At some point you have to take the actual substance of their career and longevity into account - both of which are far more important than peer rating.
Yes the anti-Kallis bias here is rampant. Have you like, not read any threads here recently at all?
I agree. As an AR.
Nah. If Kallis was that great, he would have been hailed as such in his career. You can't hide an ATG, whereas Pollock was pretty much instantly recognized as best of the best level.
We've made progress but there is still a lot to be done. We need guys like you on our side actually. Please reconsider your Kallis love. He's not worth it.
Not really. Players with “ugly” techniques or who don’t play at breakneck pace are often overlooked despite their obvious talent and success due to people being idiots blinded by pretty things they themselves can’t replicate.
Nah. Gavaskar and Dravid were hailed in their time. Defensive self sabotagers like Kallis and Boycott weren't.
The point is about relative to other players you buffoon.
Please provide proof so I can smack these people.
Meh I cbf looking up peoples opinions rn but I definitely remember many people talking about Sehwag as the second best bat in the team besides Tendulkar. The Laxman thing may have been something tongue in cheek or a joke or a specific innings tbf. I honestly don’t remember, it was the early 00’s and I was very young.
I can understand some loose opinions here or there on Sehwag>Dravid but the point is Dravid was showered with praise as a top bat of his era during his prime. Kallis not so much. He was there but not there.
I saw him showered with enough praise tbh. It doesn’t matter how much relative to other players because their opinions are usually biased towards aesthetics and other silly things like I’ve stated before.
Can I just count any player’s best 4 tests to determine my rating of them?
It does. Just SA press doesn't count.
Good point actually, besides AB (because of his fancy LO shots) has any 21st century SA player truly had the recognition they deserved? Hell I heard much less about Steyn and much more about Anderson than I should’ve.
I would also agree than Pollock as a batsman was better, he objectively can't be greater though.
Yeah and to be fair it does say best, not greatest. If it was greatest, then I would be struggling.
Oh I know he was praised but it wasn’t on the level I’d expect from such a dominant pacer through his career who was so far ahead of his contemporaries. Compared to Ashwin now who isn’t nearly as dominant over his peers I hear much more about him than I did about Steyn.
Steyn and Smith were given a lot of plaudits. Basically once SA stopped being an ultra defensive team they were given more due.
The thing about Barry though, Greenidge is arguably a top 8 opener. I don't think anyone who watched them bat together in county cricket thought Greenidge was objectively better or that Barry wasn't in his class.