Why does nobody consider Kallis to be a great all-rounder?

Sehwag has a great technique. And is probably better than Chanderpaul as a batsman.

Kallis is not a dynamic all-rounder in the mould of a Botham, Dev, or Imran etc. but the stats don't lie. His batting might mean that he's tended to save rather than win matches and he is not one to excite crowds or scorers with explosive rates but he's been the cornerstone of SA's batting for years and it's rare for someone who's scored roughly 10,000 runs to be capable of bowling first change, producing fast, swinging deliveries and bowling with such variation. People will point out the longevity factor but it's hard to see too many in the future ever coming close to his type of all-round record. And remember he's a very good slip fielder as well.

Hyper Hippo,

Where did I say that technique is the deciding factor in rating batsmen?

All i said was batsman A is better than batsman B.

Doremi,

I'd take Chanders any day of the week

doremi wrote:Sehwag has a great technique. And is probably better than Chanderpaul as a batsman.

No? But he's a genius, yes.

Paul Keating wrote:Hyper Hippo,

Where did I say that technic is the deciding factor in rating batsmen?

All i said was batsman A is better than batsman B.

Doremi,

I'd take Chanders any day of the week

I know. I assumed that was the rationale. Makes sense.

Zat wrote:Kallis is a decent batsman, and a bowler who can hold up an end, but he's no Botham, Sobers, Hadlee, Kapil Dev, etc...

True, maybe that's why he has better stats than them.

Different era, different stats.

doremi wrote:Sehwag has a great technique. And is probably better than Chanderpaul as a batsman.

From cricinfo:

"I don't believe in technique, I believe in performance. If you are tough, whether you have technique or not, you'll survive."
The philosophy behind Virender Sehwag's batting
Dec 27, 2008

"I don't believe in technique, I believe in performance. If you are tough, whether you have technique or not, you'll survive."

Absolutely sage.

Its PERFORMANCE that matters.

To hell with technique and all that, had he bothered about it even a bit on the 4th day of Chennai test, India might've lost that series to Eng.

Kallis isn't as dynamic an allrounder as Imran, Botham, Hadlee, et al. But they were all primarily bowlers - and bowlers win you much more matches than batsmen.

Kallis is not in Imran, Hadlee or a young Botham's league as a bowler - but on the flip side none of these are close to being in Kallis' class as a batsman. As a batsman alone he would be right up there as one of the best of the modern era - only half a dozen or so - Lara, Tendulkar, Waugh, Ponting, etc. have been better than him.

There haven't been too many great batting all rounders - Sobers is the obvious one. But there are very few more you could name who would even rival Kallis.

The frustrating thing about Kallis is the feeling that he always holds something back. That he could have been the best cricketer of our age if he had more of a sense of adventure. He has all the shots - but rarely plays them, and definitely has not rested the initiative from the bowlers as often as he could. As a bowler he had the potential to be a bone fide class Test bowler - see his marvelous performance at Headingley in 2003 when he stepped up to the plate following injuries to other bowlers. But often he seemed happy to bowl well within himself, often a foot outside off stump.

That he could have been the best cricketer of our age if he had more of a sense of adventure. He has all the shots - but rarely plays them, and definitely has not rested the initiative from the bowlers as often as he could.

That is my main criticism of JK.

SG wrote:To hell with technique and all that, had he bothered about it even a bit on the 4th day of Chennai test, India might've lost that series to Eng.

Not necessarily, technique is required every now and then when confronted with an express bowler on a green top. Or a strong technique is required to counter a spinner on a 5th day wicket.

Agreed, Salim. Technique is required but its not everything.

The track on which Sehwag played that astonishing innings was full of vagaries as well against a very good attack led by Flintoff.

JGK wrote:

That he could have been the best cricketer of our age if he had more of a sense of adventure. He has all the shots - but rarely plays them, and definitely has not rested the initiative from the bowlers as often as he could.

That is my main criticism of JK.

At times he felt the whole weight of the team upon him. If he had been an Aussie, with the added quality of batting around him, I think you would have seen another batsman.

SG wrote:
The track on which Sehwag played that astonishing innings was full of vagaries as well against enabled by a very good pie-flinging Harami and Jimmy attack led by in which Flintoff was wasted as third seamer.

Fixed.

It's a fair question. He was always round enough.

Merlin wrote:batting = dependable (mostly), workmanlike (always) ...  occasional flashes of brilliance.

bowling = a trundler who needs "his" track to perform miracles ... otherwise would only rank him marginally better than Collingwood and his dibbly dobblers. A good partnership breaker though ... achieving wickets more through surprise (given his girth) than nous or brilliance.

Decent fielder ... though a lumbering ball chaser to the ropes (girth again)!.

'genius'

I suppose we expect all-rounders to be “box-office” players who empty the bars, players whose intangibles and memorable one-off matchwinning performances outweigh their overall stats.

Kallis on the other hand was just a great accumulator of runs, who happened to be a pretty decent third or fourth seamer as well, particularly in early career. Can’t think of many others who have had that kind of role.