Jacques Kallis vs Glenn Mcgrath

[subshakerz]

Again as I said in the other thread read the article see the reality on the ground in SA cricket in the late 90s early 2000s, see how often Kallis was holding the top order together. Which failed to score runs frequently until he solidified the No 3 position with Kallis; later moving to 4. Kirsten found a partner in Kallis. The backbone of the order was Kallis. And even when the great players of Smith, Amla and De Villers came along they still built the innings around Kallis.

And SA 100% relied on great bowlers and a long batting line up to be competitive in test until the early 2000s; not a strong top 6, where as much would be scored by 7,8,9 as the top order for years. It was Kallis that started the change of creating a stable top 6.

Compared to Lara and Tendulkar in the 90s, Kallis had it easier.

 

[Gob]

Alright, tell me your oh so obvious criteria to compare these two players of different eras other than first starting with face value averages, that definitively shows Lillee to be better.

Or just be a poo poo head. Your choice.

I don't know where to start so I won't

 

[Coronis]

Compared to Lara and Tendulkar in the 90s, Kallis had it easier.

Good thing nobody here is comparing him to Lara or Tendulkar in the 90’s.

 

[trundler]

Good thing nobody here is comparing him to Lara or Tendulkar in the 90’s.

Bad thing people pretend Kallis had it especially difficult as a top order batsman

 

[Socerer 01]

Feel like you're being facetious but there's a bit more to it than bowling average.

Both atg quicks but one has 2 test tons and a collection of 50s. That's OP. If Lindwall played today he'd be the best player in the world, maybe close second to Smith at worst.

a slingy world class genuinely fast bowler with lower order hitting to pack would make a killing in today’s cricket

 

[Gob]

What surprising poll

Voted for McGrath when it was 17 to 5 to Kallis but in all honesty, you can't not pick Kallis as the better player. IMO McGrath's batting equal is Tendulkar so if we are only considering their respective primary skills, McGrath is ahead rather comfortably but he didn't bring much else to the table did he. Decent out fielder but nothing special like Lee and never considered to be a captain.

Kallis with his bowling and fielding is certainly superior imo. McGrath vs Tendulkar would be an interesting and much more warranted imo

 

[Prince EWS]

If you looked at every Test lineup in history - real lineups, not ATG stuff we do on CW - and asked yourself whether Kallis or McGrath would make more of a difference to them in terms of winning more series, I think it'd be close, but I think it'd be Kallis.

 

[trundler]

What surprising poll

Voted for McGrath when it was 17 to 5 to Kallis but in all honesty, you can't not pick Kallis as the better player. IMO McGrath's batting equal is Tendulkar so if we are only considering their respective primary skills, McGrath is ahead rather comfortably but he didn't bring much else to the table did he. Decent out fielder but nothing special like Lee and never considered to be a captain.

Kallis with his bowling and fielding is certainly superior imo. McGrath vs Tendulkar would be an interesting and much more warranted imo

That's not a fair way of ranking players because then you end up with Jason Holder being a better cricketer than McGrath too. Kallis as an all rounder isn't Sobers or Imran level and as a batsman he's not Tendulkar or Hobbs either. McGrath is the GOAT pacer for me or at least very close to it.

 

[Gob]

Bad thing people pretend Kallis had it especially difficult as a top order batsman

According to Hershelle Gibbs, that SA group in the 90s and 00s were regularly involved in orgies. For a faithful family man like Jacques, that could have been a very toxic environment to be involved in tbf

 

[subshakerz]

If you looked at every Test lineup in history - real lineups, not ATG stuff we do on CW - and asked yourself whether Kallis or McGrath would make more of a difference to them in terms of winning more series, I think it'd be close, but I think it'd be Kallis.

I think the opposite. I would much rather than have an ordinary batting lineup with McGrath as the main bowler rather than an ordinary bowling lineup with Kallis as the main bat and his bowling utility.

Imagine how much mid 80s NZ achieved with Hadlee the bowler compared with mid 80s Australia with Border the bat. Even if Border was a Kallis-level bowler it wouldnt have mattered as much as Hadlee's matchwinning ability.

 

[Flem274*]

Hadley had good batsmen tho. Standards were different then to the 00s batting boom.

 

[ankitj]

Bad thing people pretend Kallis had it especially difficult as a top order batsman

Good thing none of Lara, Tendulkar and Kallis were openers.

It's turn of good thing next

 

[StephenZA]

In 1999, Kallis's first great year as a batsman each of Gibbs, Kirsten, and Cullinan did very well. Cullinan even got more runs than Kallis.

https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/db/STATS/BY_CALENDAR/1990S/1999/TEST_BAT_MOST_RUNS_1999.html

Kirsten and Cullinan again averaged 40+ in 2000.

https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/db/STATS/BY_CALENDAR/2000S/2000/TEST_BAT_MOST_RUNS_2000.html

In 2001, Gibbs did better than Kallis whilst both Kirsten and McKenzie averaged 40+

https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/db/STATS/BY_CALENDAR/2000S/2001/TEST_BAT_MOST_RUNS_2001.html

You make it sound like Kallis had Border-esque support before he was part of the strongest batting lineup in the world. That's simply not true. SA also had strong tails for most of his career though. The tail always having to dig SA out is a narrative that's years out of date by this point in Kallis's career and I suspect you're aware of that. So Kallis being forced to be dour is simply not true. That's just the way he batted.

Bad thing people pretend Kallis had it especially difficult as a top order batsman

Since you really really want to do this.... and your ignorance of SA cricket is astounding.

Lets get some things straight here. Firstly all I`ve ever said is that Kallis was the lynch pin around which they built the entire SA batting unit. It was the reason he played like he did and until Kallis came along SA did not have a stable top order in anyway shape or form. You retroactively trying to talk about some very good SA players shows how little you do not understand what was happening in SA cricket and how those players careers where literally influenced by Kallis's arrival. People like yourself talk about the SA batting line-up and say it was not as bad as Australia's in the 80s but the situation for SA was worse. By Mid 80s the Australian batting line-up started producing what would become some top level players still struggling but importantly they had a FC system and players with international experience to help rebuild their team in the 80s.

SA started playing Test cricket again in 1992 after readmission; behind the curve. In that time we had one batsmen who avg above 40 and he did not do that for SA, with Wessels avg 38 between 1992 and 1995. By 1998 no SA batsmen, including Cullinan and G. Kirsten, both of whom had been playing since '93 avg above 40 in the SA batting line-up. SA entire test team was based on jobbing batsmen, some good allrounders and some great fast bowlers. Batting deep and hoping the bowlers could do the rest.

Officially Kallis started his career 1995 age 20 (played 7 test between 1995 and 1997). But really starts his full career 1998 (age 23), batting at no 3:
Between '98 and '2001 he averages by year:- '98 Avg: 34.13; '99 Avg: 69.16; '00 Avg: 48.75; '01 Avg: 70.01 - In '01 he reaches No1 allrounder; and is considered SA's best batsmen followed closely by Cullinan, Cullinan retires the following year. Kallis gets moved to 4 to replace Cullinan.

In that 4 year period, Cullinan avg 40.23, 71.25, 44.69. 56.67; Kirsten Avg 41.08, 58.33, 41.88, 40.2 Both Kirsten and Cullinan talk extensively about the role Kallis has played in allowing them to achieve the higher scoring particularly Cullinan where prior to '98 he avg < 40. Only other player of significance is Gibbs avg 20.88, 54.66, 25.8, 53.32; mercurial and inconsistent at best, given the opening slot because of the stability Kallis brings at 3.

For 98 and 99 Cronje and Rhodes bat 5 and 6 mostly (avg under 35 similarly for most of their careers) Boucher, Klusener and Pollock (and Boje) are chosen to bat 6/7/8/9 at various periods to try provide a long tail. Rhodes is dropped end of 99 and Klusener is given batting duties at 6.

2000 disaster happens with Cronje revelation. By July 2000 SA are playing in SL having lost their captain and Gibbs. Rhodes is recalled. McKenzie opens with Kirsten. By end of year Mckenzie drops to 5, Boeta is opening with Kirsten and Boucher is batting 6... Cullinan retires 2001. The batting is again needing to be rebuilt around Kallis at 4.

For 2001, 2002 and 2004 Kallis will avg 8+ runs greater than any other batsmen chosen for SA (including Kirsten and Gibbs).

In 2002 Kallis avg 64.18, Kirsten avg 55.57; Gibbs avg 47.61. Smith starts his career avg 45.5. Kirsten has moved to 3 and Gibbs and Smith are opening. Kirsten eventually drops to 5 to try stabilise the lower order before retiring. Kallis is still bowling 15 + overs an innings as SA struggle to find a seamer to support Pollock and Ntini.

Smith becomes captain. Kallis has a poor year by his standards in 2003 avg 49.85 (doing poorly in England coming off an ankle injury). Skipped prior Bangladesh tour. Kirsten avg 74.08; Gibbs 64.22 mostly off the Bangladesh tour. Smith does his doubles in England.

2004 Kallis avg 80.08, Kirsten 40.08, Gibbs 57.76 (skipping the Indian Tour), Smith 46.05. (Gibbs will never avg above 40 again).

During the period from 2000 to 2004 (and beyond) with no Cronje and Rhodes the following batsmen are used in various combinations for the top 6 of SA: Boeta (30.14), McKenzie (37.39), Ontong (19.00), Klusener (32.86), M van Jaarsveld (30.53), J Rudolph (35.43), Zander de Bruyn (38.75), Andre Hall (26.02) and a number of others...

2005 Kallis avg 72.71, Smith 52.01, Gibbs 39.75, Prince 58.00... ABdV is selected. Amla is consistently selected at 3 from 2006. And so starts the narrative to build the team that peaked between 2009 and 2012.

The point here is that until Kallis came along, even good batsmen like Cullinan and G. Kirsten struggled... it was not until the arrival of Kallis stabilising the SA top 4; firstly at 3 and then at 4, that allowed the other batsmen to start scoring runs. By 2000 it was generally acknowledged by commentators, opposing captains and anybody that understood cricket that getting Kallis out was half the job done. The team was built twice around him firstly in '98 and then again in 2001 after the Hansie controversy and Cullinan retirement; eventually leading to 2003 when Smith took over. If you actually look at the rise (now heavy fall) of SA Test cricket it was off the back of Kallis. From 2009 the SA team was considered not to rely on Kallis anymore (rightly) with Amla providing huge stability and ABdV endless talent. But since his retirement in 2013 SA have never been able to replace him and it is easily seen how SA cricket slowly disintegrated after he left because he provided a panacea for many of any Test teams problems.

You want to think that Kallis was not the lynchpin around which the SA batting was built for 10 years that's fine, you think that SA had a fine batting unit without Kallis that's fine. All you do is show you ignorance of SA cricket.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Since you really really want to do this.... and your ignorance of SA cricket is astounding.

Lets get some things straight here. Firstly all I`ve ever said is that Kallis was the lynch pin around which they built the entire SA batting unit. It was the reason he played like he did and until Kallis came along SA did not have a stable top order in anyway shape or form. You retroactively trying to talk about some very good SA players shows how little you do not understand what was happening in SA cricket and how those players careers where literally influenced by Kallis's arrival. People like yourself talk about the SA batting line-up and say it was not as bad as Australia's in the 80s but the situation for SA was worse. By Mid 80s the Australian batting line-up started producing what would become some top level players still struggling but importantly they had a FC system and players with international experience to help rebuild their team in the 80s.

SA started playing Test cricket again in 1992 after readmission; behind the curve. In that time we had one batsmen who avg above 40 and he did not do that for SA, with Wessels avg 38 between 1992 and 1995. By 1998 no SA batsmen, including Cullinan and G. Kirsten, both of whom had been playing since '93 avg above 40 in the SA batting line-up. SA entire test team was based on jobbing batsmen, some good allrounders and some great fast bowlers. Batting deep and hoping the bowlers could do the rest.

Officially Kallis started his career 1995 age 20 (played 7 test between 1995 and 1997). But really starts his full career 1998 (age 23), batting at no 3:
Between '98 and '2001 he averages by year:- '98 Avg: 34.13; '99 Avg: 69.16; '00 Avg: 48.75; '01 Avg: 70.01 - In '01 he reaches No1 allrounder; and is considered SA's best batsmen followed closely by Cullinan, Cullinan retires the following year. Kallis gets moved to 4 to replace Cullinan.

In that 4 year period, Cullinan avg 40.23, 71.25, 44.69. 56.67; Kirsten Avg 41.08, 58.33, 41.88, 40.2 Both Kirsten and Cullinan talk extensively about the role Kallis has played in allowing them to achieve the higher scoring particularly Cullinan where prior to '98 he avg < 40. Only other player of significance is Gibbs avg 20.88, 54.66, 25.8, 53.32; mercurial and inconsistent at best, given the opening slot because of the stability Kallis brings at 3.

For 98 and 99 Cronje and Rhodes bat 5 and 6 mostly (avg under 35 similarly for most of their careers) Boucher, Klusener and Pollock (and Boje) are chosen to bat 6/7/8/9 at various periods to try provide a long tail. Rhodes is dropped end of 99 and Klusener is given batting duties at 6.

2000 disaster happens with Cronje revelation. By July 2000 SA are playing in SL having lost their captain and Gibbs. Rhodes is recalled. McKenzie opens with Kirsten. By end of year Mckenzie drops to 5, Boeta is opening with Kirsten and Boucher is batting 6... Cullinan retires 2001. The batting is again needing to be rebuilt around Kallis at 4.

For 2001, 2002 and 2004 Kallis will avg 8+ runs greater than any other batsmen chosen for SA (including Kirsten and Gibbs).

In 2002 Kallis avg 64.18, Kirsten avg 55.57; Gibbs avg 47.61. Smith starts his career avg 45.5. Kirsten has moved to 3 and Gibbs and Smith are opening. Kirsten eventually drops to 5 to try stabilise the lower order before retiring. Kallis is still bowling 15 + overs an innings as SA struggle to find a seamer to support Pollock and Ntini.

Smith becomes captain. Kallis has a poor year by his standards in 2003 avg 49.85 (doing poorly in England coming off an ankle injury). Skipped prior Bangladesh tour. Kirsten avg 74.08; Gibbs 64.22 mostly off the Bangladesh tour. Smith does his doubles in England.

2004 Kallis avg 80.08, Kirsten 40.08, Gibbs 57.76 (skipping the Indian Tour), Smith 46.05. (Gibbs will never avg above 40 again).

During the period from 2000 to 2004 (and beyond) with no Cronje and Rhodes the following batsmen are used in various combinations for the top 6 of SA: Boeta (30.14), McKenzie (37.39), Ontong (19.00), Klusener (32.86), M van Jaarsveld (30.53), J Rudolph (35.43), Zander de Bruyn (38.75), Andre Hall (26.02) and a number of others...

2005 Kallis avg 72.71, Smith 52.01, Gibbs 39.75, Prince 58.00... ABdV is selected. Amla is consistently selected at 3 from 2006. And so starts the narrative to build the team that peaked between 2009 and 2012.

The point here is that until Kallis came along, even good batsmen like Cullinan and G. Kirsten struggled... it was not until the arrival of Kallis stabilising the SA top 4; firstly at 3 and then at 4, that allowed the other batsmen to start scoring runs. By 2000 it was generally acknowledged by commentators, opposing captains and anybody that understood cricket that getting Kallis out was half the job done. The team was built twice around him firstly in '98 and then again in 2001 after the Hansie controversy and Cullinan retirement; eventually leading to 2003 when Smith took over. If you actually look at the rise (now heavy fall) of SA Test cricket it was off the back of Kallis. From 2009 the SA team was considered not to rely on Kallis anymore (rightly) with Amla providing huge stability and ABdV endless talent. But since his retirement in 2013 SA have never been able to replace him and it is easily seen how SA cricket slowly disintegrated after he left because he provided a panacea for many of any Test teams problems.

You want to think that Kallis was not the lynchpin around which the SA batting was built for 10 years that's fine, you think that SA had a fine batting unit without Kallis that's fine. All you do is show you ignorance of SA cricket.

Ok

 

[Gob]

Since you really really want to do this.... and your ignorance of SA cricket is astounding.

Lets get some things straight here. Firstly all I`ve ever said is that Kallis was the lynch pin around which they built the entire SA batting unit. It was the reason he played like he did and until Kallis came along SA did not have a stable top order in anyway shape or form. You retroactively trying to talk about some very good SA players shows how little you do not understand what was happening in SA cricket and how those players careers where literally influenced by Kallis's arrival. People like yourself talk about the SA batting line-up and say it was not as bad as Australia's in the 80s but the situation for SA was worse. By Mid 80s the Australian batting line-up started producing what would become some top level players still struggling but importantly they had a FC system and players with international experience to help rebuild their team in the 80s.

SA started playing Test cricket again in 1992 after readmission; behind the curve. In that time we had one batsmen who avg above 40 and he did not do that for SA, with Wessels avg 38 between 1992 and 1995. By 1998 no SA batsmen, including Cullinan and G. Kirsten, both of whom had been playing since '93 avg above 40 in the SA batting line-up. SA entire test team was based on jobbing batsmen, some good allrounders and some great fast bowlers. Batting deep and hoping the bowlers could do the rest.

Officially Kallis started his career 1995 age 20 (played 7 test between 1995 and 1997). But really starts his full career 1998 (age 23), batting at no 3:
Between '98 and '2001 he averages by year:- '98 Avg: 34.13; '99 Avg: 69.16; '00 Avg: 48.75; '01 Avg: 70.01 - In '01 he reaches No1 allrounder; and is considered SA's best batsmen followed closely by Cullinan, Cullinan retires the following year. Kallis gets moved to 4 to replace Cullinan.

In that 4 year period, Cullinan avg 40.23, 71.25, 44.69. 56.67; Kirsten Avg 41.08, 58.33, 41.88, 40.2 Both Kirsten and Cullinan talk extensively about the role Kallis has played in allowing them to achieve the higher scoring particularly Cullinan where prior to '98 he avg < 40. Only other player of significance is Gibbs avg 20.88, 54.66, 25.8, 53.32; mercurial and inconsistent at best, given the opening slot because of the stability Kallis brings at 3.

For 98 and 99 Cronje and Rhodes bat 5 and 6 mostly (avg under 35 similarly for most of their careers) Boucher, Klusener and Pollock (and Boje) are chosen to bat 6/7/8/9 at various periods to try provide a long tail. Rhodes is dropped end of 99 and Klusener is given batting duties at 6.

2000 disaster happens with Cronje revelation. By July 2000 SA are playing in SL having lost their captain and Gibbs. Rhodes is recalled. McKenzie opens with Kirsten. By end of year Mckenzie drops to 5, Boeta is opening with Kirsten and Boucher is batting 6... Cullinan retires 2001. The batting is again needing to be rebuilt around Kallis at 4.

For 2001, 2002 and 2004 Kallis will avg 8+ runs greater than any other batsmen chosen for SA (including Kirsten and Gibbs).

In 2002 Kallis avg 64.18, Kirsten avg 55.57; Gibbs avg 47.61. Smith starts his career avg 45.5. Kirsten has moved to 3 and Gibbs and Smith are opening. Kirsten eventually drops to 5 to try stabilise the lower order before retiring. Kallis is still bowling 15 + overs an innings as SA struggle to find a seamer to support Pollock and Ntini.

Smith becomes captain. Kallis has a poor year by his standards in 2003 avg 49.85 (doing poorly in England coming off an ankle injury). Skipped prior Bangladesh tour. Kirsten avg 74.08; Gibbs 64.22 mostly off the Bangladesh tour. Smith does his doubles in England.

2004 Kallis avg 80.08, Kirsten 40.08, Gibbs 57.76 (skipping the Indian Tour), Smith 46.05. (Gibbs will never avg above 40 again).

During the period from 2000 to 2004 (and beyond) with no Cronje and Rhodes the following batsmen are used in various combinations for the top 6 of SA: Boeta (30.14), McKenzie (37.39), Ontong (19.00), Klusener (32.86), M van Jaarsveld (30.53), J Rudolph (35.43), Zander de Bruyn (38.75), Andre Hall (26.02) and a number of others...

2005 Kallis avg 72.71, Smith 52.01, Gibbs 39.75, Prince 58.00... ABdV is selected. Amla is consistently selected at 3 from 2006. And so starts the narrative to build the team that peaked between 2009 and 2012.

The point here is that until Kallis came along, even good batsmen like Cullinan and G. Kirsten struggled... it was not until the arrival of Kallis stabilising the SA top 4; firstly at 3 and then at 4, that allowed the other batsmen to start scoring runs. By 2000 it was generally acknowledged by commentators, opposing captains and anybody that understood cricket that getting Kallis out was half the job done. The team was built twice around him firstly in '98 and then again in 2001 after the Hansie controversy and Cullinan retirement; eventually leading to 2003 when Smith took over. If you actually look at the rise (now heavy fall) of SA Test cricket it was off the back of Kallis. From 2009 the SA team was considered not to rely on Kallis anymore (rightly) with Amla providing huge stability and ABdV endless talent. But since his retirement in 2013 SA have never been able to replace him and it is easily seen how SA cricket slowly disintegrated after he left because he provided a panacea for many of any Test teams problems.

You want to think that Kallis was not the lynchpin around which the SA batting was built for 10 years that's fine, you think that SA had a fine batting unit without Kallis that's fine. All you do is show you ignorance of SA cricket.

Ok

 

[Flem274*]

Since you really really want to do this.... and your ignorance of SA cricket is astounding.

Lets get some things straight here. Firstly all I`ve ever said is that Kallis was the lynch pin around which they built the entire SA batting unit. It was the reason he played like he did and until Kallis came along SA did not have a stable top order in anyway shape or form. You retroactively trying to talk about some very good SA players shows how little you do not understand what was happening in SA cricket and how those players careers where literally influenced by Kallis's arrival. People like yourself talk about the SA batting line-up and say it was not as bad as Australia's in the 80s but the situation for SA was worse. By Mid 80s the Australian batting line-up started producing what would become some top level players still struggling but importantly they had a FC system and players with international experience to help rebuild their team in the 80s.

SA started playing Test cricket again in 1992 after readmission; behind the curve. In that time we had one batsmen who avg above 40 and he did not do that for SA, with Wessels avg 38 between 1992 and 1995. By 1998 no SA batsmen, including Cullinan and G. Kirsten, both of whom had been playing since '93 avg above 40 in the SA batting line-up. SA entire test team was based on jobbing batsmen, some good allrounders and some great fast bowlers. Batting deep and hoping the bowlers could do the rest.

Officially Kallis started his career 1995 age 20 (played 7 test between 1995 and 1997). But really starts his full career 1998 (age 23), batting at no 3:
Between '98 and '2001 he averages by year:- '98 Avg: 34.13; '99 Avg: 69.16; '00 Avg: 48.75; '01 Avg: 70.01 - In '01 he reaches No1 allrounder; and is considered SA's best batsmen followed closely by Cullinan, Cullinan retires the following year. Kallis gets moved to 4 to replace Cullinan.

In that 4 year period, Cullinan avg 40.23, 71.25, 44.69. 56.67; Kirsten Avg 41.08, 58.33, 41.88, 40.2 Both Kirsten and Cullinan talk extensively about the role Kallis has played in allowing them to achieve the higher scoring particularly Cullinan where prior to '98 he avg < 40. Only other player of significance is Gibbs avg 20.88, 54.66, 25.8, 53.32; mercurial and inconsistent at best, given the opening slot because of the stability Kallis brings at 3.

For 98 and 99 Cronje and Rhodes bat 5 and 6 mostly (avg under 35 similarly for most of their careers) Boucher, Klusener and Pollock (and Boje) are chosen to bat 6/7/8/9 at various periods to try provide a long tail. Rhodes is dropped end of 99 and Klusener is given batting duties at 6.

2000 disaster happens with Cronje revelation. By July 2000 SA are playing in SL having lost their captain and Gibbs. Rhodes is recalled. McKenzie opens with Kirsten. By end of year Mckenzie drops to 5, Boeta is opening with Kirsten and Boucher is batting 6... Cullinan retires 2001. The batting is again needing to be rebuilt around Kallis at 4.

For 2001, 2002 and 2004 Kallis will avg 8+ runs greater than any other batsmen chosen for SA (including Kirsten and Gibbs).

In 2002 Kallis avg 64.18, Kirsten avg 55.57; Gibbs avg 47.61. Smith starts his career avg 45.5. Kirsten has moved to 3 and Gibbs and Smith are opening. Kirsten eventually drops to 5 to try stabilise the lower order before retiring. Kallis is still bowling 15 + overs an innings as SA struggle to find a seamer to support Pollock and Ntini.

Smith becomes captain. Kallis has a poor year by his standards in 2003 avg 49.85 (doing poorly in England coming off an ankle injury). Skipped prior Bangladesh tour. Kirsten avg 74.08; Gibbs 64.22 mostly off the Bangladesh tour. Smith does his doubles in England.

2004 Kallis avg 80.08, Kirsten 40.08, Gibbs 57.76 (skipping the Indian Tour), Smith 46.05. (Gibbs will never avg above 40 again).

During the period from 2000 to 2004 (and beyond) with no Cronje and Rhodes the following batsmen are used in various combinations for the top 6 of SA: Boeta (30.14), McKenzie (37.39), Ontong (19.00), Klusener (32.86), M van Jaarsveld (30.53), J Rudolph (35.43), Zander de Bruyn (38.75), Andre Hall (26.02) and a number of others...

2005 Kallis avg 72.71, Smith 52.01, Gibbs 39.75, Prince 58.00... ABdV is selected. Amla is consistently selected at 3 from 2006. And so starts the narrative to build the team that peaked between 2009 and 2012.

The point here is that until Kallis came along, even good batsmen like Cullinan and G. Kirsten struggled... it was not until the arrival of Kallis stabilising the SA top 4; firstly at 3 and then at 4, that allowed the other batsmen to start scoring runs. By 2000 it was generally acknowledged by commentators, opposing captains and anybody that understood cricket that getting Kallis out was half the job done. The team was built twice around him firstly in '98 and then again in 2001 after the Hansie controversy and Cullinan retirement; eventually leading to 2003 when Smith took over. If you actually look at the rise (now heavy fall) of SA Test cricket it was off the back of Kallis. From 2009 the SA team was considered not to rely on Kallis anymore (rightly) with Amla providing huge stability and ABdV endless talent. But since his retirement in 2013 SA have never been able to replace him and it is easily seen how SA cricket slowly disintegrated after he left because he provided a panacea for many of any Test teams problems.

You want to think that Kallis was not the lynchpin around which the SA batting was built for 10 years that's fine, you think that SA had a fine batting unit without Kallis that's fine. All you do is show you ignorance of SA cricket.

good post.

i always enjoy reading these perspectives from people who lived it as a fan, rather than the story presented well after the fact by people who weren't there or want to write their own version.

trundler's opinion that kallis isn't an allrounder is ridiculous but the 'kallis secretly killed the team' meme has been pushed for years now and probably would be less of a narrative if we had more south african posters on the forum. it always entertains me watching overseas randoms trying to tell the fans of a team that actually they shouldn't want this really good player in their team because he secretly sucks and kallis' batting (and sobers bowling at one point though that is a historical argument) are the poster boys for that stuff.

 

[trundler]

trundler's opinion that kallis isn't an allrounder is ridiculous

What's more ridiculous is that he's presented as the best all rounder after Sobers despite very rarely performing with bat and ball against sides not named Bangladesh. His output as a bowler is closer to Walter Hammond than it is to the all rounders he's placed alongside.

Also, sure, I never said Kallis didn't have a big impact on SA cricket. SZA likes to present SA's batting as Kallis or Bust for half of his career, which simply isn't true. He was the star batsmen but the other guys were still decent to good. 2 meh batsmen is perfectly acceptable for almost every side in history. I didn't say he wasn't the lynchpin of SA's lineup but he certainly wasn't in a Border situation as I said. And the numbers bear it out. There's a lot of hero-worshippy exaggeration around his career on here, such as him always being injured when he playing in England like Warne's broken toenails. Kallis having an underpar strike rate in every format he played in has nothing to do with him perhaps being limited in a way and everything to do with having at least 3 quality batsmen to bat alongside for his entire career.

 

[Flem274*]

Hammond took less than a wicket per game. Kallis almost has 300 at a slightly lower WPM than Sobers and Stokes, and scores 20 runs more than Stokes every innings on average. Even if you call the 292 wickets English test spam, he passes the eye test and his WPM is in no way comparable to Hammond.

I watched Kallis play for the majority of his career. The guy bowled. The guy could bowl really well. He moved it at good pace as a young bloke and was a respectable medium fast with a heavy bumper when he got old. He'd be a total guy if all he did was bowl, but he combined guy bowling with being an ATG batsman. He was special. More than special - he was incredible.

SA have produced relatively many Donald level talents but if they never produce another Kallis it will not surprise me. The world has seen very few players like Kallis and for very good reason. Allrounders are a big up front investment, and players who need to divide their attention between practicing two roles are rarely at the level of specialists. Kallis is one of the greatest batsmen ever and just casually bowls test standard medium quick bowling.

I don't think people remember just how OP the Kallis/Pollock axis was, and how it dragged a South African side always featuring 2-4 players on the verge of being dropped to damn near the top of the world. If they didn't have to fight arguably the GOAT side, they would have done.

You don't just have a difference of style or selection philosophy or interpretation, you are willfully misrepresenting what actually occurred.

 

[BazBall21]

Kallis was a batsman who bowled. WPM away from home outside Ban/Zim is near Hammond level contribution.

 

[anil1405]

What's more ridiculous is that he's presented as the best all rounder after Sobers despite very rarely performing with bat and ball against sides not named Bangladesh.

Sounds more like an apt description of Imran Khan.