The Case for Kallis

[Jono]

Nah. Pollock's overrated on here.

Meant generally not on CW, apologies if not clear in my post. Reckon Kallis on the whole gets his due here on CW. Some may not, but on the whole people rate him higher than others general cricket fans. Reckon its the same with Polly.

Just from my experience anyway.

 

[Xuhaib]

the problem with Polly was he very seldom had spells where you would just sit up with your mouth open and admire the sheer brilliance of the man he just could not get the pulse racing unlike say a Flintoff or Shoaib who may have inferior records but were more likely to give you a show of brilliance. Kallis batting also has a very similar feel for most of his career.

People never had problems in giving Steyn, Donald and Rhodes (for his fielding) their share of praise so its just not a South African thing.

 

[unam]

the problem with Polly was he very seldom had spells where you would just sit up with your mouth open and admire the sheer brilliance of the man he just could not get the pulse racing unlike say a Flintoff or Shoaib who may have inferior records but were more likely to give you a show of brilliance. Kallis batting also has a very similar feel for most of his career.

People never had problems in giving Steyn, Donald and Rhodes (for his fielding) their share of praise so its just not a South African thing.

I agree with the above. For some reason South African do not get dues they deserve. Even Donald is seldom mentioned when people are talking about All-time great bowlers.

 

[fredfertang]

I agree with the above. For some reason South African do not get dues they deserve. Even Donald is seldom mentioned when people are talking about All-time great bowlers.

It does seem to go from one extreme to the other with South Africans - you're quite right about Donald, which is a little odd given that Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards and Mike Procter, particularly the latter two, are said by many on here to be overrated

 

[Ikki]

^ Nothing new.. I was just about to say how fascinating I find this change in perspectives based on a memory that goes back perhaps 6 months.. There was a time when on this very forum you would have people argue Ponting is better than Tendulkar and Lara..and now Ponting is not in the same class as Kallis.

For me Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara are the best batsmen of our generation very very closely followed by Kallis.

Agree with this.

I also think people take critique of Kallis being 'selfish' the wrong way. It's not just about his SR. Kallis for much of his career batted in a bubble. Batting however he could just to stay at the crease even if it meant his team was losing momentum - not a quantifiable thing. Contrast that with the other greats, like a Viv to make it more clear, who not only made runs but took the initiative away from the other team and allowed his partners an easier route too.

 

[Inferno]

I also think people take critique of Kallis being 'selfish' the wrong way. It's not just about his SR. Kallis for much of his career batted in a bubble. Batting however he could just to stay at the crease even if it meant his team was losing momentum - not a quantifiable thing. Contrast that with the other greats, like a Viv to make it more clear, who not only made runs but took the initiative away from the other team and allowed his partners an easier route too.

Yeah well I would bet neither his team or his partners felt it easy when Viv Richards threw his wickets away without assessing the situation of the game like we have seen Peterson do so many times.

Kallis takes the initiative away from the opposition his own way by frustrating the bowlers and making them work. There are plenty of situations where Kallis would easily be the most valuable player to the team like the SA found themselves against the last test. You would have to be brain dead to suggest Viv Richards would have been more valuable in that situation than Kallis.

Both type of players have their advantages.

 

[unam]

Agree with this.

I also think people take critique of Kallis being 'selfish' the wrong way. It's not just about his SR. Kallis for much of his career batted in a bubble. Batting however he could just to stay at the crease even if it meant his team was losing momentum - not a quantifiable thing. Contrast that with the other greats, like a Viv to make it more clear, who not only made runs but took the initiative away from the other team and allowed his partners an easier route too.

Any example of that? I had Kallis in same league as Ponting, Sachin and Brain Lara. If you hold Kallis record vs Australia against him then why not Sachin? Sachin averaged in low 30s in 90s against Pakistan and South Africa, the 2 best attacks of that time.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Actually find Kallis an attractive player to watch. His cover drive is sublime, and his clip of the legs, sometimes deliberately hit over the top, is glorious.

 

[Inferno]

the problem with Polly was he very seldom had spells where you would just sit up with your mouth open and admire the sheer brilliance of the man he just could not get the pulse racing unlike say a Flintoff or Shoaib who may have inferior records but were more likely to give you a show of brilliance. Kallis batting also has a very similar feel for most of his career.

People never had problems in giving Steyn, Donald and Rhodes (for his fielding) their share of praise so its just not a South African thing.

Steyn, Donald, Rhodes were great to watch though that's the point. I know people have a soft spot for players that are good to watch but there are plenty of not so good to watch players that play for countries like India, Pakistan, England, Australia that gets hyped up. And they don't have to have Kallis like career for it. Even with good looking South African players like lets say Donald you will find that they get a little less other in his league.

Flintoff or Shoaib didn't really give you a "show of brilliance" more like their bowling when they got it right looked better on the eyes than Pollock. Still doesn't change the fact that they were about 5 teirs below Pollock as a bowler. And I am not that familiar with his rating here but I can't believe there are people that would actually consider him overrated. In general I would probably say he is the most underrated ATG cricketer.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Pollock, in his later years, was the like the Kumble of pace bowling. Never tried variations, was as dull as a day's work to watch but still managed to get good players out quite frequently.

 

[unam]

agree with the above ^^. Pollock did have "show of brilliance" in early part of his career, in later part he become more of a bowler who would take 2-3 wickets in every match instead of someone who would take 10 in one match then wouldn't take any wicket in next few matches.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah well I would bet neither his team or his partners felt it easy when Viv Richards threw his wickets away without assessing the situation of the game like we have seen Peterson do so many times.

Pick the bloke who never actually saw Viv play live.

The only reason Pietersen and Viv are comparable is because of their physical styles, really. Pietersen plays in isolation to the match situation and what his team-mates are doing, Viv lifted the other guys around him. Totally different team players.

 

[kyear2]

Barrington, Border, Steve Waugh, Lawry started out as dashers and pared back their games and cut shots out of their games to be sucessful. It's much more difficult to be aggressive like Sachin, Brian and Ricky and succeed. Kallis and Chanderpaul bats in a vacum regardless of situation and sometimes even placing more pressure on the other batsmen in the team to score while they play for their averages.

 

[unam]

Barrington, Border, Steve Waugh, Lawry started out as dashers and pared back their games and cut shots out of their games to be sucessful. It's much more difficult to be aggressive like Sachin, Brian and Ricky and succeed. Kallis and Chanderpaul bats in a vacum regardless of situation and sometimes even placing more pressure on the other batsmen in the team to score while they play for their averages.

you can say same thing about others, they just play aggressive regardless of the situation. Also everyone is saying that Kallis plays for his average. is there any scorecard/proof which shows Kallis played for his average?

 

[Top_Cat]

you can say same thing about others, they just play aggressive regardless of the situation. Also everyone is saying that Kallis plays for his average. is there any scorecard/proof which shows Kallis played for his average?

If you did, you'd be wrong. All of those blokes have numerous knocks where they've changed their play with due regard to the situation.

 

[Inferno]

Pick the bloke who never actually saw Viv play live.

The only reason Pietersen and Viv are comparable is because of their physical styles, really. Pietersen plays in isolation to the match situation and what his team-mates are doing, Viv lifted the other guys around him. Totally different team players.

Well you would be disappointed to find out I did see Richrads play in the later part of his career. And he did throw his wickets away from time. I was young back then so I didn't really understand about assessing the situation but I remember my dad commenting on it who was watching it live with me saying how needlessly got out trying to go for a big shot when it was completely unnecessary. Every aggressive player gets out trying to go for boundaries from time to time its just in their nature. All it takes is a tiny second of mistiming.

If you did, you'd be wrong. All of those blokes have numerous knocks where they've changed their play with due regard to the situation.

And you would be wrong thinking Kallis never played aggressively in his career when they needed him to.

 

[Top_Cat]

I didn't comment on Kallis' play....

 

[Inferno]

I didn't comment on Kallis' play....

Sorry I thought you were agreeing with kyear2.

Just to be fair I don't think Richrads couldn't assess the situation and change his play, Just saying if you really wanna stereotype you can do it for both players. What I'm also finding it hard to understand is how he can say Sehwag can't be compared with Richrads because he is a "flat track bully" yet he is comparing Chanderpaul with literally the same record with Kallis.

 

[ProteasFan]

I honestly believe that Kallis played conservatively because he was asked to be the bedrock of the team for much of his career. He was the prized wicket, the person who would rebuild to a decent score.

I think since Amla burst onto the scene ( last 4 years), Kallis has started to play with much more freedom. He realises or knows that Amla is the new bedrock and He ( Kallis) can play his normal game.

T20's have also improved Kallis as a player IMO. The turning point was when he was left out of the T20 World Cup because he was percieved as being to slow. He works on his game continously and is constantly reinventing himself to stay relevant.

One has to remember that as All rounder, he is by far and away the greatest of his generation. How many other all rounders are still doing their stuff at 37? Mad Respect for kallis.

 

[Top_Cat]

Can't think of a single all-rounder who was still their team's number 1 player at 37 ever, tbh. Even well before they actually retired, Kapil, Both and Imran had all dropped their pace quite a bit to prolong their careers and were obviously not their teams number 1 bats by then. In the case of Imran, had pretty much stopped bowling completely.