Where does Kallis rate as a batsman alone?

[Hit Wicket]

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

Why just the bolded ones? It's suddenly not clear to me that even Bradman is better than Kallis. After all he just played in 2 countries against one decent opposition. If Kallis keeps playing West Indies, Zimbabwe, and Bangladesh in 10 grounds he'll overtake Bradman as well.

 

[Zinzan]

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.

Why were NZ a better ranked test side than SL in that period? Were our Batsman better? lol

 

[centurymaker]

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.

1st part- True, but 'hitwicket' only did a rough approximation, so it's likely that Kallis did score most of his 100's against weak bowling line-ups.
2nd part- Thats exactly what i was referring to. That bowling attack is indeed india without zaheer.

 

[Blaze 18]

Blaze 18 I agree it's a little harsh, just trying to point out that Kallis averages 4 more than say Lara. While I think Lara's better because he was a lone wolf in a weaker team, played some absolute classics and played more in the 90s.

For me I judge that to marginally cancel out the 4 runs Kallis averages over him. However, unless someone can prove that Lara faced significantly better bowling throughout his career ie he faced Mcgrath, Wasim, Donald etc while Kallis faced Agarkar, then there is no way he could be seen as being in a different league to Kallis. We are judging on effectiveness not aesthetics.

Like I said, it doesn't really matter to me if Jacques Kallis averages more than Brian Lara. As far as I am concerned, there is no comparison between the two. Brian Lara is the greatest batsman of his generation bar none, and one of the only two all-time great batsmen of this era (in my opinion). The term "all-time great" is thrown around too loosely around here. That is not a slight on Jacques Kallis - he is a wonderful batsman; not an all-time great for me, though.

 

[robelinda]

There's not one Kallis that anyone can say is better than most of Lara's. Most of Kallis' tons are rather forgettable. No career defining ton, just a bunch of boring useless ones, and no really big ones either. I'd say Mahela Jayawardena is similar but he has some humungous tons to his name, and has done ok in england, Kallis has been fairly embarrassing in England, some very weak dismissals. I dont recall him looking all that good against Sri Lanka, even in South Africa either.

 

[Zinzan]

Why just the bolded ones? It's suddenly not clear to me that even Bradman is better than Kallis. After all he just played in 2 countries against one decent opposition. If Kallis keeps playing West Indies, Zimbabwe, and Bangladesh in 10 grounds he'll overtake Bradman as well.

To be fair, I should have bolded all names except Bradman, that was effectively my point. And sorry, I can't help you if it's suddenly unclear to you as to why Bradman is categorically regarded as the no.1 considering he averages close to double his nearest challenger, something almost unprecedented in any other sport. What's not at all clear is who's 2nd. 3rd, 4th etc etc after him, yet you're trying to make out that it is somehow categorical.

 

[Blaze 18]

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.

It isn't India's bowling attack that has taken them to number one in the rankings, surely that much is obvious. India's batting is the sole factor for India's position in the rankings, their bowling has little to do with it.

Not knocking down Kallis' innings here; just wanted to point out that it isn't India's bowling that has taken them to number one.

 

[akilana]

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

 

[centurymaker]

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'

I should not have said spot on. Refer to my last post.

 

[Zinzan]

1st part- True, but 'hitwicket' only did a rough approximation, so it's likely that Kallis did score most of his 100's against weak bowling line-ups.
2nd part- Thats exactly what i was referring to. That bowling attack is indeed india without zaheer.

It's purely hypothetical, but I find it highly unlikely Zaheer would have made much a difference in that last test, it was the express pace of Steyn & Morkel that made the difference on the wicket & to suggest Kallis wouldn't have scored the double ton if he was playing in just redundant.

 

[GotSpin]

Why just the bolded ones? It's suddenly not clear to me that even Bradman is better than Kallis. After all he just played in 2 countries against one decent opposition. If Kallis keeps playing West Indies, Zimbabwe, and Bangladesh in 10 grounds he'll overtake Bradman as well.

Oh dear. So bad

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

After reading some of the tripe in this thread, I'm now vocally supporting Kallis whereas I was fairly non-plussed about him before. Really, there's some utter codswallop in this thread.

 

[Athlai]

I must admit I have to rate him a little more now that he finally has a double to his name. It just seemed like a strange barrier for a player of his calibre but he has finally went out there and busted through it.

Definitely right up there with batsman of our generation if a tier under the likes of Tendulkar and Lara.

 

[Migara]

These I really think should be rated below Kallis. Dravid as discussed has had a major drop in success over the last 3-4 years. Sehwag and Sanga? Good to watch, perhaps, but, no. Richards is difficult, but 4 Tests is really not enough to put him in this kind of company - we can't go on what might have been at this level. Harsh but fair.

Then, Chappell. I'm open to the discussion but I remain unconvinced by him at the top - perhaps I need to have seen him bat, maybe you just had to be there - but his record doesn't rack up to some of these names, or Kallis'.

Other than for weight of runs (which is 3,500 difference), Sanga has a record equal or better than Kallis. If Sanga manages 11k runs at 57, then I'll rate him above Kallis for sure.

 

[Teja.]

Among my seven ATG bats post 1990:

Tendulkar,Lara,Ponting,Dravid,Kallis,Sanga,Sehwag

 

[Xuhaib]

I think Kallis is a bit vulnerable to extreme pace Shoaib has rattled him a few times its unfortunate Shoaib did not get to play many tests against SA but whenever he did he had a wood over Kallis.

 

[Smudge]

Still haven't seen him scoop a fast bowler over the keeper's head with regular monotony, so I've got him below Dilshan and McCullum.

 

[Smudge]

Shoaib did not get to play many tests against SA but whenever he did he had a wood over Kallis.

To be fair to the ***ually-charged Shoaib, lesser men than he would have got wood over Kallis. With or without genital warts.

 

[Blaze 18]

To be fair to the ***ually-charged Shoaib, lesser men than he would have got wood over Kallis. With or without genital warts.

How is this relevant, mate ?

 

[Smudge]

How is this relevant, mate ?

Ummmmmm.... Shoaib Akhtar's genital warts keep him out of Pakistan's World Twenty 20 squad - Telegraph