Jacques Kallis - Still Underrated?

[archie mac]

Not sure what else he has to do to have that touch of brilliance.

Bat like Lara or Tendulkar, or GSC or even Mark Waugh would be a start.

Boycott never had that touch of brilliance but was still a fine player

 

[BoyBrumby]

Bat like Lara or Tendulkar, or GSC or even Mark Waugh would be a start.

Boycott never had that touch of brilliance but was still a fine player

Yeah, that's how I look at it. It's possible to be a great player (which Kallis is and Boycs must've been within shouting distance of too) without being one to stir the senses. As I said in my previous post, Kallis is a bland batsman IMHO; his innings don't seem to linger long in the memory like those of some of his rivals for the best current batsman crown do.

There's also the impression that Kallis (& Sir Geoffrey before him) gives that he plays mainly for himself. Usually his interests overlap with the team's, but occasionally they don't.

 

[archie mac]

Yeah, that's how I look at it. It's possible to be a great player (which Kallis is and Boycs must've been within shouting distance of too) without being one to stir the senses. As I said in my previous post, Kallis is a bland batsman IMHO; his innings don't seem to linger long in the memory like those of some of his rivals for the best current batsman crown do.

There's also the impression that Kallis (& Sir Geoffrey before him) gives that he plays mainly for himself. Usually his interests overlap with the team's, but occasionally they don't.

Spot on mate, another was Steve Waugh, who gave away the dashing play of 1989 to become a very consistent batsman, but as Ian Chappell said "if you have seen one innings by him, you have seen them all"

It does not mean that you would choose Mark over Steve to win you a match though, but I would certainly rather watch the younger twin any day of the week

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah, despite the fact that he looks allot more convincing on footage then 90% of the batsman that have come before him, faces faster bowlers and has played on bowler friendly South African wickets for the majority of his career.

Excellent post. It's not often a poster makes several points in one post without any of them being correct.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Excellent post. It's not often a poster makes several points in one post without any of them being correct.

Like the post I quoted from you earlier or the one you just posted.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Like the post I quoted from you earlier or the one you just posted.

The one I just posted doesn't make several points, try counting them if you don't believe me.

 

[vic_orthdox]

That's enough bickering between the both of you. Stops now.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

Yeah, same here. He looks rather mechanical, so I can see why people don't enjoy watching him as opposed to, say, the flamboyance of Lara. But I love his dismissal of even the fastest short-pitched bowling through midwicket. It's as though he's swatting a particularly annoying fly.

Also brought the idea of smashing spinners out of the attack into his game lately.

 

[Jono]

a) I've paid to see Kallis bat.
b) I've almost paid to see Kallis bat before Lee clean bowled him with a bouncer/yorker combo before I got to the ground
c) I can understand why people wouldn't pay to see Kallis bat.

 

[Richard]

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.

It's a rep he's highly unlikely ever to shake-off - other than by being plain stupid and deliberately trying to get out, which would clearly serve no-one whatsoever.

Like so many unfair reps, once something's been errantly applied it tends to stick. Same as Nasser Hussain and being a hothead - that was vastly exaggerated all career because of one over-excited journalist in 1990.

 

[GIMH]

a) I've paid to see Kallis bat.
b) I've almost paid to see Kallis bat before Lee clean bowled him with a bouncer/yorker combo before I got to the ground
c) I can understand why people wouldn't pay to see Kallis bat.

Moral of the story, get there earlier

 

[popepouri]

Always thought his square cut was a thing of beauty.

 

[Richard]

The Kallis cut is as close to a power-blow rather than a caress as he ever comes TBH. Still, watchable as power-blows go.

 

[Richard]

Moral of the story, get there earlier

Should be the moral of any story involving people who go to shops.

 

[thierry henry]

#1 most underrated sportsman in the history of sportsmen

Funnily enough it's his bowling which imo is particularly underrated

 

[Jono]

Moral of the story, get there earlier

Quiet you

 

[The Sean]

There seems to be a school of thought - championed by a number of posters on here - that Kallis will only truly be appreciated by future generations, and that in 30 years time people will look at the numbers he put up over such a sustained period and rightly acknowledge him as a genuine all-time great. While I personally believe Kallis to be a phenomenal cricketer, I'm not sure that will necessarily be the case and I'd put forward the example of Ken Barrington.

Barrington of course is remembered as a great player but not as anything more than that - despite the fact that statistically he probably has as strong a claim to the title of the all time second greatest Test batsman as just about anyone. I wasn't alive when he played obviously, but I wonder if back in the 1960s people were pointing out that Barrington's runscoring achievements were nothing short of phenomenal, that they couldn't understand why he didn't get more credit and that by the 1990s and 2000s people would be finally be appreciating him as he deserves and speaking of him in the same breath as Hobbs and Hammond.

Needless to say, it hasn't happened - not only is he rated a class or two below contemporaries like Sobers and Pollock, but there are many who even place him behind numerous other England batsmen of his own era who scored runs at a far lower rate. Tom Graveney, who was a contemporary of all the great England batsmen of that generation, picked an England post-war XI with a 3-4-5 of May-Compton-Cowdrey and no room for Barrington, while Ted Dexter has also been placed above him in other studies. It turns out that we are still asking why a man with such incredible numbers doesn't have a reputation to match and that the relative rankings held by players 40 years ago are still largely held today. I fear that Kallis may suffer the same fate.

 

[fredfertang]

I believe the reputations of Barrington, and indeed Dexter, suffer because the sixties were essentially a very dull era - who talks about the ashes in 61, 62/63, 64 and 65/66? The only memorable series in which Barrington played, against Worrell's WIndies in 1963, was one where he averaged 27.50

 

[The Sean]

Yeah that's probably fair - series' in the early-mid 60s that didn't involve WI aren't especially celebrated, though the '61 series is certainly fondly remembered in certain circles in Australia, due largely to Benaud's heroics in that classic Test at Old Trafford.

It's been put forward too that county cricket was of course much more important back then and Barrington wasn't a particularly prolific scorer in that arena, which was held against him. Personally, I reckon if you're averaging all-but-59 in Test cricket who cares?

 

[Zinzan]

Funnily enough it's his bowling which imo is particularly underrated

Not to mention his slip-fielding