A couple of things that always, rightly or wrongly count against Kallis when people choose all-time XI's are;
The moderns would have a better chance if you replaced Knott & Lillee with Gilchrist & Hadlee.
lolno
Presumably because he's nowhere near as good a batsman and his bowling would deemed be a complete waste of time in a line-up with 5 better bowlers.
He can easily play ahead of Tendulkar.
That's teh sort of thing you see happen from time to time no, imagine before the series all the hype about Bradman and how he's gonna score a century in all his innings, anything less is a disappointment and then he walks in with the crowd thinking here we go, stick to the seats for the next few hours watching this bloke pile on the runs but he looks a bit uneasy at the start, tries to get himself in, people are still thinking must be the party last night, he'll be fine in a few minutes and BAM, slight nick right into Gilchrist's hands, stunned silence as the crowd watches in disbelief.
Undeniable evidence right there if you ask me.
It is hypothetical because he's far off the level with the bat of others so wouldn't get selected. As for his bowling, if 5 substantially better bowlers can't get wickets, why would he?
Meh. Wouldn't fault someone as such for rating him ahead of Lara and Sachin.
You've never seen a match turn upon a wicket taken by a part time bowler? Kallis is a damn good 5th or 6th bowling option.
Not if you have seen both play..
What does "as such" mean. Anyone rating Kallis ahead of Lara and Tendulkar would be legally insane.
Purely as a batsman no way. People can call me a kallis hater all they want, he's simply not at the top tier as a batsman.
I wouldn't rate him ahead of them, but I guess there is an argument to be made for him that isn't bonkers, and it's hard to judge these things absolutely. One may like the stability he offers in comparison to the two. Much better 2nd team innings bat than either, especially 3rd innings, and in 4th also.
