Jacques Kallis v Rahul Dravid

[howardj]

I think a big part of the Dravid/Kallis comparison is that if you're an Indian batsman you tend to have a bit of mystique about you and get thought of as having a gentle, unselfish nature. I also think, as a rule, people think of good Indian players as having a touch of genius about them, more so than guys from other countries. By contrast, people take more pot shots at South Africans and as a rule are more likely to accuse them of selfishness or other negative traits.

 

[silentstriker]

I think a big part of the Dravid/Kallis comparison is that if you're an Indian batsman you tend to have a bit of mystique about you and get thought of as having a gentle, unselfish nature. I also think, as a rule, people think of good Indian players as having a touch of genius about them, more so than guys from other countries. By contrast, people take more pot shots at South Africans and as a rule are more likely to accuse them of selfishness or other negative traits.

What are you serious? India has had a monopoly on selfish batsmen. Dravid is not one of them. Also one of the reasons that Indian batsmen get this mystique is that they play a lot of shots (way too many in fact), so thats why they get the 'air' of genius. Of course, in reality, when the ball is seaming, the genius quickly becomes idiotic.

 

[Jono]

I think a big part of the Dravid/Kallis comparison is that if you're an Indian batsman you tend to have a bit of mystique about you and get thought of as having a gentle, unselfish nature. I also think, as a rule, people think of good Indian players as having a touch of genius about them, more so than guys from other countries. By contrast, people take more pot shots at South Africans and as a rule are more likely to accuse them of selfishness or other negative traits.

I know Kallis is your favourite cricketer, and I'm a huge fan too, but that is so off the mark its incredible.

People bag South Africans? B. Richards, G and S Pollock and Donald are much loved.

The fact is, ask anyone from every country and you'll get a few people saying that either a) Kallis sometimes seems like he bats selfishly, or b) Kallis bats selfishly.

Anyone remember the look on Gibbs' face when he was run out by Kallis in Sydney when he was trying to go for quick runs?

 

[Eclipse]

IMO Kallis would be a bloody awesome batsman if he was more aggressive..

Bloody strong man and a clean striker of the ball, should take the bowlers on more and have developed that side of his game.

 

[The Sean]

Kallis has a highest Test score of 189* and a highest FC score of 200.

For mine he and Vaughan would up near the list of best guys never to score a 200 in Tests. Heck Gillespie has one

Gillespie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kallis and Vaughan

Sutcliffe, Chappelli, Cowdrey, MWaugh, Richie Richardson and Azharuddin can all be added to that list of players without a test double ton, off the top of my head.

 

[honestbharani]

Yea, and I think Abbas was in the nineties when it happened.

Dravid has got Saeed Anwar out in the 90s in an ODI.

 

[Francis]

Dravid for me.

If it's just batting we're talking about, then it's Dravid.

If it's whole contributions to teams, then it's Dravid.

I think as the years pass by we're going to see a lot of batsman averaging in the 50s, and that may be down to many reasons. Jaques Kallis, to me, is just one of those batsmen who's stats look far better than they really are. Not to say he isn't a glorious batsman when he gets going - and like I've said before, his batting in the 2004/05 series against England was sublime.

I suppose Kallis deserves to be called an all-rounder. But to me his bowling isn't very impacting on a game. I'm sure he's gotten the odd fiver here or there, but genrally he strikes me as very pedestrian. It's the same with Gary Sobers for me, people talk about him being four bowlers in one, but he'd be likely to only get two or so wickets a game. The fact that Kallis can bowl doesn't put him over Dravid for me, as Dravid is more likely to influence the game with his batting IMO.

 

[R_D]

IMO Kallis would be a bloody awesome batsman if he was more aggressive..

Bloody strong man and a clean striker of the ball, should take the bowlers on more and have developed that side of his game.

Thats the point... you know he can do it yet he choses not to... this might be the reason why people get the impression that he might be a tad self-fish and when he plays innings like the sydney one.. well those doubts do come into play.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Not sure if Kallis HAS to perform the holding role in the RSA side, given that till Smith emerged, they really didn't have another attacking batting option in their side in the top 6.

?

Herschelle Gibbs.
Hansie Cronje.
Jonty Rhodes.
Lance Klusener.
Shaun Pollock.
Darryl Cullinan.

All these guys were hardly "stonewallers". I know that they're not all pure batsmen, but the South African team during the emergence of Kallis included a number of all-rounders.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It's interesting.

Steve Waugh limits his game, and strokeplay, and it improves his average.
Jacques does the same, and gets labelled selfish.

Something that probably hasn't helped that label is that - from the outside looking in - he has never really even been a "spiritual leader" for the side, despite being it's best player. You don't have to be a captain (or a vice captain) to do that - look at Warne.

 

[Jono]

Dravid for me.

If it's just batting we're talking about, then it's Dravid.

If it's whole contributions to teams, then it's Dravid.

I think as the years pass by we're going to see a lot of batsman averaging in the 50s, and that may be down to many reasons. Jaques Kallis, to me, is just one of those batsmen who's stats look far better than they really are. Not to say he isn't a glorious batsman when he gets going - and like I've said before, his batting in the 2004/05 series against England was sublime.

I suppose Kallis deserves to be called an all-rounder. But to me his bowling isn't very impacting on a game. I'm sure he's gotten the odd fiver here or there, but genrally he strikes me as very pedestrian. It's the same with Gary Sobers for me, people talk about him being four bowlers in one, but he'd be likely to only get two or so wickets a game. The fact that Kallis can bowl doesn't put him over Dravid for me, as Dravid is more likely to influence the game with his batting IMO.

Hmmm, I've argued myself that Kallis today is much less of an allrounder than your Flintoff or Bravo etc., but there's no doubt in my mind that in years gone by he's been one of the best allrounders of the last few years.

http://www1.cricinfo.com/link_to_da...SUPSIX/NZ_RSA_WC99_ODI-SUPSIX6_10JUN1999.html

Look at that performance in the 99 WC. Came in at 4, belted around the bowling at a SR well over 100, and then opened the bowling for SA taking 2 wickets with a very low economy rate.

Kallis has it in him to a) score fast when he wants to, and b) bowl really great spells of swing bowling.

His bowling in the 1st innings in the recent test vs. India was first class. You don't remove a well set Tendulkar and Dravid in the same test if you're a part-timer.

 

[haroon510]

both of them are the most boring batsmen in my list. for the sak of topic i would say kaills cuz of his bowling.

 

[Slow Love™]

It's interesting.

Steve Waugh limits his game, and strokeplay, and it improves his average.
Jacques does the same, and gets labelled selfish.

Something that probably hasn't helped that label is that - from the outside looking in - he has never really even been a "spiritual leader" for the side, despite being it's best player. You don't have to be a captain (or a vice captain) to do that - look at Warne.

I think the whole "Kallis is selfish" perception, whether right or wrong, has more to do with what he does when the team needs faster scoring to push for victory than it does with limiting his game and strokeplay.

But FWIW, Waugh certainly cops some stick in some circles (it may only be in Australia) for being a red-inker.

 

[honestbharani]

?

Herschelle Gibbs.
Hansie Cronje.
Jonty Rhodes.
Lance Klusener.
Shaun Pollock.
Darryl Cullinan.

All these guys were hardly "stonewallers". I know that they're not all pure batsmen, but the South African team during the emergence of Kallis included a number of all-rounders.

Well, Gibbs didn't become a permanent guy for a while in their side and in his first few tests, he did take his time to score his runs, IIRC. Cronje wasn't exactly aggressive as a batsman, although I suppose he had a pretty decent strike rate. Rhodes wasn't a regular either for a while there. Cullinan was definitely a rather positive batsman. But my point was that during a while there, for RSA, their two best batsmen were both sort of stonewallers and it never helps your team if it is that way.Kallis and Kirsten were the real consistent ones and I thought since Kirsten didn't quite look like he had the talent to be more positive, Kallis should have taken up that mantle.


But with STeve Waugh and Dravid, there was a definite need for a steadying hand in the middle for both sides given that the rest of their middle order had really positive players who weren't quite as dependable as these two.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Kallis' bowling has really improved in recent times. He went through a couple of years where he was totally hopeless with the ball, but in the last 12 months or so he's come back quite well.

His batting hasn't been all that stunning in recent times, but he's still one of the top batsmen in world cricket. Ponting, Yousuf and Dravid are clearly the form players around right now, but after them you'd have Kallis, Lara and perhaps Hussey.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, its not a huge deal to not ever clear 200, but it does work against him. Dravid has five double centuries, including in Australia. Like I said before, its one of the things that works in favor of Lara too (his ability to score massive).

 

[The Sean]

I think the whole "Kallis is selfish" perception, whether right or wrong, has more to do with what he does when the team needs faster scoring to push for victory than it does with limiting his game and strokeplay.

But FWIW, Waugh certainly cops some stick in some circles (it may only be in Australia) for being a red-inker.

Ian Chappell is one in particular who makes no secret of his exasperation with what he calls the "Steve Waugh Myth".

 

[Choc]

As much as it kills me to say if i were to choose someone who i know would get us through it would definately be Dravid.

 

[Slow Love™]

Ian Chappell is one in particular who makes no secret of his exasperation with what he calls the "Steve Waugh Myth".

Yeah, but Chappell has always had a particular dislike of Waugh on a personal level - maybe not blokey enough for him, I dunno. And I think things grew even more acrimonious when Waugh was given the captaincy, as Chappelli was (and still is) a heavy Warne backer for the gig.

I practically worship the ground Steve Waugh stands on, and I've never regarded him to be a selfish player (I think he was great at both saving our bacon if needed AND doing whatever it took to win a game) - but one myth I'm always a bit surprised to hear perpetuated is that one about his ability to bat with the tail. I think someone on cricinfo brought it up yet again the other day. Truth is, he rarely manipulated the strike when batting with the tail, and often gave them three or four balls of an over to handle the bowling. I think he saw it as showing faith in them, and he encouraged them to put a price on their wicket (and some guys like Gillespie repaid the favor), but I don't think he demonstrated the ability of say, a Bevan or a Gilchrist (or a Hussey) to really add a large amount of runs with the tail.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, but Chappell has always had a particular dislike of Waugh on a personal level - maybe not blokey enough for him, I dunno. And I think things grew even more acrimonious when Waugh was given the captaincy, as Chappelli was (and still is) a heavy Warne backer for the gig.

I practically worship the ground Steve Waugh stands on, and I've never regarded him to be a selfish player (I think he was great at both saving our bacon if needed AND doing whatever it took to win a game) - but one myth I'm always a bit surprised to hear perpetuated is that one about his ability to bat with the tail. I think someone on cricinfo brought it up yet again the other day. Truth is, he rarely manipulated the strike when batting with the tail, and often gave them three or four balls of an over to handle the bowling. I think he saw it as showing faith in them, and he encouraged them to put a price on their wicket (and some guys like Gillespie repaid the favor), but I don't think he demonstrated the ability of say, a Bevan or a Gilchrist (or a Hussey) to really add a large amount of runs with the tail.

Exactly right mate, and it was interesting to see the two points of view on that - some said that he was being selfish and exposing the tail so he'd get the red ink, others claimed it showed faith in them and gave them extra confidence. Chappelli, needless to say, was one of the former, and also had it in for Tugga over his announcing his retirement before the India series and so having a whole grand "Steve Waugh Farewell Tour" thing.

Personally I'm with you though - I think the man's a legend. He might have had a lot not-outs, but the number of backs-to-the-wall tons he made for us over the years, for his leadership by example of the Australian team, for his imbuing of both the Australian team and the Australian cricketing public with a respect for the history and traditions of the game not seen for many years, I reckon he more than earned the right to a few average-boosting red-inks next to his name.