Why is Jacques Kallis so disliked?

[Richard]

All that being said, I'd love to have someone as good as Kallis in our middle order, and 99% of the time I'd want him to bat exactly the way he does for SA.

Exactly - and with that in mind, if someone does cost you 1 victory out of 100, is it not worth it for turning 20 defeats into draws\victories?

 

[Richard]

I dont think people hate him as much as thay dont consider him as great as his stats suggest. He does not compare with the best players IMO as he does not try to Dominate bowling attack's ..... Therefore not a bonafide "Matchwinner"

No batsman is a "bonafide matchwinner".

Because no batsman can win matches if his bowlers aren't good enough.

 

[Richard]

Not forgetting that he scored 3 hundreds in 5 tests and averaged 70 against an England attack that would be lauded as the best in the World when it helped defeat Australia just a few months later.

Seriously, though - did those bowlers bowl as well in SA as they did in the last 4 Tests of summer 2005?

No way on Earth.

Hoggard bowled better in SA, Harmison bowled equally poorly in both, Flintoff and Jones bowled much, much better in the summer (both were flattered by their figures in SA as far as I'm concerned). We only saw one or two flashes of the buzzword which made them such good bowlers in the summer (y'know what it is... summat about reverse-something).

 

[legglancer12]

No batsman is a "bonafide matchwinner".

Because no batsman can win matches if his bowlers aren't good enough.

Someones a$$ is tighter than a Ducky !

 

[LongHopCassidy]

No batsman is a "bonafide matchwinner".

Because no batsman can win matches if his bowlers aren't good enough.

And, of course, vice versa. Has it never occurred to you that match-winning innings, especially in this benign age, are far more prevalent than match-winning bowling spells?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Someones a$$ is tighter than a Ducky !

If you think a word is going to be filtered out, either don't use it or let it be starred. "Ass" is reasonable though.

 

[Richard]

Someones a$$ is tighter than a Ducky !

Eh?

 

[Richard]

And, of course, vice versa.

Depends. Bowlers can win a match if they bowl better than the opposition.

Batsmen can't do the same.

EDIT: maybe it'd be better to say "get figures" rather than "bowl better".

Has it never occurred to you that match-winning innings, especially in this benign age, are far more prevalent than match-winning bowling spells?

In this benign age (assuming you mean of benign bowling pitches) a top bowling spell is infinately more worthwhile than a top innings.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

In this benign age (assuming you mean of benign bowling pitches) a top bowling spell is infinately more worthwhile than a top innings.

How is it, then, that an innings like Dravid's 233 in Adelaide is more remembered than Agarkar's 6-fer in the same game?

I imagine that were this the 1990s, you'd be changing your tune.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'm fairly certain that South Africa chased down Australia last year by batting better than the opposition on a pitch where the bowlers were almost a non-factor (quality-wise).

 

[silentstriker]

How is it, then, that an innings like Dravid's 233 in Adelaide is more remembered than Agarkar's 6-fer in the same game?

I imagine that were this the 1990s, you'd be changing your tune.

Because people also remember Laxman's 281 and Dravid's 180 but Harbhajan had a hat trick and 13 wickets and was arguably better than either. Batting sells tickets, bowling wins matches.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

How is it, then, that an innings like Dravid's 233 in Adelaide is more remembered than Agarkar's 6-fer in the same game?

I imagine that were this the 1990s, you'd be changing your tune.

Being remembered or higher profile has nothing to do with being worthwhile. Richard's point is that the game is so heavily geared toward batsmen these days and so many runs are scored. Therefore when a bowler does something special, it's typically a laudable effort.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

That's understandable, but I'm curious as to why the 1990s had arguably infinitely better bowling and yet (I exaggerate, but the point stands) half the amount of results we're seeing today.

 

[Richard]

I'm fairly certain that South Africa chased down Australia last year by batting better than the opposition on a pitch where the bowlers were almost a non-factor (quality-wise).

Really?

I don't remember a Test-match where said thing happened?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That's understandable, but I'm curious as to why the 1990s had arguably infinitely better bowling and yet (I exaggerate, but the point stands) half the amount of results we're seeing today.

The pitches are better for batting and batsmen are scoring faster, allowing games to rattle along at a quicker pace than they used to. Also, the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are typically granted victories for the opposition and the West Indies is certainly not the competitive force it once was. Such mismatches dramatically alter the overall stats.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Really?

I don't remember a Test-match where said thing happened?

Tests? Ok. Fair enough. That said, the West Indies chased down Australia in a second innings duel in Antigua. On that occasion, the batting of Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Omari Banks and, yes, Vasbert Drakes was certainly matchwinning.

 

[Richard]

That's understandable, but I'm curious as to why the 1990s had arguably infinitely better bowling and yet (I exaggerate, but the point stands) half the amount of results we're seeing today.

Two main reasons:

Time-being-made-up rules changed dramatically in... yes, you guessed it... 2001, the exact time that batting started to dominate bowling. This has made a huge impact on the results.

Cricket at the moment is very "result-orientated". No-one ever thinks about "let's make this game safe" in the first-innings: it's always "make sure we've got enough time to force a victory". This manifests itself both in the speed batting is done at (the poorer quality of the bowling allows this massive increase in speed over the course of nothing more than 5 or 6 months) and the attitude of captains in declarations and field-settings.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

The pitches are better for batting and batsmen are scoring faster, allowing games to rattle along at a quicker pace than they used to. Also, the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are typically granted victories for the opposition and the West Indies is certainly not the competitive force it once was. Such mismatches dramatically alter the overall stats.

I can't see how that would be anything other than a leg-up for bowling attacks, though.

I wasn't really considering 'the terrible twosome' in my response, but point taken.

 

[silentstriker]

Tests? Ok. Fair enough. That said, the West Indies chased down Australia in a second innings duel in Antigua. On that occasion, the batting of Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Omari Banks and, yes, Vasbert Drakes was certainly matchwinning.

Didn't Lawson take something like 7 wickets in the first innings?

 

[Richard]

Tests? Ok. Fair enough.

Should probably have made it clear, I suppose, but clearly ODIs can be won by either due to the limit on overs - Tests can almost never be won without bowling-out the opposition twice. That was the central crux of ' issue.

That said, the West Indies chased down Australia in a second innings duel in Antigua. On that occasion, the batting of Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Omari Banks and, yes, Vasbert Drakes was certainly matchwinning.

Would WI have won had Jermaine Lawson not scythed through Australia's first-innings?

And, for that matter, would they have won had Mervyn Dillon not taken the wonderful figures of 4\112 to restrict Australia to a "mere" target of 418.