What's new

How highly do you rate Jacques Kallis as a pure batsman?

Hitman

Hitman

Senior T20I Player
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Runs
17,314
I have often asked this question to myself and to a lot of my friends. I really want to know from posters here how good they think he was as a pure batsman.
 
As great as the likes of Viv, Sobers, Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Miandad, Gavasker, Dravid, Younis, Sangakkara.
 
Would've made any team in the world just for his batting. In fact, I think he would make most All time XI's just for his batting. He was just simply so brutal. Had all qualities and at their zenith. He could go on an epic blockathon and then also tear you apart with is power. He could slog but also play with class. To be equally successful in Twenty20 leagues and Test cricket speaks volumes of how good a batsman he was. No wonder he ended up with 40+ centuries in Tests.

He really has a shot at the GOAT South African Bat. And to get a 100 in his very last match goes on to show he retired in peak form. Even at old age he was no mediocre player.

Massively underrated as purely a batsman by most cricket fans. The travesty of him also being an amazing bowler is that he will always be remembered as a great, or perhaps even one of the best all rounders but never as an ATG batsman.
 
Make no mistake, I'd definitely rate him as the 2nd best all rounder ever after the great Garry Sobers, followed by Keith Miller.
 
He is one of those that i would give my sister or daughter s hand in marriage the consistency and character of the person was remarkable,remember a 5 match ODI when Saffers came to India eventhough they had lost the match this guy was diving at boundary like there is so much to go.

Would never question his dedication towards his team,top bloke although could not accelerate like many batsmen but was very good bowler.
 
JaDed said:
Would never question his dedication towards his team,top bloke although could not accelerate like many batsmen but was very good bowler.
Click to expand...
Also had no heart for the big moment. Australia trolled him relentlessly in the World Cup in West Indies, about how he only plays for records conservatively. He tried to come out to last it against McGrath and was dismissed pretty early.
 
Kallis is the premier South African batsman. No South African has done more with the bat.

Forget South Africa, he's arguably better than any English, Pakistani, Sri Lankan and Kiwi batsman. Better than any Indian batsman, barring Sachin.

Add his bowling and slip fielding to his immense stature as a batsman and you have an amazing cricketer. #2 on my list of the greatest cricketers of the last 50 years, behind only Imran.

To excell in one field is great, to do so in two or three is outstanding and Kallis was an outstanding cricketer. The Terminator of the cricketing world. An emotionless machine that would not fail in doing his job.
 
Pete Rose said:
Also had no heart for the big moment. Australia trolled him relentlessly in the World Cup in West Indies, about how he only plays for records conservatively. He tried to come out to last it against McGrath and was dismissed pretty early.
Click to expand...

South Africa owe him its only ICC trophy. He was imperious in the 1998 Champions Trophy with both bat and ball. However, don't rate him highly as a Limited Overs cricketer in general. Lacked impact, and the longer he stayed at the crease in tense matches, the better for the opposition. Decent enough sample size to arrive at that conclusion. Outstanding Test cricketer though, but terribly devoid of charisma and star quality.
 
1) Imran Khan
2) Jacques Kallis
3) Vivian Richards

^ Best three cricketers of the last 50 years.
 
Hitman said:
Make no mistake, I'd definitely rate him as the 2nd best all rounder ever after the great Garry Sobers, followed by Keith Miller.
Click to expand...

Gilchrist should be classified as an all rounder
 
Mamoon said:
South Africa owe him its only ICC trophy. He was imperious in the 1998 Champions Trophy with both bat and ball. However, don't rate him highly as a Limited Overs cricketer in general. Lacked impact, and the longer he stayed at the crease in tense matches, the better for the opposition. Decent enough sample size to arrive at that conclusion. Outstanding Test cricketer though, but terribly devoid of charisma and star quality.
Click to expand...

Even on the test record....its a bit suspect. By that I mean he was outstanding against all teams (from memory) except against the strongest of his era, Australia. He has runs against them, but nothing truly outstanding. I dont recall if he had any major impact on the first series australia lost at home after a long time (2008?)
 
ATG.. however, he doesn't have many match changing standout performances in his 17 year long career. He has been accused of being a second fiddle in most of his great knocks.

However, the fact that he has got only two 200s in a total of 166 tests and still went on to manage a career avg of 55 when he retired shows that his consistency level was simply phenomenal and hence he is an all time great for me. He is arguably the most consistent performer of all time with the bat IMO..
 
Last edited:
He was great, but I rather watch Chanderpaul and Dravid watching Steve Waugh paint a picture of Pujara than watch him bat.
 
Maybe didn't have the flair but was still effective especially in tests. Good player of spin as well.

I rate him highly as a batsmen but for me he's behind Punter, Sachin, and Lara.
 
Right there among the best in Tests. Rate him higher than his contemporaries in tests. In ODIs, a level below the best of his era.
 
Absolute Legend and one hell of a reliable batsmen. Extremely consistent against all teams and could play anywhere (Asia, Aus etc)

The reason he doesn't get the love he deserves is because he was not aesthetically pleasing. It took a lot of patience to see him grind out runs like a robot.

That being said he improved his scoring pace later on his career and was far more attacking after he started playing IPL.
 
All-time great and South Africa's greatest ever. I get why he was criticized occasionally for what could be perceived as selfish batting, but he was a batting purist's dream of a player. Add in the bowling and slip fielding and you literally have a once in a generation cricketer.
 
Few ATGs have a flawless record but Kallis's is close. Never saw Graeme Pollock, and he didn't get to play as long as Kallis did. So I don't think he had an equal an SA's history.

Kallis had an exceptional consistency and was an outstanding slipper, and a more than useful bowler. He could've been a better bowler, but even as a batsman he is on par with his generation's best.

Don't think ATG need to be unselfish to be in the highest echelons.

Neither do they have to be pretty to watch. Cover drive was brutal and exaggerated even if wasn't in Amla's class.
 
45 100s that includes 25 against Australia, Pakistan, NZ, and England. Add another 8 against WI who had a a very good pace bowling attack until 2001, Kallis in an undisputed ATG batsman.

Here is a fun fact:

In his first 30 matches, he averaged just 40.

In his next 136 matches, he averaged almost 59.

In SA (the most difficult place to bat as #3), he averaged 57. Averages 58 in India and 83 in Pakistan. Kallis was the most dependable batsman after Tendulkar in all conditions.
 
he is the least memorable ATG player. You can't argue with his performances, but i was never interested when he was batting
 
pakistanigoneaussie said:
he is the least memorable ATG player. You can't argue with his performances, but i was never interested when he was batting
Click to expand...

He's definitely memorable which is why people are talking about him 3-4 years after his retirement.
 
Obviously right up there in Tests but don't really rate him in LOIs even as an all-rounder.
 
Bilal7 said:
He's definitely memorable which is why people are talking about him 3-4 years after his retirement.
Click to expand...

Memorable because of the pure weight of numbers or memorable because he was exciting ? There is a difference

It's a paradox, like how the hypothetical most boring man in the word because memorable purely because he is the most boring man.
 
pakistanigoneaussie said:
Memorable because of the pure weight of numbers or memorable because he was exciting ? There is a difference

It's a paradox, like how the hypothetical most boring man in the word because memorable purely because he is the most boring man.
Click to expand...

Having great numbers means he was great at doing his job which was to score runs. He was better batsman than any Pakistani ever. You can call him boring but that doesn't lower his status one bit.
 
Very effective all-round player, but really cumbersome to watch.

He spent the most of the front end of his career grinding runs against the West Indies, which was the most soulless dross you could endure.

On the plus side, he batted, bowled, played all formats and has great numbers to show.
 
Bilal7 said:
Having great numbers means he was great at doing his job which was to score runs. He was better batsman than any Pakistani ever. You can call him boring but that doesn't lower his status one bit.
Click to expand...

lol thats exactly what i said in my opening post
 
[MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] was slightly better than Tendulkar in Tests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Major
How do you rate the PSL scouts?
Replies
66
Views
2K
TalentSpotterPk
TalentSpotterPk
MenInG
Salman Ali Agha - How do you rate him as T20I captain of Pakistan?
2
Replies
114
Views
3K
RedwoodOriginal
RedwoodOriginal
sweep_shot
As you grow older, do you become more fearless?
Replies
13
Views
171
Bhaijaan
Bhaijaan
The Bald Eagle
"Win is a win, no matter who you win against, if we lose to these teams, then we get criticized too": Hassan Ali
Replies
21
Views
1K
ravisurya
R
Pak_Jazba
Loss of passion for cricket in future generations?
Replies
10
Views
514
Rana
Rana
Back
Top