Why is Jacques Kallis underrated?

[Ted123]

Statistically, he is better than Tendulkar and as a bowler, he avgs 31 with the bowl. These numbers are equivalent to Sobers numbers. He also has 45 tests hundreds.

Since scoring big shows impact of the batsmen then why is Kallis so underrated in tests?

He also avgs 60+ in Asia. Shouldn't he be among top tier ATG?

 

[Varun]

He's grade A, but played for South Africa and didn't have a flashy element - so went under the radar.

 

[Hamza_]

Probably due to rather slow style of batting.

Although he was superb performer for SA in test matches, very solid.

 

[Ab Fan]

Lacked the ability to win big games for his team on his own and was also boring to watch.

 

[Ted123]

Lacked the ability to win big games for his team on his own and was also boring to watch.

How do we analyse this? 45 hundreds and he can't win games for his team?

 

[Hitman]

Was extremely dull and boring to watch. Couldn't capture the imagination of the fans much like Sobers, Viv, Sachin or Lara did.

 

[Ab Fan]

How do we analyse this? 45 hundreds and he can't win games for his team?

Most of his hundreds have come when someone else already stole the show. He doesn't have many hundreds as a standout performer in the team and hasn't really contributed much to some of SA's greatest away wins.

He scored at a slow pace and is boring to watch. So, doesn't gets enough hype or appreciation either.

 

[Ab Fan]

Most of his hundreds have come when someone else already stole the show.

I mean in supporting role not when someone else already stole the show. Supporting role knocks have its own value too but you won't get hype with those knocks. Hence, underrated.

 

[shane]

I dunno, I just never really liked Kallis as a player. He was just very....boring.

 

[Robert]

Didn’t play exciting innings. Got 500 runs on the Vaughan tour of SA that England won, and nobody noticed.

Sometimes went AWOL under pressure.

Minnowbasher with the ball.

Overshadowed by more charismatic Saffer team-mates.

 

[Proactive_]

No media backing and propaganda like there is for the Indian players for instance.

 

[Ted123]

Didn’t play exciting innings. Got 500 runs on the Vaughan tour of SA that England won, and nobody noticed.

Sometimes went AWOL under pressure.

Minnowbasher with the ball.

Overshadowed by more <B> charismatic Saffer team-mates</B>.

For example??

 

[austerlitz]

Big tournament failure - particularly world cups.
Lots of meaningless hundreds
Minnow basher
Post 2000 great on flat wickets and weak bowling attacks
Wasn't a 'dangerous' batsman who would take away the game from the opposition.

 

[ipl_fan]

No media backing and propaganda like there is for the Indian players for instance.

I am pretty sure you can bring Indian Cricketers in to discussion even in a North Korea - South Korea thread.

 

[ipl_fan]

Wasn't pleasing to the eye.

Craze of an international cricketer is equally determined by small screen friendliness. Kallis is miles behind in this.

 

[Savak]

I believe it has to do with his meek personality as well, he apparently wasn't very social and did not like giving interviews or chilling out in the media. Cricketers don't become famous for just their cricket alone, it also matters how well they connect with the fans and their audience as well

 

[wrongun]

He never took control of a match or shredded an attack as a test batsman. He wasn't a match winner. You could contain Kallis & knock over everyone else. That was a luxury the premier bats of the same era never allowed you- Lara, Ponting, Hayden, Gilchrist, even Sachin had several more gears.

He was a great accumulator.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Charisma matters a lot.

Statistically he is on par with ATG batsmen but then, as they say, Cricket ain't played on excel spread sheets.

IMO, Shahid Afridi is opposite of Kallis: Afridi got a lot of charisma and his quick 30s in JAMODIs are remembered/cherished by fans yet Kallis' 100s in Tests are forgotten.



Charisma matters, indeed.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Big tournament failure - particularly world cups.
Lots of meaningless hundreds
Minnow basher
Post 2000 great on flat wickets and weak bowling attacks
Wasn't a 'dangerous' batsman who would take away the game from the opposition.

In the 1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy, the only ICC trophy we've ever won, he made 113 off 100 in the semi-final and took 5-30 in the final. Winning the MoM award for the final and player of the series award for the tournament.

In tests, besides his excellent stats, he's won more MoM awards than any other player.

I feel your description of him is inaccurate.

He was rather dull though...

 

[jaisan]

Fabulous player. But people remember only his odi batting which is as slow as dravid . But actually has more attcking shots than Dravid. Just look at his sixes count in test cricket

 

[RamLakhan]

He is not on par with Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara... (Though stats are good) He is comparable with Dravid... Some people say Dravid also as underrated.... So Dravid also has similar issues... Just because they are kind of "wall" to their respective teams doesn't put them at the top. Tendulkar, Lara, etc, did that extra bit of taking charge against the opposition, they had that extra skill, motivation & x-factor. But you also need these kind of supportive players who are like supporting actors in movies... Just that you should not compare them with lead players...

I would also go on to say that players like Sehwag, Gayle, Afridi, etc, became more popular than Kallis, Dravid, etc (or more talked about rather) because of this similar reasons. These players are still like Heroes of less known or less number of movies, but they are popular or star-figures to people! Kallis, Dravid, etc, are like Veteran-Supporting Actors who consistently delivered top-class performances but in that "supportive" role!

 

[Last Monetarist]

Kallis was the fourth best batsman of his generation behind Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting. It's unfortunate he played in the same era as the aforementioned three men, if he was starting out 15 years later he would be rated the best batsman in the world. He is South Africa's greatest cricketer, and arguably their best batsman of all time although connoisseurs who watched Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock would contend otherwise. He is the best South African batsman that I've seen bat live though.

 

[Hitman]

Kallis was the fourth best batsman of his generation behind Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting. It's unfortunate he played in the same era as the aforementioned three men, if he was starting out 15 years later he would be rated the best batsman in the world. He is South Africa's greatest cricketer, and arguably their best batsman of all time although connoisseurs who watched Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock would contend otherwise. He is the best South African batsman that I've seen bat live though.

Would you rate him better than Sangakkara, Dravid and Hayden?

 

[Hitman]

Anyways, being effective is different from being attractive to watch. Kallis was effective but not at all attractive or entertaining to watch, much like Dravid. As a result both of them are respected, but they do not have a very strong fan base who often found them dull and boring to watch.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Would you rate him better than Sangakkara, Dravid and Hayden?

Kallis was better than Sangakkara and Hayden, both of whom I feel have skewed statistical records due to the era and conditions they played in, which is not their fault of course.

The comparison with Dravid can veer either way and I won't be miffed at seeing people rating Dravid ahead of Kallis. I just felt that Kallis played within himself a lot of the time as he rigidly stuck to his designated role within the team, occasionally detrimentally so to his own image among fans. He could have played in a more aggressive manner if he chose to, whereas with Dravid I don't really think that was the case. The difference was marginal though.

 

[Diffusion]

Because he was dead boring batsman, playing in an era full of players who were just as effective but far more entertaining. Plus he doesn't really have any 'iconic' innings to make up for that fact.

 

[CricFan2012]

Overrated batsman who never got to bat against Donald, Steyn, Pollock because they were in the same team as him.

Tendulkar will always be the better batsman because he faced the superior South African attack while he was unable to boost his average by playing against the Indian bowlers who were mediocre in tests.

 

[Hitman]

Ian Chappell said it best during a Cricinfo talk show back in 2006 that as a captain, the players who kept him awake at night were guys like Sobers, Pollock, Viv. Guys who could get a big score and get it quickly. Someone like Boycott didn't keep him awake at night, infact he put him to sleep during the day because if he'd get a 150+ score, it would take him so long that it made Chappell's team's chances of saving the game much greater.

Chappell was then asked to pick the batsmen from the modern era whom he would put in the same category as the ones he mentioned before, and he took 3 names - Sachin, Lara and Ponting.

 

[Savak]

I am struggling to figure out a true match winning knock where he singlehandedly won a game for SA. Or a knock where his team was in huge trouble and he not only salvaged the situation but took his team from the brink of defeat to victory. I believe given that Cricket wasn't such a big sport in South Africa, his achievements tended to go in the background and he wasn't celebrated as much in his country.

 

[Ab Fan]

Ian Chappell said it best during a Cricinfo talk show back in 2006 that as a captain, the players who kept him awake at night were guys like Sobers, Pollock, Viv. Guys who could get a big score and get it quickly. Someone like Boycott didn't keep him awake at night, infact he put him to sleep during the day because if he'd get a 150+ score, it would take him so long that it made Chappell's team's chances of saving the game much greater.

Chappell was then asked to pick the batsmen from the modern era whom he would put in the same category as the ones he mentioned before, and he took 3 names - Sachin, Lara and Ponting.

Scoring slow isn't the issue with Kallis. Look Gavaskar is rated as the greatest opener post war and gets rated highly but he was slow scorer.

Issue with Kallis is that he doesn't have knocks as highly celebrated as some of other greats , then he never really stood against any of the ATG bowlers, is boring and dull to watch and atlast being a Saffer doesn't really help either.

 

[Ab Fan]

I am struggling to figure out a true match winning knock where he singlehandedly won a game for SA. Or a knock where his team was in huge trouble and he not only salvaged the situation but took his team from the brink of defeat to victory. I believe given that Cricket wasn't such a big sport in South Africa, his achievements tended to go in the background and he wasn't celebrated as much in his country.

In a career of over 18 years, he has failed to win a single match for SA as a standout performer in any of Australia, England and India while one can recall one or two for Smith, Amla and ABDV all with shorter career span than Kallis.

 

[bujhee kom]

No an impact player. Slow and boring, a grinder. Not in the class of Lara and co. Tier 2 ATG.

 

[Hitman]

In a career of over 18 years, he has failed to win a single match for SA as a standout performer in any of Australia, England and India while one can recall one or two for Smith, Amla and ABDV all with shorter career span than Kallis.

It's not just about winning a match, it's about scoring stand out aggressive innings. Winning a match depends on many factors beyond the control of a player.

 

[Raja Sab]

I don't think he's underrated by any means. One of the best middle order batsman I've seen. Clearly up there with the likes of Miandad, Younis, Lara, Martyn, Dravid

 

[Ocelot]

Lol, people who are saying he is uncharasmatic, I mean what charisma does Sachin have? He was also a complete bland and drab personality.

 

[Savak]

Lol, people who are saying he is uncharasmatic, I mean what charisma does Sachin have? He was also a complete bland and drab personality.

Tendulkar benefited from being from a Cricket mad country, he didn't need to go to the media, advertisers, they all came to him. Kallis in comparison comes from a country where Cricket is behind rugby, foot ball in terms of popularity.

 

[Ab Fan]

Tendulkar performed against some of the best bowlers in the world like Warne, Steyn and Ambrose and did unbelievable stuffs from young age.

Kallis failed against most of the ATG bowlers he faced and was pretty mediocre at young age and in the latter part was often overshadowed by Smith or Amla.

Also, Tendulkar was an aggressive batsmen and his OdI exploits made it for anything less memorable in tests unlike it was for Kallis.

 

[sshakir411]

He was a boring player. Great technique and very strong all around...but watching him bat was a snooze fest. This is coming from someone who tried to copy Kallis (while batting ofc).

 

[sshakir411]

Lol, people who are saying he is uncharasmatic, I mean what charisma does Sachin have? He was also a complete bland and drab personality.

LOL. Sachin's appeal was that he was the only player Indians could support and not get disappointed in the 90s. He did cash in to the opportunity though by always scoring runs, regardless of the outcome.

 

[Buffet]

No stand out performance is selective memory to be honest.


------------------------------


110, 88*, 2/34 and 5/90, 4th Test vs West Indies at Cape Town 1998-99

Crucial roles with both bat and ball to help his country win by 149 runs against a strong West Indies side. 200+ runs + 7 wickets , as gun as it can get.

---------------


155 & 100*, 1st Test v Pakistan at Karachi 2007-08

South Africa batted first and scored a challenging 450 in their first innings, which was built around a magnificent 155 by Kallis.

Leading by 159, South Africa were in trouble in their second innings at 3 for 43, before Kallis came to the rescue again, this time making an unbeaten 100. South Africa went on to win the game by 160 runs and the series 1-0.

---------------

1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy - MOM in final and player of the series in only ICC tournament won by South Africa

113 (100 ) in the semi-final and took 5-30 in the final.

--------------

101 - 1st Test vs Australia at Melbourne 1997

One of the most memorable match saving knock in Aus against ATG bowlers. The Test was dominated by Australia and South Africa were set 381 to win in the last innings, with one and a half days left in the match. Kallis stood firm for nearly 300 balls.

 

[Haz95]

He's not from Aus, India or England. Although his bowling is not as good as his stats suggest.

 

[Mamoon]

No stand out performance is selective memory to be honest.


------------------------------


110, 88*, 2/34 and 5/90, 4th Test vs West Indies at Cape Town 1998-99

Crucial roles with both bat and ball to help his country win by 149 runs against a strong West Indies side. 200+ runs + 7 wickets , as gun as it can get.

---------------


155 & 100*, 1st Test v Pakistan at Karachi 2007-08

South Africa batted first and scored a challenging 450 in their first innings, which was built around a magnificent 155 by Kallis.

Leading by 159, South Africa were in trouble in their second innings at 3 for 43, before Kallis came to the rescue again, this time making an unbeaten 100. South Africa went on to win the game by 160 runs and the series 1-0.

---------------

1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy - MOM in final and player of the series in only ICC tournament won by South Africa

113 (100 ) in the semi-final and took 5-30 in the final.

--------------

101 - 1st Test vs Australia at Melbourne 1997

One of the most memorable match saving knock in Aus against ATG bowlers. The Test was dominated by Australia and South Africa were set 381 to win in the last innings, with one and a half days left in the match. Kallis stood firm for nearly 300 balls.

He played nearly 70% of his matches in the 2000s, and the fact that you could only think of one standout performance off the top of your head in that decade reinforces the belief that compared to other ATGs, he has produced far less memorable and eye catching performances.

I’m sure if you dig deep you can come up with more performances in the 2000s, but when it comes to other ATGs, you probably wouldn’t have to think hard to come up with multiple standout performances.

 

[Buffet]

He played nearly 70% of his matches in the 2000s, and the fact that you could only think of one standout performance off the top of your head in that decade reinforces the belief that compared to other ATGs, he has produced far less memorable and eye catching performances.

I’m sure if you dig deep you can come up with more performances in the 2000s, but when it comes to other ATGs, you probably wouldn’t have to think hard to come up with multiple standout performances.

It has also a lot do with with batsmen like Lara and SRT were more attractive to watch. I will personally watch SRT over Kallis. Anyway, I was responding to Kallis not having any standout performance. I remembered more example, but it wasn't necessary to list them to prove that he has memorable performances.

 

[Hasan123]

Didn't bat at a quick tempo and also his personality is bland. An ATG player for me but not in the class of the elite batsmen such as Sachin,Lara,Viv,etc.

 

[Ab Fan]

It has also a lot do with with batsmen like Lara and SRT were more attractive to watch. I will personally watch SRT over Kallis. Anyway, I was responding to Kallis not having any standout performance. I remembered more example, but it wasn't necessary to list them to prove that he has memorable performances.

Also performances against strongest of the bowling attacks.

You could recall Tendulkar dismantling Warne or Ambrose or Steyn or Lara against Murali and McGrath.

 

[Dead Ball]

He was boring.

But he would make any team better and more effective. Still remember how he batted India out of the game in his last test. Total class. TOP Tier ATG in tests for me.

Although in ODI,s I do not rate him too highly for a lot of reasons. He was too slow as a batsman. I think Ponting had mentioned something along the lines of 'the longer he bats , the more chance Australia has of winning' when he faced Kallis in 2003 WC ? I don't remember correctly.

 

[Robert]

For example??

Smith, Donald, Pollock, Ntini, ABDV, Steyn spring to mind as more charismatic.

 

[FreePalestine]

I think people do recognize him as an ATG. As people have said above, he was never a very attacking batsman or pleasing on the eye, but definitely very clinical with the bat and gave SA a useful 4th seamer option.

As an AR, his stats clearly are there for everyone to see. One thing I would say is that, unlike Imran, he would not have made the side as a pure bowler. If your definition of an ATG all-rounder is someone who would make the team as a batsman and a bowler, then there are very few players who fit into that category.

That being said, it is only one measure, another is the differential between your batting and bowling averages, in which case, Kallis ends up at the top of the pile.

 

[Ab Fan]

Didn’t play exciting innings. Got 500 runs on the Vaughan tour of SA that England won, and nobody noticed.

Sometimes went AWOL under pressure.

Minnowbasher with the ball.

Overshadowed by more charismatic Saffer team-mates.

625 runs and MOM in two of the tests. It was a great series for him. Some runs lesser than Strauss who was the player of the series.

Overall 3 hundreds in a 5 match series.

 

[CricketTruth]

From this thread you can see how unbelievably underrated he is. One of the greatest players ever; he set up so many South African victories by displaying outstanding technique in tricky conditions where many others failed.

Test cricket is a 5 day game so you can still win test matches scoring slowly.

People saying he wasn't a matchwinner are ridiculous. The player with the most man of the match awards in test cricket is Jacques Kallis with 23! How do you explain that?

 

[Robert]

Slow scoring is a red herring in this instance. Boycott was ultra slow and he had legions of fans.

 

[Robert]

625 runs and MOM in two of the tests. It was a great series for him. Some runs lesser than Strauss who was the player of the series.

Overall 3 hundreds in a 5 match series.

And that against the best England attack in at least the last 30 years.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Lol at people who think Kallis was not a match winner.

One simple question for them:

Why does he have more MoM awards in tests than Tendulkar and Ponting despite playing less number of games?

 

[Justcrazy]

Not an impact player.

 

[Tusker]

Slow scoring is a red herring in this instance. Boycott was ultra slow and he had legions of fans.

Which is why it is difficult to take anything said by fans of that ERA seriously.

 

[giri26]

Kallis was a brilliant player but again his batting style wasn't that exciting. He played within his limitations and was very boring player to watch sometimes. He was very clinical and played lots of important innings for South Africa but if you watch him bat for sometime, you might mostly change the channels and come back to check the score later. That is the only reason he isn't considered among the greats.

 

[Ab Fan]

Lol at people who think Kallis was not a match winner.

One simple question for them:

Why does he have more MoM awards in tests than Tendulkar and Ponting despite playing less number of games?

Most of them are at home. I can only recall two great performances for Kallis away from home in his 18 years career-

The match saving knock vs McGrath- Warne in Australia

The 2007- 08 test series in Pakistan

 

[usam wani]

because he wasn't from England or Australia...

 

[Mamoon]

Lol at people who think Kallis was not a match winner.

One simple question for them:

Why does he have more MoM awards in tests than Tendulkar and Ponting despite playing less number of games?

All-rounders have more opportunities of winning MoMs.

 

[Robert]

Which is why it is difficult to take anything said by fans of that ERA seriously.

I am not that arrogant. I accept that there were fans before my era with brains, understanding and wisdom.

Boycott set up a lot of test wins by building platforms. People slated him for selfishness but there he was fighting it against a rampaging Lillee for hour after hour, wearing him out so the other batters could score more freely and the bowlers could put their feet up for a day. Perhaps this is Kallis’ secret too. He absorbed pressure, helping other players to play more freely. He’d block an end up to give the quicks a chance for a breather. And he caught everything.

 

[AlizeeFan]

1. Lack of big 100s. He scored his first double hundred by end of 2010. I am not sure but he is probably oldest batsman to score his first 200 and most matches taken for do the same. He had 2nd most hundreds by that time and he would generally reach 100-130 range most of the time. Before this time he was probably not even among top 15 in terms of most 150+ scores.

When you play conservatively, it's generally after 120-130 you start accelerating. Batsman end at day at similar scores, they come fresh next day and convert it into big one. Getting out in that range means he didn't get chance to take on attacks after getting a ton.

2. He could play innings like this
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...-vs-South-Africa-1st-SF-icc-champions-trophy/
SA were 194-1 whille chasing 262, needed 68 runs in last 12 overs. Kallis scored 50 in 72 balls and all looked good as long as Gibbs was batting with SR of 100. During this time when he was supposed to score freely while new batsman found it difficult, he slowed down further scoring 4 runs in 16 balls. He hit a six in last over and eventually was dismissed after scoring 97 runs in 133 balls and team losing 10 runs.

3. As mentioned earlier he played support roles many times for most of his career. Some other batsman outscoring him was common. This needs to be verified though. Same can't be said about other slow batsmen. Gavaskar, Dravid, Boycott were consistently stand out performers for their teams during their good days.

 

[Tusker]

I am not that arrogant. I accept that there were fans before my era with brains, understanding and wisdom.

You do realize that for every wise person there will far more dumb ones ? This is why there is no substitute for due diligence.

Boycott set up a lot of test wins by building platforms. People slated him for selfishness but there he was fighting it against a rampaging Lillee for hour after hour, wearing him out so the other batters could score more freely and the bowlers could put their feet up for a day. Perhaps this is Kallis’ secret too. He absorbed pressure, helping other players to play more freely. He’d block an end up to give the quicks a chance for a breather. And he caught everything.

The thing that you miss in this description is that today no one will go watch such a blockathon ... and for very very good reasons. This is why the likes of Sehwag, Hayden, Dhawan deserve a lot of respect. But no that isnt acceptable to fans of older ERA because that means they have to drastically alter their Test Cricket basics. Instead its much easier to bracket Sehwag and Hayden as hacks and continue to live in the past that is no longer relevant.

That in a nutshell explains the problem with old era Fans who like to cling on to their ERA's.

Anyhow ... Sehwag won more matches than Boycott or atleast he was part of a team that won more matches than Boycott and there is no doubt whatsoever that his contributions were vital in most of those wins. It takes epic skills to score at more than twice the rate as a certified blocker like Boycott and still score more or less the same amount of runs thereby giving more chance for his bowlers to take 20 Wkts. Simple logic really. Boycotts style invariably leads to more draws.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Most of them are at home. I can only recall two great performances for Kallis away from home in his 18 years career-

The match saving knock vs McGrath- Warne in Australia

The 2007- 08 test series in Pakistan

This is a weird logic. First, batsmen usually do not win test matches. Second, SA was one of the toughest places to bat in Kallis' time.

By this logic, you will not find many ATGs who single-handedly won a test outside home.

 

[The_Odd_One]

All-rounders have more opportunities of winning MoMs.

He took just 3 5-fers but hit 19 100s in those 22 games. Next logic, please.

 

[Mamoon]

He took just 3 5-fers but hit 19 100s in those 22 games. Next logic, please.

It's not about 5-fers. If you score a hundred and end up picking even 1-2 wickets, your chances of winning MoM increases.

 

[The_Odd_One]

It's not about 5-fers. If you score a hundred and end up picking even 1-2 wickets, your chances of winning MoM increases.

You still have to score those 100s. 19 hundreds in 22 MoM games makes him a match winner regardless of how he bowled. Unless you wanted him to score a triple hundred.

 

[Mamoon]

You still have to score those 100s. 19 hundreds in 22 MoM games makes him a match winner regardless of how he bowled. Unless you wanted him to score a triple hundred.

Yet he was overshadowed by Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara. Kallis was a solid player but not a match-winner. The most impact-less ATG in history.

 

[Rana]

To answer the question, Kallis is highly rated as a world class batsman of his time.

The only reason he isn't a glorified all-rounder because,

1. He wasn't an Ashes hero
2. He was too good a batsman for his bowling to get equal recognition. As good as his batting was, he would have to be on par with Alan Donald for him to be the complete all-rounder
3. He didn't singlehandedly or play a pivotal role in a few World Cup games to help South Africa win the tournament.

 

[CricketTruth]

Yet he was overshadowed by Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara. Kallis was a solid player but not a match-winner. The most impact-less ATG in history.

You keep on trotting out this line. Still unable to understand how the man with the most man of the match awards is not a match-winner.

Not his fault he played for a less glamorous side with less marquee series.

 

[Mamoon]

You keep on trotting out this line. Still unable to understand how the man with the most man of the match awards is not a match-winner.

Not his fault he played for a less glamorous side with less marquee series.

MoM awards is only one measure. If it is all that matters, then Hafeez has been one of the biggest match-winners of this decade.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Yet he was overshadowed by Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara. Kallis was a solid player but not a match-winner. The most impact-less ATG in history.

Still does not answer why he won more MoM awards than both Ponting and Tendulkar.

Kallis was never in the spotlight because you don't find many loud mouth SA fans. If Kallis was an Indian or English cricketer, he would have been hailed as the greatest cricketer of the modern era.

 

[AlizeeFan]

He took just 3 5-fers but hit 19 100s in those 22 games. Next logic, please.

So you believe he got MoM award just for his 132 in this match?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...3rd-Test-south-africa-in-england-test-series/

where Kirsten scored 210 and Stewart scored 164.

Or this match for scoring 75 runs.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...t-Test-sri-lanka-in-south-africa-test-series/

Pollock (4 wickets and 38 runs), Hall (5 wickets and 31 runs), Smith (73 runs) could have got it if Kallis wasn't bowling.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...st-Test-zimbabwe-in-south-africa-test-series/

This match where Kallis scored 54 and won MoM when Smith scored 121. No 5-fer for Kallis.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/14466/scorecard/250667/South-Africa-vs-Pakistan-3rd-Test

No 5-fer and MoM for scoring 51.

Smith, MoYo both scored more and 5 wickets by Ntini.

And then MoM in all 3 5-fers.

Those are 7 MoM awards which he wouldn't have got without bowling. There are other close calls, where he didn't score big and got the award. But then with those it could have gone either way, so not listing those.

 

[The_Odd_One]

So you believe he got MoM award just for his 132 in this match?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...3rd-Test-south-africa-in-england-test-series/

where Kirsten scored 210 and Stewart scored 164.

Or this match for scoring 75 runs.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...t-Test-sri-lanka-in-south-africa-test-series/

Pollock (4 wickets and 38 runs), Hall (5 wickets and 31 runs), Smith (73 runs) could have got it if Kallis wasn't bowling.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...st-Test-zimbabwe-in-south-africa-test-series/

This match where Kallis scored 54 and won MoM when Smith scored 121. No 5-fer for Kallis.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/14466/scorecard/250667/South-Africa-vs-Pakistan-3rd-Test

No 5-fer and MoM for scoring 51.

Smith, MoYo both scored more and 5 wickets by Ntini.

And then MoM in all 3 5-fers.

Those are 7 MoM awards which he wouldn't have got without bowling. There are other close calls, where he didn't score big and got the award. But then with those it could have gone either way, so not listing those.

All-round performance means that someone contributed with both bat and ball. How does it prove that Kallis was not a match-winner with the bat? He has just 3 5-fers in those 22 MoM awards. What does your common sense tell you? If he did not take a 5-fer, then he must have contributed significantly with the bat, right?

And the logic that batsman A scored more than batsman B is flawed. Using your logic, Afridi should have won MoM award in Chennai because he scored more runs than Tendulkar.

Even if you take out those 7. That still leaves Kallis with 16 MoM awards, still higher than Tendulkar's 14. Why don't you analyze those 14 MoM awards of Tendulkar and use the same criterion to see how many of those 14 he deserved?

 

[The_Odd_One]

MoM awards is only one measure. If it is all that matters, then Hafeez has been one of the biggest match-winners of this decade.

You are clutching at straws. How many MoM awards did Hafeez win outside the UAE, and may be Bangladesh and SL?

 

[Ab Fan]

All-round performance means that someone contributed with both bat and ball. How does it prove that Kallis was not a match-winner with the bat? He has just 3 5-fers in those 22 MoM awards. What does your common sense tell you? If he did not take a 5-fer, then he must have contributed significantly with the bat, right?

And the logic that batsman A scored more than batsman B is flawed. Using your logic, Afridi should have won MoM award in Chennai because he scored more runs than Tendulkar.

Even if you take out those 7. That still leaves Kallis with 16 MoM awards, still higher than Tendulkar's 14. Why don't you analyze those 14 MoM awards of Tendulkar and use the same criterion to see how many of those 14 he deserved?

Can you name some of his standout performances in his career or even against high quality bowling attack or even a 4th inning chase?

When there are not many such knocks and you are boring and dull to watch them how will he get the hype unlike other greats?

However, there is one parameter where Kallis stands higher than Lara, Ponting and Dravid- Consistency. The guy averages 55 over 166 tests when he doesn't have many doubles either. Goes to show how much consistent he was.

 

[AlizeeFan]

All-round performance means that someone contributed with both bat and ball. How does it prove that Kallis was not a match-winner with the bat? He has just 3 5-fers in those 22 MoM awards. What does your common sense tell you? If he did not take a 5-fer, then he must have contributed significantly with the bat, right?

And the logic that batsman A scored more than batsman B is flawed. Using your logic, Afridi should have won MoM award in Chennai because he scored more runs than Tendulkar.

Even if you take out those 7. That still leaves Kallis with 16 MoM awards, still higher than Tendulkar's 14. Why don't you analyze those 14 MoM awards of Tendulkar and use the same criterion to see how many of those 14 he deserved?

Try reading or going through scorecards. Nowhere I said that a batsman should get MoM just for scoring more. But how many times you have seen a batsman scoring 130 getting MoM ahead of batsman scoring 210? Or how many times a batsman gets MoM for scoring a half century?

I didn't claim that he is not a match winner with bat. I replied to your post where you tried to say that bowling wasn't big factor for him to get those awards as he had 3 5-fers only.

I just listed 7 instances when it's very obvious that he wouldn't have got MoM without bowling.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Can you name some of his standout performances in his career or even against high quality bowling attack or even a 4th inning chase?

When there are not many such knocks and you are boring and dull to watch them how will he get the hype unlike other greats?

However, there is one parameter where Kallis stands higher than Lara, Ponting and Dravid- Consistency. The guy averages 55 over 166 tests when he doesn't have many doubles either. Goes to show how much consistent he was.

Someone who has 25 centuries against Australia, Pakistan, England, and NZ never scored against high class bowling attack? Most batsmen do not even score 25 hundreds in their entire career.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Try reading or going through scorecards. Nowhere I said that a batsman should get MoM just for scoring more. But how many times you have seen a batsman scoring 130 getting MoM ahead of batsman scoring 210? Or how many times a batsman gets MoM for scoring a half century?

I didn't claim that he is not a match winner with bat. I replied to your post where you tried to say that bowling wasn't big factor for him to get those awards as he had 3 5-fers only.

I just listed 7 instances when it's very obvious that he wouldn't have got MoM without bowling.

In an extremely high scoring or low scoring matches, bowling comes into play but it does not mean that Kallis did not play his part as a batsman.

Kallis' 22 MoM awards is really mind-boggling considering the competition he had in his team for that award. SA has always been a top test team with several match winners, especially the bowlers who usually win more of these awards.

 

[Ab Fan]

Someone who has 25 centuries against Australia, Pakistan, England, and NZ never scored against high class bowling attack? Most batsmen do not even score 25 hundreds in their entire career.

Kallis has scored against good bowling attacks but how did he fared vs ATG bowling attack as he has faced many of them? Can you name some of his standout knocks against high quality bowling attack?

I don't need stats to show that Tendulkar did well Vs Warne, Steyn and Ambrose while Lara did well vs Murali, McGrath and Warne. KP did well vs Steyn, McGrath and Warne. As I have said when you compare him to his contemporaries they excel in lot more parameters than Kallis do who excels only in one parameter- i.e. consistency. Hence he is underrated.

 

[Savak]

For someone who was regarded as having perhaps the best technique, he really got cleaned bowled so many times and quite often to the top most bowlers going around. Plus i have always seen him found wanting in the pressure games.