3rd Greatest Cricketer - The Poll

[Uppercut]

Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion on this. I do get the feeling though, that Kallis is generally underrated. I also underrate him, but that's because I haven't watched enough South African cricket. Out of non-Indian matches, I've tended to follow and watch Australia's matches most closely and hence tend to rate their cricketers a bit higher.

I'm interested to know why he's generally under-rated in the wider cricketing community. As you said, going by stats, he would be feted as easily the best cricketer of his generation. But why isn't that the case? Why do you think his batting lacks magic?

There's too many reasons to go into, but a big one is that he plays his cricket for post-readmission South Africa. There are barely any South African fans online, their stadiums are rarely very busy for test cricket and there's a bit of history lacking in the series they play. Shane Warne is remembered as someone who stepped up to the plate for his performances in the Ashes, but who remembers when Gary Kirsten performs well against England? It just doesn't stick in the mind. Sachin Tendulkar's epic innings at Chennai will be remembered until the end of time. Can you even remember one of Jacques Kallis's four test hundreds against Pakistan? I can't.

There's an ongoing feeling that someone like Ponting scores more runs in matches that matter than Kallis does. The simple fact is, Ponting plays more matches that matter than Kallis does. Much more. No one really cares that much about South African cricket.

Kallis is far from alone, too. Shaun Pollock is a monstrous bowling all-rounder in all formats, Allan Donald was one of the best fast bowlers in the world. The funny thing about these players is, almost everyone seems to think of them as underrated, so they can't be underrated. They're just forgotten.

It's an extremely common trait in humans to overestimate the ability of their own minds. Everyone can see the problems with statistical analyses- they're huge and obvious- but many seem blind to the much bigger problems with using their own perceptions to judge a cricketer. I've come to the conclusion that if two players are scoring the same amount of runs over a very, very long period of time, there probably isn't that much between them as batsman. In any case, certainly not 200 test wickets worth.

 

[andyc]

Bingo.

 

[Noble One]

That is a very fine post.

 

[vcs]

There's too many reasons to go into, but a big one is that he plays his cricket for post-readmission South Africa. There are barely any South African fans online, their stadiums are rarely very busy for test cricket and there's a bit of history lacking in the series they play. Shane Warne is remembered as someone who stepped up to the plate for his performances in the Ashes, but who remembers when Gary Kirsten performs well against England? It just doesn't stick in the mind. Sachin Tendulkar's epic innings at Chennai will be remembered until the end of time. Can you even remember one of Jacques Kallis's four test hundreds against Pakistan? I can't.

There's an ongoing feeling that someone like Ponting scores more runs in matches that matter than Kallis does. The simple fact is, Ponting plays more matches that matter than Kallis does. Much more. No one really cares that much about South African cricket.

Kallis is far from alone, too. Shaun Pollock is a monstrous bowling all-rounder in all formats, Allan Donald was one of the best fast bowlers in the world. The funny thing about these players is, almost everyone seems to think of them as underrated, so they can't be underrated. They're just forgotten.goes against

It's an extremely common trait in humans to overestimate the ability of their own minds. Everyone can see the problems with statistical analyses- they're huge and obvious- but many seem blind to the much bigger problems with using their own perceptions to judge a cricketer. I've come to the conclusion that if two players are scoring the same amount of runs over a very, very long period of time, there probably isn't that much between them as batsman. In any case, certainly not 200 test wickets worth.

That's an interesting post, but I can't agree with it fully... because the same could be said of Sri Lankan cricket lacking a traditional rival. Pakistan barely played their biggest rivals (India) in the 90s but their cricketers are highly respected. I personally think S. Africa's history of getting hammered by Australia in the past decade or so, bar the win in 2008, negatively impacts the world-wide perception of some of their cricketers.

As for not remembering any of Kallis's great hundreds, in my case I simply haven't seen enough of them. But I'm sure his fourth innings hundred in Melbourne will be remembered.. his fifties in Perth in 2008 will be remembered and so on.

I think S. Africa have had some epic tussles with England over the years as well.. again I didn't follow them too closely at the time but the Donald-Atherton battle is very famous and all the series since 2003 between the two countries have been awesome.

 

[honestbharani]

Bingo.

I certainly don't think so andI have explained my reasons in the last page post. I just don't think his batting is at the same level as the big three.. And I don't think his bowling makes up for it, as he is/was a support bowler at best. Also, pardon me if I am wrong, but aren't his bowling stats pretty bad against the better sides?

 

[Uppercut]

The same is true of Sri Lanka without question. Migara seems to lurk around here solely to point that out .

When you look at the record of someone like Kumar Sangakkara, it's incredible how rarely he comes up when discussing great modern batsmen. Sanga averages more than Ponting, Kallis, Lara and Tendulkar. And he kept wicket to Murali for most of his career! The guy's a freak.

 

[honestbharani]

The same is true of Sri Lanka without question. Migara seems to lurk around here solely to point that out .

When you look at the record of someone like Kumar Sangakkara, it's incredible how rarely he comes up when discussing great modern batsmen. Sanga averages more than Ponting, Kallis, Lara and Tendulkar. And he kept wicket to Murali for most of his career! The guy's a freak.

I do think he is great but who is to say this is not a Hayden or Husseyesque peak before the inevitable climb down????

 

[fredfertang]

There's too many reasons to go into, but a big one is that he plays his cricket for post-readmission South Africa. There are barely any South African fans online, their stadiums are rarely very busy for test cricket and there's a bit of history lacking in the series they play. Shane Warne is remembered as someone who stepped up to the plate for his performances in the Ashes, but who remembers when Gary Kirsten performs well against England? It just doesn't stick in the mind. Sachin Tendulkar's epic innings at Chennai will be remembered until the end of time. Can you even remember one of Jacques Kallis's four test hundreds against Pakistan? I can't.

There's an ongoing feeling that someone like Ponting scores more runs in matches that matter than Kallis does. The simple fact is, Ponting plays more matches that matter than Kallis does. Much more. No one really cares that much about South African cricket.

Kallis is far from alone, too. Shaun Pollock is a monstrous bowling all-rounder in all formats, Allan Donald was one of the best fast bowlers in the world. The funny thing about these players is, almost everyone seems to think of them as underrated, so they can't be underrated. They're just forgotten.

It's an extremely common trait in humans to overestimate the ability of their own minds. Everyone can see the problems with statistical analyses- they're huge and obvious- but many seem blind to the much bigger problems with using their own perceptions to judge a cricketer. I've come to the conclusion that if two players are scoring the same amount of runs over a very, very long period of time, there probably isn't that much between them as batsman. In any case, certainly not 200 test wickets worth.

Will has nailed an interesting point there - have to agree with all he says - also brought home to me something else that is a little odd. Generally here, and understandably so, cricketers of the 60's don't get too much of a mention - I'd suggest that the three who crop up more than anyone else, save a certain West Indian all rounder, are Graeme Pollock and the embryonic careers of Barry Richards and Mike Procter - the post readmission saffers just don't seem to be able to knock those guys off their pedestal even though some of them might well deserve to .

 

[Uppercut]

I do think he is great but who is to say this is not a Hayden or Husseyesque peak before the inevitable climb down????

No one, but he's played a lot of cricket. 91 tests. I'm not that interested in debating his relative merits in comparison to the players I mentioned, I just think it's strange that his name never even comes up. I bet if you asked a bunch of people who they thought the best batsmen in the world are right now they'd just completely forget about him.

 

[vcs]

Yup, but the thing about Sri Lankan batsmen is that they play a higher proportion of games at home. I did some research on this and Sanga and Mahela play about 57% of their games at home. The corresponding figure for Tendulkar is 43%. That's quite a significant difference IMO.

Now I'm in no way saying these guys aren't capable of scoring as many runs away or adapting to foreign conditions, but simply that they haven't had enough opportunities, for no fault of their own. For Kallis, his spread of games is pretty balanced (except he hasn't played much in SL) and there is no significant advantage batting in S. Africa in any case.

 

[Uppercut]

I think people feel that way much moreso towards Jayawardene than Sangakkara. But yeah, it's definitely something that works against them. Not just when people are acknowledging it, there's also a degree of "out of sight" regarding their achievements at home. They don't even show Sri Lanka's home games on TV here some of the time, and when they do it's on an Indian channel nobody has.

 

[honestbharani]

No one, but he's played a lot of cricket. 91 tests. I'm not that interested in debating his relative merits in comparison to the players I mentioned, I just think it's strange that his name never even comes up. I bet if you asked a bunch of people who they thought the best batsmen in the world are right now they'd just completely forget about him.

Not on CW.. I think he is rated pretty high around here. But yeah, around the world, he is not quite as glamorous as an Indian or an Aussie batsman or Kevin Pieterson perhaps..

 

[zaremba]

I am sorry, which part of that was cringeworthy? So a guy who managed to get appreciation of an elitist crowd in his country, which is as big as a state in India, is better than someone who turned perfectly sensible people across all strata of society into worshippers?

And what standard of cricket WG had to endure (lol at posts saying he played well into his 50s which rather gives an idea of the competition level than anything) not a patch on what Sachin has in his 20 year Plus career.

Of course elitists will continue to vouch for him based on some ancient manuscripts published on him, which invariably will only spread the cult of personality over time.

Sachin has influenced hundreds of millions of kids wanting to pick the bat across generations, and most importantly by setting a near perfect example of how to play the game, on and off the field. I shall discount the WG love as another example of the romanticism associated with preRadio days.

Not your finest hour, Sir Alex. A really poor argument, poorly argued.

 

[Sir Alex]

Not your finest hour, Sir Alex. A really poor argument, poorly argued.

Thanks for the honest feedback..

 

[Matt79]

Imran for me.

 

[zaremba]

Thanks for the honest feedback..

Sorry mate, I like your stuff normally but that really was a dire post. Apologies for the rudeness though.

 

[marc71178]

Yup, but the thing about Sri Lankan batsmen is that they play a higher proportion of games at home. I did some research on this and Sanga and Mahela play about 57% of their games at home. The corresponding figure for Tendulkar is 43%. That's quite a significant difference IMO.

Now I'm in no way saying these guys aren't capable of scoring as many runs away or adapting to foreign conditions, but simply that they haven't had enough opportunities, for no fault of their own. For Kallis, his spread of games is pretty balanced (except he hasn't played much in SL) and there is no significant advantage batting in S. Africa in any case.

I have to say I wonder if the relative lack of games played by the Sri Lankans has benefitted them in terms of their averages. By not having such a daily grind they've gained the opportunity to rest up and work on technique etc.

 

[weldone]

Warne must be the single most overrated cricketer ever, followed perhaps by Botham. I've never really heard a convincing reason why he should be rated ahead of bowlers like Marshall or McGrath.

Best leggie? Sure. Best bowler ever? No way. 3rd greatest cricketer ever? A joke IMO.

Well, I'm not so sure that he's the best leggie.

I shall place both Grimmett and O'Reilly ahead of him for various reasons, though won't call someone mad if he places Warne ahead. But thinking that O'Reilly and Grimmett aren't in the same league as Warne is a bigger joke than considering Warne the 3rd best cricketer ever, for me.

 

[subshakerz]

Well, I'm not so sure that he's the best leggie.

I shall place both Grimmett and O'Reilly ahead of him for various reasons, though won't call someone mad if he places Warne ahead. But thinking that O'Reilly and Grimmett aren't in the same league as Warne is a bigger joke than considering Warne the 3rd best cricketer ever, for me.

Fair enough but I tend to think the sheet weight of wickets on Warne's side puts him ahead. Dont think O'reilly and Grimmett are far off, though Grimmett rarely gets mentioned with his terrific record.

 

[subshakerz]

There's too many reasons to go into, but a big one is that he plays his cricket for post-readmission South Africa. There are barely any South African fans online, their stadiums are rarely very busy for test cricket and there's a bit of history lacking in the series they play. Shane Warne is remembered as someone who stepped up to the plate for his performances in the Ashes, but who remembers when Gary Kirsten performs well against England? It just doesn't stick in the mind. Sachin Tendulkar's epic innings at Chennai will be remembered until the end of time. Can you even remember one of Jacques Kallis's four test hundreds against Pakistan? I can't.

There's an ongoing feeling that someone like Ponting scores more runs in matches that matter than Kallis does. The simple fact is, Ponting plays more matches that matter than Kallis does. Much more. No one really cares that much about South African cricket.

Kallis is far from alone, too. Shaun Pollock is a monstrous bowling all-rounder in all formats, Allan Donald was one of the best fast bowlers in the world. The funny thing about these players is, almost everyone seems to think of them as underrated, so they can't be underrated. They're just forgotten.

It's an extremely common trait in humans to overestimate the ability of their own minds. Everyone can see the problems with statistical analyses- they're huge and obvious- but many seem blind to the much bigger problems with using their own perceptions to judge a cricketer. I've come to the conclusion that if two players are scoring the same amount of runs over a very, very long period of time, there probably isn't that much between them as batsman. In any case, certainly not 200 test wickets worth.

Yes, this sums up my feeling about South Africa cricket, it for some reason is never given its full due. I used to think its because they dont play the most attractive cricket but even someone exciting like Dale Steyn took a long time to get credit as the best.

Regarding Kallis, perhaps we can ask Indian fans whether they would have rated Dravid better than Tendulkar if Dravid has over 250 wickets?