Jacques Kallis vs Steve Waugh

[Xix2565]

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

You have barely given anything. A handful of innings is nothing but a note here. You don't look at all of his innings, what kinds of circumstances they were played in and so on.

Is the idea that you are making a flawed argument with little to no evidence so foreign to you? I don't know why you want to keep repeating bad/vague arguments and act like you've done alright. If you don't feel like giving details or typing longer then don't come in with broad baseless assumptions and not expect to get challenged for making them. Especially if you're going to ignore people who have pointed out some of the flaws with your points like OverratedSanity and others.

 

[honestbharani]

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

Your own posts?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Your own posts?

was wondering when you'd switch accounts back

 

[ataraxia]

edit: oops, wrong account

 

[CricAddict]

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

Actually most people here post that way when it comes to their favorite players.

 

[ankitj]

Jadeja better than both

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Jadeja better than both at bowling and fielding.

 

[srbhkshk]

Gonna vote for Kallis, remember him playing some really critical and clutch innings. Didn't watch Waugh's career too much so gonna assume he couldn't have played that well.

 

[trundler]

Hot take: Kallis is an overrated all rounder but underrated batsman.

 

[ankitj]

Hot take: Kallis is an overrated all rounder but underrated batsman.

Disagree because there were times when SA did not have Kallis' services as bowler and remember their bowling appeared to lack in depth. His 5th bowler act was one of the finest that has ever been.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hot take: Kallis is an overrated all rounder but underrated batsman.

Opposite

 

[trundler]

Y'all are just proving the hotness of my take

 

[Coronis]

Opposite

Woosh

 

[Bolo.]

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.

Peer rating: Nebulous concept. Both underrated, but Waugh more so... not even considered the best bat in his own team other than for a few years, and not thought of as in the same orbit as the best of his era, despite very much deserving to be part of the conversation. Kallis was at least considered the best in his team for almost his whole career and spent a chunk of his career at least being compared to the other top dogs, whether favourably or not.

Playing style: basically the same thing, slow and ponderous. Not that I think this should count at all towards quality, but I am surprised Kallis doesn't actually get more credit than Waugh for having a wide range of attacking shots. I think Waugh may actually get extra credit for being a less talented player and still achieving so much, which deserves mad respect, but in no way makes him better... only the results count.

Impact: Kallis has 20% more runs, 40% more 100s and 60% more MoMs. It's not even close. Not that I think this is evidence of Kallis being better (or at least not on a surface level), but it is the opposite of what you are claiming.

 

[King Viv]

Voted Kallis, mostly because his batting technique was superior. Kallis 2nd innings average 56.26 with Waugh's being 32.45.
That's a pretty big difference.

 

[subshakerz]

Peer rating: Nebulous concept. Both underrated, but Waugh more so... not even considered the best bat in his own team other than for a few years, and not thought of as in the same orbit as the best of his era, despite very much deserving to be part of the conversation. Kallis was at least considered the best in his team for almost his whole career and spent a chunk of his career at least being compared to the other top dogs, whether favourably or not.

Playing style: basically the same thing, slow and ponderous. Not that I think this should count at all towards quality, but I am surprised Kallis doesn't actually get more credit than Waugh for having a wide range of attacking shots. I think Waugh may actually get extra credit for being a less talented player and still achieving so much, which deserves mad respect, but in no way makes him better... only the results count.

Impact: Kallis has 20% more runs, 40% more 100s and 60% more MoMs. It's not even close. Not that I think this is evidence of Kallis being better (or at least not on a surface level), but it is the opposite of what you are claiming.

Waugh from around 94/95 to 98/99 was largely considered the best batsman in the world after Tendulkar. His stock rose massively after that 95 WI series. Kallis on the other hand I dont think ever had such a period where he was considered the best in the world or even top three. In fact he may struggle to make the top 5 bats of the 2000s. And generally post retirement I see Waugh more rated among his peers based on his reputation (batting alone). I virtually never see Kallis the bat being praised by peers, more Kallis the colossus all-rounder.

As for playing style, its not about rate of scoring alone, it is relative to the batting unit you are in. Waugh's job in a batting unit of strokemakers was more consolidation and rebuild with the lower order and tail and he was excellent in that. Whereas Kallis until 2008 on the otherhand was an accumulator in a decent batting unit of other accumulators like Kirsten and Cullinan. Despite being the main bat, he was stuck in one mode of batting, couldnt push the pace when needed and wasnt the same threat as other teams' alphas. It is a common critique of Kallis, not just mine, but I think it is fair.

As for impact innings, no doubt Kallis has more run output based on batting higher up the order and more MOMs based on his allround skills. But he has few if any innings that standout as great in a long career, since he was a safe player, and that is odd since virtually ever other ATG player has these performances. Great players are not just consistent but are capable of displays of greatness too.

 

[CricAddict]

Waugh from around 94/95 to 98/99 was largely considered the best batsman in the world after Tendulkar.

Lara was always the best after Tendulkar. It was them and then the rest like S Waugh Inzy Dravid etc. and then Ponting, Kallis later on.

In fact he may struggle to make the top 5 bats of the 2000s.

Who are the 5 in 2000s that you rate above Kallis?

And generally post retirement I see Waugh more rated among his peers based on his reputation (batting alone). I virtually never see Kallis the bat being praised by peers, more Kallis the colossus all-rounder.

He gets praise for both because he did both well while S Waugh gets praise for just batting. This is actually a favorable point for Kallis.

As for playing style, its not about rate of scoring alone, it is relative to the batting unit you are in. Waugh's job in a batting unit of strokemakers was more consolidation and rebuild with the lower order and tail and he was excellent in that. Whereas Kallis until 2008 on the otherhand was an accumulator in a decent batting unit of other accumulators like Kirsten and Cullinan.

This is also a factor of the position they are in. Kallis played at 3 or 4 where he has to accumulate and he did it big time. Steve Waugh at 5 or 6 had to consolidate which he too did well. There is nothing that favors one or the other in this.

As for impact innings, no doubt Kallis has more run output based on batting higher up the order and more MOMs based on his allround skills. But he has few if any innings that standout as great in a long career, since he was a safe player, and that is odd since virtually ever other ATG player has these performances. Great players are not just consistent but are capable of displays of greatness too.

If we are going to just go by impact innings, then Rishabh Pant and Ben Stokes are better batsmen than Steve Waugh.

 

[Bolo.]

Waugh from around 94/95 to 98/99 was largely considered the best batsman in the world after Tendulkar. His stock rose massively after that 95 WI series. Kallis on the other hand I dont think ever had such a period where he was considered the best in the world or even top three. In fact he may struggle to make the top 5 bats of the 2000s. And generally post retirement I see Waugh more rated among his peers based on his reputation (batting alone). I virtually never see Kallis the bat being praised by peers, more Kallis the colossus all-rounder.

As for playing style, its not about rate of scoring alone, it is relative to the batting unit you are in. Waugh's job in a batting unit of strokemakers was more consolidation and rebuild with the lower order and tail and he was excellent in that. Whereas Kallis until 2008 on the otherhand was an accumulator in a decent batting unit of other accumulators like Kirsten and Cullinan. Despite being the main bat, he was stuck in one mode of batting, couldnt push the pace when needed and wasnt the same threat as other teams' alphas. It is a common critique of Kallis, not just mine, but I think it is fair.

As for impact innings, no doubt Kallis has more run output based on batting higher up the order and more MOMs based on his allround skills. But he has few if any innings that standout as great in a long career, since he was a safe player, and that is odd since virtually ever other ATG player has these performances. Great players are not just consistent but are capable of displays of greatness too.

You overstate how underrated Kallis was, the number of ATGs kicking around in his era notwithstanding.
You understate how underrated Waugh was. Plenty of people were (criminally) not even putting him in the same tier as Inzi. Peer rating can be very wrong.
You also forget how much of Waugh's career he was justifiably not rated for... for close to half his career he probably wasn't a top 3 bat even in his own team. Being rated one of the top handful of bats in the world (whatever that number is) for a handful of years (especially at a time when there very few going around) doesn't change this. Kallis was rated as one of the top handful (whatever the number is) for most of his career.

They played the same consolidation roles. Consolidation is a hell of a lot more valuable at 3/4 than 5, where you need to score fast or protect the tail under a lot of circumstances. RSA needed the consolidation more than AUS as well... top was a lot weaker for most of Kallis's career, the presence of a couple of good bats notwithstanding. Ya, Kallis struggling to change the tempo is a very good criticism, but most of the time RSA preferred him sticking around for longer, assuming he was making the same scores. Doubt the same is true for Waugh.

Impact is your term, not mine. OFC Kallis had more opportunity for impact innings than Waugh, hence why I say it doesn't by itself make him better. He got more opportunity by batting in more difficult positions. He has a bunch MoM 100s than Waugh has MoMs btw, despite playing for a less successful team. Although its hard to say where awards would have gone if Kallis (and occasionally Waugh) wasn't bowling.

 

[subshakerz]

Lara was always the best after Tendulkar. It was them and then the rest like S Waugh Inzy Dravid etc. and then Ponting, Kallis later on.

No, Lara was in a dip from 96 to 2001 while Waugh was consistently considered the more valuable wicket this time.

Who are the 5 in 2000s that you rate above Kallis?

Ponting, Dravid, Tendulkar, Lara, Sanga, and maybe Hayden.

He gets praise for both because he did both well while S Waugh gets praise for just batting. This is actually a favorable point for Kallis.

Nobody is disputing Kallis' value as an allrounder. If Kallis couldn't bowl there would be little doubt that Waugh was a better cricketer.

This is also a factor of the position they are in. Kallis played at 3 or 4 where he has to accumulate and he did it big time. Steve Waugh at 5 or 6 had to consolidate which he too did well. There is nothing that favors one or the other in this.

Except 3 or 4 is where your main batsmen of the side is meant to stamp his authority and be able to attack. That is what Tendulkar, Kohli, Smith, Viv, Clarke, Lara and Ponting did. SA needed someone who could do that and Kallis didn't.

If we are going to just go by impact innings, then Rishabh Pant and Ben Stokes are better batsmen than Steve Waugh.

Except it isn't the sole criteria, I mentioned others. We are talking about ATG batters.

 

[subshakerz]

You overstate how underrated Kallis was, the number of ATGs kicking around in his era notwithstanding.
You understate how underrated Waugh was. Plenty of people were (criminally) not even putting him in the same tier as Inzi. Peer rating can be very wrong.
You also forget how much of Waugh's career he was justifiably not rated for... for close to half his career he probably wasn't a top 3 bat even in his own team. Being rated one of the top handful of bats in the world (whatever that number is) for a handful of years (especially at a time when there very few going around) doesn't change this. Kallis was rated as one of the top handful (whatever the number is) for most of his career.

Kallis was more underrated as a player for most of his career and he justly got rated towards the end. But as a batsman, he wasn't feared by oppositions frankly the same way others were in his playing time which is why he never got rated that highly. It is a fair point to say that Waugh for the early part of his career was poor in a way that Kallis wasn't but that period lasted 46 out of 168 tests after which he was consistently worldclass, which is pretty close to the total period Kallis had in his inconsistent early days and his 2008 dip.

They played the same consolidation roles. Consolidation is a hell of a lot more valuable at 3/4 than 5, where you need to score fast or protect the tail under a lot of circumstances. RSA needed the consolidation more than AUS as well... top was a lot weaker for most of Kallis's career, the presence of a couple of good bats notwithstanding. Ya, Kallis struggling to change the tempo is a very good criticism, but most of the time RSA preferred him sticking around for longer, assuming he was making the same scores. Doubt the same is true for Waugh.

Totally disagree. Number 3/4 is where the main bat is expected to set the pace and tone of the innings. Number 5/6 is where you consolidate and rebuild. And you are wrong about SA's batting order, early in Kallis' career they had fairly reliable batsmen like Kirsten, Gibbs, Cullinan and Cronje whom Kallis batted around. Later came Smith and Prince and then Amla and ABD. It's not like Kallis was a lone gun like Lara. He just never set himself apart.

Impact is your term, not mine. OFC Kallis had more opportunity for impact innings than Waugh, hence why I say it doesn't by itself make him better. He got more opportunity by batting in more difficult positions. He has a bunch MoM 100s than Waugh has MoMs btw, despite playing for a less successful team. Although its hard to say where awards would have gone if Kallis (and occasionally Waugh) wasn't bowling.

Basically I mean standout career-defining innings which every ATG can point to as the best expression of their skills. I am not sure how the MoM measure is reliable.