Jacques Kallis - Most Underrated Allrounder

[Jono]

Just what is the bowling averages of Bravo in Odis and Tests ?

You said at the moment right? What does this moment have to do with career averages?

Anyway:

Since start of 2005 in ODIs NOT AGAINST ZIM Kallis has 14 wickets in 28 matches at 43.80. Bravo has 26 wickets from 27 matches at 37.34. Look at the wicket to match ratio. Look how often (or not often) Kallis is used.

Kallis barely bowls in tests anyway nowadays, and rightfully so, he's an all time great batsman , no point wasting him and risking injury. In tests NOT AGAINST ZIM since 2005 he has 22 wickets from 16 matches at 48.86. Bravo has 20 wickets from 12 matches at 43.80.

I know who:
A) is better
B) bowls more

Its Bravo.

 

[Dasa]

Just what is the bowling averages of Bravo in Odis and Tests ?

It would be more accurate to compare their bowling averages in the same period, from when Bravo made his debut.
In that time (since July 2004), Kallis has taken 37 wickets at 37.35 in 24 Tests with a best of 4/13 against Zimbabwe - 11 of those 37 wickets were against Zimbabwe.
Bravo in the same period has taken 36 wickets at 35.97 in 16 Tests with a best of 6/55 against England and another 6-fer against Australia.

In ODIs, in 37 matches Kallis has taken 21 wickets at 41.38 (Economy rate of 5.33) with a best of 3/20 against Sri Lanka. Bravo has 48 wickets in 46 matches at 32.91 (Economy rate of 5.34) with a best of 3/24 against Zimbabwe.

edit: I see Jono has posted something similar above.

 

[Jono]

Lol Dasa.

 

[Sanz]

You said at the moment right? What does this moment have to do with career averages?

Last 25 ODIs not counting Zim -

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype

Kallis has better, avg., better economy and almost equal strike rate.

Bravo takes more wickets because he bowls more, if Kallis started bowling as much as him, he would take as many as he has proved in the past.

 

[Sanz]

I know who:
A) is better
B) bowls more

Its Bravo.

I am sure you know it for fact and it's not your imagination.

FYI - In last 10 tests, Kallis has bowled 8 more overs than Bravo, has taken same no. of wickets @ better avg and economy. Bravo has slightly better strike rate but one must keep in mind that Kallis played majority of the tests against World's no. 1 Team.

And in the year 2006 - Kallis' bowling avg 30, Bravo 44 but stats are lies, right, I am sure it is clear to you that Bravo is a better bowler.

 

[Jono]

Last 25 ODIs not counting Zim -

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype

Kallis has better, avg., better economy and almost equal strike rate.

Bravo takes more wickets because he bowls more, if Kallis started bowling as much as him, he would take as many as he has proved in the past.

Surely you see that Bravo is a much-improved bowler now than 25 matches ago? Fairly random number. Bravo's experienced unbelievable improvement since his test tour to Aus including the development of an outstanding slower ball.

And if Kallis is still an all-time great allrounder, why doesn't he show it?

 

[Sanz]

Surely you see that Bravo is a much-improved bowler now than 25 matches ago?

??? Did you see his Test stats as well or his improvement is limited to ODIs only ?

 

[Jono]

I am sure you know it for fact and it's not your imagination.

FYI - In last 10 tests, Kallis has bowled 8 more overs than Bravo, has taken same no. of wickets @ better avg and economy. Bravo has slightly better strike rate but one must keep in mind that Kallis played majority of the tests against World's no. 1 Team.

And in the year 2006 - Kallis' bowling avg 30, Bravo 44 but stats are lies, right, I am sure it is clear to you that Bravo is a better bowler.

Compare the pitches Kallis bowled on in SA to the ones Bravo did in WI vs. Ind.

 

[Sanz]

Compare the pitches Kallis bowled on in SA to the ones Bravo did in WI vs. Ind.

On same pitches Taylor, Colly, Edwards, Munaf and even Santh averaged under 35. Bravo's avg. was similar to that of Pathan and strike rate was worse. Not to forget Pathan was pathetically poor.

 

[Goughy]

Noone would deny that Kallis's bowling has declined (combination of injury, not being needed and concentrating on his batting) but as a player and allrounder throughout his career he has been exceptional. He also still has one of the best bouncers in world cricket, even if it is bowled at <140.

To compare him to guys like Oram and Bravo is doing him a severe disservice. They are not even close to being in his league.

This comparing of recent stats is just a game people are using to prove this or that point. Non of it is particularly relevant.

I mean, if I was to use their most recent 20 tests then Ian Bell is clearly a far better player than Sachin Tendulkar.

 

[Jono]

I mean, if I was to use their most recent 20 tests then Ian Bell is clearly a far better player than Sachin Tendulkar.

Ah but the difference is, Tendulkar still bats 4. Out of form or in, he's out there batting. He's still a batsman. Your comparison doesn't work here,

Kallis is bowling less overs than others, and only really bowled a lot in the 3rd test vs Aus when he had to (did well too). Its a different situation.

Would you really rather Kallis ahead of Bravo if all you got was their bowling at this stage of their careers? If so, that's your opinion, however I know Bravo's inspired 6-for vs. Aus was one of the best performances I've seen in a while, and I haven't seen anything similar from Kallis in ages.

 

[Jono]

To compare him to guys like Oram and Bravo is doing him a severe disservice. They are not even close to being in his league.

Bravo's not in his league in bowling alone? Right... Kallis is running through attacks I see.

 

[Jono]

On same pitches Taylor, Colly, Edwards, Munaf and even Santh averaged under 35. Bravo's avg. was similar to that of Pathan and strike rate was worse. Not to forget Pathan was pathetically poor.

Fair point, that being said many did feel Bravo was the key to WI competing heavily early in the test series, due to the mental edge he held over the Indian batsmen, that being until Sehwag took to him in the 2nd test.

 

[Sanz]

Ah but the difference is, Tendulkar still bats 4. Out of form or in, he's out there batting. He's still a batsman. Your comparison doesn't work here,

Ahh, you conveniently ignored that Kallis bowled more overs than Bravo in last 10 tests played.

 

[Jono]

Including Zimbabwe?

 

[Sanz]

Including Zimbabwe?

Last 10 tests, not including Zimbabwe and Bangladesh

 

[jot1]

Kallis is a naturally serious man who takes his job seriously. A lot of people don't like him because he is too calm and clinical. He doesn't run around flapping him arms and that sort of thing when taking a wicket, or whatever. He seldom slags or gets angry. His powers of concentration is fenominal. He is sent out to do a job and that is what he does.
Kallis has always seen himself as a batsman who can bowl. I think it was more the media and the cricketing fraternity that gave him all-rounder status, than himself.
He believes he has stayed true to himself by batting to the best of his ability for his country. The bowling and great catching are bonusses.
Kallis is a great cricketer.

 

[Langeveldt]

Klusener was everyone's hero, and he's South African.

People just don't like Kallis, nopthing to do with him being from SA. I love him, one of my fav batsman ever, but surely you understand why people don't see him as good as an allrounder like Freddy, Bravo, Oram etc.

because of my first two reasons then, IE Slow and Boring

 

[Langeveldt]

As a few people have said, he's a great player but comes across as a bit of a tool.

Tool is a bit harsh, hes just trying to do his job, and he does it with incredible reliability.. He hasn't had any run ins with match officials, doesn't get angry, display dissent..

I find these to be admirable qualities.. In this fake era of personalities, superstars, controversy and such, I find Kallis's simple down to earth-ness very refreshing

 

[howardj]

Meh.

Whatever he is, he's certainly one of the best three or four cricketers of the last decade. If scoring 8000 runs (while averaging in the mid-50's) and taking 200 wickets was easy, more than two people would have done it. And I think it's a little unrealistic to expect him to be bowling too many overs when he gives so much, and is so crucial to his team, with the bat.