I understand it's subjective, but I reckon Kallis gets the short end of the stick in that people genuine see the tiers as
SRT, Ponting, Lara
whereas for me Kallis should be in the first row of the above. I'm not saying he's definitively better than the other 3; I also don't feel he is definitively worse, which is often the gospel spoken.
It's a silly example on purpose, so that I can highlight the argument I'm trying to provide clearly.
This is why i despise player comparison threads. When you use subjective opinion to say why you think a particular batsman is better/worse, people call it nonsense. Stat-wars should just decide every debate. ****
I'm not saying that you're wrong in saying that you rate SRT greater than Kallis, I'm just saying that basing your decision on prettiness as opposed to performance is wrong. Basically, I'm of the opinion that between SRT, Ponting and Kallis, there isn't enough to definitively say that one is better than the others. Subjectivity will always be rife in these sorts of debates, and I am purely fighting for Kallis to be seen as on the same pedestal as the likes of SRT and Ponting, as opposed to the general opinion which is "he's a bit below the other three."
I didnt say its just "prettiness" FFS
Aargh... im out....
i ws not bckng my opinion. all i said is gavaskar > chappell in experts opinion.
bradman case ( may be a blunder.. still )
extra ordinary stats / performances happens only if ther is lack of competitiveness
hobbs scored 7 centuries after 40 , SFB bowling stats , headley , merchant ... dhyanchand in hockey
if bradman was a batting god , there must nt b any flaws.. he has his own limitations.
played very carefully (evident in 6 sixes) , averaged below 20 (?) in sticky wickets.
hobbs , headley ..etc handled the situation much better manner
better professional approach than contemporaries.,
played for strongest team ( contrast to headley carreer) , less opponents , same conditions..
i think , he wd hv been reduced to 50+avg in modern days. tht doesnt mean hammond will b a 30+avg batsman. he will remain the same 50+.
this is my logic
(assumptions can go wrong.. )
oh god, sobers no.1, stop :wacko:
Come on mrprez, Sachin is defenitely a better batsman than Kallis. Stop arguing.
He carried india's batting almost singlehandedly for around 8 years. Unlike kallis, he did it in more aggressive fashion. His approach changed the momentum of the game. He took on the bowlers when necessary instead of going into a complete shell.
It's alot easier to play freely when you have likes of Amla, AB, Smith around you to share the burden and pressure of scoring or recently when India had sehwag, gambhir, tendulkar, laxman all performing together.
If he had even retired in 2002/03, he'd have gone down as one of the greatest ever because by then he had already achieved pretty much everything there was to achieve except a world cup win. Guys already had him in their All time first XIs back then.
So he's been a legend for much much longer than Kallis (has also played for 6 more yrs than kallis)
Most greats slowly attain greatness whereas the likes of tendulkar, lara attained it every early in their careers. (let's not even mention his ODI exploits here)
Overall, if you bring kallis' bowling into play, then there's a strong case for having him instead of tendulkar unless you have already got all-rounders in your side.