Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
12 Nov 09 13:25
Date Joined: 22 Oct 09
| Topic/replies: 6,492 | Blogger: positively4thsteet's blog
he's made 10,000 Test runs and taken 250 wickets
Pause Switch to Standard View KP - I truly believe Jacques Kallis...
Show More
Report the nugget November 12, 2009 2:18 PM GMT
Hugely underated, one of the best ten players in the history of Test cricket imo
Report Mr. Moustache November 12, 2009 2:39 PM GMT
Report spassky November 12, 2009 2:41 PM GMT
I have always thought this. Kallis is a top three all-rounder of all time, for me. However, if you look at Bothams all-rounder "ratings" he is probably the best. We forget what a prolific wicket taker Botham was.
Report jimbob1000 November 12, 2009 2:55 PM GMT
Kallis is the best cricketer in the last 15 years in all forms of cricket.
Report chumptastic November 13, 2009 12:09 AM GMT
jimbob, did you not notice guys called SR Tendulkar, BC Lara and SK Warne?
best player in the last 15 years! he's not even the best player in his own team in the last 15 months.
(Abraham Benjamin, before you ask)
Report STEPTOES YARD November 13, 2009 12:15 AM GMT
Kallis as good as anyone in test cricket over last 15 years for me
Report Innocent Bystander November 13, 2009 12:16 AM GMT
I think we've found Ron Nasty / TPIG's new forum identity ;)
Report Max and Paddy November 13, 2009 12:20 AM GMT
IB - I was thinking the same :)
Report chumptastic November 13, 2009 12:21 AM GMT
sorry, but i couldn't disagree more.
at it's basis, test cricket is a team sport.
for a player to reach the highest level, they have to be willing to put themselves "out there" for the team.

if you had to back a cricketer to go and perform for your life, would you really pick kallis? course not.

i'd put him on a par with vvs laxman.
Report Max and Paddy November 13, 2009 12:28 AM GMT
if you had to back a cricketer to go and perform for your life, would you really pick ab de villiers?

Report STEPTOES YARD November 13, 2009 12:28 AM GMT
I would back him over others with a 55 batting avg (ponting,tendulkar and lara etc) to take a 5fer chump ;)
Report Max and Paddy November 13, 2009 12:30 AM GMT
It's no wonder that bint wasn't too gutted when you binned her if you're still on here at 1.30am ;)
Report chumptastic November 13, 2009 12:31 AM GMT
but that isnt a fair comparison, the others aren't all rounders.
it's like claiming that jacob oram is better than hadley because he scores more runs.
ricky, bc and sachin got their average by fronting up and scoring runs. kallis got his by playing for the red ink.
Report Max and Paddy November 13, 2009 12:33 AM GMT
Is that Tony Hadley?

I know this much is true...
Report chumptastic November 13, 2009 12:34 AM GMT
don't take the p!ss, i'm tired.
but the 49ers aren't on sky too often.
Report STEPTOES YARD November 13, 2009 12:35 AM GMT
Not quite chump

Dont think big jake has over 400 test wickets in all fairness
Report chumptastic November 13, 2009 12:39 AM GMT
no, you're right, of course you are.
but kallis is nowhere near the level of those 3. and, looking at just the last 15 years, i would throw steve waugh and warne in there as well.
so, in the last 15 years of a game that has been going for over 130 years, i can name you 5 players better than kallis. you still think he is one of the top 10 players ever?

like i said earlier, i think kallis is comparable to vvs laxman. very talented, capable of genius but, and this is just my opinion, only a fool would claim that he has what it takes to be considered in the very highest bracket.
Report TopTier November 13, 2009 1:11 AM GMT
Kallis has been the at the centre of all SA success in the last 10-15 years. What has rounded of fhis statue is how he has managed to adapt even late in his career to the changes in the game and play odi games perfectly to the modern game and even be one of the best 2020 players around at the moment. The guy is pure class.
Report Deadly Earnest November 13, 2009 10:42 AM GMT
kallis is not better than an average T20 international player all things considered. He ahs a T20i strike rate of around 120. That gets your team on average around 145-150. All that is doing is keeping you in the game, not winning it. His overall(including domestic) t20 sr is even worse at 112. His bowling goes at well over 8's at enormous averages. You can't ever say this bloke is better than an average T20 player based on his performance.

In ODI's he goes at 72 sr. This just isn't up with the really good batsmen. Sure he has a high average at 45, but the 72 sr(which gets your team around 220 on average) is again only keeping your team in the game, not winning anything. In these 2 formats the speed at which you score is absolutely paramount and cannot be glossed over. His ODI bowling has been decent 5th bowlerish over time but no better than that. Averaging 32 at er 4.8 is not special in any way, though by no means poor in his role. He is no great ODI player, merely a decent one, hardly a consistent match winner over time, and especially not in big matches.

So we come to test cricket. For a guy who is a good bat he is a very good bowler, you could never argue with that. Again, he is more a 5th bowler rather than a top 4 bowler who allows you to play an extra batsman. His batting in test cricket is good to very good rather than great. I think when you remove the Bangladesh and Zim tests his average plummets under 50. His strike rate is 44. Really good batsmen, I mean the really good ones, all score appreciably faster than that. That is why you look back and say Botham's Ashes, or Flintoff's Ashes or whatever but it is tougher to find series where Kallis has set the place on fire. I can recall one or two great innings in difficult batting conditions. On good batting tracks though his strike rate is putting his team behind as far as winning matches when compared with other more enterprising players like Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, etc.

So he is neither a batting nor bowling great by any proper measure, at any level of cricket. He is a very good cricketer, don't get me wrong, but would be lucky to be in the 10 most influential players over his career. It is a shame as he definitely has had the ability to be better.
Report RockMonkey November 13, 2009 12:21 PM GMT
Kallis is destined not to be accorded the place in the pantheon of the game that his achievements deserve for one simple reason-he is South African.
The Saffers have neither the clout in the game that would have made an Australian or English Jack Kallis, or an Indian Joginder Kohlis, into a living legend already, nor do they tend to attract the universal affection (usually the opposite) of the great West Indian cricketers which will lead to comparisons with the universally acclaimed 'greatest ever cricketer', Sobers, always being summarily dismissed out of hand.
Report Deadly Earnest November 13, 2009 2:59 PM GMT
I totally disagree with that RM. I think if Duminy or deVilliers or Steyn or Parnell or whoever turn out to be top class they will be accorded all the respect they deserve.

Kallis simply does not strike at a fast enough rate bat or ball to win enough matches for his team to be considered alongside someone like Sobers imo. An effective batting average of 50 at at strike rate of 44 in test cricket is good in a way but not great in this day and age. He has never been better than a 4th seamer fr SA really.

The guy is seen generally for what he is imo. Someone like Gilchrist will always capture the imagination more because he put Australia into winning positions in match after match. Warne, McGrath, Ponting all similar. None of those particularly had more ability than Kallis imo, but all were better cricketers based on their records.
Report mafeking November 13, 2009 3:18 PM GMT
never made a double hundred. pretty damning indictment of someone with his record who's batted at 3 and 4 the vast majority of his career. clear indication he doesn't score quick enough. might grind you down not likely to take the game away from the opposition in a hurry.
Report Ekbalco November 13, 2009 3:34 PM GMT
Magnificent cricketer - would get into a my World XI in any form of the game.
Report Iglesia November 13, 2009 7:38 PM GMT
Career Average

vs Australia - 40.58
vs England - 40.97

Best Ever? PMSL
Report brentford November 13, 2009 7:43 PM GMT
Iglesia, have to say I looked at his stats and wasn't over impressed with the breakdown.
Report brentford November 13, 2009 7:46 PM GMT
my non stat perception is a very good test batsman and under rated bowler, certainly a very ordinairy 20/20 player and a slightly indeterminate qulaity 50 over player as his s/r as Deadly mentioned is quite low for a prolific bat (knew that one before I looked it up) but that does in turn allow innings to be built around platforms that makes Deadly's direct link to 50 over score misleading.
Report Deadly Earnest November 14, 2009 7:40 AM GMT
I don't think it is misleading Brent. What you are saying is what I am saying I think, these type of innings keep you in the game and allow other players to win you the game if good enough. I would argue though it is not the sheet anchor winning you the game, he is doing something that is not that difficult to do, occupying at 70ish strike rate.

It is undeniable that if one guy scores at a rate that would see the team score to 220 but at a very high average that the wickets in hand can be used to boost the score as the innings progresses. My problem is that I don't think that is the best way to construct an innings in ODI's. It means you are often asking later batsmen to score at higher than a run a ball just to get to a decent score. If a couple get set then get out before doing any damage, you are in a terrible hole.

For the record, I think that a top order player shouuld have a strike rate of at least 78 or so to be considered very good. It is arguable in fact that at lower strike rates then the higher your average, the more counter productive your batting has been.
Report positively4thsteet November 14, 2009 9:16 AM GMT
Got to admit Pollock had a great record, comparable with Glenn McGrath, but he averaged 30 with the bat!!!!

maybe what rockmonkey says makes sense. In terms of statistics alone, Pollock and Kallis are awesome cricketers. pollock averaging about 10 more runs with the bat than with ball, an kallis closer to 25 i think.
Report Deadly Earnest November 14, 2009 11:00 AM GMT
Pollock a better all round cricketer than Kallis imo, in fact I hold him in very high esteem. Genuine champion bowler and good enough to hold down number 7 with the bat effectively in any form of cricket. Thinking of his batting, he was probably just the type of player who was handicapped by the Kallis approach.
Report heinze58 November 14, 2009 1:27 PM GMT
Best all-rounder ever, probably Gary Sobres

Last thirty years Beefy / Imran / Hadlee / Kapil / Wasim Akram

To earn the tag of "best ever" you need to have some flair and be less Boycottesque
Report far cough November 14, 2009 8:44 PM GMT
Play for your life? Steve Waugh
Report Badsworth November 14, 2009 9:17 PM GMT
The top 10 ICC best ever batting ratings show that Kallis is probably better than people give him credit for, and also Ponting for that matter. Lara is 23th & Tendulka is 26th.
ID Rat. Name Nat. Career Best Rating
1 961 D.G. Bradman AUS 961 v India, 06/02/1948
2 945 L. Hutton ENG 945 v West Indies, 30/03/1954
3 942 J.B. Hobbs ENG 942 v Australia, 19/08/1912
3 942 R.T. Ponting AUS 942 v England, 01/12/2006
5 941 P.B.H. May ENG 941 v Australia, 23/08/1956
6 938 C.L. Walcott WI 938 v Australia, 11/06/1955
6 938 I.V.A. Richards WI 938 v England, 27/03/1981
6 938 G.S. Sobers WI 938 v India, 13/01/1967
6 938 K.C. Sangakkara SL 938 v England, 01/12/2007
10 935 M.L. Hayden AUS 935 v England, 07/11/2002
10 935 J.H. Kallis SA 935 v New Zealand, 18/11/2007
Comparing the all rounder rating Sobers top rating was 669 & Kallis' top rating was 616. I'm not sure if these ratings carry any relevance, I'm sure someone will point out that they are pretty meaningless.
Report positively4thsteet November 14, 2009 9:48 PM GMT
those ratings were best "at their peak" . not necessarily indicative of their
lifetime achievement
Report Deadly Earnest November 15, 2009 12:32 PM GMT
Those ratings take no account whatsoever of the speed at which you score, and when you are playing for a relatively strong team the speed at which you score is very important. Playing for a relatively weak team, volume of runs is of much greater importance.
Report chumptastic November 15, 2009 1:14 PM GMT
Lara is 23th

did this not tell you something about how skewed that points system is?

or do you think there have been 22 better batsmen than lara?

Report Deadly Earnest November 15, 2009 1:16 PM GMT
Who is the numpty Chump and why?
Report chumptastic November 15, 2009 1:21 PM GMT
your man badsworth for not realising that the points system must be skewed for lara to be rated as low as 23rd.
was that not obvious?
Report Deadly Earnest November 15, 2009 1:56 PM GMT
Exceedingly harsh when he qualified the figures by writing he was not sure the ratings had any relevance and that he expected someone to point out the flaw in them.

It was a perfectly good post imo and yours totally out of order.
Report kublai November 15, 2009 4:33 PM GMT
A rough and ready way of comparing all-rounders is (Batting Ave - Bowling Ave). Kallis is right at the top with Sobers by this measurement.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.


Instance ID: 13539