Jacques Kallis vs Steve Waugh

[Anil]

waugh rather easily for me.

 

[subshakerz]

Steve Waugh got 160 but Blewett also made 200 in that game, that is similar to the Kolkata test where Dravid got 180 along with Laxman's 281. Then we have that series in England in 2002 where pitches were hard to bat on throughout the series and Dravid piled on runs.

But nothing comes close to the awesomeness of his skill at 2011 Pataudi Trophy. Swann at his prime, Anderson at his prime, Broad was moving the ball like Asif at serious pace and Bresnan too was at his peak getting reverse swing at high speeds. That attack in that form would have challenged any batting line up from any era.

2002 was an extremely high scoring series in England. Dravid was great in England overall though but Waugh was even better. Waugh had four series in England and averaged 126, 83, 39 and 107 in them.

Dravid's effort in 2011 were awesome, but Waugh's series in WI in 1995 was superior. It was a low-scoring series and his contribution was critical. Not only for the series-clinching 200 but the priceless unbeaten 65 in Trinidad which is perhaps the greatest sub-100 innings ever.

Dravid's problem is similar to Kallis, he peaked in a very batting friendly era, compared to Waugh who peaked when pace bowling standards were very high. Having said that, Dravid was by no means a flat track bully, but Waugh was just tougher, more capable of counterattack and delivered his best against the best.

 

[subshakerz]

Waugh failed miserably I can admit that. My argument has been that Waugh generally faced much much better bowling. That's a fact. His peak was mid 90s I believe in which case, he would've faced and succeeded against Pakistan when they still had : Waqar, Wasim, Mushtaq and Saqlain (and Shoaib). Not all at the same time but in varying combinations: '94, '95, '99.

Waugh debuted in the midst of bowling excellence (generally) and peaked when it was still high quality. Kallis debuted when it was waning and peaked when it was low. Not his fault of course... Imho.

Waugh also played Wasim, Mushtaq and Saqlain in 1998 in Pindi and scored a critical 157 which won Australia the series, one of his lesser celebrated knocks.

 

[Bolo.]

Waugh failed miserably I can admit that. My argument has been that Waugh generally faced much much better bowling. That's a fact. His peak was mid 90s I believe in which case, he would've faced and succeeded against Pakistan when they still had : Waqar, Wasim, Mushtaq and Saqlain (and Shoaib). Not all at the same time but in varying combinations: '94, '95, '99.

Waugh debuted in the midst of bowling excellence (generally) and peaked when it was still high quality. Kallis debuted when it was waning and peaked when it was low. Not his fault of course... Imho.

The fact that bowling averages were similar despite pitches being clearly softer in Kallis' time doesn't really support this though. These numbers by themselves suggest Kallis faced better bowlers.

It's pretty clear to me that there were more top-draw bowlers in Waugh's time. But the level below them may have been better in Kallis' time. A bat spends a lot more time facing the weaker bowlers, and an even an ATG bat will lose their wicket to a weaker bowler much more often than not.

OFC, there are other explanations, like batting quality improving. But its definitely not self-evident that Waugh faced better bowlers because he faced more ATGs... all it means is that he faced more ATGs.

 

[subshakerz]

The fact that bowling averages were similar despite pitches being clearly softer in Kallis' time doesn't really support this though. These numbers by themselves suggest Kallis faced better bowlers.

It's pretty clear to me that there were more top-draw bowlers in Waugh's time. But the level below them may have been better in Kallis' time. A bat spends a lot more time facing the weaker bowlers, and an even an ATG bat will lose their wicket to a weaker bowler much more often than not.

OFC, there are other explanations, like batting quality improving. But its definitely not self-evident that Waugh faced better bowlers because he faced more ATGs... all it means is that he faced more ATGs.

Taking a raw cumulative average of all bowlers of an entire era without any qualifiers seems a pretty weak way to build such an argument. It is a useless and misleading stat frankly.

Waugh faced plenty of quality second level bowlers too, from Shoaib, Bishop, Fanie DeVilliers, Gough, Srinath,etc.

The point you are missing is that Waugh peaked and produced his top drawer performances against the ATG bowlers at their peak as well. Kallis cant come close to that.

 

[Bolo.]

Taking a raw cumulative average of all bowlers of an entire era without any qualifiers seems a pretty weak way to build such an argument. It is a useless and misleading stat frankly.

Waugh faced plenty of quality second level bowlers too, from Shoaib, Bishop, Fanie DeVilliers, Gough, Srinath,etc.

The point you are missing is that Waugh peaked and produced his top drawer performances against the ATG bowlers at their peak as well. Kallis cant come close to that.

'Looking at 100% of bowlers a batsman faced is a really flawed way of examining typical bowling quality in relation to the 5% of bowlers that I cherry-pick'.

No, it doesn't give a meaningful answer by itself without context. But with sufficient context it can. Looking at a handful of bowlers can never provide enough context.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Y’all be acting like every single attack in the 90s was Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts

 

[Migara]

Neither of these bowlers would be considered in the top 10 greatest spinners. Ajmal was a down right cheat, Swann and Herath are not top 10. Waugh faced Harbajan or did you forget the 2001 where Harbi took truckloads of wickets, yet Waugh did very well. He faced Kumble, Mushtaq, Murali and Vettori who you once proported would destroy 80s WI. So the fact remains, Waugh faced better quality pace, better bowling attacks overall than Kallis and comparable spin.

Still, the spinners Waugh played regularly were far inferior. The amount of prose written to counter the fact shows you have no point.

Just tell me who are the spinners Waugh played as good as Murali and Warne in peak?

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Waugh mostly batted down at #5 like a coward.

Kallis fought bravely and commendably at, err, #4 mostly.


...So obviously Kallis.

 

[Nikhil99.99]

Kallis,Stats dont lie.

 

[trundler]

In the Steyn vs Ambrose thread people largely brushed aside the era difference because Steyn has friendly home conditions. How come we're ignoring the fact that Kallis is literally the only SA batsman since readmission to average 50+ at home?

 

[Migara]

Y’all be acting like every single attack in the 90s was Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts

Actually WI and Pakistan were the only good ones around. With NZ it was just seeing off a aging Hadlee.

 

[StephenZA]

Waugh mostly batted down at #5 like a coward.

Kallis fought bravely and commendably at, err, #4 mostly.


...So obviously Kallis.

Kallis spent most of his early career at 3... but yeah!

 

[StephenZA]

In the Steyn vs Ambrose thread people largely brushed aside the era difference because Steyn has friendly home conditions. How come we're ignoring the fact that Kallis is literally the only SA batsman since readmission to average 50+ at home?

Because it does not fit the narrative...

 

[StephenZA]

Kallis was not exciting enough... thus he was not good enough. It does not matter what he actually did for his country for 15 years.

 

[subshakerz]

'Looking at 100% of bowlers a batsman faced is a really flawed way of examining typical bowling quality in relation to the 5% of bowlers that I cherry-pick'.

No, it doesn't give a meaningful answer by itself without context. But with sufficient context it can. Looking at a handful of bowlers can never provide enough context.

That is my point. You need some qualifiers otherwise it is a useless stat.

The handful of ATG bowlers are the ones whom Waugh achieved his best performances against. Whereas Kallis has virtually no impact innings against big players to speak of.

I don't buy your argument though that the second tier bowlers of the 2000s were better than in the 1990s, and therefore bowling standards were better.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis was not exciting enough... thus he was not good enough. It does not matter what he actually did for his country for 15 years.

You are strawmanning. The argument is that Kallis for most of his batting career stayed stuck in one accumulator mode to the detriment of his team, unlike the alphas for other teams, like Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting.

 

[trundler]

You are strawmanning. The argument is that Kallis for most of his batting career stayed stuck in one accumulator mode to the detriment of his team, unlike the alphas for other teams, like Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting.

Tendulkar had Dravid. Ponting had a million others. Kallis had a string of no rounders in the middle order. It's no coincidence that the period when he opened up was also the period in which he had great support. Kallis had the toughest home conditions in which he stands heads and shoulders over his peers. That's got to count for something.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You are strawmanning. The argument is that Kallis for most of his batting career stayed stuck in one accumulator mode to the detriment of his team, unlike the alphas for other teams, like Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting.

I'm not sure that's a fair statement in Tests. In ODIs definitely, Kallis was a straight up bad player. But I doubt Steve Waugh scored much quicker, if at all, than Kallis in Tests

 

[trundler]

Steve Waugh hid down at #5, routinely ran out his partners and exposed the tail to protect his average.