Cricket Player Manager
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 94

Thread: Tendulkar vs Kallis

  1. #16
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    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.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #17
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.
    NRL Tipping Champion 2014

  3. #18
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    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.

  4. #19
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    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?


  5. #20
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    "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..

  6. #21
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,972
    Kallis brings more value to a Test team, but over their careers, as a batsman, Tendulkar > Kallis by a reasonable distance.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  7. #22
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Well since Test Cricket these days is all about rubbish bowling (apparently) shouldn't the players who excel at that be considered the best?
    Erm... no, I rate that considerably lower than the ability to score against better bowling.

    At a time of generally good bowling Tendulkar was superlative, Kallis good. This is far more important than one's ability to bash rubbish bowling - not that Tendulkar at the time he was a good player lost anything in comparison to Kallis there.

    I really wish people would stop, meanwhile, bringing the Tendulkar of 2003 onwards into any equation. Tendulkar was no longer the player he had been - of course he couldn't cash-in on the rubbish bowling the way some have.

  8. #23
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Erm... no, I rate that considerably lower than the ability to score against better bowling.

    At a time of generally good bowling Tendulkar was superlative, Kallis good. This is far more important than one's ability to bash rubbish bowling - not that Tendulkar at the time he was a good player lost anything in comparison to Kallis there.

    I really wish people would stop, meanwhile, bringing the Tendulkar of 2003 onwards into any equation. Tendulkar was no longer the player he had been - of course he couldn't cash-in on the rubbish bowling the way some have.
    Of course? Your only saying that because he hasn't been good enough.

    Do you think we should wipe away all batting stats from 2003 to 2007 due to the bowling not being at the right standard?


    Look at the 112 bowlers who have taken the wicket of Sachin in test match cricket. You will find many bowlers who weren't anything special. It's impossible to have 11 great players in all teams..

  9. #24
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Erm... no, I rate that considerably lower than the ability to score against better bowling.

    At a time of generally good bowling Tendulkar was superlative, Kallis good. This is far more important than one's ability to bash rubbish bowling - not that Tendulkar at the time he was a good player lost anything in comparison to Kallis there.

    I really wish people would stop, meanwhile, bringing the Tendulkar of 2003 onwards into any equation. Tendulkar was no longer the player he had been - of course he couldn't cash-in on the rubbish bowling the way some have.
    Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Kallis was rather Green in said period? No acknowledgement of players growing or becoming better? It is all about bashing rubbish attacks on flat pitches...something which Lara AND Tendulkar have proven ordinary doing. As said a million times, if we are going to hold in esteem their performances in a period where they faced 'better attacks' - although it was shown before Tendulkar wasn't too terrific facing them - we should be also just as harsh calculating the fact that they cannot bat better when the conditions are conducive to run-scoring. For, if such a thing is easy and should be looked at with a 'grain of salt', then failing in this era should also harm ones record.
    ★★★★★

  10. #25
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Of course? Your only saying that because he hasn't been good enough.
    Yes, I am... precisely. Had Tendulkar continued to be the player 2003-2007 that he was 1990-2002 he WOULD have averaged 70 or so, there's about as little doubt about that as there is of anything.
    Do you think we should wipe away all batting stats from 2003 to 2007 due to the bowling not being at the right standard?
    Of course we shouldn't wipe them away, but it must be accepted, AFAIC, that runs between 2001\02 and the current time are not worth anywhere near what they have been at most points in the game's history. Most, not all remember.
    Look at the 112 bowlers who have taken the wicket of Sachin in test match cricket. You will find many bowlers who weren't anything special. It's impossible to have 11 great players in all teams..
    So?
    Last edited by Richard; 18-11-2007 at 08:15 AM.

  11. #26
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Kallis was rather Green in said period? No acknowledgement of players growing or becoming better? It is all about bashing rubbish attacks on flat pitches...something which Lara AND Tendulkar have proven ordinary doing. As said a million times, if we are going to hold in esteem their performances in a period where they faced 'better attacks' - although it was shown before Tendulkar wasn't too terrific facing them - we should be also just as harsh calculating the fact that they cannot bat better when the conditions are conducive to run-scoring. For, if such a thing is easy and should be looked at with a 'grain of salt', then failing in this era should also harm ones record.
    I'm not doing this again. Everything I've said - in your direction - has been said more than enough times.

    You cannot see things the way I find them; I will not accept that everything must be considered absolutely equal.

  12. #27
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Yes, I am... precisely. Had Tendulkar continued to be the player 2003-2007 that he was 1990-2002 he WOULD have averaged 70 or 80, there's about as little doubt about that as there is of anything.

  13. #28
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Kallis was rather Green in said period? No acknowledgement of players growing or becoming better? It is all about bashing rubbish attacks on flat pitches...something which Lara AND Tendulkar have proven ordinary doing. As said a million times, if we are going to hold in esteem their performances in a period where they faced 'better attacks' - although it was shown before Tendulkar wasn't too terrific facing them - we should be also just as harsh calculating the fact that they cannot bat better when the conditions are conducive to run-scoring. For, if such a thing is easy and should be looked at with a 'grain of salt', then failing in this era should also harm ones record.
    Spot on for mine on both points and I raised a similar point in my 'Why' thread.
    Rest In Peace Craigos
    2003-2012

  14. #29
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic View Post
    80 might be a bit of an ask, but if Kallis, Ponting etc. can average 70, Tendulkar certainly could have had he not declined.

  15. #30
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Yes, I am... precisely. Had Tendulkar continued to be the player 2003-2007 that he was 1990-2002 he WOULD have averaged 70 or 80, there's about as little doubt about that as there is of anything.

    Of course we shouldn't wipe them away, but it must be accepted, AFAIC, that runs between 2001\02 and the current time are not worth anywhere near what they have been at most points in the game's history. Most, not all remember.

    So?
    70 to 80 that's a massive jump..

    My point with the bowlers is that Sachin faced rubbish bowling which to me means there was a period in the 90s where he had it easy.

    There are 8 test nations Sachin can play against currently. So about 32 bowlers in Test Cricket. What percent of the bowlers would you consider

    1) Excellent
    2) Good
    3) Average
    4) Poor

    And what was it like in your opinion in the tougher conditions at the of last century?

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. JH Kallis v SM Pollock
    By Langeveldt in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 21-12-2013, 02:21 AM
  2. Kallis considering his future
    By James in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 01-09-2007, 04:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •