Jacques Kallis vs Graeme Pollock vs Barry Richards

[Cricket Bliss]

How is Kallis struggling against Murali irrelevant to performing well in Asian conditions? Come on now.

How does that matter much? In the End Kallis averages around 60 combined in Asia ( Although low in Sri lanka) , he is extremly successful in those conditions.
Then how does he not performing well against Murali matter that much, then on the other hand he played Akram, Saqlain, Kumble , Harbajan etc very well. why don't you mention that feats?
Akram even mentioned that he couldn't get Kallis out atleast once in Tests.

This is similar to how Lara struggled against McGrath, does that make Lara any short of a GOAT? Similar is the condition of Kallis.

 

[subshakerz]

How does that matter much? In the End Kallis averages around 60 combined in Asia ( Although low in Sri lanka) , he is extremly successful in those conditions.
Then how does he not performing well against Murali matter that much, then on the other hand he played Akram, Saqlain, Kumble , Harbajan etc very well. why don't you mention that feats?
Akram even mentioned that he couldn't get Kallis out atleast once in Tests.

This is similar to how Lara struggled against McGrath, does that make Lara any short of a GOAT? Similar is the condition of Kallis.

Wasim barely played against Kallis.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Wasim barely played against Kallis.

Nah, Kallis played Akram for around 3 test tours. Even if so, then why does Wasim rate Kallis in that list?, there are plenty other batsmen to talk about? why does he rate Kallis in that list?

 

[subshakerz]

Nah, Kallis played Akram for around 3 test tours. Even if so, then why does Wasim rate Kallis in that list?, there are plenty other batsmen to talk about? why does he rate Kallis in that list?

How many tests did Kallis play Akram?

 

[Cricket Bliss]

How many tests did Kallis play Akram?

3 Test Tours ( don't know the exact) and by the way why don't you reply to what Akram said about Kallis. he could've avoided Kallis, thinking about the point your mentioning. But instead he choose Kallis, which by all means defines his calibre.

 

[subshakerz]

3 Test Tours ( don't know the exact) and by the way why don't you reply to what Akram said about Kallis. he could've avoided Kallis, thinking about the point your mentioning. But instead he choose Kallis, which by all means defines his calibre.

He played two tests against Kallis and you are making a big deal of it.

 

[Chin Music]

I find it very difficult to judge players who essentially played so long before I was either born or have no memory of watching. Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock were clearly great players and I have little doubt that they would have had very successful test careers if South Africa hadn't been banned. Indeed Pollock's 23 test career was very impressive but it is only guessing where he would have ended if he had continued.

However, it was long before my time that their test careers were up and although there is footage available of their shotplay in domestic cricket, it is impossible to compare.

I'm also rather confused about the Kallis obsession on this forum, some of it seems to not be that serious, but some of it is rather strange. Great and possibly underrated batter, decent if in my opinion rather overrated support bowler and great slip fielder.

 

[BazBall21]

Kallis obviously had the better test career by a long way, but I instinctively feel that Graeme Pollock is the marquee batsman in South Africa's all time XI.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

He played two tests against Kallis and you are making a big deal of it.

Atleast try to look non biased even if you're.
Tell about the big deal that Akram told. Not Me
And Akram definitely knows hows to rate a batsmen than both of us.
And by the way dont just make your own numbers just to show he played less tests. 3 Tours means 3 Tours

 

[OverratedSanity]

Players with good numbers in a truncated career will always benefit from not having their weaknesses be as apparent as players who were in the firing line for a decade and a half.

If anyone has watched Richards or Pollock bat live and prefers them over Kallis that's fair enough. For everyone else, the answer should be Kallis if you aren't biased af.

 

[subshakerz]

Atleast try to look non biased even if you're.
Tell about the big deal that Akram told. Not Me
And Akram definitely knows hows to rate a batsmen than both of us.
And by the way dont just make your own numbers just to show he played less tests. 3 Tours means 3 Tours

Akram rates Martin Crowe ahead of Lara and Tendulkar as the best he bowled to.

 

[subshakerz]

Players with good numbers in a truncated career will always benefit from not having their weaknesses be as apparent as players who were in the firing line for a decade and a half.

If anyone has watched Richards or Pollock bat live and prefers them over Kallis that's fair enough. For everyone else, the answer should be Kallis if you aren't biased af.

CW put Pollock ahead of Kallis in it's overall list. l so I guess the bias is rampant or maybe you are missing something.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Akram rates Martin Crowe ahead of Lara and Tendulkar as the best he bowled to.

So you are saying peer rating is a **** way guage a player ranking?

 

[subshakerz]

So you are saying peer rating is a **** way guage a player ranking?

That's just one cricketer. I look at more peer rating consensus.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Akram rates Martin Crowe ahead of Lara and Tendulkar as the best he bowled to.

Akram rated Gavaskar the best he ever bowled to,
I'm not saying what Akram rates is the best. He rates based on what he felt bowling to them. But since a bowler like him rates a batsmen so high, then that batsmen, whether Crowe or Kallis, that talks a lot about their calibre.
Your point being Kallis not a great where his subcontintent Statistics talked a lot, and a not much worth opinion of failing against Murali, for which I responded he played well against Akram, which had a further testament from Akram himself, where the legend told how high he ragards Kallis.
This alone speaks about why Kallis is there among the greats.
(Akram won't rate a batsmen as one of the greats he ever bowled to without even considering the points you mentioned)

Just respond to the point that i'm mainly referring to rather than finding the loopholes in it, which isn't much worth for giving a non-biased conclusion in our debate.

 

[subshakerz]

Akram rated Gavaskar the best he ever bowled to,
I'm not saying what Akram rates is the best. He rates based on what he felt bowling to them. But since a bowler like him rates a batsmen so high, then that batsmen, whether Crowe or Kallis, that talks a lot about their calibre.
Your point being Kallis not a great where his subcontintent Statistics talked a lot, and a not much worth opinion of failing against Murali, for which I responded he played well against Akram, which had a further testament from Akram himself, where the legend told how high he ragards Kallis.
This alone speaks about why Kallis is there among the greats.
(Akram won't rate a batsmen as one of the greats he ever bowled to without even considering the points you mentioned)

Just respond to the point that i'm mainly referring to rather than finding the loopholes in it, which isn't much worth for giving a non-biased conclusion in our debate.

Kallis is a great, just not greater than Pollock and real ATGs.

 

[BazBall21]

Not usually interested in peer rating tbh as it has a habit of being very subjective but Boycott is one of the most objective and technically insightful pundits you could ever wish to find and he rated Pollock as the fourth best batsman he ever saw (behind Sobers Viv Tendulkar) in a book published in the mid-2000s. Bradman had a similar view. Pollock quietly has immense peer rating and at least had some sort of test career unlike Barry. Understand the argument that voting for him against Kallis is objectively unjustifiable, but it says best not greatest, and a very attacking batsman that passes the eye test, had great success in everything he did, and has monster peer rating to boot is kinda tempting.

 

[subshakerz]

Not usually interested in peer rating tbh as it has a habit of being very subjective but Boycott is one of the most objective and technically insightful pundits you could ever wish to find and he rated Pollock as the fourth best batsman he ever saw (behind Sobers Viv Tendulkar) in a book published in the mid-2000s. Bradman had a similar view. Pollock quietly has immense peer rating and at least had some sort of test career unlike Barry. Understand the argument that voting for him against Kallis is objectively unjustifiable, but it says best not greatest, and a very attacking batsman that passes the eye test, had great success in everything he did, and has monster peer rating to boot is kinda tempting.

Well summed up. Pollock is both greater and better.

 

[BazBall21]

Well summed up. Pollock is both greater and better.

The marquee batsman in the South African All Time XI. I'll take him.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

Kallis is a great, just not greater than Pollock and real ATGs.

Definitely Kallis is among the real All time Greats.