Kallis retires from Tests

[GuyFromLancs]

Why? One wins game with the bat and contributes with the ball, the other wins games with the ball and contributes with the bat. What makes one so obviously superior to the other?

I'm musing over developing a metric analysis to answer this.

But an extra 2+ wickets a match v 30 extra runs per match when you factor Kallis' not outs. No contest

 

[social]

Botham in the first half of his career. Imran for what he evolved into.

As far as allrounders go, i rate the guy who averages 35 with bat and takes 4 wickets per test +, than the guy who averages 55 and takes less than 2.

Sobers is interesting. I just wish he'd bowled seam and nothing else, as I suspect he'd have been even better.

Botham was a complete failure against the best team of his generation whilst Imran's bowling was largely ineffectual for most of the time he was a decent bat

So no

 

[kyear2]

Botham was a complete failure against the best team of his generation whilst Imran's bowling was largely ineffectual for most of the time he was a decent bat

So no

This.

Basically what I said. Additionally Botham's peak was just too short.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Botham was a complete failure against the best team of his generation whilst Imran's bowling was largely ineffectual for most of the time he was a decent bat

So no

How did Kallis do against the pre 07 Aus team?

 

[GuyFromLancs]

This.

Basically what I said. Additionally Botham's peak was just too short.

In his first 51 tests he took about 220 wickets at 23, and 11 centuries whilst averaging (IIRC) 38.

 

[Bahnz]

I'm musing over developing a metric analysis to answer this.

But an extra 2+ wickets a match v 30 extra runs per match when you factor Kallis' not outs. No contest

That's a bit simplistic when you consider that Kallis throughout his career came in to bat higher in the order and so would've been facing a much newer ball and fresher bowlers.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

That's a bit simplistic when you consider that Kallis throughout his career came in to bat higher in the order and so would've been facing a much newer ball and fresher bowlers.

On flatter pitches against some woeful line-ups.

Look, I like Kallis. But this greatest player ever talk is hilarious

 

[Jassy]

First of all, congrats to Jacques Kallis on a magnificent career. Definitely an ATG cricketer and I hope he goes out on a high by scoring some runs

Now onto the discussion about him being Tendulkar+Zaheer - it is misleading, simple as. About as misleading as something like this:

Kallis batting average:55, bowling average 32.5. Difference=22.5
Botham batting average 33.5, bowling average 28.4. Difference=5.1

What do we make of that? Does this Botham was not even in Kallis' league as an all rounder? Nope, it's just misleading like Tendulkar+Zaheer.

This is a retirement thread and Kallis has truly had a great career so this isn't the right place to criticize him. However, just a few things:

1)Purely as a batsman, I would have him behind Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara and possibly even Dravid. He has the record of an ATG batsman but he's not as good as Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara and I am not sure that is up for debate. There is a *small but clear* difference in class there.
2)While his ability to crank it upwards of 140 at 38 cannot be overlooked, he's always been the 4th or 5th bowler and has nowhere near the workload of say, a Zaheer Khan or a Chaminda Vaas. You could argue he was generally brought on when the dirty work had been done. All things considered, he is significantly worse bowler than Zaheer Khan or Vaas or Jimmy Anderson for that matter. Seriously, he is a bloody good cricketer but hand on heart you really cannot say he is Cook+Anderson or Tendulkar+Zaheer or whatever. He is not.

So yes, for me it isn't as clear-cut that he is a MUCH better cricketer than Ponting or Tendulkar or whoever. I would give an understanding nod if someone said he was more valuable and brought more to his team than Ponting or Tendulkar did, but if they made it sound like it was an easy choice I would be pretty skeptical. Really, I'd like to know many England fans would rather have Kallis than Cook+Anderson or how many Indian fans would have Kallis over Tendulkar+Zaheer? Let's not get silly please. Yes it makes for a good screenshot, that is all.

All that said, Jacques Kallis is definitely a great cricketer. There will be a few hisses about the red ink or the sometimes seemingly one dimensional nature of his play, but there is no way you could reasonably argue that he isn't one of the best of all time. SA will definitely miss him. Thank you Kallis, wish you the best.

 

[Cabinet96]

I'm musing over developing a metric analysis to answer this.

But an extra 2+ wickets a match v 30 extra runs per match when you factor Kallis' not outs. No contest

Yeah, but you don't understand. The reason Kallis didn't have a higher WPM than, say, Ishant Sharma, isn't because he's an inferior bowler. He just played with better attacks most of the time and wasn't given the role of opening bowler/spearhead, so wasn't always needed to get that many wickets. Therefore, in this particular instance, the guy who gets the extra runs is more important. If he played for India, for example, he very well could've been the player you'd rather have, if not someone with a higher batting average as well, because he would've had more responsibility as a seamer and less with the bat. Kallis was the perfect man for the side he played with, don't judge him badly because that role might've not been great for another side. If he played for another side, his stats would've been different.

Kallis was a bloke who could bowl outswing at over 140 clicks, even when he reached his mid to late 30's. Don't undermine that because he often played in an attack which featured the likes of Donald, Steyn and Pollock, who were taking all the wickets for themselves.

 

[hendrix]

On flatter pitches against some woeful line-ups.

Look, I like Kallis. But this greatest player ever talk is hilarious

If you wanna argue against greatest player ever talk (which I haven't seen much of in this thread anyway) don't you Ian ****ing Botham as your pillar.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Yeah, but you don't understand. The reason Kallis didn't have a higher WPM than, say, Ishant Sharma, isn't because he's an inferior bowler. He just played with better attacks most of the time and wasn't given the role of opening bowler/spearhead, so wasn't always needed to get that many wickets. Therefore, in this particular instance, the guy who gets the extra runs is more important. If he played for India, for example, he very well could've been the player you'd rather have, if not someone with a higher batting average as well, because he would've had more responsibility as a seamer and less with the bat. Kallis was the perfect man for the side he played with, don't judge him badly because that role might've not been great for another side. If he played for another side, his stats would've been different.

Kallis was a bloke who could bowl outswing at over 140 clicks, even when he reached his mid to late 30's. Don't undermine that because he often played in an attack which featured the likes of Donald, Steyn and Pollock, who were taking all the wickets for themselves.

You may well be right. If he played for New Zealand, was batting at 3 and opening the bowling, he may have rocked everyone's world. But he didn't. So it's pure speculation

 

[uvelocity]

why the **** has botham been mentioned for 3 pages in this thread. woeful.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

First of all, congrats to Jacques Kallis on a magnificent career. Definitely an ATG cricketer and I hope he goes out on a high by scoring some runs

Now onto the discussion about him being Tendulkar+Zaheer - it is misleading, simple as. About as misleading as something like this:

Kallis batting average:55, bowling average 32.5. Difference=22.5
Botham batting average 33.5, bowling average 28.4. Difference=5.1

What do we make of that? Does this Botham was not even in Kallis' league as an all rounder? Nope, it's just misleading like Tendulkar+Zaheer.

This is a retirement thread and Kallis has truly had a great career so this isn't the right place to criticize him. However, just a few things:

1)Purely as a batsman, I would have him behind Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara and possibly even Dravid. He has the record of an ATG batsman but he's not as good as Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara and I am not sure that is up for debate. There is a *small but clear* difference in class there.
2)While his ability to crank it upwards of 140 at 38 cannot be overlooked, he's always been the 4th or 5th bowler and has nowhere near the workload of say, a Zaheer Khan or a Chaminda Vaas. You could argue he was generally brought on when the dirty work had been done. All things considered, he is significantly worse bowler than Zaheer Khan or Vaas or Jimmy Anderson for that matter. Seriously, he is a bloody good cricketer but hand on heart you really cannot say he is Cook+Anderson or Tendulkar+Zaheer or whatever. He is not.

So yes, for me it isn't as clear-cut that he is a MUCH better cricketer than Ponting or Tendulkar or whoever. I would give an understanding nod if someone said he was more valuable and brought more to his team than Ponting or Tendulkar did, but if they made it sound like it was an easy choice I would be pretty skeptical. Really, I'd like to know many England fans would rather have Kallis than Cook+Anderson or how many Indian fans would have Kallis over Tendulkar+Zaheer? Let's not get silly please. Yes it makes for a good screenshot, that is all.

All that said, Jacques Kallis is definitely a great cricketer. There will be a few hisses about the red ink or the sometimes seemingly one dimensional nature of his play, but there is no way you could reasonably argue that he isn't one of the best of all time. SA will definitely miss him. Thank you Kallis, wish you the best.

Good post.

 

[Cabinet96]

You may well be right. If he played for New Zealand, was batting at 3 and opening the bowling, he may have rocked everyone's world. But he didn't. So it's pure speculation

Indeed, it's pure speculation. So stop telling us you'd rather have someone averaging 35 and taking four WPM when that wouldn't have been as beneficial for the side he played for. Kallis played for a side which always had a strong bowling attack, so they only needed a contributor with the ball, not someone who was going to take four wickets a game,

 

[Bahnz]

On flatter pitches against some woeful line-ups.

Well Botham enjoyed some pretty mediocre opposition in the early stages of his career as well. His first 30 or so test matches are stacked full of tests against New Zealand, home tests against India and a tour of the packer deprived Australians.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

why the **** has botham been mentioned for 3 pages in this thread. woeful.

Monk asked me who I considered a true allrounder. I replied ITB's earlier years.

Learn to ****ing read, and you'll see this yourself

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Indeed, it's pure speculation. So stop telling us you'd rather have someone averaging 35 and taking four WPM when that wouldn't have been as beneficial for the side he played for. Kallis played for a side which always had a strong bowling attack, so they only needed a contributor with the ball, not someone who was going to take four wickets a game,

I won't stop telling you anything pal. It's my opnion, is all.
,

 

[uvelocity]

shut the **** up about it and **** off

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Well Botham enjoyed some pretty mediocre opposition in the early stages of his career as well. His first 30 or so test matches are stacked full of tests against New Zealand, home tests against India and a tour of the packer deprived Australians.

That's fair enough. But I think we all understand the difference between batting allrounder and allrounder.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

shut the **** up about it and **** off

Or you'll cry? Tell your Mum?