Kallis Vs Dravid

[ganeshran]

I disagree.

Disagree on what exactly? That stats alone dont constitute greatness?

 

[Flem274*]

Kallis, even though he makes me want to cry whenever we play South Africa.

Disagree on what exactly? That stats alone dont constitute greatness?

Everything you said.

 

[centurymaker]

most people here are stats freaks.... you have to see someone's knocks to judge them.
And i can tell you that on average dravid's played higher quality of knocks than kallis...

when the conditions are very difficult to bat in, it's dravid who usually comes out on top (yes even ahead of tendulkar).

using just stats is a somewhat flawed way of determining who's better (they should only be used as a guide).

don't tell me now that southafrican cricketers are always under-rated!!!
is steyn under-rated? was donald underated? was pollock under-rated? NOOO
there's an obvz reason why is kallis rated as relatively low as he is, it's because he's rarely done anything special to catch anyone's attention....


and let's not forget that kallis is a pretty selfish batsman, while dravid's a complete team man...

 

[Flem274*]

Where's that facepalm emoticon?

You're right, 11000 runs at 57 isn't special.

 

[Flem274*]

Also, I reserve my judgement of Bradman and Sobers because I've never ever seen them play. Jacques Kallis therefore is the greatest batsman and allrounder of all time.

 

[centurymaker]

Where's that facepalm emoticon?

You're right, 11000 runs at 57 isn't special.

i said "he's rarely done anything special"

i'm talking about individual knocks here!!!

not his career as a whole.

Just to take a closer look at their performances against the better sides, I've taken out WI, NZ, ZIMB, Bang (both have feasted on them quite a bit) as on average these four teams have had pretty ordinary attacks in the last 10 years or so...

Kallis- avg- 48.9
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

I doubt anyother batsman's stats would drop by so much with the removal of the weaker sides....

 

[miscer]

Also, I reserve my judgement of Bradman and Sobers because I've never ever seen them play. Jacques Kallis therefore is the greatest batsman and allrounder of all time.

wait, you think kallis is better than ponting, lara and tendulkar?... wut?

 

[Flem274*]

Yep. I'd rather watch Kallis too.

 

[ganeshran]

Everything you said.

That warne is a better bowler than Pollock despite Pollock having a better average?

Statistics alone dont constitute greatness. Otherwise computers could pick out bowling and batting greats rather than cricket experts.

 

[hang on]

when the conditions are very difficult to bat in, it's dravid who usually comes out on top (yes even ahead of tendulkar).

is that why dravid was instrumental in india's decent performance in south africa last winter. of course, he was a tower of strength in australia in 08 or even 99.

kallis has played some superb knocks in difficult conditions. the test against india would be a perfect example.

 

[Flem274*]

That warne is a better bowler than Pollock despite Pollock having a better average?

Statistics alone dont constitute greatness. Otherwise computers could pick out bowling and batting greats rather than cricket experts.

Prince EWS is a computer program, and he is pretty good at picking all time greats.

 

[Furball]

i said "he's rarely done anything special"

i'm talking about individual knocks here!!!

not his career as a whole.





I doubt anyother batsman's stats would drop by so much with the removal of the weaker sides....

Twin hundreds against India in the Third Test last year?

I'm with you on the whole Dravid > Kallis thing but trying to use stats to justify it is stupid. Just admit it's down to your subjective biases.

 

[Furball]

u did see vaughan in 02 in antipodea? or lara in 99 against the ockers?

No.

 

[DriveClub]

That warne is a better bowler than Pollock despite Pollock having a better average?

Statistics alone dont constitute greatness. Otherwise computers could pick out bowling and batting greats rather than cricket experts.

I dunno why you keep comparing two different bowlers, warne is a spinner there have been none better than him and murali in the game. Pollock is an all rounder and as such has heavy competition. Stop comparing apples with oranges.

 

[ganeshran]

Prince EWS is a computer program, and he is pretty good at picking all time greats.

Sorry but then we dont have to agree to disagree. There is more to greatness than just statistics. Not saying statistics are meaningless, but they are certainly not the only criteria.

Samaraveera ranks above Waugh and just a shade below Lara, but he cant hold a candle to them while batting.

 

[hang on]

No.

it figures.

 

[Flem274*]

Sorry but then we dont have to agree to disagree. There is more to greatness than just statistics. Not saying statistics are meaningless, but they are certainly not the only criteria.

Samaraveera ranks above Waugh and just a shade below Lara, but he cant hold a candle to them while batting.

That's because you have used very simplistic statistics.

 

[centurymaker]

is that why dravid was instrumental in india's decent performance in south africa last winter. of course, he was a tower of strength in australia in 08 or even 99.

kallis has played some superb knocks in difficult conditions. the test against india would be a perfect example.

we all know that dravid was out of form in 07-08 and 2010, so it's silly to bring that up.
it's like saying 'where was tendulkar in 2006?'


kallis' rating went up alot after that test against india btw.

 

[hang on]

we all know that dravid was out of form in 07-08 and 2010, so it's silly to bring that up.
it's like saying 'where was tendulkar in 2006?'


kallis' rating went up alot after that test against india btw.

sounds kind of convenient, doesn't it? when he goes missing, it is because he is out of form! what is actually silly is blanket statements like dravid plays best in the difficult conditions and others to that effect.

 

[ganeshran]

That's because you have used very simplistic statistics.

Like I said, we have to agree to disagree here.