Is Jacques Kallis the Most BoRing Cricketer in the History of Cricket?

[TheJediBrah]

If you said he did not have a good SR, no problems... if you state he was not capable of it, I disagree with you. He was asked to do a specific job for the SA team, and did that job unbelievably well. He was not asked to be the aggressive dominating player.

Then it's a meaningless discussion. He did what he did. Other players did better. What he, or anyone, was theoretically capable of is irrelevant AFAIC.

 

[StephenZA]

Then it's a meaningless discussion. He did what he did. Other players did batter. What he, or anyone, was theoretically capable of is irrelevant AFAIC.

Thats fair enough. You can only look at what a player actually achieved. But let’s be honest, by those metrics Kallis has achieved more than most in cricket history. But people then like to caveat his achievements without context. So then context becomes important.

 

[kyear2]

Garner?

At his peek, Garner was opening with Marshall. But yes, Garner was first change at various time. So was Warne and Murali (almost exclusively).

Is relief a better word?

 

[Krypto]

Thats fair enough. You can only look at what a player actually achieved. But let’s be honest, by those metrics Kallis has achieved more than most in cricket history. But people then like to caveat his achievements without context. So then context becomes important.

I also think our memories add to this delusion that Kallis batted slowly, the best makes it look easy and Kallis is testament to this. You are 100% correct that Kallis was forced to do a Job but that was at No 3 or additional opener at a time of transition, he did this for 78 innings at a SR of 39 and a average just below 50. When he could bat where he was more comfortable as a middle order no 4 bat, 170 innings at average of over 60 and a SR of 50. This compared to his overall reads differently.

We use statistics without looking into more detail to confirm our Bias or opinion. However Kallis as a batsman did it as top and middle order. In his time go compare this to any of the all time greats of that era and a different picture forms.

Lastly this even translates to modern greats like Smith, Williamson, Kholi and Azam . Interestingly Kallis and Azam is comparable however there is over 120 innings difference at no 4.

So I agree with you fully and the numbers do confirm this if you look deeper, he was incredible, very few of the greats could bat middle and top order there is only one current that boasts this.

 

[shortpitched713]

Shakib, Jadeja and Stokes are better all rounders than Kallis but worse cricketers.

Jadeja yes, the others, no.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I also think our memories add to this delusion that Kallis batted slowly, the best makes it look easy and Kallis is testament to this. You are 100% correct that Kallis was forced to do a Job but that was at No 3 or additional opener at a time of transition, he did this for 78 innings at a SR of 39 and a average just below 50. When he could bat where he was more comfortable as a middle order no 4 bat, 170 innings at average of over 60 and a SR of 50. This compared to his overall reads differently.

We use statistics without looking into more detail to confirm our Bias or opinion. However Kallis as a batsman did it as top and middle order. In his time go compare this to any of the all time greats of that era and a different picture forms.

Lastly this even translates to modern greats like Smith, Williamson, Kholi and Azam . Interestingly Kallis and Azam is comparable however there is over 120 innings difference at no 4.

So I agree with you fully and the numbers do confirm this if you look deeper, he was incredible, very few of the greats could bat middle and top order there is only one current that boasts this.

Sorry but no. No one is basing this on career stats, I don't know why you think they would be. It's based on what actually happened in the context of cricket matches he played in.

Obviously he was incredible, one of the greatest cricketers of all time, but him struggling to move the score along at times when he should have is not a retrospective opinion based on misreading of stats.

 

[Krypto]

Sorry but no. No one is basing this on career stats, I don't know why you think they would be. It's based on what actually happened in the context of cricket matches he played in.

Obviously he was incredible, one of the greatest cricketers of all time, but him struggling to move the score along at times when he should have is not a retrospective opinion based on misreading of stats.

How do you justify that opinion ? That is what i am referring to .

His first 100 was scored in a drawn test against Australia batting number 3 101 from 279 deliveries . He scored another 8 100s batting at 3 at almost the exact same strike rate . Of those game SA won 6 and drew 3 , even tough he batted a run every 2.5 deliveries . Some of my memories from this time is the England tour of 98 where we lost that series by 2 to 1 and the Allan Donald and Atherton battle was front and center with Atherton coming out on top and he batted very slowly . The only match we won is when Kirsten scored a double hundred and was supported by Kallis 100.

As a number 4 he normally batted around an anchor and the SR shows this increasing to almost 50 as an average throughout .

This mirrors for me what Kallis did , and is seen throughout his career . Your saying we lost due to him batting slowly , I am saying we avoided losses when got stuck in and was the difference and why in that period we had an incredible test record etc .

Your just basing your opinion on your personal experience which is different to others however when you get into this type of discussion you need to have some merit behind your opinion and some uses the statistic of his career strike rate of 45 to justify statement of him batting slowly . Which is exactly what your referring to of misrepresenting stats .

 

[TheJediBrah]

Your just basing your opinion on your personal experience

*You're

But yes. What else is there to base it on? Overall stats don't take into account the context of innings/game situations at all. He could have had a career SR of 35 but had a better impact on games he had depending on when, how and why he scored at certain rates

 

[trundler]

Sorry but I don't buy that Kallis was a naturally quick scorer who adjusted to slow scoring to fit the team. He had a pretty consistent scoring rate throughout his ODI career. In the first half, it was above par and he was great but in the second half it was below average and he was straight up a liability at times. If he could've scored quicker he would've but didn't. His scoring rate was most certainly a limitation and matter of ability. It's not that big a deal but asserting that he could've been a free flowing bat if he wanted to is copium. Ponting and Lara didn't fall behind the scoring rate in ODIs, for example, and upped their SRs when batting got easier. Kallis didn't because he couldn't.

 

[andruid]

Why hasn’t @Athlai been given more grief for listing Michael Vaughan as a boring batsman?

He is suffering enough just being Athlai

 

[Krypto]

*You're

But yes. What else is there to base it on? Overall stats don't take into account the context of innings/game situations at all. He could have had a career SR of 35 but had a better impact on games he had depending on when, how and why he scored at certain rates

Uhmm what? Kallis scored 41 100s and out of those South Africa only lost 3 , with 2 of those coming from 1 series away in Australia . Kallis performances was either Match winning or match saving .

Furthermore there is only one cricketer comparable to Kallis as a number 4 batsman and that is Smith . Smith in 105 innings scored 5772 runs at an Average of 62.74 and S/R of 53.48 Jacques Kallis had 170 innings as a Number 4 with an Average of 61.87 and a S/R of 49.48 . Yet there is all this talk about Smith being the best since Bradman and Kallis did it before him however all the talk about kallis is generally negative and stating he could have been better or should have been , as a bat he is one of the best the game has ever produced and was part of one of the most successful test teams in the history of the game and potentially one of the main reasons why .

 

[Coronis]

Yeah I don’t buy this narrative somehow that Kallis lost any matches for SA batting slowly…

 

[Krypto]

Sorry but I don't buy that Kallis was a naturally quick scorer who adjusted to slow scoring to fit the team. He had a pretty consistent scoring rate throughout his ODI career. In the first half, it was above par and he was great but in the second half it was below average and he was straight up a liability at times. If he could've scored quicker he would've but didn't. His scoring rate was most certainly a limitation and matter of ability. It's not that big a deal but asserting that he could've been a free flowing bat if he wanted to is copium. Ponting and Lara didn't fall behind the scoring rate in ODIs, for example, and upped their SRs when batting got easier. Kallis didn't because he couldn't.

Other way around the first part of his career he batted at 3 and this was due to South Africa struggling with consistency up top needing an additional anchor or opener coverage . The second part of his career he averaged 60+ compared to 49. .

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Sorry but I don't buy that Kallis was a naturally quick scorer who adjusted to slow scoring to fit the team. He had a pretty consistent scoring rate throughout his ODI career. In the first half, it was above par and he was great but in the second half it was below average and he was straight up a liability at times. If he could've scored quicker he would've but didn't. His scoring rate was most certainly a limitation and matter of ability. It's not that big a deal but asserting that he could've been a free flowing bat if he wanted to is copium. Ponting and Lara didn't fall behind the scoring rate in ODIs, for example, and upped their SRs when batting got easier. Kallis didn't because he couldn't.

How do you explain his last few years when his strike rate was in the mid 50s? Actually his strike rate from 2002-2013 is 50 and he averaged around 60 during this period.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah I don’t buy this narrative somehow that Kallis lost any matches for SA batting slowly…

If definitely didn't happen.

At best there were a very small number of drawn matches they might have theoretically won instead if he scored quicker.

But I bet there were some drawn matches they might have lost instead if he scored quicker too.

And it's a really tiny percentage of matches either way. There's been a real rise on CW lately of people thinking drawn matches in the 90s and 00s were actually caused by slow scoring batsmen. They were almost all caused by extremely flat pitches and/or rain. Most draws were *easily* drawn and some bloke scoring eight more runs off his 100 balls wouldn't have meant ****.

Point me to a series South Africa could've won by Kallis scoring quicker and I'll be impressed.

 

[trundler]

How do you explain his last few years when his strike rate was in the mid 50s? Actually his strike rate from 2002-2013 is 50 and he averaged around 60 during this period.

He just got better at the end. But for most of his career he was a bit of a block-bash player. In the 2000s he still had a stacked line up around him and he was slow. In ODIs as well as tests. The only time when Kallis was burdened by a lack of competent batsman was the mid 90s and Cullinan, not Kallis, was SA's best batsman.

 

[Krypto]

He just got better at the end. But for most of his career he was a bit of a block-bash player. In the 2000s he still had a stacked line up around him and he was slow. In ODIs as well as tests. The only time when Kallis was burdened by a lack of competent batsman was the mid 90s and Cullinan, not Kallis, was SA's best batsman.

He was that player for the first 60 or so tests in his career where he batted at no 3 and his average was below 48 and a SR was below 40 . His first 100 at number 4 was 139 of 228 deliveries at a SR of 60.96 and this was in 2002 the 100s to follow was mostly at a Strike rate above 50 with some above 60 .Strong contrast of his 100s at no 3 at a SR of around 30 . Seeing that he played 166 tests it is 35% of his career that he was put in that situation after that he was phenomenal .

I have no idea why this memory consensus exists as that is not how i remember it and cannot find proof of it and also why i use stats to recolect my memory as this is how i remember it and want to make sure its not my mind playing tricks on me .

As forced top order Kallis did the Job however as number 4 he is unbelievable . For me it was always to do with failures on top that he dug us out of a hole however when batting middle order most often than not he brought the consistency and scored bucket load of runs on any surface in an almost duplicate fashion .

 

[TheJediBrah]

Uhmm what? Kallis scored 41 100s and out of those South Africa only lost 3 , with 2 of those coming from 1 series away in Australia . Kallis performances was either Match winning or match saving .

Why only his 100s? And why ignoring draws? 20 of his 100s came in draws. And no they were not all match-saving. This was with a team that had one of the best bowling attacks around too.

I gave the example that sticks out in my memory most earlier in the thread, 2006 Sydney Test. South Africa should have won, they dominated most of it, but were forced to declare twice for less than optimal scores (trying to force a result) because Kallis batted so slowly. He didn't adapt to game situations enough and turned wins into draws, and on that occasion into a loss. If he batted like Ponting, Lara or Tendulkar his team would have been better off, it's as simple as that.

I don't get it. He was one of the greatest Test cricketers ever. Easily. Why people try so hard to invalidate one of his only limitations is beyond me.

edit: And to be clear, repeating myself here, it's only in comparison to the other best players of his time that it's even noticeable. No one is saying "Kallis wasn't a great batsman because he batted too slowly". It's purely in comparison with the very, very best

 

[TheJediBrah]

At best there were a very small number of drawn matches they might have theoretically won instead if he scored quicker.

Test matches are big deals. If we're talking about the result of a Test match, even 1 match is significant. And it was definitely more than 1.

I'll find you examples when I get a chance don't you worry

 

[BazBall21]

Especially with the follow up point about Vaughan averaging 5. Didn’t he average about 42 and score 10-15 tons? Just a very strange post.

Vaughan scored 18 tons