Jacques Kallis vs Allan Border

[Burgey]

He was supposed to be the opposite of the role given to him by his team, because you decided it?

I'm declaring that Border was supposed to be a hard hitting right arm quick, and marking him down for his failure to match my expectations.

Border was a hard hitting right arm quick tbf.

 

[ankitj]

The thing in Kallis' case that people forget is that he was supposed to be the team's alpha aggressive bat, not the guy who others bat around. They had several other good accumulators around him to set a platform. Ideally he should have been the one to intimidate and turn the screws which he showed only later in his career that he was capable of.

Border played mostly for a much weaker lineup, so him grinding it out was more justified as a form of damage control.

Now you are just making stuff up.

 

[StephenZA]

Now you are just continuing to make stuff up.

ftfy

 

[PlayerComparisons]

The thing in Kallis' case that people forget is that he was supposed to be the team's alpha aggressive bat, not the guy who others bat around. They had several other good accumulators around him to set a platform. Ideally he should have been the one to intimidate and turn the screws which he showed only later in his career that he was capable of.

Border played mostly for a much weaker lineup, so him grinding it out was more justified as a form of damage control.

Why did Kallis need to bat faster though? How many games did Kallis actually cause South Africa to lose by batting too slowly?

It also seems quite unfair to expect Kallis to bat quickly but not expect Border (and Waugh) to as well.

 

[Bolo.]

Not because I decided it, because his position demanded it.

Let's put the fact that your theory is wrong aside... enough people have explained why it is wrong across enough threads.

I would like to hear your take on why the team gave him instructions to reign it in and bat slower through... seems a bit strange that they were asking him to bat in a way he was not 'supposed' to.

 

[Gob]

While I agree on the fact that Kallis played a lot in the flat pitch era, RSA is the only country to consistently provide spicy wickets throughout that period. That shouldn't be forgotten

 

[Gob]

Close poll. Disappointed that @Burgey hadn't made two fake accounts to tip this to AB

 

[BazBall21]

If you watch cricket, then you know cricket is a momentum game. Scoring quicker is also about putting pressure on the opposition.

Quality bowlers will prefer bowling to guys like Dravid and Kallis as they are predictable. I remember a quote from Mohd Asif who said he liked to bowl to Dravid since he allowed him to get into his own rhythm. Whereas once Lara gets on top of you, you lose control of the game.

And this is not even mentioning those situations when your team is short on time and you need to accelerate to chase or put a score on the board for the opposition, something Kallis was known to be poor at.

That is probably true tbh. People think bats that are cautious and very patient etc are the only ones who would have a chance against McGrath but it is probably the other way round. There are some benefits to slow scorers in Tests, but they sometimes let the very best bowlers settle into rhythm. Dravid averaged 42 against bowlers that averaged 28 or less at the time of delivery and that of course was mostly in a batting era. Not sure on Kallis under that filter but he averages 42 against better than median bowling attacks which is definitely bottom half of the 10K club.

 

[Prince EWS]

Close poll. Disappointed that @Burgey hadn't made two fake accounts to tip this to AB

#stopthecount

 

[trundler]

I haven't voted because I genuinely think they're both overrated and worse than Dravid/Miandad.

 

[subshakerz]

Why did Kallis need to bat faster though? How many games did Kallis actually cause South Africa to lose by batting too slowly?

It also seems quite unfair to expect Kallis to bat quickly but not expect Border (and Waugh) to as well.

Kallis being criticized for slow one-dimensional batting which went against SA was a recurring theme for him in the 2000s. Best example is the 2nd test in the 2005 series against Australia.

Border and Waugh had different roles in their respective sides than Kallis.

 

[subshakerz]

While I agree on the fact that Kallis played a lot in the flat pitch era, RSA is the only country to consistently provide spicy wickets throughout that period. That shouldn't be forgotten

By that measure, we should give Steyn less credit for doing well in that era too

 

[subshakerz]

Let's put the fact that your theory is wrong aside... enough people have explained why it is wrong across enough threads.

I would like to hear your take on why the team gave him instructions to reign it in and bat slower through... seems a bit strange that they were asking him to bat in a way he was not 'supposed' to.

Because they were freaking SA and their entire approach for most of the post-readmission period was conservative bunker mentality. Kallis was the poster child of that approach. Just build and accumulate to set safe scores.

Right from their first test upon return it was clear that this was a team more concerned with not losing than taking chances and winning. No wonder Kallis adopted the same style, I doubt he was instructed to do so.

 

[BazBall21]

Dravid's strategy was to grind the best bowlers out of the attack and score against the weaker bowlers. This was very successful on the whole in an era of relatively shallower attacks and of course he was a phenomenal player on tough pitches. But in this era of deeper attacks, he would either have to become more aggressive or would get very stuck at times.
Not saying batting approach is automatically correlative with success against great bowlers. This is just a factor. Someone like Hayden was very aggressive but he had his issues against quality pace because of his technique. KP got himself out a lot with impatience and he also didn't have the best technique etc.
If a slow-scorer has a better record against quality bowlers and across conditions etc than a fast-scorer then ofc they're better. The limited scoring rate/options is just sometimes one of the explanations why that player like Dravid/Kallis/Gavaskar has a significant drop off against the best. Kohli, Root and Sehwag average more than Dravid against bowlers that average 28 or less which is interesting.

 

[subshakerz]

The funny thing is all these posters extolling Kallis as this stoic batting legend are in reality endorsing the brand of conservative, bland, safety-first cricket the guy actually represented.

 

[subshakerz]

Dravid's strategy was to grind the best bowlers out of the attack and score against the weaker bowlers. This was very successful on the whole in an era of relatively shallower attacks and of course he was a phenomenal player on tough pitches. But in this era of deeper attacks, he would either have to become more aggressive or would get very stuck at times.
Not saying batting approach is automatically correlative with success against great bowlers. This is just a factor. Someone like Hayden was very aggressive but he had his issues against quality pace because of his technique. KP got himself out a lot with impatience and he also didn't have the best technique etc.
If a slow-scorer has a better record against quality bowlers and across conditions etc than a fast-scorer then ofc they're better. The limited scoring rate/options is just sometimes one of the explanations why that player like Dravid/Kallis/Gavaskar has a significant drop off against the best. Kohli, Root and Sehwag average more than Dravid against bowlers that average 28 or less which is interesting.

Dravid's strategy wouldnt have worked se well if he wasnt surrounded by strokemakers like Sehwag, Tendulkar and Laxman though.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

The funny thing is all these posters extolling Kallis as this stoic batting legend are in reality endorsing the brand of conservative, bland, safety-first cricket the guy actually represented.

Yes. Preferring the more stoic, significantly slower scoring Border to Kallis definitely shows your love for attacking cricket.

 

[Himannv]

Kallis is obviously a prank batsman and an overrated hack. He’s not good enough to shine Border’s shoes.

 

[Bolo.]

Because they were freaking SA and their entire approach for most of the post-readmission period was conservative bunker mentality. Kallis was the poster child of that approach. Just build and accumulate to set safe scores.

Right from their first test upon return it was clear that this was a team more concerned with not losing than taking chances and winning. No wonder Kallis adopted the same style, I doubt he was instructed to do so.

He started under Cronje, not Wessels. Very different captains in tests. Yes, he was told to be solid, and with good reason... RSA openers were all averaging in the 20s or 30s from readmission until long after he was established. Even if you didn't follow enough RSA cricket to realize how many games guys like bacher and hudson got, or how weak a number of the upper-middle order were early career cos they finished with decent numbers, neither you nor Kallis get to make an executive call on team strategy.

 

[honestbharani]

Kallis is obviously a prank batsman and an overrated hack. He’s not good enough to shine Border’s shoes.

You mean both are not as good as Sanga, right?