Why is Jacques Kallis so disliked?

[Richard]

Err, I didn't say you were. Just pointificating.

[The Baconator]

EXD? Who's that, not seen it before. Guess would be Piscine though.

[gunner]

only his team mates can answer this question

i remember when he ran gibbs out and SA really needed to accelerate,
Gibbs was shaking his head and you could see that he wanted to knock his block off

but its a well known fact that kallis isnt liked much in his team

[BoyBrumby]

My dislike of him as a player is largely an aesthetic judgement, really. His standard mode of play doesn’t quicken the pulse & the way he plays on occasion does leave him open to accusations of selfishness; the obvious example being his gloriously one-eyed performance in the fifth test of our last tour when he actually slowed down when he passed 100. To exaggerate his crime, he’s shown he can dismantle inferior attacks when the mood takes him. He creamed yer Zimbas for the fastest ever 50 in tests. Obviously the standard of opposition plays a part, but he seems utterly unwilling to play in any other mode than defence-first against decent bowling attacks.

[The Baconator]

I don't really like or dislike Kallis. Him not saying a lot in the media might have had something to do with that, he just hasn't really done anything to make me particularly like or dislike him.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by The Baconator

EXD? Who's that, not seen it before. Guess would be Piscine though.

You've never seen me use it before.

Subject correct, BTW.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by gunner

but its a well known fact that kallis isnt liked much in his team

It is?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

My dislike of him as a player is largely an aesthetic judgement, really. His standard mode of play doesn’t quicken the pulse & the way he plays on occasion does leave him open to accusations of selfishness; the obvious example being his gloriously one-eyed performance in the fifth test of our last tour when he actually slowed down when he passed 100. To exaggerate his crime, he’s shown he can dismantle inferior attacks when the mood takes him. He creamed yer Zimbas for the fastest ever 50 in tests. Obviously the standard of opposition plays a part, but he seems utterly unwilling to play in any other mode than defence-first against decent bowling attacks.

So you dislike him because he puts his team before the enjoyment of the narrow-minded-pace-of-scoring-is-all-that-matters spectators? Such spectators who ignore the aesthetic beauty of the well-played stroke?

What's your opinion of other slow batsmen (not, of course, that there are many at the current time)?

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Richard

So you dislike him because he puts his team before the enjoyment of the narrow-minded-pace-of-scoring-is-all-that-matters spectators? Such spectators who ignore the aesthetic beauty of the well-played stroke?

What's your opinion of other slow batsmen (not, of course, that there are many at the current time)?

No, I dislike him as a player because he puts his average before the team. In that fifth test all around him players were trying to acclerate (time being of the essence) but he almost palpably had the smell of the red ink in his nostrils. There's no way he was playing for anything other than his average.

[steds]

Originally Posted by Goughy

I rate him very highly as a player.

The area I dont like him in is purely irrational but never-the-less I cant get out of my head.

He has that look about him that screams he should be in a uniform with a sjambok beating down on someone. He just looks like a nasty bastard to me.

The man speaks the truth.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Richard

It is?

Ive not heard it. Ill keep my ear to the ground though.

Generally he is very respected in SA even if he may not be worshiped. His benefit year here was massive. National media sponsored it as did large corporations. It was all over the place.

To my knowledge, no other SA cricket has had that type of treatment.

Maybe his teammates are jealous of his shampoo endorsment deals

[Richard]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

No, I dislike him as a player because he puts his average before the team. In that fifth test all around him players were trying to acclerate (time being of the essence) but he almost palpably had the smell of the red ink in his nostrils. There's no way he was playing for anything other than his average.

No, you perceive he does. On the basis of one single match - against your own team. Which is ludicrous enough.

Then it gets even worse when you realise that even that case is belief-defyingly flawed. Going into that last day, South Africa had no realistic chance whatsoever of winning the game. Not a cat-in-hell. Kallis could've scored 190 off the same number of balls he ended-up facing and they'd still have had nowhere near enough time to knock England over.

That selfishness is nothing more than your own perception - clearly it was not that of his team-mates' in the dressing-room otherwise you can absolutely gurantee that there would've been some fallout. Does Ray Jennings strike you as someone who'd bite his tongue about summat like that? Especially after he was removed from the post?

Most Englishmen had never had any ammunition to accuse Kallis of being selfish before that innings and they lept on it like Peter Atherton and Steve McManaman on cheap aftershave. Australians did the exact same 12 months later, and the case-against there was fundamentally flawed, too.

[C_C]

I think Kallis is a good player but there is a reason why his statistics doesnt get him the same kind of attention Sobers/Imran/Lara/Tendulkar etc. gets.
The reason is simple : Kallis has mostly bombed against good bowling attacks - far more than Tendulkar/Lara and somewhat more than Ponting/Dravid have. His record is quite patchy against Murali, Pakistan and Australia as a batsman and as a result, he is never really in the mix for being the 'best' batsman of his time.

Contrast this with Sobers, Tendulkar, Lara, Kapil,Imran,Botham, Hadlee,etc. : The first three were/are the best batsmen of their generation : Sobers indisputably so and the 90-present era is indisputably between either Tendulkar or Lara. Imran and Hadlee were the best bowlers going around for a while (or, along with Marshall, in contention for #1 spot) and Kapil/Botham built their fame around producing consistent allround displays.

His bowling too is mostly restricted to pace-friendly sufraces and he doesn't bowl much at all in matches were the pitch favours the batsmen. Contrast that with Sobers : he actually bowled less in pace-friendly conditions, despite being a fast medium seamer of considerable potency : he'd open the bowling or come first change, pick up 1-2 wickets, throw open the top order and let Griffiths/Hall/Gibbs etc. take care of the rest. Instead, he bowled a lot more on flat wickets (or the rare wicket that took spin) just to eat up overs and give the frontline bowlers a rest.


What hurts Kallis's reputation is that unlike the abovementioned names, Kallis somehow falls short of being the 'best' in any category : He isnt in contest for best batsman of his time or best bowler of his time. He isnt/wasnt considered the most consistent allrounder for a long part of his career- Cairns and Flintoff hold that honour.
Even though he is just as valuable as a Tendulkar or Lara in the team-if not more- the public loves exponents.

[jot1]

Originally Posted by gunner

It's a known fact that kallis isnt liked much in his team

That's not true. He is well liked and much respected. Where on earth did you get your information to allow you to make a statement like that?

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Richard

No, you perceive he does. On the basis of one single match - against your own team. Which is ludicrous enough.

Then it gets even worse when you realise that even that case is belief-defyingly flawed. Going into that last day, South Africa had no realistic chance whatsoever of winning the game. Not a cat-in-hell. Kallis could've scored 190 off the same number of balls he ended-up facing and they'd still have had nowhere near enough time to knock England over.

That selfishness is nothing more than your own perception - clearly it was not that of his team-mates' in the dressing-room otherwise you can absolutely gurantee that there would've been some fallout. Does Ray Jennings strike you as someone who'd bite his tongue about summat like that? Especially after he was removed from the post?

Most Englishmen had never had any ammunition to accuse Kallis of being selfish before that innings and they lept on it like Peter Atherton and Steve McManaman on cheap aftershave. Australians did the exact same 12 months later, and the case-against there was fundamentally flawed, too.

You're presupposing the correctness of your own argument & using it to support itself. How do you know there wasn't any fall-out? You don't. What was (or was not) said behind closed doors has stayed there so you cannot absolutely guarantee anything. Moreover what sort of sportsman thinks "ah, **** it, we can't win, I'll play for myself."? I'll answer my own question: a selfish one. If there was no chance why did Smith declare? Would not have a few more overs been useful? SA took four wickets in the time they had so could well have caused us some real concern had they had them.