It was just the best example. I could just as easily have used this match, where he hit 177 before getting out. I don't believe his failure to add 23 more runs to a team total of 658/9d detracts from his position as a player whatsoever. But in your mind, those 23 irrelevant runs he didn't get are a blight on Kallis's career.
Larwood, Voce, Allen, Verity, Hammond
fixed
Tbf, could use that in the (admittedly very thin) anti-Bradman argument.
call me an innocent but I had assumed that that sort of deliberate manipulation of a post couldn't be done!
but why has he not scored a double hundred yet? if he is not good enough to score one double century in 130 tests how can he compete with the greatest batsmen of all time? please tell me why he has not got a single score above 200. is he not technically equipped to score that many runs before making a mistake? is he not capable of concentrating for too long? is he putting the team above himself and hits out ignoring his personal milestones? or is he so slow that it is impractical for him to crawl past the mark without running out of partners or killing his team's chances of posting a big score in quick time? why?
I'd be in here debating it with you but I've done it all before with the exact same members about six times; you get tired of it eventually. I remember debating the merits of batting strike rates in Tests with Ikki in a thread once and it dragged on for about six pages passed the point of anyone else replying; he's not going to give in.
Good to know I'm not alone.
No-one knows, but the real point is that it doesn't matter in the slightest when evaluating his quality. A batsman who never hits a double ton but averages 60 per dismissal is much more valuable than a batsman who hits a double every time he reaches three figures but averages 40. Kallis is neither of these hyperthetical players but the difference between hitting a double hundred or hitting 177 in one game means nothing compared to the regularity in which you score hundreds or even fifties, or definitely not the true test of a batsman's quality: how many runs he's likely to score when he goes out to bat.
a lot of people actually know the reason. he is not quick enough to get there without running out of partners or jeopardizing his team's run rate. unless he plays an "out-of-character" innings he is not going to get there ever. and that is a shame. because he has the technique, temperament and the repertoire of shots to score a double century. wish he could just get on with it, press the accelerator and go past the mark.
Even though this is very, very debatable, I'll just pretend it's true for a minute and say.. so what? The ability to convert scores of 150 to 200 is pretty useless in the grand scheme of things. I'd much have a batsman who scored 110 and 90 than 200 and 0, actually, and that's what we're talking about as despite not adding cheap runs to his tally when he's on 120 odd, he still stacks up with the best in terms of how many runs he scores and what he averages - he catches up in other areas.
The difference here is that scores of 120, 130 etc are already "big scores" - he's not failing to convert, because he already has. Fifties from top order batsmen can be inconsequential which is why Fleming was criticised so much early in his career, but scores of 120, 140 etc are exactly what you want from the members of your top order. Not going on to 200 means **** all, particularly if you still manage to score as many on average as those who do as it shows you're scoring more in other areas - either getting to 50 or 100 more often in the first place to make up for it.
I just flat out disagree. I don't see it as an issue. It's something I have great trouble comprehending actually - people really seem to want to over-romanticise their rating of the greats by incorporating all sorts of strange criteria like how many crowd members ooed-and-arred when they played a certain shot, how many books people wrote about them, how entertaining they were in general or indeed, how many times they crossed an inconsequential landmark. How good a cricketer someone is really shouldn't be determined by any of that - it should be determined purely by how effective they were when they played. The difference between getting out for 177 or going on to make 260 on a flat pitch in a game destined for either a draw or a comfortable victory means much less than the ability to score regular hundreds.
are you telling me kallis never batted on a flat wicket or he never faced weak bowling? just tell me why he is not able to score a double hundred. even if you dont consider it a big deal, just think about the reasons for him not having managed a single 200+ score in 130 tests. does he throw his wicket away every time he crosses 150 since he doesn't care about his personal landmarks? do you think he bats too low (at no.3, 4 or 5 for FFS) that he runs out of partners?
Even if you assume he hasn't scored a double hundred because he scores too slowly to do so (which I don't really agree with), it actually doesn't matter at all, because not scoring a double hundred in one's career doesn't diminish one's effectiveness as a batsman. If the great cost of being a defensive batsman is the absence of double hundreds despite the maintainable of regular hundreds at a great average, then it is not in any way a hindrance.
There is obviously something wrong with his game when it comes to turning hundreds into doubles, but it's such a ridiculously minor part of batting that it means absolutely nothing to me. South Africa have not been disadvantaged by his inability to do so - he's been just as effective as he would have been had he scored an extra 23 runs the day he got 177.
It's possible that his relative slow scoring in comparison to his peers has contributed to the fact that he hasn't scored a double hundred; I never denied that. However, I don't think it matters. Scoring a little bit more quickly during that innings of 177 and bringing up a double would not make him any more effective as a batsman.
That can't be a serious argument, surely. Boycott and Gavaskar both got double hundreds. They're certainly not fast scorers either.
