Kallis has claims to Tendulkar's 'cricketer of the generation' title

Career stats don't always tell the truth. Kallis' bowling was nothing more than average, and people are giving more credit to his batting than he deserves. I believe a good way to look at this is how the player performed against toughest opposition. I have selected the period from 1 Jan 1997 till 30 Dec 2007 against AUSTRALIA. Reason i selected that interval is to make sure i pick the time period that overlapped in Kallis and Tendulkar's career. The reason i stopped at 2007 is because australia started to decline after that ..... McGrath and warne rretired around that time and other mainstays (hayden, gilchrist, etc) were near retirement. Tendulkar's test avg against Australia was 57.70 while kallis avg is 38.82 You can't blame me for cherry picking, as 2004-2007 was tendulkar's worst period. I have already dsicarded tendulkar's stats before 1997 (when tendulkar actually achieved the star status). Yes Kallis' average and run scoring increased later in his career, but i can't help notice that in the era when bowling around the world was better (Donald, akram, waqar, saqlain, warne, mcgrath, etc) Kallis never appeared to do anything extraordinary. Once the world-wide bowling standards drop (roughly after 2005) his batting bloomed. And all of the above discussion was just about test. In One dayers, tendulkar is far far above kallis. I dont even see the point of bringing stats in here. Kallis is a good player no doubt, but i don't think he is what is made out of him. Tendulkar would probably share the title of "cricketer of the generation" along with Lara. Kallis looses points in "threat to strong opposition" factor.

Though Sachin Tendulkar has taken 46 Test wickets, there were 112 Test innings in which he bowled without taking a wicket. This is the most number of innings in which a bowler has bowled, but not taken a wicket. A rather more celebrated bowler, Jacques Kallis - who finished with 292 wickets - bowled in 106 innings in which he failed to strike and is second on this dubious list. Steve Waugh (98), Sanath Jayasuriya (88) and Mark Waugh (86) come next.

Totally agree. Kallis is one of the greatest batsmen EVER with that amazing average and all those wickets. A great all round cricketer. Tendulkar may have (arguably) been a better bastman, but in my books Kallis is the better cricketer.

No.Kallis can not be as cricketer of his generation.Unlike Lara he was in a strong team,but never dominated the opposite bowlers like Lara who was in the weakest team.Lara won more matches on his own than kallis.so It should be lara as the cricketer of his generation

Samuel Gates: Another point was brought to notice in a typical "bar" conversation. Tendulkar perhaps stayed on for a bit longer thereby impacting his "final" overall average. However, when you look at the amount of time spent in International cricket with an average of 50+ this is what you get: 1) Tendulkar- first averaged 50 in his 29 th match in Jan 1994. Thereafter except for a short while in the "49 point somethings" in 1996 he averaged in the 50s till retirement . 2) Kallis first hit an avg. of 50 in his 63rd match in Nov 2002.( At the time Tendulkar was rated 2nd best batsman of all time behind the Don by Wisden ) He too had a short dip into the "49 point somethings" thereafter. But for the most part Kallis maintained an avg. of 50+ till retirement. 3)Lara hit an avg. of 50 in just his 5th match thanks to his 277. Lara then had a couple of dips below 50 in the 1990s and 2000s. So - Tendulkar avg. 50+ for around 20 years. Kallis for 11 years. Lara for around 12, given 2 or 3 years sub 50 after 1992.. Effectively Tendulkar was a Great batsman for almost TWICE as long- and much of it in the tougher period before the mid 2000s. Kind of puts things in perspective.

An interesting piece on this topic (athletic improvement over time) which I saw today. http://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger/transcript

Sin you are being very naughty putting words into my mouth. I never said Bradman was twice as good as any other batsman. Good heavens he's much better than that.

We started with Sachin vs J.K And ended with Sachin vs Don Wow I guess don is far far far ahed of all But For all others Just read it out 200+ Comments What we got JK vs sachin Then Lara vs sachin Then Ponting vs sachin S.W vs sachin And If you could see time line At present JK vs sachin Some time back Cook vs sachin ( in roar there was a great fight about cook vs sacihn how ever we haven't got a single spell that would sound like cook) Some more time back It was Ponting vs sachin S.W vs sachin ( in odis m.bevan vs sachin ) Befor that Lara vs sachin Lets se other way In those 20 + years In early 90 era of bollers Count 10 best batsman sachin must be one of them if not at no1 Then came mid 90s to 2000 Time for some big hitters and ODI era Count 10 best batsman ( keep in mind your first list ) Sachin and Lara both will find their name (My list got inzmam ) In ODI jaysuriya and co. started big hitting all most every team got their big hitters as openers How many of (se your old two list ) them able to change their game and still be able to play in as 1 2 3 in their on team Well For me from old list Sachin Lara And M.W (aus) If I can change big heating to best in that time Lara sachin m.w inzmam There comes Kalis with ponting and dravid in my list with sahevag, gilkrist then Hayden, cook + some more There comes 2000 to 2010 Batsmanship era I would say. In that 10 year just make your list again Well I guess sachin is still there with Kalis ponting and for me no one is gilkrist (2000 to 2010)

Cunning: There is no attempt to sway anyone. I'm simply putting forward what I perceive as logic. Test batting cannot be compared to most other sporting activities. Period. Comparing Test batting to sprinting is just plain illogical. There is no upper limit or constraint in Test batting. So a sequence of say 0,0,0,0,200 corresponds to an "average" of 50. A top level sprinter cannot possibly run 4 15 second 100 MTV sprints and follow it up with a 4 second sprint - thus "averaging" 10 seconds over 5 sprints. In Test batting once you get a solid 100 or around 150 - it then becomes more of a question of containing boredom or complacency. Clearly the bowling and pitch has already been mastered. Beyond around 150 it is also doubtful how much an individual batsman actually contributes to a teams win . I wonder what the stats say about it . A score beyond that is perhaps only useful in a very weak team or else to buttress individual stats. Just about everyone will surely have Bradman as the "best" Test batsman ever . However, bear faxes insinuation and logical fallacy that Bradman was "twice as good" as anyone is based on a skewed interpretation of Test batting average as compared to stats on others sporting endeavours. (P.S - One of the few men who have watched both Bradman and Tendulkar - John Woodcock, has this to say..." Only Sachin Tendulkar can equal Don Bradman" - Google it).

Well-said, Bearfax. Sin, I suggest you quit while you're behind. You will not win this argument. Nor will you sway people with some grounding in reality.

Sin I'm afraid that its non sensical to you because old friend you are trapped in seeing things from one perspective and just cant see out of the myopia. I admire your defence of Tendulkar, but quite frankly neither you nor I ever saw Bradman play and therefore all we have are the averages and a few frames of film, so assessing him by talking of a few records broken today has no value. Batting is no different from any other sport mate. Its a physical skill just like golf, tennis, running, swimming etc. And each generation the very best will break records because of improved conditions in which they ply their skill, but almost never because they are in some way genetically better than those who came before. Throwing records at me proves nothing because you're not matching players of different generations who performed under different circumstances. If Bradman had averaged 55 or 60 or maybe 65, I would say that you have something substantive to argue that Tendulkar may have been of equal (not better) skill. But Bradman averaged 100. That was so far above the norm that it continues to stagger even to this day. You can throw all you like at me about Tendulkar but he averaged in the low 50s in the end, just as top batsmen have been doing since the early 1900s...that level hasnt changed. If Tenduklar had retired with an average of say 90, then I would say you have an argument. But he didnt.

As I've often said, if Bradman isn't the best then Headley, Hobbs and Hammond are no better than Sarwan, Trescothick and Gatting.

The chemical assistance is better today as well.

Bear fax: Your argument and comparison with Bolt etc.is nonsensical . 1) Batting in Test cricket is quite different to other sporting activities. Simply because there is essentially no time limit in which to keep scoring runs in Test matches ( for all practical purposes). 2) Bradman made Ducks in almost 10% of his innings. As mentioned in a previous comment ,may other batsmen averaged very high against England for shorter periods of time. Bradman maintained his average over a longer period of time and manage to maintain peak form for longer. 3) In Test matches Bradman made it count when the going was good. 4) In tennis for eg. There is no way one can say that's Federer is "twice as good" as say a Becker. 2 reasons for this.1) Tennis has a "limit" in terms of score unlike Test batting. I.e you can only beat someone 6-0 per set at best. You cannot beat someone 100-0. 2) In tennis grand slam aggregates count. So Fed is considered the greatest or at any rate better than Becker because of his grand slam aggregate. 5) Also this blind use of average without accounting and equalising for numerous factors is senseless. An average is merely a tool and indicator. It does not tell you about pitch conditions.bowling attacks and innumerable other factors. Surely 15000 runs at 54 over 25 years against better bowling is better than say 12000 runs at 55 over 18 years against poorer bowling? Not to mention factoring in ODIs,And so on and so forth... 6) So it is quite odd to use just one indicator without factoring the effect of numerous factors into to. As mentioned - correctly speaking only players with identical career dates may be directly compared. Even then bowling faced has to be factored in among other variables. Simply pretending that the average covers everything is naive to say the least.

Bearfax, very substantially agree. Incidentally, the 100m is quite interesting to look at in the context of the "everything is so much better now" type argument - because in reality it's gone down very little over time, and a great deal (I suspect a large majority) of the improvement can be attributed to better tracks, shoes and timing. The rest of the improvement is then down to constantly refined training, aided by professionalism. It is unarguable that the very best athletes today run faster than their counterparts in the past, but that is not because they are better. It is merely that their circumstances are different. The occasional genetically very gifted athlete (eg Usain Bolt) will come along to continue to lower records, perhaps even by relatively large increments, but such athletes could come along at any time (and have done in the past). They are not confined to now. Take a great athlete (or player of any sport) of the past, put them in a modern context and in my opinion the qualities that made them great then will make them great now. That's unproveable of course!

The arguments in this section really confuse me because its obvious that there are 'favourites' being pushed time and again in comparing batsmen in particular. It is quite ridiculous to compare different generations, unless there is a stand out in one of those generations that seems almost incomprehensible, because there are just too many factors that have to be taken into consideration. Comparing Lara, Kallis or Tendulkar to Sobers, Headley or Hobbs is quite frankly folly because you cant tell what those players would perform like accurately if they were taken out of their generation and placed in another. All we can surely do is compare players each generation and recognise that there were players probably just as good , or slightly worse or better in other generations. Hobbs wasnt called THE MASTER for nothing. Headley wasnt called THE BLACK BRADMAN for nothing. Sobers wasnt considered THE BEST BATSMAN AFTER BRADMAN for nothing. And Tendulkar wasnt called THE LITTLE MASTER for nothing. Each generation raises up its champions and unless their figures are significantly better than others of his generation, all you can say is that this or that batsman was a champion for that generation. No way you can say Tendulkar was better than Sobers or Hobbs. No way you can say Lara was better than Headley or Worrell. No way you can say Kallis was better than Graeme Pollock or Barry Richards. You cant because each of these players have relatively similar averages to other champions of other ages and are the best of their age. Hobbs, Worrell, Sobers, Headley,the two Richards, Graeme Pollack, Tendulkar, Kallis, Lara, Gavaskar, Ponting were all champions of their age and are recognised as such. Who was best? Entirely depends on your perspective because the averages were fairly similar generation by generation. Being outstanding for one period, having the highest aggregate or best test score is in the end irrelevant. Its the final averages against other nations that all players have to face that tells the story. Sometimes getting a 55 average may have been easier in one generation, sometimes making 50 may have been hard in another. But champion batsmen usually average between 50-60 over at least 30 teats. The exception is obvious and that is Bradman. While others were averaging at best in tests 50-60 in generations since the beginning of the 1900s, this fellow averaged 100. Not 50, not 60, not 70...100. Almost twice what other batsmen could achieve. Doesnt matter the age. he was up against some pretty decent opposition but no one came close to averaging what he did. The problem is that people today are comparing different generations and because records are being broken today we must have the best of all time. Let's compare this to 100 metre (or yard) sprinting. Today we think Bolt is the best sprinter ever. But twenty years ago we thought Lewis was the best ever. In the 1930s they thought Owens or Peacock were the best ever. But each of these runners was just shaving a little from the records each generation from the past. Bolt's time is just about 1/10th of a second faster than Lewis. But he has all the advantages of todays training equipment, nutrition etc. Add to that like in cricket, he cant train consistently every day because in 1930s you had to hold a job to pay your way.or have a lot saved. All that adds to an athletes potential today to run just that little bit faster. Bolt holds the World record for the 100 metres dash at 9.58. Owens held the equal world record in 1936 of 9.4 second for 100 yard sprint (equal to about 10.2 seconds for 100 metres). So who was the better runner. Easy to say Bolt because he holds the record. But Owens in today's world would probably match him. Now imagine in the 1936 Olympics you had a sprinter, we'll call him Fred, who won the 100 yard dash in 8.85 seconds (equivalent to about 9.59 seconds over 100 metres). In other words he won the race by 15 yards or a little under 14 metres and did what was considered impossible. Now bring him forward in time to face Bolt who then beats him by 0.1 seconds over 100 metres. Who was the fastest sprinter? I mean Bolt broke the record, he holds the World record time. Its a ridiculous call isnt it. Because Fred is running with the training, equipment, nutrition, other work responsibilities etc of 1930s times. Bolt is running with 2014 advantages. You see realistically you have to compare the performer against those of his time and measure the difference. That is the difference between Bradman and the rest.

Contributing for what I guess first you hav to archive something then count , contribution Only one thing s a archive no 1 Renk in test Well done People say he can ball too however still wasn't able to get enough point compare to sachin ( twice man of series in world cup) 2 or 3 years back It was S.T vs R.P Few years back It was S.t vs S.W More year s back S.T vs Lara That's bat Vs Bat and about no 1 Just see one more way Aus compare S.T with S.W in test .............good caption M.bevan ................... Good in deth overs ODI Gilkrist ....................batter hitter At times Lara did appear in that as well but J.K not sure For PAK They got inzmam ............ They say batter tecknick For WI It was always Lara Vs Sachin Viv Vs Sachin Some time Lara with S.W (aus) Interesting we hear mor Lara vs sachin and viv vs sachin more then Viv Vs Lara Right Early 90s time of solid tecknick sachin one of them Then come 1996 and ODI with hitters Jaysuriya and co. sachin is one of them Almost every team change their 1st and 2nd batsmen But sachin change his game People will remember Sachin played From pak wasim, waquar, sqlain, kafir and akthatr From aus grath warnii lee Gillespi and bit older ones From WI C.W and C.A From SL murali, waas From RSA Donald pollock to staiiiiiin morkal and one ntiniiiii

Well Samuel I'm all for enthusiasm, and everyone's entitled to their opinion and their own preferences (and there are valid criticisms or reservations you can make of or regarding Bradman as a player) - but it doesn't hurt to maintain some level of reality even on an opinion site!