Is Jacques Kallis Ken Barrington of modern age?

[viriya]

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.

Sobers could bowl anything, but in terms of effectiveness, Kallis was clearly better.

 

[harsh.ag]

Let's keep it to batting guys #PleaInVain

 

[Furball]

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.

I'm not saying he should have played like KP, but his record is littered with innings where the match situation demanded he play a certain way and he just turned up and played like Kallis.

 

[GGG]

Kallis has a better record overseas and if people are going to say Kallis isn't rated so high because of Australia then why not the same with Sobers and New Zealand?

 

[Jono]

I'm not saying he should have played like KP, but his record is littered with innings where the match situation demanded he play a certain way and he just turned up and played like Kallis.

I agree with that view.

But judge him on that alone. Not that plus you think he was capable of batting more aggressively whereas others weren't. That's all I'm saying I guess.

 

[mr_mister]

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.

urgh "x-factor" is such a flowery factor in these discussions

 

[harsh.ag]

Agree with the "should have been more flexible in style" argument, with a few added points:

1) Batsmen who are usually aggressive are not usually criticized in the same manner when they manage to not play defensively when it's required. Instead a whole new paradigm of "Attack is the best form of defense" is generated for them. ABdV is such a massive figure for me because he can do both.

2) In Kallis' case, South Africa's batting line up has always been full of dashers and stroke makers, all the way down the order. He was playing a pivotal role in the side, and should be forgiven for his unwieldiness much more than, say, Barrington. It should not come as a surprise that he became more flexible in recent years with the advent of Amla and ABdV in the middle order.

 

[Jono]

Summary is Kallis is a legend.

 

[Pratters]

What about bowlers who are one dimensional who bowl in particular areas.. McGrath was termed too boring too. As was Sampras.

 

[Jono]

What about bowlers who are one dimensional who bowl in particular areas.. McGrath was termed too boring too. As was Sampras.

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 tennis players.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Kallis was great but I do think that those innings where he seemed in his own bubble and ignored the match situation count against him for many fans. I guess it is a minor thing though as many sides would love a guy scoring that amount of runs and ability to bowl like he did and also remain fit for as long as he did.

A freak.

 

[Ikki]

Agree with the "should have been more flexible in style" argument, with a few added points:

1) Batsmen who are usually aggressive are not usually criticized in the same manner when they manage to not play defensively when it's required. Instead a whole new paradigm of "Attack is the best form of defense" is generated for them. ABdV is such a massive figure for me because he can do both.

2) In Kallis' case, South Africa's batting line up has always been full of dashers and stroke makers, all the way down the order. He was playing a pivotal role in the side, and should be forgiven for his unwieldiness much more than, say, Barrington. It should not come as a surprise that he became more flexible in recent years with the advent of Amla and ABdV in the middle order.

Really? I would say if you are an aggressive batsman and you're averaging in the 30s, you're gonna be rated less. You don't get a free pass. I'm not sure there is an aggressive all-time batsman averaging 50+ who consistently was 'too aggressive'. There's a difference as to why people critique Kallis and that's because he tends to play the way to improve his numbers, rather than his team's chances to win and while a lot of the time that overlaps; it's not necessarily a joint interest.

So he could average less, press the issue more often in certain innings and would be rated higher. But that's not the same as being careless.

Plus, I don't think Kallis decided to be an anchor for the stroke-makers around him. It's not like those players were falling like flies so often. That's where I think the Barrington comparison is apt. He was gonna make sure, come hell or high water, he had great figures; even if it didn't mean he had a great performance.

It's the nuance of the game that's so attractive, and I guess divisive here. A quick counter-attacking 50 can sway a match more than a slow, plodding and defensive 100.

 

[SeamUp]

A ****ing great to me. End of.

Kallis' nature is anything but selfish and not once did he ever play for numbers. That is clear if you watched his career and his interviews and knew the sort of person he is. I don't think he realized the depth of his abilities in how quick he could score until the last 5/6 years of his career or so.

And lets be honest, batting in SA on our pitches , can be difficult at the best of times especially against quality attacks.

The ability to say you have to get me out is an art and a skill any batsmen should have as a platform and at the same time could play test book strokes around the ground. Young batsmen , if they wanted a batsmen to watch, it is him.

 

[Top_Cat]

Kallis isn't rated lower than others because he was dour, it's because his knocks were less consequential than the others. Steve Waugh was dour but was rated up there with the best Australia produced for a reason. Kallis scored mountains of runs and took tons of wickets, that's a guy you want in your side no question. But a bloke like him affected the contest for a session, a day or a Test. Guys like Ponting, Lara and Sachin scared the pants of the opposition for years and affected contests even when they weren't in great form. That's the province of the best.

 

[harsh.ag]

Really? I would say if you are an aggressive batsman and you're averaging in the 30s, you're gonna be rated less. You don't get a free pass. I'm not sure there is an aggressive all-time batsman averaging 50+ who consistently was 'too aggressive'. There's a difference as to why people critique Kallis and that's because he tends to play the way to improve his numbers, rather than his team's chances to win and while a lot of the time that overlaps; it's not necessarily a joint interest.

Yeah, if you are averaging in the 30s and lower 40s, you are going to be rated less. Someone like Sehwag fits the bill I guess. But he is an extreme rarity, I agree.

For the part in bold, I think it's nigh impossible to know that. And neither can I claim the opposite without making the same mistake.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, if you are averaging in the 30s and lower 40s, you are going to be rated less. Someone like Sehwag fits the bill I guess. But he is an extreme rarity, I agree.

For the part in bold, I think it's nigh impossible to know that. And neither can I claim the opposite without making the same mistake.

Yes, you're right I think it almost is impossible to know that. Not sure it can be represented, at least on paper, for instance when in a match it seems a player could help his team by taking on the bowlers rather than just plodding and scoring the runs. I guess it's not something you can gauge unless you've watched the actual match and have followed its dynamics, particularly on a psychological level. IMO it separates Kallis from the others (Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara, etc) but I concede I'm not sure if that's the bias of my perspective or whether it actually matters.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You guys can hate me all you want, but Kallis the batsman went from being immensely underrated (pre-2010) to hugely overrated since then imo. It was almost like people overcompensated for the fact that they obviously didn't give him the credit he undoubtedly deserved for a long, long time. I mean, he's absolutely still one of the 30-odd greatest batsmen ever, but he's just not top tier for me.

He's still underrated as an overall cricketer though. Top 10 cricketer of all time, easily, arguably top 5 in terms of the sheer value he brings.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I distinctly remember Windies touring RSA in 2003 or so after the WC and Boycott was on commentary and always talked about how Kallis was very worried about his average and that he wanted to get it back up since he had rather ordinary start as a youngster in tests. Cronje declared on him when he batted way too slowly going for a declaration with him on 80 odd or at least on the verge of a milestone score. He played in a team full of gutsy batsmen but where no one could be the dominant match winning batsman except him and for some reason, he refused to even try to play that role. Sure, he is a great player but there are genuine reasons why he is not rated as highly as a look at his record might suggest.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I distinctly remember Windies touring RSA in 2003 or so after the WC and Boycott was on commentary and always talked about how Kallis was very worried about his average and that he wanted to get it back up since he had rather ordinary start as a youngster in tests. Cronje declared on him when he batted way too slowly going for a declaration with him on 80 odd or at least on the verge of a milestone score. He played in a team full of gutsy batsmen but where no one could be the dominant match winning batsman except him and for some reason, he refused to even try to play that role. Sure, he is a great player but there are genuine reasons why he is not rated as highly as a look at his record might suggest.

Yeah, there have been occasions where he'd plodded along where he shouldn't have. There was a match against England in 04/05 I think where they were pushing for a declaration and Kallis just refused to go on the attack at all... scored 15 in 40 odd deliveries while others came and went trying to up the runrate.

I don't think he's selfish at all, though. It's obvious he gives it his all and is dedicated completely to getting his team win, so calling him a selfish bastard is totally unfair and disrespectful. He's no Chanders that's for sure.

He just either doesn't quite have the ability to go hell for leather on demand when he's not set, or he gets orders to tie one end down in those situations.

 

[mr_mister]

wait, so Chanders is assumed to be selfish and playing for his average on here? rememeber im new