Your main reason for not rating Kallis

Because he bats so slowly as to make no difference to the game?

Because he averages 79 with the bat against Bangladesh and 169 against Zim?

Because his batting average against Australia is a whole 15 points lower than his overall average?

Because his first dig average is 9 points lower than his second dig average, indicating that he leaves it to Smith to shape the match?

Because he averages nearly 37 with the ball in the first dig and and 25 in the second, a worse discrepancy than the gutless Harami? Because he leaves it to other bowlers to open the way, then picks up easy wickets to make himself look good?

Because he averages 14 with the ball against the Bangles and Zimmers?

Personally, I don't rate Kallis because he averages 29 with the bat in England.

How about you?

He's a minnow basher and he's ugly.

Fatness and the gap in his front teeth resembling the Mersey tunnel.

Subjectivity enters into this debate.

It seems to me that Kallis has not dominated very many games, especially against strong opposition. Not in the way that Sobers so often did, or Imran, or Botham when he was young.

Kallis's overall stats are impressive but Rob I has picked some big holes in the record. Nearly all players are vulnerable to such analysis, but in Kallis's case the deficiencies seem serious.

For one he's fat.

I haven't checked his stats, but my gut feel is that he hasn't done his best against 'stronger' opposition.

To be fair to him, his lower average against Aus is mainly due to his first series against them as a 21 year old where he averaged about 7.

Why does Kallis get criticised for not dominating good attacks and Dravid doesn't?

Because Dravid looks good and he has dominated good attacks (as much as one can "dominate" being Dravid - not stamp-his-authority dominate, but eventually-come-out-the-winner dominate).

But look at their career strike rates. They're pretty much identical. Kallis looks good when he plays his shots too. Dravid has dominated world bowling even less often than Kallis, imo. Is it because Kallis is a big guy? Is that supposed to mean that he's automatically able to peel off 80 ball hundreds every time?

In the last twenty years


Runs vs Oz Ave vs Oz Ave Difference

BCL 2856 51 52.88 -1.88
SRT 2748 56.08 54.27 1.81
VVS 2204 55.1 44.45 10.65
Athers 1900 29.68 37.69 -8.01
Fence 1860 41.33 52.28 -10.95
Stewie 1810 30.67 39.54 -8.87
Nass 1581 38.56 37.18 1.38
Maria 1553 39.82 54.65 -14.83
Goochie 1527 39.15 48.43 -9.28
Shewag 1483 51.13 51.06 0.07
LB 1403 35.07 42.17 -7.1
Butch 1287 33 34.58 -1.58
Thorpie 1235 45.74 44.66 1.08
Chanders 1210 48.4 50.27 -1.87
Kirsten 1134 34.36 45.27 -10.91
Richie Rich 1084 49.27 45.11 4.16
Robin Smith 1074 39.77 44.46 -4.69
Stressco 1013 33.76 43.79 -10.03
KP 963 53.5 50.89 2.61
Vawn 959 47.95 41.44 6.51
Gibbs 947 31.56 41.95 -10.39
Ramps 933 42.4 27.32 15.08


There's a couple more than just Maria who havent done as well as usual vs Oz

dravid has two hundreds against attacks containing at least one great bowler. 148 in joburg and 180 at calcutta. he has played well against most teams, but when the great bowlers are not there

players like him and kallis will at best survive against great bowlers. more often though they will get out before making a substantial score even though they may have faced quite a few deliveries

Sehwag is the most balanced vs Oz: a difference of 0.07! Why is Dravid not on the list?

HH_pink wrote:Sehwag is the most balanced vs Oz: a difference of 0.07! Why is Dravid not on the list?

He is

Fence 1860 41.33 52.28 -10.95

Duh, sorry.

He's the ugliest Qunt since the Elephant Man.

If he saves this for RSA I'll rate the fk out of him.

The gap between the teeth is annoying and he often looks, especially when standing at slip if he's away with the pixies, though he could be just simply inscrutable. He's also clearly on the corpulent side and he's started receding badly. I prefer men with hair.

On the cricket side of affairs, statistically speaking he deserves to be up there with the greatest allrounders ever, and he will be considered in that company. When the stats are translated to on-field performances though, he doesn't appear to be as dynamis as the great allround performers of yore. He doesn't appear to make matchwinning innings, especially if they're required at a reasonable pace despite his ability to drop the anchor and probably save a match. His bowling has been invaluable to SA over the years in terms of timely wickets and provision of balance to the side, yet you get the feeling that he couldn't be picked as a frontline bowler alone.

On balance a very good slipper. He drops the odd one but has taken some super catches and his hands are generally reliable.

As a matter of interest Demelza, why do you rate him so much?

OP Tipping wrote:If he saves this for RSA I'll rate the fk out of him.

Indeed . . . especially when the bugger was dropped first ball . . .

One wonders what Sewer was calling North over a beer last night.

Ah well, he's not the first slipper in history to drop a sitter.

[quote="OP Tipping"]Ah well, he's not the first slipper in history to drop a sitter.[/quote]

Bill Lawry said in today's papers that Sooky's first slip drop of Punter in the first innings of the first test is what effectively defined and has probably cost them the series.

FFS...Do you get "the shakes" if you go too long without a Smith reference?

Truly great players turn matches or take matches away from the opposition. Kallis doesn't.

That's not to say he isn't very good - every side would like a Kallis in there somewhere.

A big contributor to his side's performance? Yes. But a matchwinner he ain't.

He's grinder outer as opposed to a biffer onner, if you know what I mean....