How do you say that Waugh faced stronger attacks? They played in almost the same Era and faced the same bowlers apart from their team's. And Aussie attack with Mcwarne was better than SA's.As batsmen alone you'd have to say pretty close, if anything leaning towards Waugh. Faced stronger attacks and played far more meaningful innings than Kallis.
Bowling obviously a massive difference though. Waugh only bowled for a small part of his career and wasn't ever really any good at it in red-ball cricket.
Waugh debuted in 85 and retired in 2004, Kallis debuted in 95 and retired in 2013. Two different Eras. From memory batting was far harder in the late 80's to 90's compared to the 2000's, but please fact check this, could easily be wrong.How do you say that Waugh faced stronger attacks? They played in almost the same Era and faced the same bowlers apart from their team's. And Aussie attack with Mcwarne was better than SA's.
It's pretty clear.How do you say that Waugh faced stronger attacks?
IncorrectThey played in almost the same Era and faced the same bowlers apart from their team's.
1. much stronger attacks - Not really. Bowling averages of the teams Waugh played was 38.60, where as the attacks Kallis played averaged 37.84. There is absolutely no indications to say Waugh played better attacks.It's pretty clear.
Waugh excelled in the 90s against much stronger attacks than appeared at any stage in the 00s, and performed at the most important moments, generally against the strongest opposition, in the most important games. There weren't freeby test matches against minnows back then either and (for most of Waugh's career) West Indies were one of the strongest sides.
Kallis built his stats up mostly in the batting-friendly 00s and did a lot against weaker sides in matches that just didn't happen in the 90s, for Waugh at least. While their careers did intersect for a bit, either side of that intersection their experiences and influence couldn't have been much different.
Wow, look what you wrote, how can you still think Kallis played better attacks? Waugh's opponents were so much superior. You forgot Waugh played Shoaib, Murali and Saqlain as well. As well as Mushtaq Ahmed in his world class phase.1. much stronger attacks - Not really. Bowling averages of the teams Waugh played was 38.60, where as the attacks Kallis played averaged 37.84. There is absolutely no indications to say Waugh played better attacks.
2. Steve Waugh feasted on SL up to mid 1990s. So this argument is wrong.
3. Kallis did poorly in SL, ENG and BAN. Waugh did poorly in SL, NZ and against PAK. So both are even on that account.
4. Waugh played peak Wasim, Waqar, Imran, Hadlee, Donald, Pollock Ambrose, Walsh and perhaps Kumble and Marshall, and succeded against them. Kallis played peak McGrath, Walsh, Shoaib, Anderson, Bond, Asif, Warne, Murali, Kumble and Saqlain. I would say Kallis played a more rounded and a complete attacks than Waugh.
5. Even after being very much similar in what they played Waugh averages 51.1 and Kallis averages 55.4. That is significantly better.
Kallis for me all the way.
Dravid's an ATG too and overall a better batsman than Steve Waugh. Sure he got majority of his runs in 2000s but those twin fifties at Sabina Park and his batting masterclass against an ATG English attack in 2011 are sample sizes big enough to warrant him getting runs against top attacks of 80s and 90s had he batted against them.Steve Waugh rather easily for me. Waugh was an ATG as a bat, while Kallis was at great level like Dravid, ABD or Sehwag.
He has so many clutch innings while Kallis barely has one or two. And Kallis has padded his record quite a bit against soft attacks which Waugh didn't. Kallis was also notorious for much of his career being a harmless accumulator who couldnt dictate the pace.
And people who say they played in the same era are wrong. Kallis debuted a decade later than Waugh. Waugh's peak coincided with the peaks of Wasim/Waqar, Ambrose/Walsh and Donald/Pollock, and he scored against them all. He is a champ.