Where does Kallis rate as a batsman alone?

[centurymaker]

No it wont, especially in the context where the whole idea is to denigrate a great batsman's performance by making stuff up.

how is it not? I'm pretty sure the word " ODD" is used to express slight uncertainty
for exampe, don't people normally say so and so got 60 odd runs even when that batsman got something in the high 60's.
(i couldn't remember the exact figure- all i remembered was that it was in the 20's)
Plus anything under 35 is pretty Low imo.

 

[kingjulian]

I don't get it. When everything else fails, people create new ways to determine a batsman's worth. Ricky was averaging around same after 43 tests.

Isn't it great that despite the ordinary beginnings, the guy has done so well as a batsman and statistically as good as anyone in his era ?

Two things.

1. I'm not comparing him with Ponting. In fact, i put him in the same bracket as Ponting. (by the way Ponting averaged 47 i think)

2. You should be comparing apples to apples.... eg..lets take Lara and Kallis. Both have played a lot of cricket in the nineties and the noughties. Lara stood out in the nineties. Stayed with the pack in the noughties. Kallis was nowhere in the nineties, and stayed with the pack in noughties. If you are comparing overall career numbers though, there is not too much of a difference in career average for Lara and Kallis. If anything its slightly worse for Lara. So you'd be penalizing a player like Lara more for playing in a tougher era and doing well.

My question is, why is Kallis better than a Hayden or a Hussey or a Sehwag or a Dravid or a Ponting or a Sangakkara. His numbers are not too different with each having their own strengths and weakness. Where does he stand out (as a batsman)? Lara and Tendulkar have got that stand out factor.

 

[TumTum]

You can't compare people like that because they were in different stages of their career. Using the records of either Kallis or Ponting in the 90s is just stupid.

 

[akilana]

2. You should be comparing apples to apples.... eg..lets take Lara and Kallis. Both have played a lot of cricket in the nineties and the noughties. Lara stood out in the nineties. Stayed with the pack in the noughties. Kallis was nowhere in the nineties, and stayed with the pack in noughties. If you are comparing overall career numbers though, there is not too much of a difference in career average for Lara and Kallis. If anything its slightly worse for Lara. So you'd be penalizing a player like Lara more for playing in a tougher era and doing well.

Lara averaged 48 till Dec 2000 so not sure if he stayed with the pack.

 

[centurymaker]

Lara averaged 48 till Dec 2000 so not sure if he stayed with the pack.

He sure did!! Only sachin and waugh averaged higher than him in 90's.
tendulkar 58 , steve waugh 53 & Lara 51 IIRC.
the decade ended in dec 1999, not dec 2000 btw.

 

[kingjulian]

You can't compare people like that because they were in different stages of their career. Using the records of either Kallis or Ponting in the 90s is just stupid.

Hmm...I'm saying don't compare stat numbers blindly, and apply the context of how hard it was to make those numbers.

You want that part to be ignored, because they were at different stages in their career? 48 or 43 tests is significant. It is a third of their playing career. There have been examples of forum members calling a batsman weak against fast bowling for failing against one bowler in this forum.

The batsman may have genuinely improved after a point of time, but when there are at least 10 or 15 other batsmen who have started performing to about the same level at the same time....i'm more inclined to chalk it under batsmen benefiting from flatter tracks/poor bowling. In the case of Kallis, his record against top bowling attacks of his time adds a further argument to that point.

 

[TumTum]

Hmm...I'm saying don't compare stat numbers blindly, and apply the context of how hard it was to make those numbers.

You want that part to be ignored, because they were at different stages in their career? 48 or 43 tests is significant. It is a third of their playing career. There have been examples of forum members calling a batsman weak against fast bowling for failing against one bowler in this forum.

The batsman may have genuinely improved after a point of time, but when there are at least 10 or 15 other batsmen who have started performing to about the same level at the same time....i'm more inclined to chalk it under batsmen benefiting from flatter tracks/poor bowling. In the case of Kallis, his record against top bowling attacks of his time adds a further argument to that point.

We will never know if they improved their records because of the different era. But using their average in the 90s is stupid, as they were in a different stage of their career. Both made their debut in 1995 at a young age, no way should you expect them to perform at that stage.

 

[akilana]

He sure did!! Only sachin and waugh averaged higher than him in 90's.
tendulkar 58 , steve waugh 53 & Lara 51 IIRC.
the decade ended in dec 1999, not dec 2000 btw.

I know when decade ends but that was the year he used for Kallis so had to use that for Lara

 

[centurymaker]

We will never know if they improved their records because of the different era. But using their average in the 90s is stupid, as they were in a different stage of their career. Both made their debut in 1995 at a young age, no way should you expect them to perform at that stage.

going by your theory- No one should've expected lara and sachin to perform that well for the first half of the 1990's, especially tendulkar considering that he was still a kid.

 

[Zinzan]

Tier 1-
V Richards, Lara, Bradman, Tendulkar and Sobers.

Tier 2 (Post 1975) -
Chappell, Gavaskar, Waugh, Ponting, Dravid & Kallis.

I've said it before & I'll say it again....... After Bradman, it purely comes down to personal preference whether one prefers Lara, G Pollock, Tendulkar, Sobers, Kallis, Ponting, G Chappell, Hobbs, Richards, Headley, Hammond etc etc as 2nd best batsman.

So your Tier 1/ Tier 2 categorization really isn't substantiated by anything other than your personal preference.

For mine, there's really nothing between 2nd best & 15th best Test batsmen & there's a decent enough argument for Kallis being the equal of Sachin & Punter with the bat.

One thing that is substantiated is that if you add his bowling into the mix, Kallis is a much better cricketer than either Tendulkar or Ponting, that's easy.

 

[TumTum]

going by your theory- No one should've expected lara and sachin to perform that well for the first half of the 1990's, especially tendulkar considering that he was still a kid.

Exactly. What are you implying with the smiley?

 

[Zinzan]

Can't see him in the top 20 for sure. Can think of the following batsmen clearly better than him :

Bradman
Tendulkar
Lara
Hobbs
Richards
Gavaskar
Ponting
Dravid
Chappell
Sobers
Trumper
Ranjitsinhji
Border
Waugh
Sehwag
Sangakkara
Headley
Pollock
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Hutton
Walcott

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but those bolded above all "clearly" better than Kallis ? What's clear about it, enlighten me ?

 

[Zinzan]

I don't have any arguments against his playing style.

It's just that he seems to have feasted on a lot of weaker attacks, significantly more than his other top notch contemporaries like Tendulkar and Lara. Some would argue that it's not Kallis' fault that the others could not cash in as much on the weaker bowling units, but the way I like to judge is how well a batsman performs against the best rather than who can pummel the weaker attacks more.

He has 8 hundreds against West Indies - 7 of them against absolutely ordinary attacks
6 against Pakistan, most of them against attacks missing their top bowlers
5 against New Zealand
4 against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh

In contrast, Tendulkar has 17 hundreds against Australia and South Africa and 33 if you include England and Sri Lanka. Kallis has just 8 against Australia, England, and Sri Lanka.

Similarly with Lara, 13 of his centuries are against Australia and South Africa, 25 including England and Sri Lanka.

The biggest tell sign is that one really has to think hard to come up with Kallis innings which would stand out from the crowd. You can roll them off your tongue for Tendulkar and Lara, and to a lesser extent for Ponting and Dravid.

You need to be careful with some of these drill-downs. Kallis has played since 1995 & NZ were a better test side than SL from around1998-2004 & were probably better than England from 1999-2002 (won in Eng in '99 & drew at home '02) and the West Indies weren't weak up to around 2001, so if you're going to generalize, be prepared to provide some context.

 

[ankitj]

Kallis as a batsmen is behind 3 other South Africans for me - G. Pollock, Barry Richards and Dudley Nourse. That'd put him somewhere in my top 20 to 25, or may be just inside top 20.

 

[Zinzan]

You're spot on and his averages in some countries aren't great either. Thats mainly why he won't ever be rated higher than Ponting or even dravid imo as a batsman.

Again, you're assuming the current test rankings have been the same since 1995, when in actual fact they weren't at all. So don't generalize that countries weren't great, NZ were 3rd ranked Test side around 2003 IIRC and India, Sl & England were all struggling relatively, so can't see how he's 'spot on'

 

[centurymaker]

You need to be careful with some of these drill-downs. Kallis has played since 1995 & NZ were a better test side than SL from around1998-2004 & were probably better than England from 1999-2002 (won in Eng in '99 & drew at home '02) and the West Indies weren't weak up to around 2001, so if you're going to generalize, be prepared to provide some context.

For instance, Kallis' last 3 consecutive 100's have come against weak bowling attacks, haven't they?
2 against pakistan in the middle-east and 1 against a bowling-up as good as bangadesh.
It's not his fault that he's too good for them, but i'm just pointing out the facts.

 

[akilana]

For instance, Kallis' last 3 consecutive 100's have come against weak bowling attacks, haven't they?
2 against pakistan in the middle-east and 1 against a bowling-up as good as bangadesh.
It's not his fault that he's too good for them, but i'm just pointing out the facts.

Anything to make him look worse.. isn't it.

It's the same attack that got the bangaladesh to no 1, so it must be good. Make up your mind.

 

[Zinzan]

For instance, Kallis' last 3 consecutive 100's have come against weak bowling attacks, haven't they?
2 against pakistan in the middle-east and 1 against a bowling-up as good as bangadesh.
It's not his fault that he's too good for them, but i'm just pointing out the facts.

Firstly, that's not what I was quoting you about, read my post in context, you were telling "Hit wicket" he was spot-on about the teams Kallis has scored 100s against, when in actual fact the strengths of those teams have actually changed a lot in the last 10-15 years, hence it's kind of a mute point.

Secondly, it's kind of ironic that you mention Pakistan's attack (even without the two "M's") which surely is no worse than India's attack (without Zaheer) that Kallis plundered his recent double hundred off.

 

[centurymaker]

Anything to make him look worse.. isn't it.

It's the same attack that got the bangaladesh to no 1, so it must be good. Make up your mind.

Nope it's not the same without ZAHEEEEER. Refer to the 2010 avgs.
zaheer avg is half as much as teh other indian bowlers.

very roughly it's something like (saw them in the ind v sa thread)

22 zaheer
37 ohja
40+ ishant
40+ sreesanth
mid 40's harbjahan

 

[Hit Wicket]

You need to be careful with some of these drill-downs. Kallis has played since 1995 & NZ were a better test side than SL from around1998-2004 & were probably better than England from 1999-2002 (won in Eng in '99 & drew at home '02) and the West Indies weren't weak up to around 2001, so if you're going to generalize, be prepared to provide some context.

And that is precisely why Kallis has 1 century in 20 innings against the WI till 2001-2 and then 7 in 23 innings after that.

How you can call any NZ attack from the past many years better than a bowling line up with Vaas and Murali is not clear either.