Brian Lara vs Jacques Kallis

[kyear2]

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

Exactly this.

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

So yes, it is possible.

iirc Lara has a few catches himself.

Very much so, and while not quite in the same league as Kallis, he was pretty damn good.

 

[kyear2]

As per the actual thread, Lara and easily. Quite easily actually.

And yeah, for those that has Kallis higher it sincerely makes me wonder if they ever watched either.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

This is the crux of our disagreement. I have just seen teams more negatively impacted by a bad tail and have more upside from their extra runs.

The 5th bowler isn't going to save an attack if the first four bowlers failed. He just needs to be good enough for rest overs and frankly most teams can have one or two bowlers capable of doing that.

Stop mentioning slips please.

 

[subshakerz]

And yeah, for those that has Kallis higher it sincerely makes me wonder if they ever watched either.

Based on record, why isn't Kallis higher than Lara? Sincere question.

 

[L Trumper]

Based on record, why isn't Kallis higher than Lara? Sincere question.

Taking out Ban & Zim they both average roughly the same (52.53 vs 52.98) & Lara had about 5 more runs per innings. (51 vs 46)

 

[subshakerz]

Taking out Ban & Zim they both average roughly the same (52.53 vs 52.98) & Lara had about 5 more runs per innings. (51 vs 46)

Kallis still has arguably as good if not better away record and a more accomplished home record.

 

[kyear2]

This is the crux of our disagreement. I have just seen teams more negatively impacted by a bad tail and have more upside from their extra runs.

The 5th bowler isn't going to save an attack if the first four bowlers failed. He just needs to be good enough for rest overs and frankly most teams can have one or two bowlers capable of doing that.

Stop mentioning slips please.

So, genuine question. What do you consider being negatively impacted. The lower order not scoring as high as the top order? Because that's not a thing.
The team failing to get competitive scores? Because against that's the purview of the top order.

Even the examples you gave about the 5th bowler saving the team, that not the primary, nor regular responsibility of either.

Now if you're talking about having a bunny tail and getting near to no contribution from them,
1. I assume you're getting bowling contributions from them to make up for the short fall, and
2. Not sure how much that's happened in any event.

I asked someone earlier if they would take Kapil over Jasprit if they could only have one, don't think anyone's going for the batting in that scenario.

With regards to the slips, no.

Last night ee literally just saw India's innings where every wicket but the 10th, fell to catches behind the wicket, where btw Australia was perfect.

To ignore or discard it not only ignores an important aspect of the game, but it denigrates the practitioners of it.

It also makes away one of Kallis's skills in any comparison.

So for a country like Australia, England, New Zealand or SA where most of the dismissals are taken behind the wicket, it's just as important as any other secondary skill of not more so.
The great WI, Australia or SA teams relied more on their slip cordons that their lower order for victories.

So no, I'll not stop talking about it.

 

[kyear2]

Kallis still has arguably as good if not better away record and a more accomplished home record.

How they did in the 90's, how they did in the biggest moments, the iconic series, the genius of the man.

All the same reasons Sachin is better

 

[subshakerz]

How they did in the 90's, how they did in the biggest moments, the iconic series, the genius of the man.

All the same reasons Sachin is better

So it seems you are saying Kallis has the better overall record though and rating Lara ahead on other factors. Interesting.

 

[subshakerz]

So, genuine question. What do you consider being negatively impacted. The lower order not scoring as high as the top order? Because that's not a thing.
The team failing to get competitive scores? Because against that's the purview of the top order.

Even the examples you gave about the 5th bowler saving the team, that not the primary, nor regular responsibility of either.

Now if you're talking about having a bunny tail and getting near to no contribution from them,
1. I assume you're getting bowling contributions from them to make up for the short fall, and
2. Not sure how much that's happened in any event.

Three reasons why late order runs matter more than the 5th bowler role:

- The difference between a bunny tail and a good tail is quite stark, somewhere along the lines of 30 to 40 runs an innings which in the long term makes a big difference. I saw this most in the 90s WIs team that had a crummy tail and this exacerbated their batting woes since promising scores were frequently out of reach

- It's not just the runs of the tail themselves. It's their ability to stick around for the keeper and others in the middle order to build frustrating partnerships and stretch their innings. And this impact can be seen virtually every innings, whereas the times a 5th bowler is impactful is not every innings.

- The 5th bowler bowls around 5 to 10 overs per innings with the primary goal to give the main bowlers a rest. Even Kallis in his early career was a 3rd or 4th bowler with a heavier load, when he was a 4th/5th bowler late career he hardly had the same impact. The dropoff from a Kallis to a Tendulkar as 5th bowler is not as detrimental as a good tail to a bunny tail.

With regards to the slips, no.

Last night ee literally just saw India's innings where every wicket but the 10th, fell to catches behind the wicket, where btw Australia was perfect.

To ignore or discard it not only ignores an important aspect of the game, but it denigrates the practitioners of it.

It also makes away one of Kallis's skills in any comparison.

So for a country like Australia, England, New Zealand or SA where most of the dismissals are taken behind the wicket, it's just as important as any other secondary skill of not more so.
The great WI, Australia or SA teams relied more on their slip cordons that their lower order for victories.

So no, I'll not stop talking about it.

You make all these points about slips but when pressed, you will refrain from giving a quantified estimate of it.

And virtually every side has a minimum competent slip cordon as a standard. However, I have already conceded that it makes impact as a tertiary skill, similar to captaincy which likely impacts even more but which you discredit.

 

[kyear2]

So it seems you are saying Kallis has the better overall record though and rating Lara ahead on other factors. Interesting.

Where did I say that?

 

[subshakerz]

Where did I say that?

By omission.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

Yes, these 4. I rate their role behind the wicket higher than Lara, who I thought was just pretty good. Maybe I'm underrating him a bit- not really sure.

I rate Lara closer to these 4 than Sachin. Even being closer to Sachin would not imply a big gap though.

 

[kyear2]

This is the crux of our disagreement. I have just seen teams more negatively impacted by a bad tail and have more upside from their extra runs.

The 5th bowler isn't going to save an attack if the first four bowlers failed. He just needs to be good enough for rest overs and frankly most teams can have one or two bowlers capable of doing that.

Stop mentioning slips please.

Three reasons why late order runs matter more than the 5th bowler role:

- The difference between a bunny tail and a good tail is quite stark, somewhere along the lines of 30 to 40 runs an innings which in the long term makes a big difference. I saw this most in the 90s WIs team that had a crummy tail and this exacerbated their batting woes since promising scores were frequently out of reach

- It's not just the runs of the tail themselves. It's their ability to stick around for the keeper and others in the middle order to build frustrating partnerships and stretch their innings. And this impact can be seen virtually every innings, whereas the times a 5th bowler is impactful is not every innings.

- The 5th bowler bowls around 5 to 10 overs per innings with the primary goal to give the main bowlers a rest. Even Kallis in his early career was a 3rd or 4th bowler with a heavier load, when he was a 4th/5th bowler late career he hardly had the same impact. The dropoff from a Kallis to a Tendulkar as 5th bowler is not as detrimental as a good tail to a bunny tail.


You make all these points about slips but when pressed, you will refrain from giving a quantified estimate of it.

And virtually every side has a minimum competent slip cordon as a standard. However, I have already conceded that it makes impact as a tertiary skill, similar to captaincy which likely impacts even more but which you discredit.

Jaiswal was dropped on 51 and ended up scoring how much?

Literally potentially costing Australia a chance in this game?

120 plus runs from one person alone is pretty much negatively impacting the team.

And I assume quantitatively enough for you?

Yes, it can immensely negatively impact a team, don't know if or why that was even in question.

This denial that it's equally impactful to team performance is baffling to me.

 

[kyear2]

Yes, these 4. I rate their role behind the wicket higher than Lara, who I thought was just pretty good. Maybe I'm underrating him a bit- not really sure.

I rate Lara closer to these 4 than Sachin. Even being closer to Sachin would not imply a big gap though.

Lar was clearly not as good as Hooper who was next to him, highlighting the difference. And yeah, Kallis was better, wouldn't dispute that. Think he was similar to Dravid and it depends how you want to rate Kumar and the amount of time he kept wicket.

 

[subshakerz]

Jaiswal was dropped on 51 and ended up scoring how much?

Literally potentially costing Australia a chance in this game?

120 plus runs from one person alone is pretty much negatively impacting the team.

And I assume quantitatively enough for you?

Yes, it can immensely negatively impact a team, don't know if or why that was even in question.

This denial that it's equally impactful to team performance is baffling to me.

Again you evade the point.

On a regular basis, how would you quantify the impact of a high end slip versus a competent slip? Don't just give a single example.

Prove to me that it equals a secondary skill like batting or bowling we can measure.

 

[kyear2]

Again you evade the point.

On a regular basis, how would you quantify the impact of a high end slip versus a competent slip? Don't just give a single example.

Prove to me that it equals a secondary skill like batting or bowling we can measure.

That's the problem, because it can't be quantified on a spreadsheet, it's ignored.

Today it cost the team at minimum 120 runs.

A good team should be strong in all 3 aspects, but you definitely struggle to win if that one is poor or unreliable.

 

[subshakerz]

That's the problem, because it can't be quantified on a spreadsheet, it's ignored.

Today it cost the team at minimum 120 runs.

A good team should be strong in all 3 aspects, but you definitely struggle to win if that one is poor or unreliable.

I mean you are just repeating common sense stuff. I can give you a tailend 150 run partnership but it wouldn't prove anything solidly.

The general sentiment in CW is slips is a tertiary skill and you haven't given any evidence to suggest anything else.

 

[kyear2]

I mean you are just repeating common sense stuff. I can give you a tailend 150 run partnership but it wouldn't prove anything solidly.

The general sentiment in CW is slips is a tertiary skill and you haven't given any evidence to suggest anything else.

And I disagree, the impact is just as relevant.

This is where I think that the difference is highlighted however, and will try to articulate it as well as possible.

A decent lower order or functional no. 8 is always useful and can help save or set up games.

A useful no. 5 is a requirement for every team, it's incredibly difficult to go into a match or series with only 4 guys capable of turning their hands over.

A team cannot be successful over time if they are consistently dropping chances. Just can't.

A team with a strong batting lineup can preempt the necessity for lower order runs, not eliminate, but greatly reduce. The need is exasperated if the team has a fragile or inconsistent lineup, but then, is that the primary concern?

On a strong or weak team, you need guys who can take the chances the bowlers create.


As I've said in the past, we see the game very differently and what we see as the keys to success varies.

Edit. I want to be clear that lower order runs can be very vital, and can help set up scores. I'm not degrading that. I've also seen teams win without such, that's all.
My point though is that, so is the other thing.

 

[subshakerz]

And I disagree, the impact is just as relevant.

This is where I think that the difference is highlighted however, and will try to articulate it as well as possible.

A decent lower order or functional no. 8 is always useful and can help save or set up games.

A useful no. 5 is a requirement for every team, it's incredibly difficult to go into a match or series with only 4 guys capable of turning their hands over.

A team cannot be successful over time if they are consistently dropping chances. Just can't.

A team with a strong batting lineup can preempt the necessity for lower order runs, not eliminate, but greatly reduce. The need is exasperated if the team has a fragile or inconsistent lineup, but then, is that the primary concern?

On a strong or weak team, you need guys who can take the chances the bowlers create.


As I've said in the past, we see the game very differently and what we see as the keys to success varies.

Edit. I want to be clear that lower order runs can be very vital, and can help set up scores. I'm not degrading that. I've also seen teams win without such, that's all.
My point though is that, so is the other thing.

What's the point in a long response where you are just repeating yourself?

You need to prove slips are not a tertiary skill but a secondary skill. Give some solid evidence or just don't bring it up.