• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Jacques Kallis vs Allan Border

Who was the greater test batsman?

  • Jacques Kallis

    Votes: 26 49.1%
  • Allan Border

    Votes: 27 50.9%

  • Total voters
    53

_00_deathscar

International Debutant
I think that's a bit generous. I think we should remember, he had a career's worth of batting even just from the 2000s-ealry 2010s. In that time period, he had a clear inconsistency of performance compared to the earlier half of his career. He had both dizzying heights, but also extended drier spells of the level that could have taken anyone not named Sachin Tendulkar out of the Test side at that highly competitive time for Indian batsmen.
Don’t be ludicrous. We just had 3 batsmen - none of them named Sachin Tendulkar - averaging 20 odd for the best part of 3 years. One of them is still there.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Don’t be ludicrous. We just had 3 batsmen - none of them named Sachin Tendulkar - averaging 20 odd for the best part of 3 years. One of them is still there.
We're talking about Kohli, right? If anything that would support my case that personality and reputation keeps you in a side when performance cannot.

However, I'll gladly cede this point, as Tendulkar in the mid 2000s certainly wasn't atrocious like Kohli is now. And finally give my piece that my opinion of Tendulkar is just that, like my own opinion man, based on what I saw. I don't have anything against the guy at all regardless of if I think people slightly overrate him. He's ATG either way, just a matter of which bracket within that we're putting him.
 

ashley bach

International Captain
Turned out to be a quite a good comparison than first thought, Can AB put in a good final furlong and snatch an unlikely win on the line?
 

_00_deathscar

International Debutant
We're talking about Kohli, right? If anything that would support my case that personality and reputation keeps you in a side when performance cannot.

However, I'll gladly cede this point, as Tendulkar in the mid 2000s certainly wasn't atrocious like Kohli is now. And finally give my piece that my opinion of Tendulkar is just that, like my own opinion man, based on what I saw. I don't have anything against the guy at all regardless of if I think people slightly overrate him. He's ATG either way, just a matter of which bracket within that we're putting him.
Yea but putting him in the Dravid/Miandad bracket is an awful call.

No one is saying you have to think he’s clearly the best since Bradman, or he’s better than Lara. Plenty here don’t.

But that (Dravid/Miandad bracket) is a bad, bad call.
 

bagapath

International Captain
Reworking and reposting something I wrote here many years ago.

All things considered, you put a gun to my head, and ask me to name one batsman as my favorite I will always name Allan Border.

For starters he was a man's man. No silly melodrama worked with him. At the crease, his job was to score runs; and nothing but score runs. He did what he had to do, as the team demanded in the given situation. Only when he square cut, or pulled, he expressed; he expressed his desire to dominate and win. Those were his bread and butter strokes and his stomach muscle tightening whack over the point region is the most violent shot in his book. With him at the wicket, the opposition knew they had a fight to win; this man stood between them and victory. For Australia, he could enlarge his presence at will and seemingly fill up the entire ground. He hated to lose. But if his team was sliding towards an inevitable defeat, he was always their last hope to salvage a draw. When he too failed, you knew nobody could've saved those matches anyway. If Border could not, who else could?

Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 4s 6s Ct
156 265 44 11174 205 50.56 27 63 1161 28 156

Yes. He was a celebrated cricketer. Enjoyed uninterrupted captaincy. World cup win. Ashes. Most runs. Most matches. Most catches. Yet, he never played the game for personal glory. He was a team man first. And last. His job was to take Australia to victory. By keeping his batting frills free, he guided everyone else to work only towards that end goal.

But every time you mention him as your favorite cricketer, you hear murmurs and see heads shaking. It is okay to call him a great batsman, a legend even. But naming him above a Richards or Lara is considered silly simply because Border lacked their range of stroke production.

My most favorite cricketer was truthful to his task, absolutely incorruptible, and a champion achiever who scaled mountains without drawing too much attention to self. He probably lacked the style of a Tendulkar, and he was too grumpy for the old fashioned who liked to put him down with faint praise calling him "gutsy" and "focused" deliberately underplaying his immense talent. Despite his rock solid personality and impeccable record, if you are in doubt of his actual value to test cricket, just watch the videos of his twin knocks in Windies and his third innings masterpiece in Melbourne against India. Then watch that 196 at Lords. And play that video of him putting McDermott in place using colorful language. Now tell me why I can't love him as my number 1 cricketer and as the captain of my dream team.
 

Himannv

International Coach
Turned out to be a quite a good comparison than first thought, Can AB put in a good final furlong and snatch an unlikely win on the line?
Nah, it’s ridiculous that it’s this even.

Kallis mostly just got into his shell and accumulated his runs regardless of the match situation. He was a good bat for sure, but nothing in comparison to Border who pretty much played a lone hand for most of it and kept his team competitive despite the rest of them being rubbish for most part.

Border scored runs just as much as Kallis but they were runs that were far more valuable to his team. The runs Kallis accumulated were mostly just valuable to himself.

Border’s wicket was key to beating the Aussies and he often stood in the gap against opposition that was stronger than his team. The only gap that Kallis ever stood in was the one in the line to the cafeteria.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
They really ought to start considering it, especially in the case of Tendulkar, I think. Any way you slice their records, I think it's very hard to create an extended peak period where Tendulkar outperforms Sanga. If you look at their whole careers then Sanga's superior run scoring average rises above as well. It's only if you give an inordinate amount of stock to Sanga's lesser productive period when he was a wicketkeeper, that I think you could possibly place Tendulkar above, or if you place an inordinate value on aggregate counting statistics of longevity/runs/centuries.
Don't put inordinate value on longevity I suggest. While doing so strip off his early and late years from his career stats because you can't have it both ways.

There was an 18 years period (from his 20th birthday to his 38th) when he averaged nearly 59 with 46 hundreds. He also averaged 50+ in each of the SENA countries. This is longer than typical productive period for most top batsmen. This also includes the 4-5 years of his batting slump (which incidentally was easiest era for batting so if anything Tendulkar missed out on easy runs) so really a full cycle.

So now how do you compare Tendulkar with Sanga?
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Nah, it’s ridiculous that it’s this even.

Kallis mostly just got into his shell and accumulated his runs regardless of the match situation. He was a good bat for sure, but nothing in comparison to Border who pretty much played a lone hand for most of it and kept his team competitive despite the rest of them being rubbish for most part.

Border scored runs just as much as Kallis but they were runs that were far more valuable to his team. The runs Kallis accumulated were mostly just valuable to himself.

Border’s wicket was key to beating the Aussies and he often stood in the gap against opposition that was stronger than his team. The only gap that Kallis ever stood in was the one in the line to the cafeteria.
I don't understand this point. Like at a fundamental level. If you score runs, they get added to your teams total. Just because they're slower than another player's runs scored doesn't make them disappear. And whether it helps more for them to be scored quickly or slowly is dependent on complex, case by case match situations.

On this site, instead I often hear (not from you mind, but this is an opinion I've seen here) low sr = bad, high sr = good. Like for real, this sort of opinion is flabbergasting, as when I watch Test cricket it looks an awful lot like all the guys are trying to help their teams win by scoring the runs or taking the wickets they do.
 
Last edited:

shortpitched713

International Captain
Don't put inordinate value on longevity I suggest. While doing so strip off his early and late years from his career stats because you can't have it both ways.

There was an 18 years period (from his 20th birthday to his 38th) when he averaged nearly 59 with 46 hundreds. He also averaged 50+ in each of the SENA countries. This is longer than typical productive period for most top batsmen. This also includes the 4-5 years of his batting slump (which incidentally was easiest era for batting so if anything Tendulkar missed out on easy runs) so really a full cycle.

So now how do you compare Tendulkar with Sanga?
One thing is, the bolded isn't a point in Tendulkar's favor. As a batsman, you're supposed to maximize your runs scored to help your team get better results, regardless of the conditions. I think there's a big tendency to fetishize "hard" conditions, when oftentimes at a fundamental level batting run accumulation is about taking advantage of the "easy" (loose bowling, loss of movement or bounce, tired bowlers, etc.). It takes different kinds of mental discipline to make the most of all of these factors.

On the other hand, I've already given my points for the reasons I have my opinions. I don't think we're really getting anywhere, or that we're arguing too much on points of fact. I've got Tendulkar in an All-time Great bracket, just not as high up it as the general consensus on the site seems to be ( I'd put Lara, and Smith given a continuing current career trajectory, in a clear tier above Tendulkar. )
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
I'd put Lara, and Smith given a continuing current career trajectory, in a clear tier above Tendulkar.
That's hardly controversial. But anything like "unless you put inordinate amount of value on longevity" is a fallacious line of reasoning. If you don't put inordinate value on longevity than you assess him as someone who averaged 59 over 18 years while averaging 50+ in each of SENA.
 

Himannv

International Coach
I don't understand this point. Like at a fundamental level. If you score runs, they get added to your teams total. Just because they're slower than another player's runs scored doesn't make them disappear. And whether it helps more for them to be scored quickly or slowly is dependent on complex, case by case match situations.

On this site, instead I often hear (not from you mind, but this is an opinion I've seen here) low sr = bad, high sr = good. Like for real, this sort of opinion is flabbergasting, as when I watch Test cricket it looks an awful lot like all the guys are trying to help their teams win by scoring the runs or taking the wickets they do.
I think it’s a case of him scoring slowly when he’s more than capable of scoring much quicker if he wants to. Also it’s him scoring slowly when his team would, at that point in the game, value runs scored quicker to help them get a win. So it’s not just about him scoring slowly but the context of the runs he scores in my view.

I don’t think Border is a particularly quick scorer, but would he score quicker if it would help his team win? Absolutely he would. He’d walk through walls to help his team if he can.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
I think it’s a case of him scoring slowly when he’s more than capable of scoring much quicker if he wants to. Also it’s him scoring slowly when his team would, at that point in the game, value runs scored quicker to help them get a win. So it’s not just about him scoring slowly but the context of the runs he scores in my view.

I don’t think Border is a particularly quick scorer, but would he score quicker if it would help his team win? Absolutely he would. He’d walk through walls to help his team if he can.
Curious where's the evidence that Border could score fast even if situation demanded. His ODI record doesn't indicate he had the extra gear.

Incidentally Kallis had attacking game in limited overs that he could pull out occasionally. Not comparable to the greats of limited over formats but effective enough.
 

BazBall21

International Regular
I think it’s a case of him scoring slowly when he’s more than capable of scoring much quicker if he wants to. Also it’s him scoring slowly when his team would, at that point in the game, value runs scored quicker to help them get a win. So it’s not just about him scoring slowly but the context of the runs he scores in my view.

I don’t think Border is a particularly quick scorer, but would he score quicker if it would help his team win? Absolutely he would. He’d walk through walls to help his team if he can.
Yeah and he’s a bit like Crowe in that he had to put his strokes away when rebuilding most of the time.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
I think it’s a case of him scoring slowly when he’s more than capable of scoring much quicker if he wants to. Also it’s him scoring slowly when his team would, at that point in the game, value runs scored quicker to help them get a win. So it’s not just about him scoring slowly but the context of the runs he scores in my view.

I don’t think Border is a particularly quick scorer, but would he score quicker if it would help his team win? Absolutely he would. He’d walk through walls to help his team if he can.
There's a lot of assumptions to that viewpoint. For one which of the 2 did you watch more closely, in more matches in their career? My guess is Kallis, but correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Sportsmen, even the greats, sometimes play in a way that's puzzling to us, and I'm sure Border is no exception, and there were cases of him performing in a different way to how the "narrative" around him would indicate.
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
I disagree - it’s ok to think Lara is better. Smith still has some way to go but ok on current form. Fine.

A clear tier above, and placing Sachin with Dravid and Miandad? He also rates Sanga above Sachin too so…

Its lunacy.
I'm not so clear on Sanga, Sachin, Dravid, Miandad. They're all among the second tier of modern ATGs. I'm just telling you that the two of Lara and Smith are in a tier above them in my mind. I damn sure wouldn't mind having any of the second tier of ATGs in my team, mind, but if I can choose only 2, I'm picking Lara and Smith.

In this thread I was just making an argument for the opposite of the consensus on the comparison between Tendulkar and Sanga, but that doesn't mean I think there's a huge discernible difference between Sanga and Tendulkar in Sanga's favor. All of that second tier are still great.
 

Red_Ink_Squid

Cricketer Of The Year
Nah, it’s ridiculous that it’s this even.

Kallis mostly just got into his shell and accumulated his runs regardless of the match situation. He was a good bat for sure, but nothing in comparison to Border who pretty much played a lone hand for most of it and kept his team competitive despite the rest of them being rubbish for most part.

Border scored runs just as much as Kallis but they were runs that were far more valuable to his team. The runs Kallis accumulated were mostly just valuable to himself.

Border’s wicket was key to beating the Aussies and he often stood in the gap against opposition that was stronger than his team. The only gap that Kallis ever stood in was the one in the line to the cafeteria.
Sorry Himann, don't really agree with your Kallis take here. Feels like you're downplaying him a lot saying his runs were valuable for himself rather than the team.

He was the key batsman and prized wicket in a team that rose to #1. If you have an issue with his strike rate, then Border's is less. If it's about winning games of cricket for their team then Kallis did a heck of a lot of that. (Obviously Kallis won more games than Border due to overall team strength but even proportional to their number of wins Kallis contributed centuries in almost half of his Test wins, Border was way short of that.)
 

Top