Jacques Kallis vs Steve Waugh

[Xix2565]

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

You keep giving subjective criteria which are extremely prone to bias and pretend it's a legitimate argument. Is that not ridiculous? How does any of what you suggest give a decent idea of who might be better?

 

[subshakerz]

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

A fairly normal debate where the point is to hyper analyze differences between top cricketers that are minor in the big scheme but that trigger posters into thinking their favorite is being trashed.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I gave several other criteria like peer rating, playing style

Which peers rate Waugh higher than Kallis and what was the difference in their playing style?

Both seem to be rated about the same below the top tier of Tendulkar/Lara/Ponting/Sangakkara and both batted on the slower side with a strike rate in the mid to high 40s.

 

[Xix2565]

I seriously don't get this pushback against doing actual analysis. Is it too difficult for people to show their working when asked for it?

 

[subshakerz]

You keep giving subjective criteria which are extremely prone to bias and pretend it's a legitimate argument. Is that not ridiculous? How does any of what you suggest give a decent idea of who might be better?

These are all criteria that are fairly well established in this forum and used by other posters in this thread even. Subjectivity is laden in every argument to some extent. I prefer to consider it the angle you choose to compare.

Otherwise like I said what is stopping you from rating Kallis ahead of Tendulkar and Lara based on pure numbers?

 

[Xix2565]

These are all criteria that are fairly well established in this forum and used by other posters in this thread even. Subjectivity is laden in every argument to some extent. I prefer to consider it the angle you choose to compare.

Otherwise like I said what is stopping you from rating Kallis ahead of Tendulkar and Lara based on pure numbers?

People using it =/= it being good or even reliable unlike the kind of stuff people like DoG do. And you've already had a conclusion in mind before bending backwards to justify it, even reaching for ridiculous things like Kallis not playing any impactful/"ATG" innings.

I seriously don't get this pushback against doing actual analysis. Is it too difficult for people to show their working when asked for it?

I never said to use pure numbers alone, I said do some actual analysis. Again actually read what I post. Your criteria is the complete opposite of anything I suggested, because it's all based on your view of Test cricket and what you considered important/great/impactful/etc.

 

[subshakerz]

Which peers rate Waugh higher than Kallis and what was the difference in their playing style?

Both seem to be rated about the same below the top tier of Tendulkar/Lara/Ponting/Sangakkara and both batted on the slower side with a strike rate in the mid to high 40s.

Not from my recollection. Waugh was rated noticeably higher as a pure bat during his career.

 

[Xix2565]

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.

Like anyone who comes in with statements that they think are self-evident is clearly not interested in analysis or debating.

 

[subshakerz]

People using it =/= it being good or even reliable unlike the kind of stuff people like DoG do. And you've already had a conclusion in mind before bending backwards to justify it, even reaching for ridiculous things like Kallis not playing any impactful/"ATG" innings.



I never said to use pure numbers alone, I said do some actual analysis. Again actually read what I post. Your criteria is the complete opposite of anything I suggested, because it's all based on your view of Test cricket and what you considered important/great/impactful/etc.

Nah, the reasons I am giving for putting Waugh higher than Kallis are the reasons I rate him so highly.

Please do share your actual analysis then. So far you just seem to be whining.

 

[subshakerz]

Like anyone who comes in with statements that they think are self-evident is clearly not interested in analysis or debating.

Yeah in my answer you quote I talk about impact innings, playing style and quality of runs scored which have been my criteria all along.

 

[Xix2565]

Nah, the reasons I am giving for putting Waugh higher than Kallis are the reasons I rate him so highly.

Please do share your actual analysis then. So far you just seem to be whining.

I'm the one asking you for reasons that aren't simply how you feel buddy. I have no horse in this race other than asking for more than feelings being used to justify one cricketer over another. I'm open to being convinced, just not by dumb things like "Kallis statpadded more" or "Waugh was more clutch" and so on.

Yeah in my answer you quote I talk about impact innings, playing style and quality of runs scored which have been my criteria all along.

You barely said anything other than picking out random examples and making wild assertions. What kind of criteria is that where you can do this and claim to be unbiased/genuine?

 

[subshakerz]

I'm the one asking you for reasons that aren't simply how you feel buddy. I have no horse in this race other than asking for more than feelings being used to justify one cricketer over another. I'm open to being convinced, just not by dumb things like "Kallis statpadded more" or "Waugh was more clutch" and so on.

You barely said anything other than picking out random examples and making wild assertions. What kind of criteria is that where you can do this and claim to be unbiased/genuine?

I think most posters would at least understand the argument I am trying to make even if they disagree. Its not that complicated and relies on basic judgment for anyone who has watched test cricket long enpugh. I am not going to write essay length treatises on what constitutes a standout career-defining innings or why runs against ATGs should be rated higher. It seems redundant having to spell out points that test cricket fans should be already familiar with.

 

[Xix2565]

I think most posters would at least understand the argument I am trying to make even if they disagree. Its not that complicated and relies on basic judgment for anyone who has watched test cricket long enpugh. I am not going to write essay length treatises on what constitutes a standout career-defining innings or why runs against ATGs should be rated higher. It seems redundant having to spell out points that test cricket fans should be already familiar with.

You think it's redundant to show why your basic judgement is not just random nonsense? All I see is someone making up all sorts of things to proclaim one cricketer over another and expecting everyone else to swallow it unquestioned.

 

[subshakerz]

You think it's redundant to show why your basic judgement is not just random nonsense? All I see is someone making up all sorts of things to proclaim one cricketer over another and expecting everyone else to swallow it unquestioned.

Yes nonsense blah blah. Feel free to ignore it then.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Which peers rate Waugh higher than Kallis and what was the difference in their playing style?

Both seem to be rated about the same below the top tier of Tendulkar/Lara/Ponting/Sangakkara and both batted on the slower side with a strike rate in the mid to high 40s.

I don't think either are rated below Sangakkara, nor should they be

 

[TheJediBrah]

You think it's redundant to show why your basic judgement is not just random nonsense? All I see is someone making up all sorts of things to proclaim one cricketer over another and expecting everyone else to swallow it unquestioned.

Everything that supports your narrative is well-reasoned fact-based analysis whereas anything that goes against it is "random, bias, nonsense, subjective" this is starting to sound a bit familiar

 

[Xix2565]

Yes nonsense blah blah. Feel free to ignore it then.

Everything that supports your narrative is well-reasoned fact-based analysis whereas anything that goes against it is "random, bias, nonsense, subjective" this is starting to sound a bit familiar

If there's more to saying Waugh was better than telling stories about him and then ****ting on Kallis because you only remember one career and not the other then I'm waiting. It's amusing how both of you have managed to try not to say more than "X was better/clutch/great".

 

[subshakerz]

If there's more to saying Waugh was better than telling stories about him and then ****ting on Kallis because you only remember one career and not the other then I'm waiting. It's amusing how both of you have managed to try not to say more than "X was better/clutch/great".

Do remind us then about all those standout innings from Kallis we and the entire cricket world have overlooked somehow.

By the way, you can admit that Waugh may have more great innings and still think that Kallis had a better batting career. That is fine. But denying it seems to me to be needlessly contrarian.

 

[Xix2565]

Do remind us then about all those standout innings from Kallis we and the entire cricket world have overlooked somehow.

I'm not making a case for Kallis or Waugh here at all, once again if you still have yet to grasp this basic statement. I am questioning your judgement of players and the criteria you've made up to support it because it seems to be heavily biased towards your own experiences and what you feel is great/clutch/impactful/etc.

Like I'm not asking questions to downplay Waugh or say he's worse, I'm asking you why exactly you rate Waugh higher in harder terms than "clutch innings" or "counter attacker".

 

[subshakerz]

I'm not making a case for Kallis or Waugh here at all, once again if you still have yet to grasp this basic statement. I am questioning your judgement of players and the criteria you've made up to support it because it seems to be heavily biased towards your own experiences and what you feel is great/clutch/impactful/etc.

Like I'm not asking questions to downplay Waugh or say he's worse, I'm asking you why exactly you rate Waugh higher in harder terms than "clutch innings" or "counter attacker".

Yes, I am judging them based on my own viewing of their careers and I have detailed already what I consider standout innings.