Greg Chappell vs Jack Kallis

[Johan]

that's a choice, not a flaw.

 

[Johan]

Kallis playing slow was not actually a problem imo, he had guys like Amla/Smith/Gibbs/De Villiers around him, so he could play the anchor.

 

[shortpitched713]

 

[Bolo.]

I never really claimed that South Africa lacked productivity towards swing bowling, it obviously didn't and the wickets were indeed lively, but I think the classical duke balls are significantly more suspect to large amounts of swing than the Kookaburas that have always been used in South Africa.

I don't really think my critique of his technique against high outswingers is something that should really be debunked by his performance in South Africa, you can have far more severe issues with swing bowling and find success in South Africa like Kohli did.

as you mentioned, South African wickets indeed have higher pace and playing most kind of bowlings would indeed be more difficult in South Africa but imo Kallis was a great player of pace, his issue came against someone spamming medium outswingers like Anderson did in 2007/8, in 2008 Anderson beat him with that exact tactic of tapping into the overly high movement of the duke ball and getting a edge on the outswinger or eventually getting a LBW on the inswinger.

do you really believe the three consecutive tours of England where he performed under par (for himself) is just sample size related with nothing to do with any slight technical issue?

Sure, the duke swings more. And its a country where other balls would swing as well. Its generally the toughest country for facing conventional swing specifically. RSA Is generally the second toughest.

You cant compare sample sizes like Kohli in RSA to Kallis. Gillespie averages over 200 in Bangers. Would you expect him to maintain this over a huge number of games, or did he just hit form at the right time?

I have no idea what technical fault you are talking about. I never noticed one. I saw him fail against swing plenty of times. I saw him succeed plenty more. Mentioning a single series isnt going to do much for me. I saw RSA get wrecked by swing with him doing well enough times. And not just fast swing. See India tours of RSA for examples.

IDK if Kallis had an issue in England or if its just variance. I know he didnt have much of an issue against outswing specifically (with the caveat that just about every bat ever has an issue against outswing, cos its just really tough to play). The way you are phrasing it is 3 underpar series and 1 overpar one. This is absolutely normal in variance. Nobody is going to be exactly par in every country.

There's also an issue of timing for Kallis' tours of England. He toured in 98 when his career average was in the mid 20s, which actually made the tour an excellent one for him at that stage. And in his mini slump from 2008-2009 (not that this excuses the degree of his ineptitude). And never toured during his 2004-2007 mega peak.

 

[Johan]

Sure, the duke swings more. And its a country where other balls would swing as well. Its generally the toughest country for facing conventional swing specifically. RSA Is generally the second toughest.

You cant compare sample sizes like Kohli in RSA to Kallis. Gillespie averages over 200 in Bangers. Would you expect him to maintain this over a huge number of games, or did he just hit form at the right time?

I have no idea what technical fault you are talking about. I never noticed one. I saw him fail against swing plenty of times. I saw him succeed plenty more. Mentioning a single series isnt going to do much for me. I saw RSA get wrecked by swing with him doing well enough times. And not just fast swing. See India tours of RSA for examples.

IDK if Kallis had an issue in England or if its just variance. I know he didnt have much of an issue against outswing specifically (with the caveat that just about every bat ever has an issue against outswing, cos its just really tough to play). The way you are phrasing it is 3 underpar series and 1 overpar one. This is absolutely normal in variance. Nobody is going to be exactly par in every country.

There's also an issue of timing for Kallis' tours of England. He toured in 98 when his career average was in the mid 20s, which actually made the tour an excellent one for him at that stage. And in his mini slump from 2008-2009 (not that this excuses the degree of his ineptitude). And never toured during his 2004-2007 mega peak.

That was mostly my point, England is the toughest place for conventional swing, followed by South Africa and New Zealand but New Zealand flattens out after the first session or so usually.

overall, I think it is an eye test thing on my part, I always percieved his game against outswingers in England specifically where the swing is large to be a little uncomfortable, and a good incoming inswinger pitched somewhat off the offstump always seem to be an achillies heel for him, he was not completely useless against it but definitely seemed lessened against it.

He had one big knock in England with the red ink but it really is a bit of a dissapointment how he constantly struggled in England, and I think it being related to something technical rather than coincidental makes a lot more sense.

I think Robelinda made a video on this showing Kallis's dismissals in England and a big theme is a inswinger pitched full or straight up as a yorker and he'd get out constantly to that, I guess the issue he faced in England were the overly swingy inswingers that'd get him constantly, and imo that's more of a concrete problem with a Batsmen than Greg Chappell perhaps having some issues with the spin in Asia.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah he's a complete Batsmen like Sangakkara, Root and Waugh but even Lara himself have slight vulnerabilities against forms of bowling, nobody is completely flawless.

I have him a bit above the likes of Sangakkara, Root and Waugh.

Just saying.

 

[Johan]

I have him a bit above the likes of Sangakkara, Root and Waugh.

Just saying.

I'd agree as of now, but, probably not by much.

 

[kyear2]

that's a choice, not a flaw.

I think Kallis was arguably the perfect cricketer. He batted at the premier position, fielded at the premier position and did both at an ATG level. He was the 2nd best ever at the critical all rounder position, good enough with the ball to come on as 2nd change, taking many valuable wickets.

That choice however sometimes felt like he was oblivious to the current situation of the game. Not always, but sometimes.

 

[Bolo.]

That was mostly my point, England is the toughest place for conventional swing, followed by South Africa and New Zealand but New Zealand flattens out after the first session or so usually.

overall, I think it is an eye test thing on my part, I always percieved his game against outswingers in England specifically where the swing is large to be a little uncomfortable, and a good incoming inswinger pitched somewhat off the offstump always seem to be an achillies heel for him, he was not completely useless against it but definitely seemed lessened against it.

He had one big knock in England with the red ink but it really is a bit of a dissapointment how he constantly struggled in England, and I think it being related to something technical rather than coincidental makes a lot more sense.

I think Robelinda made a video on this showing Kallis's dismissals in England and a big theme is a inswinger pitched full or straight up as a yorker and he'd get out constantly to that, I guess the issue he faced in England were the overly swingy inswingers that'd get him constantly, and imo that's more of a concrete problem with a Batsmen than Greg Chappell perhaps having some issues with the spin in Asia.

When you have a record that is >>> any bat in modern cricket with a remotely comparable amount of games in the second toughest country for swing, it really doesnt suggest a problem against swing. Averages 59 in NZ too seeing as you brought that into it. Averages mid 50s across the 3 countries, and his average of averages in the 3 swing countries is still 50. If swing actually was his clear weakness, he would be the BAB.

What series exactly are your eye tests based on? You are talking about a wickets compilation, which will make anyone look like trash. I know you watched 2011, and for various reasons, it wasnt nearly as impressive as a 60+ average would suggest. But Im not going to argue against a 60 away average against top opposition. And that you watched 2008, which was the worst series of his developed career. Everyone looks like trash in their worst series.

See the others? Im not sure he failed the eye test in those, but the 2003 series in particular you could make a good case for.

Or see him at home vs England? 2004 in particular was sublime. That England attack (accounting for form) was arguably the strongest they have had in modern cricket, and playing in conditions that suited them perfectly- more so than home.

 

[Johan]

When you have a record that is >>> any bat in modern cricket with a remotely comparable amount of games in the second toughest country for swing, it really doesnt suggest a problem against swing. Averages 59 in NZ too seeing as you brought that into it. Averages mid 50s across the 3 countries, and his average of averages in the 3 swing countries is still 50. If swing actually was his clear weakness, he would be the BAB.

What series exactly are your eye tests based on? You are talking about a wickets compilation, which will make anyone look like trash. I know you watched 2011, and for various reasons, it wasnt nearly as impressive as a 60+ average would suggest. But Im not going to argue against a 60 away average against top opposition. And that you watched 2008, which was the worst series of his developed career. Everyone looks like trash in their worst series.

See the others? Im not sure he failed the eye test in those, but the 2003 series in particular you could make a good case for.

Or see him at home vs England? 2004 in particular was sublime. That England attack (accounting for form) was arguably the strongest they have had in modern cricket, and playing in conditions that suited them perfectly- more so than home.

Yeah, but I don't rate the Kiwi attacks of mid 2000s very highly and I did mention how unlike south Africa and England, New Zealand is mostly early swing and that slowly but surely fades away after the first 20-25 overs of batting. Kallis is a pretty complete player, so obviously his weakness is not going to be something super exposed, it's like Root with his backfoot game against bounce or Ponting with his front foot game against spin deliveries pitched close to him, it's a small flaw but it's a clear one.

Even looking at it from an outside perspective, getting out to a similar delivery in the same country is indeed a problematic thing, but I've watched him play more or less all his serieses in England and he genuinely never once looked very comfortable against the quick inswingers that were often used against him, at times he managed to survive through the barrage but still didn't accumulate a great output here, so when I combine both factors then I really am left thinking he actually had a flaw against high pitched inswingers.

the 2004 England series was sublime and is probably his best series ever, he was quite good against Broaderson (albeit, a little undercooked) in 2009 as well, he was a great player of seamers and certainly tough enough to make runs against any attack at home, but that just comes back to the initial point about me thinking the magnitude of the trouble/problem is not big at all, I simply think he was suspect to a good in swinger with high movement, not that any swing bowler could blast through Kallis obviously.

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah, but I don't rate the Kiwi attacks of mid 2000s very highly and I did mention how unlike south Africa and England, New Zealand is mostly early swing and that slowly but surely fades away after the first 20-25 overs of batting. Kallis is a pretty complete player, so obviously his weakness is not going to be something super exposed, it's like Root with his backfoot game against bounce or Ponting with his front foot game against spin deliveries pitched close to him, it's a small flaw but it's a clear one.

Even looking at it from an outside perspective, getting out to a similar delivery in the same country is indeed a problematic thing, but I've watched him play more or less all his serieses in England and he genuinely never once looked very comfortable against the quick inswingers that were often used against him, at times he managed to survive through the barrage but still didn't accumulate a great output here, so when I combine both factors then I really am left thinking he actually had a flaw against high pitched inswingers.

the 2004 England series was sublime and is probably his best series ever, he was quite good against Broaderson (albeit, a little undercooked) in 2009 as well, he was a great player of seamers and certainly tough enough to make runs against any attack at home, but that just comes back to the initial point about me thinking the magnitude of the trouble/problem is not big at all, I simply think he was suspect to a good in swinger with high movement, not that any swing bowler could blast through Kallis obviously.

I wouldnt really count NZ away either. He never faced Bond away, and the rest of the attack was meh, even at home. You brought it up, not me.

Not sure what you mean by being suspect against one delivery? Just in the conversation we have been having, you have talked about at least inswingers, outswingers, and yorkers. That is a pretty big range of stuff when we are discussing swing specifically. And about the most uncomfortable he ever looked in England was when he was getting peppered by Flintoff, which wasnt really any of these.

Do you remember him in 98 clearly? I dont. Just that I was pretty impressed with his performance. I cant remember if I was impressed with his performance because it was good, or if was because, prior to that series, he had been up there with the worst bats in the history of international cricket.

 

[Johan]

I wouldnt really count NZ away either. He never faced Bond away, and the rest of the attack was meh, even at home. You brought it up, not me.

Not sure what you mean by being suspect against one delivery? Just in the conversation we have been having, you have talked about at least inswingers, outswingers, and yorkers. That is a pretty big range of stuff when we are discussing swing specifically. And about the most uncomfortable he ever looked in England was when he was getting peppered by Flintoff, which wasnt really any of these.

Do you remember him in 98 clearly? I dont. Just that I was pretty impressed with his performance. I cant remember if I was impressed with his performance because it was good, or if was because, prior to that series, he had been up there with the worst bats in the history of international cricket.

I was talking moreso generally rather than situationally.

Mostly I think his issue was one type of bowling often got him restricted/and then got his wicket and that's a fully pitched good inswinger. The Flintoff instance was more to me an analomy rather than the norm, high release point combined with accurate and good pace with decent swing is gonna be difficult to anyone except a few handpicked ones in Cricket.

I think he had one good inning that series but other than that he didn't do anything too much to be rated very highly, yhough obviously I'm not old enough to have perfect memory so it's also a bit hazy for me but that is basically what my mind can muster up, I do remember thinking his breakthrough game was one where he made a ton and then 80 something against Ambrose in South Africa, in the series where West Indies were doing player strikes and were beaten quite decisively, he played well that whole series I think, with the bat and the ball.