Originally posted by Trev33
I agree with your first comment, meaning it's impossible to declare Kallis the best cricketer the game has ever seen.
Golf equipment has changed so much, it's difficult to compare eras.
That was my point.
Cricket equipment has not evolved in the leaps that the game of golf has had. Sure, the bats have become pretty awesome, but you could hit a cricket ball 60m for a six with a 1920 bat too.
If anything, getting to where the likes of Lara, Kallis, Ponting and Tendulkar did is so much better than a Bradman ever was.
Bowlers are quicker, stronger and much more cunning these days. Teams video analyze batsmen for weaknesses.
The BIGGEST change in the game though has been fielding.
Fielding has improved so much since the 80's that I think we can easily take off a linear percentage of runs for every decade a player made their runs in, starting at the 80s. Fielders actually dive to stop boundaries and take catches, they are much faster, fitter and much better drilled now. Hell, I remember watching when fast bowlers at fine leg would merely jog to pick up the ball behind the boundary if the shot didn't come directly at them.
We didn't have the third umpire, so 90 percent of close run out chances went in favour of the batsman. These days we know how many of these chances actually go in favour of the fielding side.
I'd say 5000 runs now is the same as making 10,000 runs anywhere before the 60's
Cricket is interesting in that everything that happens on the field is recorded, so it's quite easy to actually check 'greatness'. Fire up cricinfo.com go to records and it's easy to see Kallis' greatness.
Unfortunately a psychological phenomenon prevents us humans from admitting a player's legendary status while they are still playing. I don't know why, but we'll have to wait for him to die, or at least retire, before he will get the recognition he deserves.
Unfortunately for the naysayers, stats don't lie. It's all opinion with legends, never the stats, which to me is very weird.