Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[Uppercut]

Yeah, maybe. He also holed out though, and an extra 50 balls at the crease in a decent partnership, even if he hadn't scored any more runs, would have meant Kallis wouldn't have had to bat for so long with the tail.

 

[bagapath]

I suggested, in the India in South Africa tour thread, that cricket be renamed 'kallisball'. What are your thoughts on this?

Personally I think it's fair to say that Kallis is one of the greatest kallisballers of all time.

oh lord! i may abandon atheism and turn to some kind of faith to deal with whatever you are heaping on me now. my karma is catching up with me.

 

[Debris]

Really the wrong time for this thread. Can't really get a fair result unless both are in form.

 

[bagapath]

Really the wrong time for this thread. Can't really get a fair result unless both are in form.

both have played for 15 years debris. form is temporary. their respective places in history are already fixed.

 

[Prince EWS]

Really the wrong time for this thread. Can't really get a fair result unless both are in form.

I don't really agree. Kallis's strength in the debate lies in the fact that he's in form more often. When both are at the top of their games I'd definitely take Ponting but that's not quite the point.

 

[marc71178]

both have played for 15 years debris. form is temporary. their respective places in history are already fixed.

I would strongly dispute that.

For me, nobody's place in history is fixed until the end of their career.

 

[weldone]

At this point in time, I don't have a problem voting either way. This one is as close as it gets, probably as close as Mohammad Yousuf versus Mahela Jayawardene for me atm.

1-2 more years like 2010, and I can safely vote for Kallis with an uncluttered mind.

 

[weldone]

I would strongly dispute that.

For me, nobody's place in history is fixed until the end of their career.

I am very much in agreement with you on this.

 

[TT Boy]

both have played for 15 years debris. form is temporary. their respective places in history are already fixed.

Like most of your posts in this thread, that's complete crap.

 

[Jono]

both have played for 15 years debris. form is temporary. their respective places in history are already fixed.

Not a chance.

So if Kallis single handedly guides South Africa to a series win against the #1 team, it won't change his place in history?

Not the case at all.

 

[Ruckus]

I think that 'fixed in history' idea brings up an interesting point though. What if Ponting retired when his average hit 60? He would probably be considered far greater than he is now simply because one couldn't assume that a lengthy decline in form would follow soon afterwards. I think that suggests that it is too simple in a way to rate batsmen using their entire careers.

 

[Jono]

Viv's average fell heaps near the end of his career yet he's comfortably remembered as an all-time great.

The thing hurting Ponting's legacy is his captaincy and Ashes losses, not his batting. People understand when greats decline.

 

[Prince EWS]

What if Ponting retired when his average hit 60? He would probably be considered far greater than he is now simply because one couldn't assume that a lengthy decline in form would follow soon afterwards.

DWTA. Not by me anyway.

 

[Ruckus]

DWTA. Not by me anyway.

You value (like me pretty much) only the player's contribution to their teams success across their career, yes?

 

[Prince EWS]

You value (like me pretty much) only the player's contribution to their teams success across their career, yes?

Indeed.

Unless someone dips to a point where they clearly aren't Test standard, I'll never rate their career less for playing on and seeing their average fall, unless I'm comparing him to a player who didn't have that happen. Longevity is a really tricky thing to compare between eras but when you have players in the same era it can get reasonably straight-forward.

For example, if Player A and Player B both debut in the same year, and after ten years they both average 60, but then player B retires while Player A plays for another ten years and his averages drops to 52, I'd still rate Player A higher. He's done what Player B has, and then contributed to his team for another ten years averaging 44 or so in that period. That second ten years, while not as good as his first ten years, contributed a lot more to his team than if he'd retired. That's still 'taking his whole career into account' - you're allowed to do more than look at one's overall average and still do that.

 

[Jono]

I don't think many would disagree with you there Prince.

The Ponting and Kallis debate isn't yet in a place where Kallis' longevity is a factor. We shall wait a few years for that.

 

[Cevno]

Indeed.

Unless someone dips to a point where they clearly aren't Test standard, I'll never rate their career less for playing on and seeing their average fall, unless I'm comparing him to a player who didn't have that happen. Longevity is a really tricky thing to compare between eras but when you have players in the same era it can get reasonably straight-forward.

For example, if Player A and Player B both debut in the same year, and after ten years they both average 60, but then player B retires while Player A plays for another ten years and his averages drops to 52, I'd still rate Player A higher. He's done what Player B has, and then contributed to his team for another ten years averaging 44 or so in that period. That second ten years, while not as good as his first ten years, contributed a lot more to his team than if he'd retired. That's still 'taking his whole career into account' - you're allowed to do more than look at one's overall average and still do that.

I don't think many would disagree with you there Prince.

The Ponting and Kallis isn't yet in a place where Kallis' longevity is a factor. We shall wait a few years for that.

Agree with both.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't think many would disagree with you there Prince.

The Ponting and Kallis isn't yet in a place where Kallis' longevity is a factor. We shall wait a few years for that.

Yeah, I know. I was just speaking in general. Players A and B certainly aren't Ponting and Kallis in that example.

I think DeusEx thought that I'd rate Player B higher because he had a higher average over the course of his career, so I was just clearing it up.

 

[weldone]

For example, if Player A and Player B both debut in the same year, and after ten years they both average 60, but then player B retires while Player A plays for another ten years and his averages drops to 52, I'd still rate Player A higher. He's done what Player B has, and then contributed to his team for another ten years averaging 44 or so in that period. That second ten years, while not as good as his first ten years, contributed a lot more to his team than if he'd retired. That's still 'taking his whole career into account' - you're allowed to do more than look at one's overall average and still do that.

awta

 

[vcs]

Ponting is a magnificent Kallisballer, brilliant attacking batsman, and great in the field.