Sanath v/s Kallis

[open365]

I never realised Jayasuriya was as over-rated as he seems to be in this thread. I've never seen someone demolish crap bowling as well as he does, but if, hypothetically, there was a level above Test cricket, he'd be a massive failure for mine. He has few answers to quality bowling. Kallis on the other hand would still shine, or at worst be a pretty good batsman against the Martians or whoever he'd be facing.

EDIT: Just read that and realised what an awful criteria it was. Nevertheless, Kallis is still leagues ahead.

Jayasuriya was a decent Test batsman, a more-than-handy part-time bowler with impressive longevity and an amazing servant to Sri Lankan cricket, but he's not even on the same planet as Kallis as either a batsman or a bowler, let alone an allrounder.

I think you're distinction of Kallis being able to score runs against extra terrestrials is acctualy a pretty good point when comparing the two.

People are entitled to their opinion, and to even shoot someone down for suggesting that Sanath, out of all people, is not good to watch... well **** me dead that's ridiculous.

He wasn't 'shooting him down'?

Richard gets a fair amount of flack for people ill-interpreting what he means or how he means it, but even so I think his post there was quite clearly just him giving his differing opinion.

 

[Prince EWS]

Surely some people are making comments on one dayers while others are for Test Matches.

Never really though of that TBH. I could definitely accept the view that Jayasuriya is/was a better ODI allrounder than Kallis; I don't necessarily agree with it but it's very close.

Just can't see how you could make an argument for it in Tests though.

 

[Jono]

Shoot someone down?

FFS, where the hell was I shooting Edmunds down? I was saying I find it amazing that anyone can consider Jayasuriya more attractive to watch than Kallis. And I do. Nothing wrong with that, any more than there is with preferring Shahid Afridi to Rahul Dravid, but I do find both quite remarkable.

I...

a) love Kallis
b) love Kallis' batting
c) love orthodox technical batting in general

yet I would rather watch Jayasuriya in any form of the game more-so than Kallis.

I think that says nothing surprising or denigrating about either my taste or my knowledge for the game.

If you were to ask who do I like better as a player? Kallis. Who do I rate better as a player? Kallis. Who would I want in my team? Kallis. But who would I rather watch is a different question, and Jayasuriya isn't some slogger or idiotic batsman like Afridi, so your above comparison doesn't fly at all.

Apologise for the overreaction, but how on Earth do you find it surprising? Jayasuriya is one of the batsman people most love to watch in world cricket, in either form, when in full flight. Not just casual fans, the majority of cricket fans absolutely adore watching him bat.

 

[Richard]

Surely some people are making comments on one dayers while others are for Test Matches.

Never really though of that TBH. I could definitely accept the view that Jayasuriya is/was a better ODI allrounder than Kallis; I don't necessarily agree with it but it's very close.

Just can't see how you could make an argument for it in Tests though.

Was considering saying what your namesake Bowen said in that post you've just quoted, but he beat me to it.

I hope such people who voted Jayasuriya did so because they realised how completely OOTQ the idea of him being a better Test all-rounder was so simply assumed the question wasn't remotely being asked.

 

[Richard]

I...

a) love Kallis
b) love Kallis' batting
c) love orthodox technical batting in general

yet I would rather watch Jayasuriya in any form of the game more-so than Kallis.

I think that says nothing surprising or denigrating about either my taste or my knowledge for the game.

If you were to ask who do I like better as a player? Kallis. Who do I rate better as a player? Kallis. Who would I want in my team? Kallis. But who would I rather watch is a different question, and Jayasuriya isn't some slogger or idiotic batsman like Afridi, so your above comparison doesn't fly at all.

You're getting "who's best" and "who do I prefer to watch" confused even while trying to separate them. The reason for the comparison with Afridi is that some people prefer to watch Afridi, same as some people prefer to watch Jayasuriya. It doesn't matter that Afridi is an idiotic slogger and Jayasuriya a decent batsman, both of them some people like watching them bat for whatever reasons.

The fact is, you basically accused me of doing something when I was doing nothing of the sort. I wasn't criticising anyone for preferring to watch something - simply saying I found it amazing. Surprising and denigrating are two completely and totally different things, and you can most certainly have the former without a trace of the latter. I would never attempt to denigrate Edmunds, he's one of the best posters on the forum.

 

[Migara]

Tests, Kallis is miles ahead. In ODis, Jayasuriya is a notch ahead, because he has been a top all rounder (batsman, bowler, fielder and a captain) for a longer time than Kallis, and more efficiently at that.

 

[Jono]

You're getting "who's best" and "who do I prefer to watch" confused even while trying to separate them. The reason for the comparison with Afridi is that some people prefer to watch Afridi, same as some people prefer to watch Jayasuriya. It doesn't matter that Afridi is an idiotic slogger and Jayasuriya a decent batsman, both of them some people like watching them bat for whatever reasons.

The fact is, you basically accused me of doing something when I was doing nothing of the sort. I wasn't criticising anyone for preferring to watch something - simply saying I found it amazing. Surprising and denigrating are two completely and totally different things, and you can most certainly have the former without a trace of the latter. I would never attempt to denigrate Edmunds, he's one of the best posters on the forum.

Yep you're right Richards. My apologies.

 

[ret]

Kallis batting/bowling on a flat-track could be a liability .... while a Jayasuriya in pace bowler friendly conditions

in tests - Kallis
in ODIs - Jayasuriya

 

[Anil]

kallis by miles in any form of cricket....

 

[gwo]

Being talked of more often doesn't make one better, it just makes them more standing-out-from-the-crowd - different. Same as people who try to use that in the Knight-Gilchrist thing - it's really quite meaningless.

Being run-of-the-mill, quiet, and very good > being out-of-the-box and less good.

Wait... are you saying Nick Knight > Adam Gilchrist as a batsman?

 

[Nutter]

Kallis for tests, Sanath for ODIs

 

[Craig]

Wait... are you saying Nick Knight > Adam Gilchrist as a batsman?

How did this not get pulled up?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How did this not get pulled up?

The mods were probably too busy rolling on the floor laughing at the idea of Knight's superiority over Gilchrist.

 

[Perm]

Yep you're right Richards. My apologies.

 

[Jono]

Lol, Perm I was actually sincerely apologising. I probably accused Richard of doing something he didn't do.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Lol, Perm I was actually sincerely apologising. I probably accused Richard of doing something he didn't do.

I'm amazed, TBH flabbergasted that you could think that. ITSTL.

 

[Aamir Alauddin]

In test Cricket definitely Kallis is far better. For one day cricket i would definitely go for Sanath. he is a real match winner. I am not sure Kallis can win a match for his team in modern day cricket even after playing the full quota of 50 overs. Sanath can do that if he stays at crease for just 20 overs.

 

[Richard]

Wait... are you saying Nick Knight > Adam Gilchrist as a batsman?

ITSTL, wonder what was in here. Yeah, of course there's a fairly obvious case that Knight was a better ODI opening batsman than Gilchrist. There's also a case for the other way around, but to dismiss out-of-hand the idea is clear stupidity.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

ITSTL, wonder what was in here. Yeah, of course there's a fairly obvious case that Knight was a better ODI opening batsman than Gilchrist. There's also a case for the other way around, but to dismiss out-of-hand the idea is clear stupidity.

It was a four letter word beginning with the letter that follows R in the alphabet and ending with the letter that precedes U but with several I's in the middle, presumably to avoid the filter. What's the obvious case for Knight being superior to Gilchrist?

 

[open365]

It was a four letter word beginning with the letter that follows R in the alphabet and ending with the letter that precedes U but with several I's in the middle, presumably to avoid the filter. What's the obvious case for Knight being superior to Gilchrist?

He has a substantialy higher average