Trust me.. I have followed the guy since his first test... He has never really had faster stroking batsmen around him for him to play that role... Maybe now he does but earlier, it was Kirsten, Hudson and then Cullinan and Cronje and Gibbs after him... And excepting perhaps Cullinan, none of them were scoring particularly quickly around that time...
It might do if you have a team 9 down in the second innings and only have 10 overs or so to dislodge the last wicket...
assuming the batting partner faces roughly the same no of balls, you are talking about 13-14 extra overs kallis would need to reach a hundred, which is one hour of playing time in test cricket. I think it will make a lot of difference between winning and losing.
No comments
I didn't vote for Miller but dude... have you read your own signature:
As for Kallis, I can see what Uppercut is saying. Kallis is a brilliant batsman and sure he's not as flamboyant as a Sobers or Richards that is obvious, but I wouldn't call him a selfish Test player at all.
Ofcourse,you didn't but some of your countrymen voted only for Miller and didn't even cast a second vote.
Kallis doesn't make my top 5 because I think
But the batting partner is scoring runs too, at his own rate, so that's an unreasonable doubling of the actual figure. And Kallis's team mates generally scored much quicker than Sobers's, so his slower strike rate was easily covered and became pretty much irrelevant, particularly on the pitches in South Africa which are notorious for bringing results. In Kallis's fourteen year career there's been thirteen draws in test matches in South Africa, out of 75 games.
That's a pretty specific set of circumstances, but it's worth remembering that it's just as likely that your team will be 9 down in the second innings with 10 more overs to bat out.
Kallis, interestingly, is a threat to any batsman in the world. Look at who he's dismissed most, there's some absolutely great players right at the top. It was pretty noticeable last summer when he nailed KP three times in four matches. I firmly believe you always need to take out the minnow figures to get a player's real stats, and Kallis's are a little more warped that most because he has been excellent against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. But "useful" bowlers don't get a player like Adam Gilchrist out six times. He's a serious all-rounder.
i went for miller and botham because they were more well-rounded for the title. but i never discredited sobers or imran. in fact I am not unhappy to see sobers and imran winning the poll because they were probably the most effective match winners predominantly using their batting and bowling skills respectively and very strongly contributing in the other department even if their performances in both departments did not come together more often as in the case of miller or botham.
well I agree with you. but still if someone features among more people's top 2 than another player who features as no.1 in far less no of lists, then the first player is more deserving for the title since this method would probably iron out biases. like if i am biased towards hadlee my second vote would still go to the most deserving cricketer since i am already satisfied with voting for my hero as first choice. also, as you had said yourself earlier this has resulted in more interesting debates than a 75-1-1 result otherwise.
Good to see people cant read topics. Illiterate much?
I've long since given up trying to explain the complexities of cricket to half-wit number crunchers.
Generally it's accepted that there was a decent period of six or seven years when he really was an excellent bowler. The flip-side being that, evidently, for the rest of his career he was a very poor bowler.
