• 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.

Jacques Kallis vs Steve Waugh

Who was the greater test batsman?

  • Jacques Kallis

    Votes: 34 61.8%

  • Steve Waugh

    Votes: 21 38.2%
  • Total voters
    55
StephenZA

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
subshakerz said:
You are strawmanning. The argument is that Kallis for most of his batting career stayed stuck in one accumulator mode to the detriment of his team, unlike the alphas for other teams, like Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting.
Click to expand...
So you`ve decided on a criteria of what a batsmen needs to do, regardless of the circumstance he finds himself in or is asked to do for his team, and then you arbitrarily pick specific numbers and opinions that appear to show that you opinion must be correct.

And no I`m not going to get into a long engagement over it, I`m too long in the tooth and been through it to many times... I`m just gonna keep making the occasional snide and sarcastic comment like I`ve now got used to doing, because I really don't care enough.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Steve Waugh has a better narrative around his best innings because he played in marquee series. Hadlee also suffers from this. To say Kallis never played any meaningful innings is frankly ridiculous. He has 13 more tons than Waugh ffs.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
trundler said:
Steve Waugh has a better narrative around his best innings because he played in marquee series. Hadlee also suffers from this. To say Kallis never played any meaningful innings is frankly ridiculous. He has 13 more tons than Waugh ffs.
Click to expand...
I said that when it comes to big impact innings, Waugh is far superior to Kallis.

I didn't say Kallis never played meaningful innings because that would be insane. But when you look back at his career, what are his standout innings?
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
OverratedSanity said:
Yeah Jacques Kallis was too much of an accumulator, therefore he was worse than renowned free flowing strokeplayer Steve Waugh.

Listen to yourselves.
Click to expand...
Waugh was a gritty counterattacker in a lineup of strokemakers. He played a particular role to consolidate and then rebuild.

Dravid was a accumulator who let the other strokemakers in his lineup bat around him. That was his role to be the backbone of the innings.

In Kallis' case, until 2008, he was a more effective accumulator in an entire lineup of accumulators. He could have been more though.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
TheJediBrah said:
I'm not sure that's a fair statement in Tests. In ODIs definitely, Kallis was a straight up bad player. But I doubt Steve Waugh scored much quicker, if at all, than Kallis in Tests
Click to expand...
Waugh wasn't a fast scorer but he did counterattack when needed. But his role in the side wasn't to play strokes but consolidate and rebuild.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
subshakerz said:
That is my point. You need some qualifiers otherwise it is a useless stat.

The handful of ATG bowlers are the ones whom Waugh achieved his best performances against. Whereas Kallis has virtually no impact innings against big players to speak of.

I don't buy your argument though that the second tier bowlers of the 2000s were better than in the 1990s, and therefore bowling standards were better.
Click to expand...
Every stat in cricket is useless without context. You are suggesting a measure that is virtually useless even with context.

I'm not arguing that bowlers in the 2000s were better than the late 80s/early 90s. I'm saying assuming the opposite is the case when the numbers do not suggest that it is is simply wrong.

My gut tells me bowlers in Waughs era were a bit better, but I'm not sure which of the two actually faced better bowlers- Waugh played against some really great attacks, but also played a huge percentage of his games against some extremely mediocre sides.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...er_involve=1795;template=results;type=bowling

Overall bowling average in matches Steve Waugh played.


Overall bowling average in matches Jacques Kallis played.

Not even a 1 run difference. The difference in home conditions virtually cancels out the era difference. This means that it's fair to compare their base stats head to head. And there's a clear winner there.
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
trundler said:
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...er_involve=1795;template=results;type=bowling

Overall bowling average in matches Steve Waugh played.


Overall bowling average in matches Jacques Kallis played.

Not even a 1 run difference. The difference in home conditions virtually cancels out the era difference. This means that it's fair to compare their base stats head to head. And there's a clear winner there.
Click to expand...
The number of great knocks played by Waugh surely has to count for something.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
trundler said:
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...er_involve=1795;template=results;type=bowling

Overall bowling average in matches Steve Waugh played.


Overall bowling average in matches Jacques Kallis played.

Not even a 1 run difference. The difference in home conditions virtually cancels out the era difference. This means that it's fair to compare their base stats head to head. And there's a clear winner there.
Click to expand...
Thats not really the right stat though... depends on the strength of teammates as much as quality of opposition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top