Tendulkar vs Kallis

[Richard]

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.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

[Dasa]

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.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

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?

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by Richard

"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..

[silentstriker]

Kallis brings more value to a Test team, but over their careers, as a batsman, Tendulkar > Kallis by a reasonable distance.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

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.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by Richard

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..

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

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?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

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.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

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.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

80 might be a bit of an ask, but if Kallis, Ponting etc. can average 70, Tendulkar certainly could have had he not declined.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by Richard

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?