Tendulkar vs Kallis

[usarav]

I've been seeing them for long and they both play great cricket(although tendulkar a bit unlucky these days )I want ur opinions now.

 

[NUFAN]

Kallis easily. in Test Cricket.

Tendulkar easily in ODI

 

[haroon510]

Sachin in both form of the cricket

 

[Perm]

Sachin in both form of the cricket

Agreed. And by a reasonable distance.

 

[Dissector]

Obviously Kallis is a much better test batsmen currently. Over their full careers I would say Tendulkar was the better batsman but Kallis the better cricketer.

 

[NUFAN]

Agreed. And by a reasonable distance.

No chance of it being by a reasonable distance.

Kallis is a better batter IMO then Tendulkar but I can see how someone would say SRT is narrowly better.

Kallis bowling makes him a better cricketer then Sachin for mine..

 

[Perm]

No chance of it being by a reasonable distance.

Kallis is a better batter IMO then Tendulkar but I can see how someone would say SRT is narrowly better.

Kallis bowling makes him a better cricketer then Sachin for mine..

I thought it was purely on batting, in which case Tendulkar>Kallis and by a reasonable margin, as I said. If it's purely about value as a cricketer, then I'm not sure.

 

[Jono]

Now as a batsman? Kallis is the better test batsman atm, and Sachin ODI.

Overall as a batsman, Sachin in both forms. Simple as that.

 

[PY]

I thought it was purely on batting, in which case Tendulkar>Kallis and by a reasonable margin, as I said. If it's purely about value as a cricketer, then I'm not sure.

Looking purely at the stats, the batting isn't that big a difference! I know you can't look purely at them but:

Kallis - 9,000 @ 58 in 110 Tests with 28 centuries.
Tendulkar - 11,000 @ 55 in 140 Tests with 37 centuries.

It's an interesting comparison, that has to be said especially when you throw in 219 wickets @ 30.

 

[howardj]

My God Jacques in on fire at present!

 

[Perm]

Looking purely at the stats, the batting isn't that big a difference! I know you can't look purely at them but:

Kallis - 9,000 @ 58 in 110 Tests with 28 centuries.
Tendulkar - 11,000 @ 55 in 140 Tests with 37 centuries.

It's an interesting comparison, that has to be said especially when you throw in 219 wickets @ 30.

Take a look at their averages after you remove the sides that aren't Test standard. I think you'll find their averages become much closer.

 

[bond21]

Kallis no comparison.

I think Kallis is a slightly better batsman, plus hes a great bowler.

Tendulkar cant really bowl.

 

[pasag]

Now as a batsman? Kallis is the better test batsman atm, and Sachin ODI.

Overall as a batsman, Sachin in both forms. Simple as that.

Yeah got to stop agreeing with you already but not really a tough question for mine, agree on all four points.

 

[Beleg]

both are world class batsmen.

a lot of people underrate kallis because of his batting style.

the removal of 'non test standard' stats is of course completely arbitrary crap.

tendulkar is the better batsman but there certainly isn't that big a difference as most people will lead you to believe.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

In ODI's it's no contest.

Any day of the week at any time in history I'd take Kallis in a test match. No disrespect to SRT at all.

 

[Richard]

In Test cricket against Test standard sides, purely as batsmen (who on Earth is comparing them as bowlers???) Tendulkar's career is infinitely more the noteworthy.

Tendulkar, between becoming Test-class (I think we can forgive him for not being so immediately he was selected, as he was only 16) and his decline, which began in 2003, averaged 61.20. This is absolutely awesome. In this time he displayed pure excellence at bashing rubbish attacks, and also played any number of superlative innings against the better ones.

Unfortunately, he's not been the player he once was for the last 4 years, though of late he's been better again if not exactly at his previous level. He was still far from poor, averaging 42.03. But this disguised the greater pattern - first it was the occasional massive score offset by loads of failures, then later on far too 20s and 30s and not enough 60s and 70s.

Kallis, on the other hand, also had an awful start to his career. When we take his arrival as a true Test player to the time of run-scoring becoming that much easier, he was a very fine batsman, though not as good as Tendulkar.

It's not possible to give a current-average for Kallis as he's playing in a Test at the time in question. However, if he doesn't bat again it'll be 72.49 between 7 September 2001 and the end of the Test going on at the time of this post. This, beyond question, is superlative, but coinciding exactly as it did (like several other players) with the deterioration in bowling quality, must be taken with a pinch of salt.

At the time that offered a much greater challenge for batsmen, Tendulkar outperformed Kallis considerably, though both were fine players. Since Tendulkar ceased to be the player he once was, Kallis has been able to considerably outperform him.

 

[NUFAN]

In Test cricket against Test standard sides, purely as batsmen (who on Earth is comparing them as bowlers???) Tendulkar's career is infinitely more the noteworthy.

Tendulkar, between becoming Test-class (I think we can forgive him for not being so immediately he was selected, as he was only 16) and his decline, which began in 2003, averaged 61.20. This is absolutely awesome. In this time he displayed pure excellence at bashing rubbish attacks, and also played any number of superlative innings against the better ones.

Unfortunately, he's not been the player he once was for the last 4 years, though of late he's been better again if not exactly at his previous level. He was still far from poor, averaging 42.03. But this disguised the greater pattern - first it was the occasional massive score offset by loads of failures, then later on far too 20s and 30s and not enough 60s and 70s.

Kallis, on the other hand, also had an awful start to his career. When we take his arrival as a true Test player to the time of run-scoring becoming that much easier, he was a very fine batsman, though not as good as Tendulkar.

It's not possible to give a current-average for Kallis as he's playing in a Test at the time in question. However, if he doesn't bat again it'll be 72.49 between 7 September 2001 and the end of the Test going on at the time of this post. This, beyond question, is superlative, but coinciding exactly as it did (like several other players) with the deterioration in bowling quality, must be taken with a pinch of salt.

At the time that offered a much greater challenge for batsmen, Tendulkar outperformed Kallis considerably, though both were fine players. Since Tendulkar ceased to be the player he once was, Kallis has been able to considerably outperform him.

So Gilly is crap because he's been poor the past 4 years, but it doesn't matter for Sachin, even though the bowling is terrible and everyone should be making runs.

 

[Dasa]

Recent form clouding the view of SRT in some cases I reckon.
For me, as batsmen, Tendulkar by a comfortable margin. He's in a different class altogether imo, even though Kallis is excellent.

 

[Richard]

So Gilly is crap because he's been poor the past 4 years, but it doesn't matter for Sachin, even though the bowling is terrible and everyone should be making runs.

"Gilly"s crapness doesn't alter my perception of his first 4 years in the slightest. He was awesome.

It's not a case of "everyone" should be averaging 70 at all - only those who are truly magnificent at bashing rubbish bowling on flat tracks will do that.

Either way - Tendulkar > Gilchrist, because Gilchrist was awesome for 4 years and 61 innings and Tendulkar was for 12 years and 152 innings.

It's also worth noting that when both Tendulkar and Gilchrist's past-prime times are compared, Tendulkar comes-out on top too.

But where have I said - so much as once - that Gilchrist's first 43 games are now meaningless because of the 41 which followed?

 

[NUFAN]

"Gilly"s crapness doesn't alter my perception of his first 4 years in the slightest. He was awesome.

It's not a case of "everyone" should be averaging 70 at all - only those who are truly magnificent at bashing rubbish bowling on flat tracks will do that.

Either way - Tendulkar > Gilchrist, because Gilchrist was awesome for 4 years and 61 innings and Tendulkar was for 12 years and 152 innings.

It's also worth noting that when both Tendulkar and Gilchrist's past-prime times are compared, Tendulkar comes-out on top too.

But where have I said - so much as once - that Gilchrist's first 43 games are now meaningless because of the 41 which followed?

Well since Test Cricket these days is all about rubbish bowling (apparently) shouldn't the players who excel at that be considered the best?

BTW I would pick Sachin ahead of Gilly as a batsmen too. But.. as a Test Cricketer GIly wins hands down IMO.

Back to Kallis v Tendulkar though..