SA v SL, 3rd Test debate

First topic message reminder :

Just noticed there is no thread started on the 3rd test between SA and SL although the match has already started.
Lanka won the toss and are bowling.
Lahiru Thirimanne in for Tharanga Paranavitana, and Damika Prasad in for Dilhara Fernando.
For South Africa, Alviro Petersen returns to the top in place of Ashwell Prince, and Jacque Rudolph is moved down the order. Vernon Philander comes back in for Marchant De Lange.

Pewrhaps they have seen something in the pitch or evening conditions that suggests they can have a pop at Sri Lanka. Theyve already put them in a position of fighting for a draw, it is suprise to decleare when the runs are flowing though.

Just some comparisons between Kallis and ponting.

In their first 100 tests.

Ponting average 57.71 with 28 centuries and 8253 runs.
Kallis average 56.31 with 24 centuries and 7940 runs.

Next 50 tests.
Ponting 11 centuries, average down to 54.27 for an additional 4067 runs
Kallis 17 centuries, average up to 57.02 for an additional 4320 runs.

As many have argued before regarding Ponting's strike rate, and many negating strike rate for responsible slower innings, and the fact of a mere 271 wickets, it is clear Kallis is not only as great or greater than Ponting with the bat, but more valuable as a player.

biltongbek wrote:Just some comparisons between Kallis and ponting.

In their first 100 tests.

Ponting average 57.71 with 28 centuries and 8253 runs.
Kallis average 56.31 with 24 centuries and 7940 runs.

Next 50 tests.
Ponting 11 centuries, average down to 54.27 for an additional 4067 runs
Kallis 17 centuries, average up to 57.02 for an additional 4320 runs.

As many have argued before regarding Ponting's strike rate, and many negating strike rate for responsible slower innings, and the fact of a mere 271 wickets, it is clear Kallis is not only as great or greater than Ponting with the bat, but more valuable as a player.

Has Kallis ever played a match winning knock? As a player, Kallis is superior but not as a batsman, IMO.

Stella wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Not a good declaration. There's 41 overs left, for Pete's sake. Chances to get as on top as this come rarely. Why didn't SA grind them into the dust? Also the extra runs - and they would have come very quickly - may have been/may be the difference in being able to enforce the follow on and not. Sri Lanka have, to some extent, being let off the hook.

I agree.
Both players were in and scoring very rapidly. Another 20 overs of that and we could have seen 700 plus and a massive task for the Lankans.

and so many times before SA/Smith was criticesed for not declaring soon enough.

Stella wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Just some comparisons between Kallis and ponting.

In their first 100 tests.

Ponting average 57.71 with 28 centuries and 8253 runs.
Kallis average 56.31 with 24 centuries and 7940 runs.

Next 50 tests.
Ponting 11 centuries, average down to 54.27 for an additional 4067 runs
Kallis 17 centuries, average up to 57.02 for an additional 4320 runs.

As many have argued before regarding Ponting's strike rate, and many negating strike rate for responsible slower innings, and the fact of a mere 271 wickets, it is clear Kallis is not only as great or greater than Ponting with the bat, but more valuable as a player.

Has Kallis ever played a match winning knock? As a player, Kallis is superior but not as a batsman, IMO.

I am sure if I go through the history of test matches he played I will find many, including a plethora of test match saving innings.

I think the logic behind the declaration is that if SA had pushed for 700 & Sri Lanka made 350-500 he wouldn't really want to enforce the follow-on as the bowlers would be tired so is giving himself time to bat again to set a target. Could backfire if SL make a big score & SA find themselves under pressure to see out the match.

Talking of declarations, can't help thinking back to Freddie at Adelaide in 06/07 when England were whacking it all over the field and declared on 550-odd, only to lose.
OK, England were one down in the series and wanted to have a crack at the Aussies before the close. But 700 was there for the taking and at least a draw and possibly a win. A demoralised England went on to lose 5-0.

biltongbek wrote:

Stella wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Just some comparisons between Kallis and ponting.

In their first 100 tests.

Ponting average 57.71 with 28 centuries and 8253 runs.
Kallis average 56.31 with 24 centuries and 7940 runs.

Next 50 tests.
Ponting 11 centuries, average down to 54.27 for an additional 4067 runs
Kallis 17 centuries, average up to 57.02 for an additional 4320 runs.

As many have argued before regarding Ponting's strike rate, and many negating strike rate for responsible slower innings, and the fact of a mere 271 wickets, it is clear Kallis is not only as great or greater than Ponting with the bat, but more valuable as a player.

Has Kallis ever played a match winning knock? As a player, Kallis is superior but not as a batsman, IMO.

I am sure if I go through the history of test matches he played I will find many, including a plethora of test match saving innings.

I've seen a few that he played in and cannot think of one. He's a great bat but a tad behind Punter. But that's just my opinion

It will now be interesting to see how well Philander bowls on this batsmans deck.

Sorry Biltong but from an unbiased view i.e. an Englishman commenting on an Aussie and a Saffer, I have to agree with Stella that Ponting is the greater batsman of the two. His selfless batting has served up numerous superb run chases over the years, and has many more career defining knocks than Kallis. In terms of statistics, barely anything to split them, but as we all know, this game is about more than just statistics.

re the wisdom of the Smith declaration. SL now almost 100 for one and the innings is well up and running. Would they have started so well if they had had half an hour to bat chasing 700?

skyeman wrote:It will now be interesting to see how well Philander bowls on this batsmans deck.

Well at least we can say hes roughly as good as Steyn

[quote="sirfredperry"]re the wisdom of the Smith declaration. SL now almost 100 for one and the innings is well up and running. Would they have started so well if they had had half an hour to bat chasing 700?[/quote]

SA have their reasons but I couldn't work out the thinking today. They have played well but maybe SA could have scored faster yesterday and batted on to 650 plus and put them in an hour before tea. Perhaps its not a pitch for bat once and Smith doesn't have the confidence in his 5 bowlers for back to back innings bowling.

SL end on 149 for two and you can't help thinking that SA have missed a trick here. SA are, of course, still in a good position but it could have been a lot better.

biltongbek wrote:I may be one of very few that think Kallis is better than Ponting.

As a cricketer I rate Kallis above all his contemporaries.

GG wrote:

biltongbek wrote:I may be one of very few that think Kallis is better than Ponting.

As a cricketer I rate Kallis above all his contemporaries.

How about, as a batsman?

Stella wrote:

GG wrote:

biltongbek wrote:I may be one of very few that think Kallis is better than Ponting.

As a cricketer I rate Kallis above all his contemporaries.

How about, as a batsman?

Personally (and I'm going to get a fair bit of stick), I rate him as the best batsman since Sobers.

GG wrote:

Stella wrote:

GG wrote:

biltongbek wrote:I may be one of very few that think Kallis is better than Ponting.

As a cricketer I rate Kallis above all his contemporaries.

How about, as a batsman?

Personally (and I'm going to get a fair bit of stick), I rate him as the best batsman since Sobers.

Fair enough.

I do disagree of course

Can I begin the stick, GS? I think most would agree that you cannot put Kallis - terrific Test batsman that he is - above the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid, Ponting, Viv Richards, Gavaskar, Vishy, Miandad.
Need I go on? Very well, then - Gooch, Greg Chappell, Martin Crowe, Gordon Greenidge.
If you want to chuck in Kallis's 270-odd Test wickets then you can start judging him as a great Test all-rounder. But he'll have to give way to any of the above - and there's probably some I've missed off the top of my head.

Philander has been bitterly dissapointing, by his usual standards..

cricketfan90 wrote:Philander has been bitterly dissapointing, by his usual standards..

Bitterly disappointing is not what I would say. This track is a batsmans dreams. He was still putting the ball in the right AREAS, but without the slight movement.
Same sought of figures as Steyn the worlds No1 bowler.

jeez i was only joking

Oh come on, Kallis is clearly a better batsman than Greenidge, Crowe and Gooch (and Miandad come to mention it). He averages just about 10 runs higher than each, now I know averages don't say everything, but Kallis as a batsman is statistically on a par with the best of his contempories. The above named players, whilst very good, were not.

Having said that, I do side with Stella and FoF and rate Ponting above Kallis for his match-winning knocks (which is of course a subgective criterion - but statistically they are similar so subjective judgement must enter the frame). In fact I rate Ponting above Tendulkar and Lara as a test batsman for similar reasons.

I do feel that it's only in the last 2 or 3 years that Kallis has recieved the recognition he deserves as a cricketer though. Still, better late than never.

I rate Kallis extremely highly. As to the exact ranking between Tendulkar, Ponting and Kallis I can't get too worked up given that all three are of enormously high standing as players. If the 606v2 HoF were open to current players all three would have my vote without any qualms whatever.

I don't get the whole 'match winning innings' thing.

If SA go on to win this match, isn't some guy scoring 250 a huge reason why the team won the match? Or do you actually have to hit the winning run?

But AB also scored 160...making it more of a team effort, so to speak. A match winning innings is when someone takes the game by the scruff of the neck, either being the only one to make a significant contribution toward winning the game or by really accelerating in a run chase and making a big score, for example.

Anyway, on to todays play - Sri Lanka to collapse miserably, or will they put up some resistance?

By this logic Tim Bresnan is on course to get inducted into the batting HOF

It appears Sri Lanka opted for the 'let's bottle it and self destruct' option. Steyn picks up 3 wickets, 202-6.

Peter, no worries mate. Kallis has played many match winning knocks and match saving knocks for SA, he is doomed to be in the percepted shadow of Ponting because he doesn't have the flash.

The fact is we all have legends and heroes because of what we percieve as the best, it is good for debate and we don't really always expect to change peoples minds or opinions, we just plant seeds of a different perception.

I read this article yesterday about Kallis.

A Cricketing View, by Kartikeya Date.

Jacques Kallis had just scored his second century of the match. The man who spent most of the 4th day getting reverse-swept by Kallis could not hide his admiration. “He is a great player. I would say after Tendulkar, he is the best player in the world,” said Harbhajan Singh. Given the Indian off-spinning ace's unapologetically one-eyed hero-worship of Bombay's greatest son, this is some compliment. I think it would be quite safe to assume that in the world of Test players, Jacques Kallis is a great player.


Greatness. It is the Bharat Ratna, or the Knighthood in Cricket. It is not offered with any ceremony, but fittingly for a sport which celebrates the tension between selfish individuality and selfless teamwork like no other, must be seized by an aspiring candidate from a largely curmudgeonly community. In this community, this politics of greatness is conducted through murmurs - murmurs of envy, of approval, of dissent, of gratitude, of rivalry. You would be hard pressed to find a serious professional cricketer who thinks that Jacques Kallis is anything less than an all-time great.

And yet, there is, apparently, much division as to whether or not Kallis is a great player. I suspect we will hear the same debates about Ricky Ponting when the time comes. But then again, may be not. Because Ponting has already been appointed to greatness. He is regarded as the best Australian bat since Greg Chappell. Besides, the Australians are assertive about things like this. Once, during the rancorous 1980-81 tour to Australia, Sunil Gavaskar, exasperated by his own form and by the murmurs of dissent about his abilities (because of his putative struggles against Dennis Lillee), asked an Australian reporter whether he would say that Lillee was not a great bowler because he had played very little, and with very little success outside Australia and England. Gavaskar tells us that the reporter responded, without batting an eyelid, that those were anomalies. That Lillee was an all-time great fast bowler.

That was that.

The path to greatness is made easier by early endorsements. Shane Warne, Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara, all received attention very early in their careers from other greats like Gavaskar, Sobers and Bradman. This placed them firmly in the working-to-be-great category. It became not just a question of if, but of when.

Then there is us. In a compassionate dissent, the wonderfully titled karachikhatmal asks where the tragedy is in Jacques Kallis's career. This could as well be asked in another way - Where are the tragics? Tendulkar, in the words of C P Surendran had a "a whole nation, tatters and all, march[ing] with him to the battle arena. A pauper people pleading for relief, remission from the life-long anxiety of being Indian, by joining in spirit with their visored savior." Brian Lara had the remnants of West Indian ambition and Trinidadian nationalism behind him - a wisened, disappointed people, watching incredulously as the greatest cricketing dynasty of all fell to pieces in a matter of 3 or so years.

Where are Kallis's tragics? A great white champion in Protean South Africa, Kallis seems to have been inadvertently condemned for being on the wrong side of history. It is imperative that he be rescued.

It is time, in this argument, to make a definitive claim about greatness. How should we look for greatness? Firstly, it must be clear that the said player can play. This was absolutely clear in the case of Inzamam Ul Haq. In Kallis's case, he is technically supreme, and his bowling emerges as an afterthought. Imagine almost 300 Test wickets emerging as an afterthought! Secondly, there must be longevity. 145 Tests, ~12000 Test runs, ~300 Test wickets. Longevity is not an issue with Jacques Kallis.

But then there needs to be a memory to go with longevity and ability - a memory of heroism and mastery. A memory which makes a watcher sit up and take notice when the name Jacques Kallis shows up on the score sheet. This is more complicated than you might think, because it depends largely on what the watcher is invested in. In Kallis's case, it is less a case of what he might do to shape a contest, but whether the contest can be decided before he has had his say. How many observers are willing to predict the shape of a contest while Jacques Kallis is yet to be dismissed from the fray? Only the foolhardy ones.

This satisfies the mastery, you might say, but what of heroism?

Is South Africa's cricketing story since 1992 not one of heroism? Through trials and errors and triumphs and tragedies, South Africa have tried to make a country since Mr. Mandela was released from prison on February 11, 1990. The details of the story are complicated, at times unsavory, at others uplifting. But it is a heroic story, one in which South Africa's cricket has played it's part.

For 15 years, Jacques Kallis has been South Africa cricketing rock. Through match-fixing, affirmative action and all their dispiriting entrails, from Donald to Steyn, from Ntini to Amla, Kallis has played cricket for South Africa - cricket of the highest quality. His efforts cannot be measured just in runs, though this, in his case makes an impressive measure, but by recognizing that he has been the most priceless general in the worthiest battle waged through cricket in the last 20 years.

Where is the heroism you ask? Is Kallis not Cricket's hero? We, who think cricket is important and wonderful, must be his tragics. Let there be no doubt. If we measure greatness the way we should, then Jacques Kallis is an all-time great cricketer. He belongs in the same breath as Bradman and Sobers and Tendulkar and Imran and Lara and Richards and Warne and Marshall and Muralitharan.

A great cricketer but an average entertainer, which is what sets the other names aside, given that it is the entertainment business. We can discuss it to death but that is the short and sweet summary of it.

The fact is we all have legends and heroes because of what we percieve as the best, it is good for debate and we don't really always expect to change peoples minds or opinions, we just plant seeds of a different perception

--------------------------------

That's the thing. All these great players are so close in talent/achievement that you can only gauge your opinion on what you have seen.

I do agree that Kallis is a great allround cricketer and belongs in the same category as Imran etc but maybe not Bradman (who does)?

Nobody, in my opinion.

As far as I am concerned there are two sportsmen so ridiculously far ahead of anyone else - Muhammad Ali (the greatest sportsman that ever lived, and that there likely ever will be), and Don Bradman.

Fists
Ali was not the best boxer ever let alone Sportsman.

How much entertainment he provides confuses it even more FoF - personally don't see him as any less entertaining than the batsmen he's being unfavourably compared to. Can't assume that everyone finds the same fare entertaining, like saying we should all like the same films or music. I think doggedness can be as entertaining as quick-scoring, one of the most entertaining innings I've watched was Atherton on the last day at the Wanderers when all he was trying to do was survive the day.

Well, so much for my moaning yesterday about declaring too soon, as Sri Lanka collapse in the morning session ! At this rate, they'll all be getting another go with the bat fairly soon.

It doesn't matter if he was the best boxer ever or not on a pound for pound basis, that is totally down to personal opinion. What matters is that he came out of the golden era of heavyweight boxing as the best of the bunch, and proved himself to be the greatest heavyweight (boxings blue ribband division) there has ever been.

When you add to that the way he transcended the sport and became (and still is) the most recognised and famous sportsman on the planet, along with his out of ring exploits, there is no doubt whatsoever that he is the greatest of the lot.

Well sir Fred, at one stage last night I was beginning to think you were right.

Well fists, I think a lot of our percpetion has to do with how things are marketed to us as well.

The Australian media does it with their cricket and their players, and the rest of the world believe it.

Mohammed Ali was by far the biggest self promoting boxer the world has ever seen and combine that with his successes in the ring and that perception is most likely shared by most boxing fans.

Look at Michael Jordan as a Basketball player, or Babe Ruth as a baseball player, the media makes them legends, obviously aided by their achievements and personalities.

Basketball and baseball? we are talking real sports here, man!

I see your point, but it is beyond just boxing fans. I'd wager that the majority of human beings know who Ali is, whereas the same cannot be said for The Don for example. Given how big and popular a sport boxing is (or certainly was, anyway), it carries a lot more weight than one of the typically American sports mentioned above.

F of F - Agree with much of what you said about Ali. Spose a good test of greatness is whether exploits - and faces - are recognised by those not in the least interested in sport.
So you could put the following down under that category - WG Grace, Don Bradman, Babe Ruth, Lester Piggott, Ian Botham, Bobby Charlton, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Andre Agassi (but not Pete Sampras).
Some remarkably great players would probably NOT get into this category and not for any lack of ability, charm and all-round good eggness.
This might seem like sacrilege , but Sachin would probably not get into it, but Lara might. David Beckham is probably best suited in another category - that of showbiz/celebrity superstars.

Pele for me would be known by more of the world-simply because football is the biggest global sport.

Pretty much spot on, SIr Fred.

Yes Pele and Ali are possibly the two most recognised names in sport.

Does this make them the best......hell no.

Pele is arguably the best ever Footballer but Maradona pips him, IMO.

Maybe we could have a thread (like some other sections) where we could discuss things off-cricket.

We tried that in the boxing section, and all hell broke loose, to the point that barely anyone was talking about boxing any more

I think the odd veering off topic doesn't hurt, particularly on a thread such as this where it is ongoing, and not particularly based on one subject, so we will let ourselves off

We are actually quite good with it in this section, everyone seems to know when to stop so as not to totally derail a topic.

tahir has bowled really well in this innings so far, kept things tight and picked up a couple of wickets...


however its sad to see a great like Jaywardene struggling for so long now.

Fair enough - in which case, and in no particular order:

My top ten greatest sportsmen:

Pele
Federer
Jordan
Jack Nicklaus
Ali
Bradman
Phelps
Navratilova
Lance Armstrong
Carl Lewis

I guess Usain Bolt is almost deserving of a shout already as one of the top 10-15 greatest, given his sheer domination. Can't really knock the names in your list.

Fists of Fury wrote:I guess Usain Bolt is almost deserving of a shout already as one of the top 10-15 greatest, given his sheer domination. Can't really knock the names in your list.

Was gonna include Bolt, but Lewis was unbelievable in both track and field.

I'd like to mention Steve Redgrave.

A local hero to me and a man with balls of steel.