Is Jacques Kallis Ken Barrington of modern age?

[Chrish]

The guy is a statistical marvel.. His batting average is up there with the best of his era. Nearly 300 wickets.. And if this wasn't enough, he was a brilliant slip fielder; one of the best the game has ever seen.

Yet he almost never makes any all time XI.. Is this all because of Barrington-like nature of his batting?

 

[Migara]

Because there are two all rounders named Imran and Sobers to take up his position, and batting wise Sangakkara, who do a similar job, with bit more style and flash than him.

 

[mr_mister]

his record is pretty comparable to Sobers though, statistically speaking

 

[Migara]

Sobers was bit consistent across conditions, lot of flair, X factor, extremely versatile with the ball, even better fielder than Kallis. As a package it's understandable though their stats are almost identical.

 

[fredfertang]

The irony is that back in the 60s a batsman with Kallis' strike rate would have been considered a bit of a dasher

 

[Furball]

He is rightly not regarded in the top tier of batting because of his record against Australia. A definite rung below Tendulkar and Lara in that respect.

IMO his batting is soulless and for too long it was inconsequential in really important games.

 

[Coronis]

I wasn't aware soul was an important part of batting.

 

[Chrish]

I wasn't aware soul was an important part of batting.

It most definitely is.. Otherwise Peter May wouldn't be considered better than someone who averaged 10 runs more him

 

[Chrish]

his record is pretty comparable to Sobers though, statistically speaking

His bowling is actually better than Sobers considering SR of 90 for West Indian (been done to death I know).. Has to do with lack of flair/ X-factor as previously mentioned.

 

[Furball]

Of course it is. Sure, as a concept, it's largely made up bollocks, completely arbitary and completely open to bias. But watching sport isn't just about results, it's about the sheer joy you get from watching it. Soul is what makes me go weak kneed at just seeing that bloody Brian Lara masterclass on Sky. It's what makes me lament Sangakkara's retirement, it's what makes me insist that stats be damned, Pietersen and Clarke were the best of their generation.

If Kallis floats your boat, then fine. He's obviously a fine batsman and a statistical marvel. I just didn't get much in the way of joy or excitement from ever watching him play.

 

[Pratters]

Dravid was classic and we loved him. However, many found him too boring. Depending on whether one likes test cricket or ODI cricket, some one might say Dravid has the soul or Maxwell has the soul of cricket.

 

[Furball]

Dravid was beautiful to watch when electing to play shots, some of his play against Swann in 2011 was utterly exquisite. And I'm more willing to forgive him being "dull" because a) I like him and b) context matters behind him being "boring." India were a joke overseas in the 90s. They were number 1 in the world in 2010. They drew series in Australia and South Africa and won in England and New Zealand. They needed a rock in the batting order, an immovable object who the rest of the side could play around. Nearly every Indian overseas win of that decade had a significant contribution from Dravid's bat at the heart of it. Plus, despite my love for shot makers, I also love obstinate ****s who have about 3 shots but absolutely insist on bowlers bowling to them because they refuse to get drawn into their weakness. It's why I love in form Cook and I'm sure I'd have idolised Border if I was old enough to have watched him.

Kallis doesn't get this leeway because he played in a much stronger side and had most of the tools at his disposal to be more domineering.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah, Kallis is your best point for a soulless player. I guess there is a balance between quality of the player and exquisiteness (find that a better word than soul). Mark Waugh was the most beautiful player to watch but we can't rate him as good as Ponting, say. It's fair to say that rating a player can be more or less than his actual effectiveness because of how he appeals to the fans.

A lot of writers focus purely on exquisiteness (Hamilton did so a lot in The Last English Summer). Loving or not loving styles of players can exclude the quality of players a lot. We should have more people liking obscure first class players than we do.

 

[JBMAC]

It never ceases to amaze me how a thread about an Englishman and a south African can be hijacked and the discussion ends up based on indian players. Barrington was a class player of his time and Kallis is a player for his time. The game has changed so much there really can be no true comparison. fredfertang probably summed it up best in thread # 5.

 

[kyear2]

He is a great player. He is just up against Sobers who is seen by many as the 2nd greatest batsman of all times and definite top 5 ever. He was also an even greater and absolute top tier slip and over all fielder and a more versatile bowler.

 

[Dan]

I also love obstinate ****s who have about 3 shots but absolutely insist on bowlers bowling to them because they refuse to get drawn into their weakness.

Aww Furball

 

[Jono]

It never ceases to amaze me how a thread about an Englishman and a south African can be hijacked and the discussion ends up based on indian players.

Sobers came up too, yet no wahhh from you about that. You just hate Dravid. That's like hating Bambi.

 

[Jono]

Kallis doesn't get this leeway because he played in a much stronger side and had most of the tools at his disposal to be more domineering.

Why be more domineering though? I get every single bit of your post except the last bit. Sure he had the capability of playing more shots, but he'd then have KP's record and not his record, which is just substantially better.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why be more domineering though? I get every single bit of your post except the last bit. Sure he had the capability of playing more shots, but he'd then have KP's record and not his record, which is just substantially better.

That's a weird point. Domineering doesn't necessarily mean going nuts like KP could on occasion, but Kallis absolutely was what I'd call a batsman with no real gears for a very very long time. He improved dramatically in that aspect in the last 6-7 years if his career, but there were occasions where you thought Kallis should step on it but isn't. Not necessarily talking about his strike rate either, because I didn't get that impression from Dravid somehow. Difficult to explain. Just felt he was one paced and his innings didn't have those small bursts of acceleration at certain moments which most great batsmen do.

 

[Jono]

That's a weird point. Domineering doesn't necessarily mean going nuts like KP could on occasion, but Kallis absolutely was what I'd call a batsman with no real gears for a very very long time. He improved dramatically in that aspect in the last 6-7 years if his career, but there were occasions where you thought Kallis should step on it but isn't. Not necessarily talking about his strike rate either, because I didn't get that impression from Dravid somehow. Difficult to explain. Just felt he was one paced and his innings didn't have those small bursts of acceleration at certain moments which most great batsmen do.

That's a different point though yeah? I'm talking specifically about what his shot capability is vs. Dravid's. Who cares what you think he can and cannot do. Its what he did and did not do that matters imo. Kallis did not pace the innings to your and Furball's standard of what you think he should. That is fine and I probably agree, but then judge him on that alone (i.e. his output) just as equally as judging another batsman on their output. Just because Kallis had broad shoulders and looked like he could go bigger than other similar batsmen (e.g. Dravid) doesn't mean he should be judged harsher than those batsmen imo.

Plus Kallis didn't up the ante in the shorter forms too, so I think his ability to be this successful attacking batsman if he really wanted to is overstated. But that's just my opinion.