Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's too many reasons to go into, but a big one is that he plays his cricket for post-readmission South Africa. There are barely any South African fans online, their stadiums are rarely very busy for test cricket and there's a bit of history lacking in the series they play. Shane Warne is remembered as someone who stepped up to the plate for his performances in the Ashes, but who remembers when Gary Kirsten performs well against England? It just doesn't stick in the mind. Sachin Tendulkar's epic innings at Chennai will be remembered until the end of time. Can you even remember one of Jacques Kallis's four test hundreds against Pakistan? I can't.Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion on this. I do get the feeling though, that Kallis is generally underrated. I also underrate him, but that's because I haven't watched enough South African cricket. Out of non-Indian matches, I've tended to follow and watch Australia's matches most closely and hence tend to rate their cricketers a bit higher.
I'm interested to know why he's generally under-rated in the wider cricketing community. As you said, going by stats, he would be feted as easily the best cricketer of his generation. But why isn't that the case? Why do you think his batting lacks magic?
There's an ongoing feeling that someone like Ponting scores more runs in matches that matter than Kallis does. The simple fact is, Ponting plays more matches that matter than Kallis does. Much more. No one really cares that much about South African cricket.
Kallis is far from alone, too. Shaun Pollock is a monstrous bowling all-rounder in all formats, Allan Donald was one of the best fast bowlers in the world. The funny thing about these players is, almost everyone seems to think of them as underrated, so they can't be underrated. They're just forgotten.
It's an extremely common trait in humans to overestimate the ability of their own minds. Everyone can see the problems with statistical analyses- they're huge and obvious- but many seem blind to the much bigger problems with using their own perceptions to judge a cricketer. I've come to the conclusion that if two players are scoring the same amount of runs over a very, very long period of time, there probably isn't that much between them as batsman. In any case, certainly not 200 test wickets worth.
Last edited: