Would you give Wasim credit for tougher home tests?
That's is just disingenuous when you know that peers of his era, post-career, edge Wasim ahead of those two.
MoM is a pretty lousy way of determining this, but even then Wasim has 17 in 104 matches, Kallis 23 in 166, with more of the latter in Zimbabwe/Bangladesh games. So Wasim is more impressive even by that account. But in terms of memorable career highlights and standout performances, Kallis has little to show.
Except Tendulkar debuted 6 years before Kallis and averaged nearly 60 in the 90s.
Boohoo. Stop complaining about this.
I think CW doesn't have as many issues with Kallis in team 2. But I think if Sobers was not there, Kallis would have more competition in an ATG first XI with folks like Hammond as posters wouldnt want to water down the middle order for the sake of some rest overs.
Kallis next to guys like Bradman and Tendulkar is an odd fit and few would sacrifice top tier batting quality while some may even opt for Miller. So Kallis ain't a lock.
Funnily enough you said you rate Marshall and Warned batting abilities as more than sufficient for you. So if Wasim is better than them, then that definitely means you can't dismiss his runs.
Kallis is top 3 on this board by virtue of his batting skills compared to other more rounded ARs, not his bowling skills when he doesn't even average 2 wickets a game.
You're in the minority and have failed to provide any convincing argument for this. In fact, you embarassed yourself by trying to convert runs into slip catches and had to walk that back.
No, and you know why. And not going down that road again.
Ambrose also had a high peer rating, and McGrath, well he was Kallis, not as exciting and as such I never thought he was views as great as he should have been. Some, many saw him as second fiddle to Warne, which he never was.
You said one wasn't an impactful player, that amount of MOM awards says different. Kallis had stand out performances, you just choose to downgrade them.
Never said he was quite. Sachin, but they were ridiculously close as far as eras go, and ended up with the similar averages
Pointing out an obvious fact isn't complaining.
Watering down the middle order, gotcha.
So I rate Immy 8th, and Jaques 14th, that's about equal factoring in that there are more batsmen than bowlers, so I assume that's also watering down, or not quite? And yeah, the only remotely close competition to Kallis is Hammond, and there's no lack of posters here who would have blasted from the mountain tops that Wally wasn't an all rounder.
Kallis next to Tendulkar isn't an add fit and to to keep repeating it doesn't make it so. And no one is opting for Miller. He's pretty damn close to a lock.
Where did I say I dismissed his runs?
But he is a batting all rounder, so is Sobers, Imran and Hadlee, bowling all-rounders.
1. I don't care if I'm in the minority, that's never bothered me, nor do I, like you, need everyone to agree with me.
2. You're the one that set up multiple stupid threads about adjusting figures for various factors, including slip fielding if I'm not incorrect. So stop projecting.
Anyone who's ever watched a cricket match understands the value that a great cordon can bring, if you need stats to verify it, that's on you. And yes, I rate the cordon as a whole as more important than reserve bowlers and lower order batting, you don't have to agree.