Howcome Dravid had never been accused of being Selfish?

[Richard]

couldn't swing the bat ?... is it because of the injury ?
Least he could've done is shown some intent to score runs rather than try to block out the overs.... the guy wasn't even tryin to look for singles, no one was expecting him to hit 6's or 4's like ANdy Symmonds or Kevin Pieterson but maybe he he would've just rotated teh striker bit more who knows what would've happend.

Really?
I question what you were watching.
He was trying his utmost to hit the ball, and fool could have seen that, and if it'd been anyone but "selfish" Kallis they almost certainly would have, but he usually struggled to get the ball off the square and even when he did hit the occasional one in the middle he usually found the fielders.
The fact of the matter is, he wasn't prepared to virtually deliberately hit one up in the air and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Maybe - just maybe - he should've retired hurt, but that's about all you can say.

 

[Richard]

I think that's a compliment so I'll take it...

But I think you misread my post. If you look at the scorecard of that match, what do you see? You see Kallis hitting a ton in the 1st innings and a 50 in the 2nd. No one will call him selfish from that, because the circumstances in the game can't be read on the scorecard usually.

However while watching the game, many people (and to deny it would be fruitless) came to the conclusion that Kallis was not willing to slog at the end. Maybe (and its quite likely to be true) his elbow injury didn't allow that to happen, but then again you cannot blame people for having that impression of him, particularly when that reputation was already there before the innings.

I can, and I do - because people were simply willing to let reputation out, and not examine the truth of the situation. There's nothing I hate more - it's just stupid generalisation. As I said - had it been anyone other than Kallis, there'd have been pretty much universal sympathy, because he had to try to play a role that an injury pretty much completely stopped him from playing.
As I've also said before - being unwilling to slog is hardly a sin. All of Kallis' game has been about eliminating risk and, especially with an elbow that barely allowed him to swing the bat, I hardly see that he really deserves any criticism at all for failing to up the pace (much). No-one should be willing to play shots that are more likely to result in their downfall than run-scoring. I'm pretty confident that, with a fully functioning elbow, Kallis would've scored quickly without looking like giving away his wicket, striking the ball powerfully on the ground, with a straight rather than wildly swinging bat.

My point was, no one judged him as selfish by just looking at his strike rate and average. They judged him selfish (rightly or wrongly) by watching him bat, and coming to their own conclusions. Many people just happen to come to the same one.

When Gibbs had scored 40+ runs out of the 50 runs scored by SA at that stage, I think Kallis should have sacrificed his wicket (like Boucher has done for Smith before) for the better of the team. It was obvious Gibbs was pretty damn peed off at Kallis after the run out, but like I said, I don't think Kallis always bats for himself, what I do think however is there are times when it looks like he does... whereas Dravid usually doesn't.

I quite understood what you were saying - but as I just said, no-one should be willing to play shots that are more likely to result in their downfall than run-scoring. It's sheer defiance of logic.
I think, if it's simply a matter of Kallis looking like he bats for himself, whereas Dravid always takes care not to, it's the people doing the "selfish" calling who need to be castigated, not Kallis, because it's their error in thinking incorrectly that he's being selfish when he's not.

 

[Richard]

If saving your team's dignity makes a batsman selfish, then dravid is the most selfish ahole cricket has ever seen.

And Kallis is not as highly praised because he does not have the ability to play his game according to the situation whereas Dravid is capable of conforming to the needs of the hour. Kallis seems to be premeditated all the time when he's going for a big innings as if he planned it out, indicating a bit of bad will.

Dravid just rises to the occasion and there just happens to have been lots of occasions where he has had to do that.

And Kallis hasn't? Many times? I think not, somehow.
Kallis is usually able to play the same way all the time, Dravid is not.

 

[Jono]

I can, and I do - because people were simply willing to let reputation out, and not examine the truth of the situation. There's nothing I hate more - it's just stupid generalisation. As I said - had it been anyone other than Kallis, there'd have been pretty much universal sympathy, because he had to try to play a role that an injury pretty much completely stopped him from playing.
As I've also said before - being unwilling to slog is hardly a sin. All of Kallis' game has been about eliminating risk and, especially with an elbow that barely allowed him to swing the bat, I hardly see that he really deserves any criticism at all for failing to up the pace (much). No-one should be willing to play shots that are more likely to result in their downfall than run-scoring. I'm pretty confident that, with a fully functioning elbow, Kallis would've scored quickly without looking like giving away his wicket, striking the ball powerfully on the ground, with a straight rather than wildly swinging bat.

I quite understood what you were saying - but as I just said, no-one should be willing to play shots that are more likely to result in their downfall than run-scoring. It's sheer defiance of logic.
I think, if it's simply a matter of Kallis looking like he bats for himself, whereas Dravid always takes care not to, it's the people doing the "selfish" calling who need to be castigated, not Kallis, because it's their error in thinking incorrectly that he's being selfish when he's not.

Can't really argue with any of that, all fair points.

My only intention was to answer the thread starter's question. Why is Kallis often accused of being selfish and Dravid not since they have very similar stats. My answer was simply because those who accuse Kallis of being selfish whilst not doing the same to Dravid have come to this conclusion based on watching them both, not looking at their stats. That's all.

 

[viktor]

Don't be, it's understandible - anyone calling Dravid selfish is utterly stupid. The central point is not that to call Dravid selfish is justified, it's that to call Kallis selfish is equally stupid.
I'm not sure I agree on the Kallis-hitting-big-sixes stuff. Kallis doesn't hit many sixes, because (like Dravid) his game doesn't revolve around hitting he ball in the air a lot. Kallis may be slightly more powerful than Dravid, but power doesn't mean you're compelled to hit sixes.

Now explain that to Arjun, will you?

 

[Richard]

Can't really argue with any of that, all fair points.

My only intention was to answer the thread starter's question. Why is Kallis often accused of being selfish and Dravid not since they have very similar stats. My answer was simply because those who accuse Kallis of being selfish whilst not doing the same to Dravid have come to this conclusion based on watching them both, not looking at their stats. That's all.

I don't deny that - as I said (or tried to), Dravid has provided countless examples of his unselfish-ism, Kallis hasn't. And that's his choice. He's evidently less willing to "confront", as you were, his natural shyness. No crime in that - I'm exactly the same, and I know plenty of people who are Dravid to my Kallis.

 

[Richard]

Now explain that to Arjun, will you?

I've tried, believe me, I've tried...

 

[kvemuri]

2 reasons:

1) India have a real need for "wall" in their side with all the strokemakers and such around him.

2) Dravid has the ability to change up gears, which kallis either lacks or doesn't want to do.

Agree also over the past 3/4 years Dravid (in odis) has shown the ability to be a run a ball player or better and has reinvented himself in the shorter form of game, which Kallis hasn't been able to do, even when his team needs Kallis to up the tempo he is not able to effectively do so.

 

[Richard]

You missed this match, then?
A masterclass in the art of starting slowly and accellerating.
There are other examples - this is merely the most recent.
But anyway - Kallis' game isn't about increasing the tempo. Nor, sometimes, is Dravid's. Each player has his own style - he should not be criticised for defying the usual, just because most players at the current time are strokeplayers.

 

[kvemuri]

You missed this match, then?

Yep I did. I haven't seen Kallis much in tests so I cannot really comment or compare with Dravid in tests.

But anyway - Kallis' game isn't about increasing the tempo. Nor, sometimes, is Dravid's. Each player has his own style - he should not be criticised for defying the usual, just because most players at the current time are strokeplayers.

this is where I beg to differ, in this game Kallis was very well set but just couldn't accelerate when SA needed him the most. There have been other instances where Kallis has not been able to push (comparatively with Dravid) the score or switch gears when compared with Dravid.

The last ODI match that I can relatively remember where I thought Dravid couldn't get going was this
even here you will observe that Dravid's 71 came off 87 balls, I remember watching this game and initially when Dravid came on to bat at the fall off Das' wkt, Dravid couldn't rotate the strike effectively enough resulting in a well set Ganguly trying to go over the top and getting out. By the time Dravid got going in this game there was no one left to partner him.

Personally I don't think Kallis is a selfish player, a tad bit on the slow side yeah but selfish nah.

 

[sirjeremy11]

I don't think (unless you are doing one of those quick run chases, or scoring quickly for a declaration) that you can really score selfishly.

Here is a point I thought of...

Dravid is small and weedy, he looks like he shouldn't be able to hit the ball far, so when he gets runs slowly and patiently, no one bats an eyelid.

Kallis is a brute. He looks like he should be able to smack the ball hard. And he can.

 

[honestbharani]

Look, Dravid is NOT a selfish player, PERIOD.


Regarding Kallis, I would like to think he isn't a selfish player... But I have seen innings from him, esp. in ODIs when he has gone hammer and tongs, the 98 ICC knock out final being the prime example... He CAN be a Lara or a SAchin for the RSA side and yet he doesn't want to be. Today, maybe RSA have a few more stroke makers in their ranks but there was a time when they had none and he NEVER took up the responsibility. I remember Geoffrey Boycott commenting on air that he was trying to get his average up because he had a very bad start to his test career... I saw the recent ODI in Mumbai (I think) against India and he basically cost them the match, not to mention the ICC champions Trophy in 2002 semifinal... I am not sure if he is selfish, but I have seen him NOT accelerate so many times even though there was the need to accelerate (and I have seen him accelerate and hit big sixes a few times as well)..... So putting this all together, I think either he doesn't want to accelerate or he has lost his big hitting touch. Either way, he becomes a liability at times to the RSA side, esp. in ODIs.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Dravid's record- http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/28114.html

Kallis' record- http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/45789.html

They have virtually identical records, yet one is accused of being selfish all the time,and the other is worshipped.

Why?

Because you are looking at records, not matches.

 

[parttimer]

IIRC he managed to hit a few sixes in-out over extra cover in that 2nd innings of the Sydney test. Injured batsmen can't play that shot. He didn't appear to be all that hampered either, apart from the odd grimace. A Waugh would have played thru the pain and done what the situation demanded. Its not like the pitch was a mindfield, infact it was a very good pitch for batting and Aus showed that during the 5th day. So if they had tried to hit out they would have had a decent chance of success. SA have a long tail and Mcgrath and Warne werne't doing much. They should have put more on the board but they failed to do so which eventually forced Smith into taking a bad declaration. I admire Smith for that decision. Does it really matter if you lose two or one nil? A sportsmen should hate to lose and if theres a slight chance of victory then he should come out all guns blazing.

 

[Richard]

IIRC he managed to hit a few sixes in-out over extra cover in that 2nd innings of the Sydney test. Injured batsmen can't play that shot. He didn't appear to be all that hampered either, apart from the odd grimace. A Waugh would have played thru the pain and done what the situation demanded.

Kallis in that innings - 3 fours, 0 sixes.
"Playing through the pain barrier" is all well and good and Waugh did it on several occasions (this "century on one leg" being the most obvious example) but there is a reality - pain is a warning that something isn't right. It's not like he was unwilling to hurt himself - his elbow was not working properly. He could not swing the bat with the requistite power.
If you seriously think he didn't look all that hampered... I don't know what you were watching. For me, it was plain to see that he should never have been out there, and if he'd been in that condition at the start of the game there's no way he'd have played.

Its not like the pitch was a mindfield, infact it was a very good pitch for batting and Aus showed that during the 5th day. So if they had tried to hit out they would have had a decent chance of success. SA have a long tail and Mcgrath and Warne werne't doing much. They should have put more on the board but they failed to do so which eventually forced Smith into taking a bad declaration. I admire Smith for that decision. Does it really matter if you lose two or one nil? A sportsmen should hate to lose and if theres a slight chance of victory then he should come out all guns blazing.

That's all well and good and the reasons for the declaration are obvious, but... this isn't, really, two 3-Test-series - it's a home-and-away 6-Tester. If South Africa now beat Australia 1-0, Australia can still, quite truthfully, be said to have won 2-1. That wouldn't have happened had SA not declared, and while obviously there were no regrets at the time, I just wonder if there might be were SA to win the upcoming 3-Test-series by a single Test... or even 2-0 for a 2-2 draw.

 

[Richard]

I remember Geoffrey Boycott commenting on air that he was trying to get his average up because he had a very bad start to his test career...

I think there definately might be something in that. Stephen Waugh was a very similar case.
The difference? Waugh and Dravid have much in common with the bat (Dravid has more style, obviously), and they've also both provided countless, very obvious, examples of their unselfishness. Waugh, of course, is also a much more public figure than either Dravid or Kallis, and talked willingly, openly and frankly throughout his Test-career.
Failure at the start can be an incredibly strategically motivating thing for a career. Waugh, obviously, had a very, very long period at the start of his Test-career where he did little of note, and also of course he's mentioned enough times what desire was instilled in him by the 1990\91 Worrell Trophy series where Australia were "battered into submission by a relentless pace barrage".
Kallis and Waugh's games also have something in common. Both are based entirely on the "you don't give your wicket away" strategem. And both endured miserable starts to their Test careers to fuel that.

 

[Richard]

Yep I did. I haven't seen Kallis much in tests so I cannot really comment or compare with Dravid in tests.

Oh, OK, but rest assured - it was a masterclass in how to up the tempo.

this is where I beg to differ, in this game Kallis was very well set but just couldn't accelerate when SA needed him the most. There have been other instances where Kallis has not been able to push (comparatively with Dravid) the score or switch gears when compared with Dravid.

The last ODI match that I can relatively remember where I thought Dravid couldn't get going was this
even here you will observe that Dravid's 71 came off 87 balls, I remember watching this game and initially when Dravid came on to bat at the fall off Das' wkt, Dravid couldn't rotate the strike effectively enough resulting in a well set Ganguly trying to go over the top and getting out. By the time Dravid got going in this game there was no one left to partner him.

It's interesting - there's definately something in that. There have undeniably been times in Kallis' ODI career - 2 prominent examples there (along with the Champions Trophy 2002 semi), though I feel the Mumbai ODI had more to do with the miserable start in damp conditions that characterised every game that series than any slowness on Kallis' part - where he's been unable to go hell-for-leather. I think that tells us more about technical failings, really, than any innate lack of will. Does a not-out or a 80 instead of a 60 really mean more to him than his team's success? I can't help thinking that's extremely unlikely.

 

[viktor]

I've tried, believe me, I've tried...

LOL!

 

[kvemuri]

though I feel the Mumbai ODI had more to do with the miserable start in damp conditions that characterised every game that series than any slowness on Kallis' part - where he's been unable to go hell-for-leather.

True the start South Africa got too in that game was very poor, lost 2/3 wkts with literally nothing on the board. But Kallis did major injustice at the dearth, particularly the slog overs, where Boucher and Pollock were (as usual) opening up, Kallis couldn't either up the tempo or rotate the strike properly resulting in South Africa being 20/30 runs short of the target they might have gotten. Worse than that was Kallis wasn't even looking to do either of the things. He played the same sort of innings in the first ODI of the super series against Aus, he scored 4/8 off 26 balls, it was a pretty skewed stat, more than the stat the lack of effort on Kallis' part to push the tempo up was what was appallaing. This from a man who was touted as the next best allrounder in the late 90s and in the 1999 WC was doing the same things pretty well.

I think that tells us more about technical failings, really, than any innate lack of will. Does a not-out or a 80 instead of a 60 really mean more to him than his team's success? I can't help thinking that's extremely unlikely.

I agree with your statement and I don't think Kallis is selfish its just that I think he doesn't believe he can up the tempo anymore, Kallis has lost confidence than the skill at doing this.

 

[parttimer]

Kallis in that innings - 3 fours, 0 sixes.
"Playing through the pain barrier" is all well and good and Waugh did it on several occasions (this "century on one leg" being the most obvious example) but there is a reality - pain is a warning that something isn't right. It's not like he was unwilling to hurt himself - his elbow was not working properly. He could not swing the bat with the requistite power.
If you seriously think he didn't look all that hampered... I don't know what you were watching. For me, it was plain to see that he should never have been out there, and if he'd been in that condition at the start of the game there's no way he'd have played.

That's all well and good and the reasons for the declaration are obvious, but... this isn't, really, two 3-Test-series - it's a home-and-away 6-Tester. If South Africa now beat Australia 1-0, Australia can still, quite truthfully, be said to have won 2-1. That wouldn't have happened had SA not declared, and while obviously there were no regrets at the time, I just wonder if there might be were SA to win the upcoming 3-Test-series by a single Test... or even 2-0 for a 2-2 draw.

I meant fours not sixes, and i maintain he didn't look that bad that is what i saw. As for the 6 test series nonsense, if that were the case Smith would have been content with 1-0 rather than make a risky declaration