What is Sachin's 99.94?

[centurymaker]

if Kallis even performs well till 42, thats good enough for me to say he had a better career than Tendulkar.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Didn't mean your debate with centurymaker obv

But posts which say Tendulkar would average 70 if he'd hit his prime later and that Kallis would average 45 in the 90s are preposterous. How can someone make those claims? There's nothing to back them up whatsoever

I don't think it too controversial to suggest Kallis would average less than 50 throughout the 90s.

Throughout his career is average is 41 against Australia, and only 38 whilst Australia were still a good team (Warne, Mcgrath era)

In England his average is 35. SRT tops 50 by both these measurements.


Where Kallis really shines is hammering bad teams -

Almost 80 against Bangladesh

A scarcely believable 169 against Zimbabwe

Since 2005 he's averaged 75 against the much depleted West Indies


SRT has played well against everyone, and managed to up his game against the best team of his era. He averaged 55 exactly against Australia in 39 test matches, scoring 11 centuries. Which included averaging 53 in Australia, with 6 centuries in 20 matches.

In England SRT averaged 54, scoring 4 centuries in 17 matches. And that's despite a gentle, then quite sudden decline in his last 2 tours.

Now you could argue Kallis is the better batsman, but you could argue that the Sun goes around the Earth. That dogs can't look up. That you can transform everyday metals into gold, that Dame Edna is a convincing woman ... and so on and so on.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

For the record, in case I didn't make it clear, that's exactly how I view it. Which is why I said Kallis would need to play on into his mid 40s for me to consider him better than Tendulkar as a batsman.

I brought up the age he debuted when comparing him to Kallis in reply to the idea that they somehow played the majority of their career in completely different eras or played the same bowling at different phases of their career. They're two years apart, so if Kallis did better in the 2001-2011 period than Tendulkar then it's absolutely to his credit and not because of the mythical generation difference, or the difference between the attacks in the 90s and the attacks in the 00s. That doesn't mean he was a better bat of course, and IMO he wasn't for various reasons unless things change, but Tendulkar wasn't performing only similarly to Kallis or worse because he was a whole two years older for ten years.

And this argument is still silly.

Suppose Kallis plays until he is 45, against ever-weakening bowling, on pitches that offer nothing to the bowlers that haven't retired to play 20/20 instead.

So what? You're saying this would make him better than Tendulkar?

Jesus!

 

[centurymaker]

tl;dr

 

[ankitj]

Which of you ****s is supporting Sachin and which is calling him ****? This thread is so confusing.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

In the end we decided to amicably conclude that Robert Key was better than both.