prove that Tendulkar was better than Kallis. So then why is everyone chorusing the contrary?
I think it has alot to do with perceptions. There are a lot of myths floating around the internet with regard to Kallis some notable ones being:
1. Kallis is not a match winner! He has the most amount of MoM awards. 50% of his games resulted in wins, 25% draws, 25% losses. Impressive especially when compared to SRT and even someone like Sobers.
2. Kallis bats slow! True! And yet, with the advent T20 and Amla ubove him and and ABdV below him, his strike rate has climbed into the 50's.
3. Kallis does not perform when his team needs him? Refer to S Rajesh stats article for evidence to the contrary.
4. Kallis is a minnow basher? Remove Zim + Bang from Kallis stats and he still tops SRT
5. Kallis is Selfish. Do I really need to answer this?
When we move away from stats into the realm of subjectivity, then bias enters into the debate and there is alot of bias on the issue of whether SRT > Kallis.
From a personal point of view, Kallis >>>>>> SRT. But I'm a saffa so I'm unnaturally biased :P.
If you could climb into the head of the saffer cricketing public and poll them to choose who was better between SRT, Lara and Ponting...the overwhelming response would be Ponting. Why you ask...? Every time Kallis + SRT played in a Bilateral series, JK either matched or did better than SRT. SRT never outright dominated. Lara was a no show during bilateral series and no-one will forget the slaughter of 2003/2004. Ponting in his pomp slaughtered us! I think at one time Ponting was competing with Steve Waugh for the most hated and respected aussie cricketer award from the Saffa public! So...did that make SRT bad...? Nope...just ordinary in Saffa eyes.
All that being said, If I had to take off my Saffa cricket hat and put on my purist cricketer hat, the biggest compliment I could pay JK is that if the Saffa's were playing at Newlands and after watching JK bat for 15-30 minutes, I could properly assess whether JK was gonna go big and promptly go to Castle corner and get properly sloshed! If I was watching the Saffa's on the television and saw JK was solid, I could either go sleep and wake up the next morning knowing that JK's got this or go do the shopping.
One of the most wondrous feelings that you could ever have is watching the cricket at Newlands, Saf in a crap load of trouble with 2 down, the ball doing banana swinging and out walks JK. It doesn't matter what happened before but the whole Newlands crowd just breaths one sigh of relief and this wave of calm descends on the ground. Its kinda creepy and if I was honest, most probably feels like everyone smoked a collective slow boat (thats marijuana to the non Cape Tonians). The fact that 1 man can have such an effect on a cricketing public...remarkable!
Jacques is and will be the embodiment of cricket SA for some time. He is also most probably the originator and/or prime embodiment of the principle "Important not to lose" philosophy that was very evident in the first test match at the Wanderers. It is this sentiment that will most probably relegate Jaques Kallis to obscurity. I'm not saying that this is wrong or anything but it does leave a somewhat empty feeling in one's cricketing imagination.
We as the cricketing public are not automatons. We want to be inspired and entertained and to know joy and sorrow. We also want to know that our heroes can do the impossible and take us with them into waters uncharted. We live our dreams through our heroes. Somehow you just get the feeling that there was only space for Jacques on his magical journey.
Which brings me back to the original question. Was Kallis better than Tendulkar? No he wasn't but only by a whisker and only for the reason's I mention above. I would however let this question rest for 5-10 years and then ask it again. Odds are, when rationality, common sense and anti-fanaticism starts prevailing in cricketing circles, we might be surprised as to the verdict of whether Kallis > SRT.
P.S., there was an interesting poll run in a Aussie Online newspaper asking who was the better all-rounder...sobers or kallis. Kallis won with 50% to 36%. Is that a sign of the times or an honest assessment? Don't know but it would make for an interesting discussion with the aussie public.
Last edited:
This was not a straightforward Kallis vs. Sobers comparison. Respondents were asked to select the best all-rounder of all time from a list of ten options, which included Botham, Gilchrist, Imran and Miller but not other names that should have been there such as Wilfred Rhodes or Mike Procter. Apart from Kallis and Sobers Gilchrist was the only player who (barely) obtained even 5 percent of the vote. These results reflect the limitations of Internet polls more than anything else. These polls include contributions from 18 year old respondents who have not seen any cricket before 2005. The opinions of first class cricketers, journalists and officials are far more illuminating, and their views are very different from those expressed in this poll.
sachin200
U19 12th Man
Found this stat from cricinfo....
In Victories Away from home against all opposition not including ZIM AND BAN up until World Cup 2007 (Aus were the best team until then)
Kallis have only scored 4 Fifty scores (none of them were hundreds)
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
In Victories Away from home against all opposition not including ZIM AND BAN up until World Cup 2007 (Aus were the best team until then)
Kallis have only scored 4 Fifty scores (none of them were hundreds)
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Last edited:
4/16 innings isn't great (only average 33), but it certainly isn't terrible.
Even if Wilfred Rhodes and Mike Proctor had been on the list, they would have still gotten less that the others! (not well known outside their countries). The fact that there are so many options on the poll gives it credibility. In fact, the only thing that can make the poll more statistically credible is the addition of a "None of the above" option.
The fact that Gilchrist got 5% is actually saying volumes about the participants of the poll because it erases the doubt of nationalistic prejudice in the voters. As for the voters themselves being 18 year olds? If I remember back to the days when I was 18, I wouldn't have been caught dead on a news board! My thoughts were rather filled with women, breasts and illicit trysts of the down right damn naughty kind! I think the concept of a news board eluded me until my mid/late 20's because it was sooooooooo not cool! Credit has to be given to those voters! They read newspapers which means they are informed voters who most probably grew up in the era of Steve Waugh's/Ricky Ponting's invincibles era. You have to give them credit for knowing what they talking about.
So what you actually saying is that cricketing greatness may only be defined if someone else tells you so? Additionally, these voters shouldn't be burdened with the ability of thinking for themselves? Maybe not what you were thinking but it sure does sound like it from what I'm reading.steve132 said:
In defense of your argument, I will say that most of the voters would not have seen someone like Sobers in action but the fact that more than 50% of correspondents voted in JK's favour is significant especially from the Aussie public and goes along way to redressing this myth that Sobers is peerless in his standing as the number 1 all rounder!
Interesting...and sobering!sachin200 said:
Last edited:
wiff
First Class Debutant
There are so many stats that one needs to make an informed opinion. Stats that haven't even been recorded like crack in the pitch factors.
**** my pants moments. Degrees of blowing in the wind. In fact there are many stats far beyond the mortal mind to comprehend.
In the end we use what we want (cherry picking) to make up our informed opinion.
I like Sachin because of his smile.
**** my pants moments. Degrees of blowing in the wind. In fact there are many stats far beyond the mortal mind to comprehend.
In the end we use what we want (cherry picking) to make up our informed opinion.
I like Sachin because of his smile.
simonlee48
School Boy/Girl Captain
I have seen the entire career of both players. Purely as a batsman , there was a noticeable gap between skill level of Sachin and Kallis. Against ATG bowlers, I will have absolutely no doubt in picking Sachin over Kallis. Kallis flourished after most of the ATG bowlers retired.
Kallis makes up for that with his bowling. I think he did enough with his bowling to become comparable to Sachin or probably even surpass him. It will be interesting to see how world rates these two players after 10 years. In case of Sachin, he was rated among the best half way in his career but that's not the norm.
Kallis makes up for that with his bowling. I think he did enough with his bowling to become comparable to Sachin or probably even surpass him. It will be interesting to see how world rates these two players after 10 years. In case of Sachin, he was rated among the best half way in his career but that's not the norm.
watson
Banned
I agree. It surely has to be one of the most ridiculous statements ever made because it only applies to about 3 or 4 cricketers in the whole history of the game.
GuyFromLancs
State Vice-Captain
I think this is the bottom line. Sachin thrived against the great Australian teams, averaging 55 and scoring numerous hundreds.
Whereas Kallis didn't seem to look entirely comfortable, and averaged about 38 IIRC.
simonlee48
School Boy/Girl Captain
Kallis was not really doing too great against most bowling units having ATG bowlers. For example, you can take a cut off of 2004 when Pakistani greats retired. 5 teams had ATG bowlers till 2004. SA, Aus, SL, Pakistan & WI.
- Against Aus( 23 innings) -- Avg 32
- Against Pak ( 12 innings) - Avg 38
- Against SL ( 21 innings) -- Avg 33
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
In fact, in 90s , we saw the largest variety of ATG bowlers in history of cricket. We had few ATG genuine fast bowlers, few ATG medium fast bowlers, the best left hand bowler in history, the best off spin bowler in history and the best leg spin bowler in history. All of them played in 90s. Only 4 batsmen were averaging 50+ in 90s and Sachin was ahead by some distance.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
If anyone has watched their entire career then it's clear that they were not around the same level. There was a noticeable gap. If you are selecting batsmen for your ATG XI, I won't ever think about Kallis. Your ATG batsmen will be playing quality bowling units and you want them to do well against ATG bowlers. If a batsman didn't get an opportunity to face ATG bowlers then it's a different case but that's not the case with Kallis. In this case, both faced those ATG bowlers so it makes it apple to apple comparison.
Only question is - Did Kallis bowl well enough with ball to plug that gap in their batting? Gap was not a small one in my opinion but I think Kallis may have done enough with ball to be rated as a better player. Still, it's not as clear cut as many people may think based on raw batting stats of both players. That's why I feel , we will get a better idea of how history rate both players after 10 years. Here, we are not even talking about ODI format. As much as some of us discard it, it requires a different skill set and Sachin was too far ahead as a 'player' in that format. If you combine the format then I will simply pick Sachin over kallis as a player.
Last edited:
This I feel is the statistic of note that clearly separates the 2 and establishes SRT's dominance over JK.
However, I would also like to point out that most of that time span was spent batting at 3. If you repeat the query with JK batting at 4, it changes. Significant...? Very! I'm not sure but I also think that this period (1997-2002) also coincided with the period where JK was always stepping out the wicket in the first couple of overs. Remember, SAF openers only stabilised after Kirsten and then Smith walked into the team.
JK record batting at 3
JK record batting at 4
This line of reasoning is also most probably also why I have so much more respect for batters who started out at 3 e.g., Lara, Ponting, Sanga and moved down to 4 as upposed to SRT who batted most of his career at 4.
akilana
International 12th Man
So why is that Sachin's record is not better than of Kallis's since the so called ATG bowlers retired?
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah they just peaked at different times, really. Tendulkar was fortunate enough that his peak coincided with an era of great bowlers.
Depends on how much emphasis you want to put on such records tbh. Imo both Tendulkar and Kallis had the ability to handle great bowling attacks.
Depends on how much emphasis you want to put on such records tbh. Imo both Tendulkar and Kallis had the ability to handle great bowling attacks.
simonlee48
School Boy/Girl Captain
A good point to consider. I have watched more of SA matches than Indian matches but I think Indians had far worse openers as compared to SA . Let's see the first 10 years of their career to compare what kind of openers both countries had.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo [ 1990-1999: First 10 years of SAchin]
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo [ 1996 - 2005 : First 10 years of Kallis ]
Coming in at 3 is a good point but Kallis had far superior support from openers in his first 10 years as compared to Sachin. List for Indians looks a really bad one in comparison.