Jacques Kallis vs Allan Border

[Calm_profit]

Gooch was the best against WI

Robin Smith was also good.

 

[h_hurricane]

Gooch was the best against WI

He is a strong pick. Apart from the obvious challenges of opening the batting, he had some high impact performances against them, didn't he.

 

[h_hurricane]

1992-1993 series could have gone either way.

This one absolutely one of the best series I watched as a young kid. Peak Ambrose lifted a falling WI and tilted in their favor.

It was Border's best chance to win a series against them. He did get a great hundred in Melbourne in a winning cause but him bagging a pair in Perth and another poor performance in Adelaide didn't help the matter.

 

[subshakerz]

It isn't a big difference. I was indicating that Kallis averaged higher than Border against their respective strongest opposition in spite of having no Border like reputation of doing good against great attacks. It is the difference between reality and perception. Both were middling (or slightly above average) against mighty opposition. It is debatable which attack was better, though the famous WI quartet of 1970s-80s happened far less often than we all think. Mostly it was '3 greats+one meh bowler' or '2 greats+2 meh bowlers' on some occasions.

Yes, Kallis didn't have a mega series in 2008/2012 but his great hundred in Brisbane 2012 and the subsequent draw played a crucial role in SA winning the series.

You mentioned Border is clearly superior, yet haven't given a reason for the same.

Border faced the quartet in four series, and after that faced Marshall, Ambrose and Walsh, and then Bishop, Ambrose and Walsh. That is some high quality bowling generally. In that context, I consider him averaging 39 more impressive than Kallis averaging 41.

As for Kallis vs Border, Border generally was better tested against quality bowling IMO while Kallis blossomed in a pretty easy run scoring era.

Border also has a more rounded record while Kallis didnt do that well in England and SL, two of the places where he should have scored well.

Not doing well in England is pretty damning for anyone of ATG status. I find it strange how Kallis supporters can overlook 15 tests in England @35. Is there anyone in ATG class who averages less than 40 in England?

I also reckon Border was more highly rated as a bat by his peers than Kallis.

 

[BazBall21]

He is a strong pick. Apart from the obvious challenges of opening the batting, he had some high impact performances against them, didn't he.

He was outstanding against WI. Very consistent with several amazing performances. Several guys held their own, but Gooch did the best out of all of them.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So now you think Kallis is not good in tests either?

Silly question trying to put words in my mouth, don't do that

It isn't a big difference. I was indicating that Kallis averaged higher than Border against their respective strongest opposition in spite of having no Border like reputation of doing good against great attacks. It is the difference between reality and perception. Both were middling (or slightly above average) against mighty opposition. It is debatable which attack was better, though the famous WI quartet of 1970s-80s happened far less often than we all think. Mostly it was '3 greats+one meh bowler' or '2 greats+2 meh bowlers' on some occasions.

Yes, Kallis didn't have a mega series in 2008/2012 but his great hundred in Brisbane 2012 and the subsequent draw played a crucial role in SA winning the series.

I don't really think Border was better, but this reasoning is so full of flaws. You talk about the "best attacks of their time" and yet for a lot of Kallis' career Aus attack wasn't that great. And the 2008 and 2012 series you're focusing on especially weren't particularly strong Aus attacks. The 2012 was probably their worst attack in the time I've been alive. In fact, up until the retirement of McGrath and Warne Kallis only averaged 38 against Aust, and he averaged 46 against them after.

You're blantantly manipulating meaningless stats to support a pre-conceived stance. At least be honest about it instead of pretending that you've found a legitimate point of difference.

 

[StephenZA]

I also reckon Border was more highly rated as a bat by his peers than Kallis.

Do you just make this up as you go along?

 

[trundler]

Do you just make this up as you go along?

Miandad > Border based on that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Miandad > Border based on that.

I really doubt miandad was considered better

 

[subshakerz]

Do you just make this up as you go along?

No. Kallis was never rated that highly as a pure bat, partly due to his batting style, and as an all-rounder was only given his due towards the end of his career and after. You can say he was unlucky, but his peak coincided with several others in the mid-2000s who were just seen as more dangerous.

Border from mid-80s onwards Border was in the top 2-3 if not number 1 bat in the world at times.

 

[StephenZA]

No. Kallis was never rated that highly as a pure bat, partly due to his batting style, and as an all-rounder was only given his due towards the end of his career and after. You can say he was unlucky, but his peak coincided with several others in the mid-2000s who were just seen as more dangerous.

Border from mid-80s onwards Border was in the top 2-3 if not number 1 bat in the world at times.

You realize making more **** up does not change the original **** you made up...

 

[subshakerz]

You realize making more **** up does not change the original **** you made up...

Geez, stop being so squeamish. Saying Border may have been more highly rated as a bat by his peers than Kallis is not a shocking or offensive opinion, even if you disagree with it. And its not like my only point, I mentioned Kallis failing in England which may have been one reason he wasnt as fancied.

Kallis supporters like having it both ways, moaning about how he never got his full credit yet when someone points out that he wasnt rated as highly as others, they also flip out.

 

[h_hurricane]

Silly question trying to put words in my mouth, don't do that

I don't really think Border was better, but this reasoning is so full of flaws. You talk about the "best attacks of their time" and yet for a lot of Kallis' career Aus attack wasn't that great. And the 2008 and 2012 series you're focusing on especially weren't particularly strong Aus attacks. The 2012 was probably their worst attack in the time I've been alive. In fact, up until the retirement of McGrath and Warne Kallis only averaged 38 against Aust, and he averaged 46 against them after.

You're blantantly manipulating meaningless stats to support a pre-conceived stance. At least be honest about it instead of pretending that you've found a legitimate point of difference.

What is your definition of "wasn't that great?" Are you saying that an attack of Warne, Mcgrath and 2 others(mostly Fleming, Gillespie etc) isn't that great ? I never said that Kallis did exceptionally well in 2008 and 2012 against strong attack. I am aware that they were weakened after retirements. I only mentioned he played a good role in the series win which Border couldn't do. He had a great chance in 1992-93 but after a good start, flopped badly in Perth and Adelaide which certainly contributed to series loss.

On a side note, you really have a habit of responding aggressively against posters who you don't agree with, as seen in above post. You would do well to tone it down.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Kallis was rated very highly by everyone especially later in his career. This isn't a point of difference either.

 

[trundler]

I really doubt miandad was considered better

I think he was but it's a pretty spurious metric.

 

[Victor Ian]

Kallis pretty clearly.

Averaged more against the best team of his era (41) than Border did against the best team of his era (39). Have said it earlier and would say it again, it is a misconception that Border was gun against WI of that era. Just 3 hundreds in 59 innings (and his only away hundred happened against a weakened opposition attack when Larry Gomes and Viv Richards shared as much bowling duty as Marshall and Garner).

Also, Kallis was pretty much part of the team that could win 2 away series against Australia when they were declining(2007 onwards). Border could achieve zilch when WI were declining, from around 1990 or so. Australia's great triumph against WI happened in 1995 after he retired.

I rate Kallis highly, so this is not to bring him down, as much as to take issue with your analysis.

Border v Wi @ 39 and kallis v Aus @41. Considering the era's I'm not sure that shows much.

Kallis being part of the team that could beat aus on their downer...I'm not sure that means much either. SA were a great team and Australia had everyone good leave. West Indies didn't suffer the same drop and while Australia were rising they didn't yet have the tools to beat the windows juggernaut, Warne aside. Waugh hadn't fully hit his stride, McGrath was not yet a thing, the other bowlers were meh and the other batsmen were meh, aside from Boon.

Border's hundred count is not what you make it out to be. 3 v 5, but 14 v 10 in fifties in about the same number of innings. Border played when hundreds were an amazing feat. Kallis played when hundreds were a dime a dozen. Not the doozie you make it out to be.

While I can't really make up my mind on who is the better bat, Border is who I'd choose to bat for my life. Kallis is who I'd choose to bat for his own life.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think he was but it's a pretty spurious metric.

Oh it's complete bull**** for sure.

"This guy A was probably not rated as highly as B during his career so we should continue thinking that regardless of whether it was correct" wtf? Meaningless and dumb

 

[BazBall21]

I rate Kallis highly, so this is not to bring him down, as much as to take issue with your analysis.

Border v Wi @ 39 and kallis v Aus @41. Considering the era's I'm not sure that shows much.

Kallis being part of the team that could beat aus on their downer...I'm not sure that means much either. SA were a great team and Australia had everyone good leave. West Indies didn't suffer the same drop and while Australia were rising they didn't yet have the tools to beat the windows juggernaut, Warne aside. Waugh hadn't fully hit his stride, McGrath was not yet a thing, the other bowlers were meh and the other batsmen were meh, aside from Boon.

Border's hundred count is not what you make it out to be. 3 v 5, but 14 v 10 in fifties in about the same number of innings. Border played when hundreds were an amazing feat. Kallis played when hundreds were a dime a dozen. Not the doozie you make it out to be.

While I can't really make up my mind on who is the better bat, Border is who I'd choose to bat for my life. Kallis is who I'd choose to bat for his own life.

Love that point at the end

 

[TheJediBrah]

What is your definition of "wasn't that great?" Are you saying that an attack of Warne, Mcgrath and 2 others(mostly Fleming, Gillespie etc) isn't that great ? I never said that Kallis did exceptionally well in 2008 and 2012 against strong attack. I am aware that they were weakened after retirements. I only mentioned he played a good role in the series win which Border couldn't do. He had a great chance in 1992-93 but after a good start, flopped badly in Perth and Adelaide which certainly contributed to series loss.

Bro I don't care, I'm not saying anything. If anything I'm leaning that Kallis was better but I'm not really arguing either way on this one, just pointing out everyone's ****ty arguments and yours is as ****ty as subshakerz' is.

Kallis did not do better against stronger attacks - this is not a point of difference
Border was not rated higher by his peers - this is not a point of difference

On a side note, you really have a habit of responding aggressively against posters who you don't agree with, as seen in above post. You would do well to tone it down.

You think that's aggressive? wow

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis was rated very highly by everyone especially later in his career. This isn't a point of difference either.

How high is rated highly? Top three? Top five? Top ten?