His raw numbers aren't a lie but were obviously affected by the 2000s run boom, similar with Sanga, Yousuf, Chanders and others. Most whose career largely coincided with that time will have an inflated record."How he was rated when he played" was basically: this guy's numbers are kinda like Sobers' but no-one can be as good as Sobers ---------> he's still doing it ------------> he should stop now it's getting awkward ------------> ok this guy is actually pretty much the player his literal scoring of runs and taking of wickets says he is
Yeah we can argue around the margins of exactly how good he really was, but basically saying his raw numbers are a lie or a major distortion of his quality is pure mid-2000s "I don't want this to be true" revisionism
I get annoyed for those who take his numbers at face value. You have posters literally saying, 'oh well look he averaged 55, Waugh averaged 50, therefore Kallis better'.
Kallis never had a sustained run when he was the no.1 in the world. He was never that highly rated by pundits or peers for most of his career. His case for being an ATG is purely statistical and to me that is insufficient compared to other ATGs.