Jacques Kallis - Still Underrated?

[Sir Alex]

Yet to play that defining innings for me. While useful as a bowler, he was never really for any substantial period of time by SA as a regular option.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I can't remember where I read this - it could even have been on here - but someone said that if Jacques Kallis didn't exist, then no one would believe it possible to score that amount of International runs, and take that amount of International wickets.

That alone counts for a massive amount, and regardless of whether he bats in a bubble, averages better against Zimbabwe than Australia (really?!), or hasn't made a double hundred, he's got 10,000 runs and 250 wickets in Tests and ODIs, and I'd be amazed if anyone ever does that again.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I can't remember where I read this - it could even have been on here - but someone said that if Jacques Kallis didn't exist, then no one would believe it possible to score that amount of International runs, and take that amount of International wickets.

That alone counts for a massive amount, and regardless of whether he bats in a bubble, averages better against Zimbabwe than Australia (really?!), or hasn't made a double hundred, he's got 10,000 runs and 250 wickets in Tests and ODIs, and I'd be amazed if anyone ever does that again.

 

[Neil Pickup]

 

[Richard]

Interesting take, I've always considered G Pollock to be marginally ahead of B Richards..even if by just a smidgen.

Have heard practically no writings to that effect myself TBH. About all Pollock G has over Richards is that he had half a decent Test career and Richards had almost none at all.

 

[Richard]

You wouldn't pay to watch him bat or bowl

I would - Kallis has long been one of the most watchable batsmen I've seen. Cover-drive and a off-the-hips clip to die for, and a pretty damn nice pull and hook too.

And as a bowler he has an action that, yes, many have bettered, but many too have "worsed" it.

 

[Richard]

While useful as a bowler, he was never really for any substantial period of time by SA as a regular option.

That's as much to do with playing regularly alongside the Donalds, Pollocks, Kluseners, Ntinis, Steyns etc. as it has his own excellence. Kallis is a bowler who has always tended to be used in a holding role and, more recently, relatively sparingly. It makes sense - he is an all-rounder, after all. A batting-all-rounder, substantially so, yes - but an all-rounder nonetheless.

 

[Richard]

Majority of the Tests that I've watched in South Africa over the past decade have had a pit innit for the past decade and I definately wouldn't classify them as flat. Of course, I've given examples in the past where I've seen movement off the pitch and swing through the air, but you've completely written it off.

I've said there wasn't such a thing, yes.

But they corrected it, so it is relevant.

You cannot correct something which is in the past. Same way you cannot undo discrimination against someone in the past by discriminating in favour of his followers later, you cannot make a faulty\different measurement into an accurate\conformist one by inventing accurate technology and standardising it later.

 

[Furball]

I can't remember where I read this - it could even have been on here - but someone said that if Jacques Kallis didn't exist, then no one would believe it possible to score that amount of International runs, and take that amount of International wickets.

That alone counts for a massive amount, and regardless of whether he bats in a bubble, averages better against Zimbabwe than Australia (really?!), or hasn't made a double hundred, he's got 10,000 runs and 250 wickets in Tests and ODIs, and I'd be amazed if anyone ever does that again.

Uppercut IIRC.

And he's right. Over 20,000 runs and 500 wickets at international level is a phenominal achievement.

 

[Sir Alex]

That's as much to do with playing regularly alongside the Donalds, Pollocks, Kluseners, Ntinis, Steyns etc. as it has his own excellence. Kallis is a bowler who has always tended to be used in a holding role and, more recently, relatively sparingly. It makes sense - he is an all-rounder, after all. A batting-all-rounder, substantially so, yes - but an all-rounder nonetheless.

Yep no doubts about that. But less than 1 wicket per innings, hmm... He's just that sort of bowler who ended up taking the wickets that he has now because of sheer number of test matches he has got to bowl in.

But his batting records are brilliant. A batsman converting every inch of what he had into performances and one who well and truly took heavy toll of the weaker bowling attacks he faced. Nothing wrong in that mind you.

 

[TT Boy]

That's as much to do with playing regularly alongside the Donalds, Pollocks, Kluseners, Ntinis, Steyns etc. as it has his own excellence. Kallis is a bowler who has always tended to be used in a holding role and, more recently, relatively sparingly. It makes sense - he is an all-rounder, after all. A batting-all-rounder, substantially so, yes - but an all-rounder nonetheless.

Spot on. Bit hard for Kallis to be nothing more than a holding bowler when he has always played alongside the likes AD, Polly, Ntini, Steyn et cetera. If he played for a lesser nation he would have taken 350+ test wickets by now.

 

[Sir Alex]

Spot on. Bit hard for Kallis to be nothing more than a holding bowler when he has always played alongside the likes AD, Polly, Ntini, Steyn et cetera. If he played for a lesser nation he would have taken 350+ test wickets by now.

Or perhaps would've been injured due to sheer load of work and would be averaging much higher than what he is doing now as well.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Or perhaps would've been injured due to sheer load of work and would be averaging much higher than what he is doing now as well.

& if my auntie had bollocks, etc.

Fact is we can only guess.

A great cricketer, but, as others have observed, one who one admires for his ruthless efficiency rather than the way he goes about his game. I think, of all the great modern day batsmen, his batting is the blandest. One remembers more the weight of runs rather than the manner of their accumulation.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

I would - Kallis has long been one of the most watchable batsmen I've seen. Cover-drive and a off-the-hips clip to die for, and a pretty damn nice pull and hook too.

And as a bowler he has an action that, yes, many have bettered, but many too have "worsed" it.

Yeah, he plays everything very nicely but it's just a case of hitting anything that's slightly misplaced for four. That's nothing like the other extreme, which is Sehwag smashing attacks everywhere with what appears to be complete recklessness. Or Sachin's silkiness. Kallis is just a machine, and I wouldn't pay to see a machine bat.

Would I want a machine on my side though? Certainly.

 

[Richard]

I'd much rather see a machine whose technique is perfect and execution pinpoint than a bludgeoner like Sehwag or a manufactured seemingly-inpenetrable-battering-ram like Pietersen for much of his career or Gilchrist for the first half of his.

Beauty, eyes, beholders and all, of course.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

I'd much rather see a machine whose technique is perfect and execution pinpoint than a bludgeoner like Sehwag or a manufactured seemingly-inpenetrable-battering-ram like Pietersen for much of his career or Gilchrist for the first half of his.

Beauty, eyes, beholders and all, of course.

A bit of snootishness there, Richard. It takes all sorts if you ask me. That's what makes the game what it is.

 

[vcs]

I find Pietersen and Graeme Smith very ugly to watch, but somehow loved Gilchrist's brute force and flamboyance. Same with Sanath.

 

[Richard]

What about Ganguly and Saeed Anwar?

 

[Teja.]

I'd worship Jaques Kallis if he did not seem to exude an aura of extreme selfishness at times, again I said 'seem to' I don't know if he really was selfish. He just seems to love a 'not-out' more than any other batsman.

All that said, He's a gun of a player and among batting all-rounders I'd place him next only to Sobers.

 

[vcs]

Putting bias to one side, definitely Saeed Anwar. He was definitely the more skilled and silkier batsman of the two. Plus, he could play on the leg-side.