Jacques Kallis vs Steve Waugh

[StephenZA]

is anyone actually saying that though? he was a great player by any measure, is it such a stretch to think that waugh was the greater batsman?

If people want to think and feel that Waugh was a better batsmen, sure, I don't agree with it but sure... but lets not start with the facile arguments of who played against the better attacks, or who played more important innings, because none of that holds up to any real scrutiny.

 

[TheJediBrah]

but lets not start with the facile arguments of who played against the better attacks, or who played more important innings

If those are facile then what would anyone base their opinion on? Just reading career stats off a screen?

 

[StephenZA]

If those are facile then what would anyone base their opinion on? Just reading career stats off a screen?

Facile because they cherry pick the numbers and concepts that suit them to try justify an opinion that is nothing more then personal bias and preference... lets not pretend that people are sitting here trying to logic this stuff out with real honesty. We leave that for forumers like DoG who at least make a real decent attempt.

 

[Xix2565]

At the very least start from the stats and show why X is better using the whole career rather than jumping straight to X is better because he made a ton vs this attack that I rate and Y didn't play any good attacks and only statpadded vs terrible sides on flat decks. A lot of results based "analysis" being used here to justify Waugh over Kallis.

 

[subshakerz]

Facile because they cherry pick the numbers and concepts that suit them to try justify an opinion that is nothing more then personal bias and preference... lets not pretend that people are sitting here trying to logic this stuff out with real honesty. We leave that for forumers like DoG who at least make a real decent attempt.

Please dont pretend that using that raw bowling average is some credible stat and good argument either. You know it is misleading.

Nobody here is debating the point that Waugh scored impact knocks and peak runs against ATG bowlers either. I see that is pretty much agreed upon.

Instead the counterargument has shifted that since Kallis may have faced better second tier level bowling (no evidence provided except raw average of all bowlers) and difficult home conditions, therefore it is ok to look and judge based on raw numbers.

Well, if you are going to ignore stuff like peer rating, playing style and scoring based on quality of bowling in eras, then based on raw stats you should logically put Kallis ahead of Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting also. Of course you wont do that though since that would expose the weakness of this approach.

 

[Xix2565]

Nobody here is debating the point that Waugh scored impact knocks and peak runs against ATG bowlers either. I see that is pretty much agreed upon.

Excellent misreading of the situation. Will never get this idea that your own subjective understanding of what's good/impactful/great is something universally agreed upon when you show no working to help your points.

 

[subshakerz]

Excellent misreading of the situation. Will never get this idea that your own subjective understanding of what's good/impactful/great is something universally agreed upon when you show no working to help your points.

How about...

Signature standout performances from a players' career based on scoring runs against strong opposition, difficult conditions or in difficult match situations.

 

[Xix2565]

How about...

Signature standout performances from a players' career based on scoring runs against strong opposition, difficult conditions or in difficult match situations.

So cherrypicked examples to prop up one player over another. Also will totally not be extremely biased towards what were considered marquee teams in the era.

If you want to make up a method to say Waugh > Kallis that is ultimately based on emotions and feelings please say so rather than throwing out opinions and pretending they're self-evident truths.

 

[subshakerz]

So cherrypicked examples to prop up one player over another. Also will totally not be extremely biased towards what were considered marquee teams in the era.

If you want to make up a method to say Waugh > Kallis that is ultimately based on emotions and feelings please say so rather than throwing out opinions and pretending they're self-evident truths.

I gave several criteria. Unlike you, I dont judge players as just sets of data.

But yeah Kallis' lack of standout innings is an issue compared to Waugh.

Every top level players has a few top drawer innings that fans can instantly recall and represent the best display of their skills.

Tendulkar has his 119 in Perth, his 155 against Warne, 136 against Pakistan, etc. Richards has his 291, his record 110*, etc. Gavaskar had his 221, 236 and 96 last innings. Lara has so many.

Kallis? Maybe his Aussie ton in 97? And then what? 166 tests and no hit list? Even Amla, Smith and ABD have more standout innings. So yes it is a drawback.

 

[subshakerz]

For example, and I am sure I am missing a couple:

Amla - 196 against Australia, triple ton against England, 253 against India

Smith - Double tons as a fresh captain against England, 154* at Edgbaston

ABD - Ton in the 414 chase against Australia, scoring 90odd against a red hot Johnson in 2014

 

[Bahseph]

="subshakerz, post: 4778878, member: 13161"]
For example, and I am sure I am missing a couple:

Amla - 196 against Australia, triple ton against England, 253 against India

Smith - Double tons as a fresh captain against England, 154* at Edgbaston

ABD - Ton in the 414 chase against Australia, scoring 90odd against a red hot Johnson in 2014

I hardly got to see Waugh,so my vote was obviously very bias because I grew up watching Kallis. But I'm fine with people saying that Waugh was a better batsman.

But are you saying that Kallis scored 40-something tons and loads of 50s yet he someone managed to score most of those in meaningless situations?

 

[subshakerz]

I hardly got to see Waugh,so my vote was obviously very bias because I grew up watching Kallis. But I'm fine with people saying that Waugh was a better batsman.

But are you saying that Kallis scored 40-something tons and loads of 50s yet he someone managed to score most of those in meaningless situations?

No, of course not. He has plenty of tons which were important to SA. Just not many truly great career-defining innings that you would expect in a career as long as his and for a batsman as capable as him. His game never touched the heights of greatness of other ATGs. Even someone like Dravid with a similar conservative batting style has several such knocks.

 

[Xix2565]

I gave several criteria. Unlike you, I dont judge players as just sets of data.

But yeah Kallis' lack of standout innings is an issue compared to Waugh.

Every top level players has a few top drawer innings that fans can instantly recall and represent the best display of their skills.

Tendulkar has his 119 in Perth, his 155 against Warne, 136 against Pakistan, etc. Richards has his 291, his record 110*, etc. Gavaskar had his 221, 236 and 96 last innings. Lara has so many.

Kallis? Maybe his Aussie ton in 97? And then what? 166 tests and no hit list? Even Amla, Smith and ABD have more standout innings. So yes it is a drawback.

For example, and I am sure I am missing a couple:

Amla - 196 against Australia, triple ton against England, 253 against India

Smith - Double tons as a fresh captain against England, 154* at Edgbaston

ABD - Ton in the 414 chase against Australia, scoring 90odd against a red hot Johnson in 2014

Yeah that's just a reflection of your **** criteria rather than any indication of a player's quality. If your only case to support Waugh is to say he played innings that you remembered then it's a **** case my dude.

Go back and come with an actual argument not how Waugh made you gooey inside because he was rising in the 90s on Australia's best team ever. Don't give me this bull**** that data is misleading when you barely even touch it beyond cherrypicking a few games for your own points. Mighty rich argument from a guy who thinks Dravid's not a ATG like Waugh without any basis.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

whoa, CW is getting a bit war-ish.

Settle down guys. No need for the antagonizing ?

 

[Xix2565]

No, of course not. He has plenty of tons which were important to SA. Just not many truly great career-defining innings that you would expect in a career as long as his and for a batsman as capable as him. His game never touched the heights of greatness of other ATGs. Even someone like Dravid with a similar conservative batting style has several such knocks.

Lol so apparently great innings for SA can never be considered as career defining for a SA allrounder like him. Do you even hear yourself?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

This should've been a really interesting comparison between 2 superb fighters who often held their sides together. Instead this thread has got really nasty and silly. I'd personally go with JK overall and SW for better peak, but there is very little in it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This is a fairly normal CW debate where great players get slagged off based on very little.

 

[Xix2565]

It's not like I'm even slagging off Waugh in the first place. I'm just poking holes in the ridiculous arguments being used.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah that's just a reflection of your **** criteria rather than any indication of a player's quality. If your only case to support Waugh is to say he played innings that you remembered then it's a **** case my dude.

Go back and come with an actual argument not how Waugh made you gooey inside because he was rising in the 90s on Australia's best team ever. Don't give me this bull**** that data is misleading when you barely even touch it beyond cherrypicking a few games for your own points. Mighty rich argument from a guy who thinks Dravid's not a ATG like Waugh without any basis.

Why are you being a ****

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah that's just a reflection of your **** criteria rather than any indication of a player's quality. If your only case to support Waugh is to say he played innings that you remembered then it's a **** case my dude.

Go back and come with an actual argument not how Waugh made you gooey inside because he was rising in the 90s on Australia's best team ever. Don't give me this bull**** that data is misleading when you barely even touch it beyond cherrypicking a few games for your own points. Mighty rich argument from a guy who thinks Dravid's not a ATG like Waugh without any basis.

I gave several other criteria like peer rating, playing style, etc along with impact innings. Your criteria is raw data only. But maybe you should relax and not take it so personally.