Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes

You can deduce excellence from a spreadsheet, but greatness is something else. Nearly all great players are excellent and most excellent players are great, but the two sets are not quite the same. Learie Constantine was a great player but his numbers are anaemic; Ken Barrington had a fantabulous Test batting average but few refer to him as an ATG.

Stephen’s paean to Kallis, like so many invitations to call him a great player, relies too much on “Look at these numbers” for me to be comfortable with it. The player I have watched over many years does not quite match the conclusions drawn.

Comparing his batting average to Sobers’s is a bit naughty. Sobers averaged in the high fifties at a time when most good batsmen averaged in the mid-to-high forties, whereas Kallis is doing it when his peers are averaging 55. He is far less comparable to Sobers than he is to Geoff Boycott, who was similarly eminent relative to his peers.

‘Boycs’ was a childhood hero of mine, so I don’t mean that comparison pejoratively, but in the end he too fell short of what I need from a batsmen to make me call him “great”. What neither Kallis nor Boycott have done – at least not often enough for anyone to notice – is really dominate a Test bowling attack, and I want to see at least occasional domination in my greats. One of the things which lifts Gavaskar above Boycott for me is the way he put West Indian bowlers to the sword in the Caribbean, even if his signature innings was the patiently resistant double hundred at The Oval in 1979.

Kallis’s bowling is even less remarkable. He is the only member of the 200-wicket club to have taken less than two wickets per match. No other member has as few as three 5-wicket hauls against major teams – the others all have at least six. Against non-minnow teams, his average is a moderate 34, and the trend is upwards, not downwards. He is a fill-in bowler par extraordinaire, but an attack featuring him as one of four specialists would look very thin indeed.

None of this is meant to belittle what he has achieved, still less to deny his enormous value as a player. Only a captain already able to call on Aubrey Faulkner, Keith Miller and Garry Sobers would be sane to leave him out, and South Africa are a very strong side because of the amount he contributes. At what he does, he is undoubtedly excellent.

To me, though, he lacks the sprinkling of magic dust which bestows greatness. If I’ve got involved with a good conversation in the bar, the news that great player has come on to bowl or out to bat causes me to quickly finish up and get outside, but hearing that Kallis is about to get going usually seems like a cue for me to get the next round in. But if his record is enough to satisfy you about his greatness, as it certainly appears it is for Stephen, then I wish you joy in him.

Comparisons should be between one individual & the other. Just because Kallis has peers such as Tendulkar, Ponting & Dravid doesnt make him any less great as Sobers is. We revel in appauding past greats but fail to understand we are seeing greatness being achieved. It is not how many five-for Kallis achieved in his 235+. It is how many Tendulkars or Pontings or Dravids or any other important batsmen that he got. Those are the wickets that change matches & Kallis has done enough of that to be termed as great on par with Sir Gary. Sometimes Numbers do play a part. If they dont then probably Sachin Tendulkar must be put above Sir Don just for the fact that he carries more pressure & hopes than anyone in the History of the Game has done.

Kallis is a great cricketer. Thats what the focus should be on, his skills and contributions as a cricketer. So what if hes not as marketable as people like Lara/Tendulkar etc? Fact is he is a consistant performer with the bat, and a more than useful bowler. It may not be as well remembered but there have been many occasions where Kallis has dug SA out of a hole or guided them to victory/draw, and he has done it often, his man of the match awards should be evidence enough of this. Sadly i dont think he will be remembered in the same league as past greats, but he hasnt been any less valuable to SA cricket than those players were to their respective teams.

Mike, thanks for the article. My comments on Gelb's article haven't been posted even after 2 days. Part of what I posted there:
1) If India in the 60s are a minnow, why not the West Indies of now?
2) 3 best bowlers of Kallis' time: McGrath, Warne & Murali. Best bowling attack in Sir Garry's time was England with Trueman, Statham, Snow, Underwood etc. How does Gelb's ultimate measure, i.e. numbers from statsguru, like that comparison?
3) Why should Stephen ignore Sir Garry's numbers for and against World XI?
Bowling:
1) Will anyone SURPASS Sir Garry's versatility with the ball and catching close to the wicket?
2) Has Kallis ever been a 5-in-1 player? Open with the new ball, bowl the spin after the shine is off, be the premier batsman around whom the team's batting revolves, stay at short leg without a helmet and on top of all captain the team?
PS: Not even Lillee or Holding inflicted 3 ducks on Boycott. No other bowler dismisses that great stonewaller Barrington 7 times.

Just for a reminder buddy. Sunil Gavaskar never faced the great pace attack of the Caribbean Away from home. Every time Indians visited the Caribbean Islands they faced a depleted attack that contained none of the four most feared bowlers of all time. Most, infact all of the West Indian bowlers that Sunil faced away from home in his career were so weak that they couldn't make way for themselves at international level. It also goes to show how weak India was at that time that even without their great pace attack the West Indies dominated India in all the series that were played in the Caribbean in Sunil Gavaskar's time.

Mike, another reminder to ya.. Kallis plays most of his games at home in SA where pitches are such that there is no such concept as a 'draw'. Batting is notoriously hard in SA with fast, bouncy, swinging pitches shelling out results in 3 days. With such a majority of his runs being scored at home,it is unreasonable to compare him with peers such as Tendulkar, Gavaskar (flat FLAT pitches in India), Lara (Antigua,anybody?). Its comparing apples and oranges. Kallis is a great of his own. And if you think his bowling ain't great, Smith has been throwing the ball at him everytime KP has come out to bat this series, and he's responded quite well thus far. Think about it Mike!

first of all wishes to kallis for passing the landmark set by sobers.Surely kallis ranks high among the list of all rounders.theres plenty of catching to do by the allrounders around the globe to get even near to kallis mark..starting under wessels and then again cronje, this lad turned out to be an eye candy for the south africans amassing centuries...though jis bowling is not at his devastating best, yet he manages to find an odd 3 for or 4 for here and there....he is known for his batting while his bowling is just an additional asset to the team..every captan would want such a potent player in his side.and rarely some of them manage to find one...though vaughan and gayle are lucky in having freddie and bravo in their side...but they are no where near the kallis zone...hope to see you kallis hitting some 30-40 odd centuries and grabbing 300-400 wickets....

Hi. It seems that ppl dont really appreciate King Kallis. Maybe he dosent change a game as quick as a pieterson or a ponting, but what about the times that a pieterson gets out after making 13 of 5 balls? so by playing flamboyantly it pays out sometimes n sometime fails, whereas kallis is generally stable. but i think kallis will break out of his shackles soon, he is no more so heavily relied on like be, safers r getting sronger n more stable.
their top 6 is in the top 25 batsmen i think.
also maybe 3 will compliment the other 3
smith and mckenzie
kallis and amla
de villiers and prince.
kallis is on par with ponting, peterson,sangakarra etc with his batting.
also smart slip fielder.
what about his bowling compared to these batsmen?
more than 200 test wickets.
he is dangerous esp. in swinging conditions.
KING KALLIS

Vikram hit the nail on the head: Mike contradicts himself: numbers cant be used to determine greatness and he proves this with, guess what? Yes, those pesky little numbers. They are always the bottom line. And to quote Homer simpson, "...stats can be used to prove anything, 38% of people know that" but at the end of the day, a decision is made. I believe we have witnessed a fantastic player, a player that few teams in history would refuse to take. Yes he hasnt torn teams apart with bat & ball. That was not his game or his role. He contains with the bat & ball. He has some fantastic players around him that throw the bat, he steadied the ship and had to compete with some amazing bowlers in pollock and donald. 236 wickets and nearly 10000 runs cannot be ignored. The great don scored heavily against the minnows of his era. In 15 games vs Ind/SA and WI he scored an amazing total of 1968 runs & 10X100(5 doubles.) Avg vs eng still amazing at 89, but his stats were padded against minnows.

Well.. first of all, it is important for all of us to realize that Kallis is a player capable of flamboyance. Anyone who has seen him long enough will acknowledge that he can dominate any bowling in the world as he has done often enough (not so much in recent past though!). So much so that Even South African selectors rue the fact of not including him in the T20 World Cup squad. I've been looking at Sobers v. Kallis comparison for quite some time now. If Mike thinks a 1.92 wickets per test are not enough to justify you as a useful bowler, how about 2.35 test per wicket for Sobers, which is marginally above Kallis, but again, others have done much better. Sobers had a bowling average of 34.5 (very ordinary!) compared to Kaliis' 31.5. Sobers didn't play any One-day games and wasn't faced with the same gruelling cricket calendar as someone like Kallis. Sobers might have been great in his own right, but Kallis has surpassed his feats and is one of the game's all time greats.

If Kallis had a British or Australian passport, then this topic wouldn't even be raised! It's an absolute disgrace that this is being debated.

Shame on the author, but then again it's a little typical of the media isn't it.

Why don't you (Mike Holmons) give credit where credit is due! Kallis is contrary to your opinion is one of the great cricketers of all time, certainly one of the best ever all-rounders!

Regards,

Funny thing that most of us do not understand is we are comparing him with best of the batsmen or bowlers of his time but applauding his achievement of get pass Sober’s record. So believing that all of us have played his game of Cricket at some stage of our life let me remind that a GREAT All-Rounder is a tag that can only be given to a bowling all-rounder who earns his place as a bowler first who is the attacking weapon for is captain not a defensive ploy, so please start judging All-rounder on this scale who can score centuries too. So in light of the above I feel sorry to say that Kallis can not be labeled as an All-rounder so greatness is far off. If you still believe that Kallis is a All-rounder then please include Waugh brothers, Sachin Tendulkar, Sanath Jayasuria & many more like them.

I think that we need to be very careful when labelling a player "GREAT". Sure , stats do play an important part as numbers dont't lie, but for me, GREATNESS is much more than that. The player would have had to change the face of cricket and somehow contributed to extending the boundaries of the game. A few players come to mind :

1. WG Grace
2. Donald Bradman
3. Vivian Richards ("master blaster")
4. Sanath Jayasuriya & Romesh Kaluwitharana (the original "pinch hitters" in ODI's)
5. Sachin Tendulkar
6. Brian Lara ("bums on seats")
7. Shane Warne ("the entertainer"
8. Muttiah Muralitharan
9. Adam Gilchrist (arguably the greateset all rounder that we will ever see)
10. Holding , Garner , Roberts & Marshall (a a unit they revolutionised fast bowling)

Kallis is a great South African cricketer , the best produced by SA by a long margin. However , in my opinion , he falls just short of being "GREAT" - maybe that elusive double hundred might change that...I don't know.

Am wondering:
Who are the peers that you are talking about here:
"
Comparing his batting average to Sobers’s is a bit naughty. Sobers averaged in the high fifties at a time when most good batsmen averaged in the mid-to-high forties, whereas Kallis is doing it when his peers are averaging 55. He is far less comparable to Sobers than he is to Geoff Boycott, who was similarly eminent relative to his peers."

Besides, he was talking about All-rounders - Boycs might be rotund now but he cant be called an all-rounder. Hardly any bowling from him.

I cannot believe this article. As a fan of Kallis, as i have been for a long time, I have never understood why Kallis is not appreciated. How many times have South Africa been in dire straights it a one day or test match and Kallis has saved them? I remember one particular incident when Kallis scored 119 off 160 balls - the slowest ODI century, to win a ODI against India. He came in when they were in trouble, steadied the team and eventually won the match for them. At the end people were complaining how slow he'd played, but actually he had just done his job. People say he is selfish, but I believe he is selfless. He doesn't play the big shots in tests merely because he doesn't need to - he controls his ego and avoids getting out for the sake of the team. Mike says stats don't count. What?!!! If greatness isn't measured on stats why is Sir Don the greatest then? Kallis' bowling and batting have proved that the consistently scores big runs and gets wickets. No threat with the ball?...

The numbers do speak for itself at times,otherwise why would the author himself setup the numbers in saying "He is the only member of the 200-wicket club to have taken less than two wickets per match. No other member has as few as three 5-wicket hauls against major teams – the others all have at least six. Against non-minnow teams, his average is a moderate 34, and the trend is upwards, not downwards."if this is not a number gaming then what is it?i find it difficult to understand why people dont want to name KALLIS as an ATG9all time great)IAN BELL is said to be next big thing,KP is already the anoinated GREAT in english cricket.and KALLIS is still not in ATG???he walks into any team for his batting and his bowling though not potent he is not only a "break through "bowler...where as micheal clarke,sachin etc are only break through bowlers.FLINTOFF is a character,he spurs on his team mates.that doesnt qualify greatness.your efficiency in all conditions and pitches make you great&he is.

.. Have a look at the players Kallis has dismissed most in his career. In ODIs amongst his top are Gilchrist, Yousuf, Inzamam, and Tendulkar. In Tests Gilchrist again tops the list and among the others are Chanderpaul, Hayden, Ponting, Thorpe, Khan, and the Waugh brothers. No threat with the ball? These players would argue otherwise. Have a look at statsguru yourself. Still don't agree with me that he is a matchwinner? He has more man-of-the-match awards in both forms of the game than any player! Warne, Bradman, Murali, Sobers, Ponting, the list goes on... he surpasses them all. This speaks for itself and if that's not enough to prove his "greatness" I think we have different meanings of the word then.

Kallis' batting average is 25 higher than his bowling average. This is on par with Sobers, and no other cricketer comes close over a long career.

Let's grant that Sobers was still better, due to captaincy, entertainment value, scoring rate, etc. Fine.

BUT, this still makes Kallis the SECOND best alrounder ever. A batting average 25 higher than a bowling average is far better than Botham, Imran, Kapil, Hadlee, Pollock, Flintoff, etc.

And yes, that simple measure is the correct one for tests. It cancels out all factors like minnows, pitches, different eras, etc. as the batting and bowling is done in the same matches. If batting is easier in one era, that also makes bowling harder for that same all-rounder.

So this Kallis vs. Sobers debate is misleading, in that it tacitly accepts that Kallis is indeed at least the second best all-rounder ever, and thus better than Botham, Kapil, Pollock, Imran, etc. THAT is still amazing.

what actually do u compare...how many runs or wickets has he taken for greatness or how many matches he has saved and won for SA..i think u don't like kallis because u r in the world of 20-20 whereas kallis approach is somewhat different..i love to watch kallis playing..he's an allrounder he has done far better with his bat for his country than any tendulkar or so..and in addition he has got tally of wickets...of course he is great...averaging 50 is common in this era according to you???why don't you see there is lot of competition to get in to the team whose batting line up has 3-4 batsman averaging 50+..see england how many batsman you see averaging 50+?its because they have never changed their line up...there is not much competition..kallis is one of the great player cricket has witnessed..

i want to write "LOL at such idiocy" and leave - but that seems a bit childish. His record against the best team of his time is not anywhere near as bad as most people think. He started his career against the aussies and had a tough outing his 1st two series averages were poor but every one has increased (the last two were poor in comparison to his previous two even though he averaged around/above 40 in both). The point is - he has improved constantly and consistantly. i don't give two hoots about the subjective interpretations of what this and that writer considers great, class or genius.

One thing is certain; if you hear Kallis has come on while in a bar - buy another drink...he'll be there when you're done. If you hear Tendulkar, Shewag or KP is coming out (not my subjective choices of who's great btw) get out the bar cos they simply may not be there when you're done!

Bowling greats - well, that's something else - just as subjective but bowlers could get a wicket at any point

""there are almost as many definitions of cricket greatness as there are cricket-lovers. The main cause of duplication is the faction of know-littles who believe that you can discover greatness with a spreadsheet.""

Yes of course such a faction exists, the members are recognisable and at times annoying but "the main cause"? - probably not!

The main cause is far more likely to be that people are afflicted with emotions which in turn help form their tenuous, tendentious definitions.

In the end, to be taken seriously one has to at least know the spreadsheet - and use it - as you do, by highlighting the places Kallis is revealed as an inadequate comparison.

'Gallery of Greats' or 'History of Heroes' will be regarded as highly as we regard the authors of each - based on our knowledge of their track record (and how we feel about it).

Put it this way - if I'm reading either and Kallis comes out to bat...

Still, you post it here and i'll give it a look [Gleb too - i hope].

I understand the support Kallis recieves, averages over 50, capable of 150+ scores and can take wickets plus a more than handy fielder...but is he as strategically important as Botham/Imran/Dev/Hadlee/Sobers were to their respective teams and eras? I am a Botham fan but have over the years realised that the first third of his career is untouchable but he did not reach the saem heights after so overall Sobers beats him.

Kallis though, come on, 10000 runs is great even if there are (Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid, Ponting) a number of others who are equally capable batsmen, so what if he did not get 200+, I would rather consistency (and for the record I want to dislike
Kallis and agree with the minnow/flattrack arguments) but reality is South Africa is a tough place to bat.

I think a better comparison might be with Mudassar Nazar - opened for Pakistan and 200 odd wickets? Great or Excellent? Kallis is good, no doubt, numbers are one guide, personal opinion a matter for debate!!

Stop attacking the messenger - he makes a few great points.

I love Kallis to bits (have since '95), but seriously when he comes in to bat I either sleep until he has fifty or go for a shower. I even named my pet tortoise after him. I would never do that with Graeme Smith, Sachin, Lara, Ponting or even Sehwag. Yes, he is one of the best cricketers we've ever seen, the stats prove it, but he's never been a crowd puller (hence no T20).

Saying that, at the start of this season against Pakistan and New Zealand, there was something different about him. For the first time he looked like dominating, even getting that elusive 200. If he regains that positivity, he could skip the 200 altogether and get a 300. Then he will truly join the greats. Time is still on his side. Even Hayden didn't turn great until later in his 30's.

Kallis is never supposed to be seen as a specialist bowler or even compared to them. He averages 56 with the bat. What a part-timer...and 128 catches

Sir Garfield Sobers is the greatest allrounder of all time by an absolute mile, Kallis sould not even be mentioned in the same breath. Sobers scored his runs against the best, including his best innings of all his 254 against the world X1 at the MCG, and the amount of innings he through away due to being an entertainer means he could quite easily have averaged 60+. Kallis has had some average boosting series against sides like Bang, Zim and the Windies where Sobers never played against sides with such weak bowling attacks. I find there bowling fairly similar in that they are both partnership breakers who get the big wickets and both are similar type fielders with very sure hands but as a batsman Kallis is not in the same class.
My all-time great allrounders:
1. Garry Sobers
2. Daylight
3. Imran Khan/Jacques Kallis
4. Keith Miller
5. Ian Botham

Nasir

I have a system of judging all-rounder status that works out quite well. Accepting that there are "classic" allrounders, batting allrounders and bowling allrounders, I regard an allrounder as someone who averages at least 20 with the bat AND bowls at least 20 overs per Test match. This distinguishes batting allrounders from occasional bowlers, and bowling allrounders from genuine tailenders (is there any doubt that Vettori, Vaas and Alan Davidson are bowling allrounders?).

For the record, I believe that Sobers is the greatest allrounder, followed by Keith Miller, Imran Khan, Mike Proctor and Jacques Kallis. Even if the order may be a bit wrong, I don't think there's any doubt that these five are among the five greatest allrounders produced anywhere.

Kallis' record against the best team he faced (Australia) is pretty ordinary and he has struggled against Sri Lanka too. This indicates that he hasn't done much against two of the greatest spinners of this era; Warne and Murali. Hes done a lot of minnow bashing over the years, part of the reason why his batting average is bloated and his bowling average looks good. Though, he is a very fine player but he is no way near Sober's calibre. And Sobers obviously was much more skilled all round than Kallis.

PS:Sober's records for World XI should also be considered.

Kallis is a great. How many peers averaging in the 50's have innings that explode that average that is 300+ scores, almost all of them, to average close to 60 with a highest score of 189, show incredible consistency, and am sure perhaps the best average without a score of 200. And as easy as it is to dismiss him as a great all rounder, there is no one even close to him at test cricket the moment and has not been for many years, the closest was Pollock. The reason why the comparisons to sober and Botham etc continue is because there is no one playing right now to compare in too in all rounder status. That is to say no peers at the moment that are good in the all rounder status. So i must dis agree with you.

To complain about Kallis' minnow bashing is missing a point...his accumulative career average is spectacular (and the reason I like him). He starts with a series average of 9 against australia and by the time he'd had 12 innings against them, his average was 21. This is the young Kallis in the early days of readmission.

Jump forward to the last series against oz which he entered on the back of series averages; 49, 37, 83 (super series) and 65 - not bad against the best team of the time over 18 innings. Even though his last series was not great he still managed a century.

He struggled with murali in the beginning of his career too (and, like everyone, still does) but murali has got him only once in their past 7 matches.

As for pulling power - well the IPL paid him handsomely. The fact that he was an abject failure (along with many other modern 'greats') is beside the point - he was obviously seen as someone people really wanted to see. And THAT opinion was backed with cash.

We all are fighting about who is Greatest of all time on the basic of averages so that makes me give all of you a thought to think over that while players like Kallis, Botham & others who played in condition more favorable to bowler have an advantage over those to played in sub-continent pitch where it was hard for them to get a tail-ender out forget about a good or great batsmen meaning that they will always have a moderate bowling average. On the other hand you may ask why then their batting average is not high so the food for thought is that most of the time they don’t get a chance to play a long inning on these pitches as the batsmen before them most of the time score heavily. Hoping that we have logic to understand these & stop rating past & present cricketers against each other.

All hail "Holmans’s History of Heroes". I have been waiting for a long time for someone to take up this point but in these statistically minded times, I doubted if it will ever come up. Kudos to you Mike. Kallis (as a batsman that is) and a few others of the current crop will not qualify as ATGs. Here's a bit of stats juggling for all.
Batsmen who have scored 3000 runs and average more than 50 till date are 28 in total. A whopping dozen of them are/were who batted till the 21st century ('were' are Lara and Andy Flower). Add another 3 - Graeme Smith who is the toast of the moment, Younis Khan and Chanderpaul who are hovering on 49+. These are the ones who have made merry in the last decade and a half where conditions for batting have significantly improved (abetted by an overall decline in bowling standards). Compare this with the 70s and 80s when the number for the above was a meagre 5.
Coming to the subject Kallis - He is an ATG all rounder, but as an ATG batsman - sorry!

He avereages less than 2 wickets a match for two reasons: He had elbow problems and did not bowl in atleast 20-30 of his matches and played as a batsman only.

When he started out Shaun Pollock and Allan Donald were so dominant he rarely was required to bowl more than 10-15 oversan innings.

9000+ Runs 200 wickets is more than most in there respective disciplines. He has won matches by taking key wickets he has saved matches against the best attacks.

You need to look at the context of a carreer. If you take only the matches he has bowled in and neglect the ones he didn't you will find he averages closer to 3 or 4 or match.

Here's a few stats to back up most people's thought's that Kallis is a great player.
The following are the players stats for tests only - No off/Ave/100's/StkeRte

JKallis - 121/55.87/30/43.95
RDravid - 123/54.54/25/41.98
VRichards - 121/50.23/24/69.28

I am pretty sure that the 2 other players mentioned here will go down as Great players so why not Kallis looking at these numbers.
Here are their ODI stats-

JKallis - 269/46.17/16/71.63
RDravid - 329/39.48/12/71.16
VRichards - 187/47.00/11/90.20

Again Kallis's stats are amazing considering he is generally regarded as a Test player only.

Here's an amazing stat for you -

JKallis - Test wickets - 236 @ 31.33
- ODI wickets - 235 @ 31.59

WOW.....

A simple measure of a good all-rounder's worth that has been bandied about over the years is: the player should make the team as a Batsman AND as a Bowler. With that criteria in mind, lets consider Kallis. Will he make the current SA team just as a batsman? Definitely. Will he make the team just as a bowler? Definitely NOT. As such, Kallis cannot be considered a great all-rounder.
Let's apply the same parameters to some of the other greats over the years, and see who qualifies.

Sobers - yes and yes
Hadlee - yes as a bowler, definite no as a batsman
Imran - yes as a bowler, maybe as a batsman
Kapil - yes as a bowler, maybe as a batsman
Botham - yes as a bowler, maybe as a batsman
Pollock - yes as a bowler, no as a batsman
Akram - yes as a bowler, no as a batsman

Sobers is the only "yes" on both counts. If Imran, Kapil and Botham were just batsmen, in my opinion they would have had stop-start careers, showing occasional flashes of aggressive brilliance - so they occupy the second rung

Who is to say that Kallis doesn’t entertain the crowd? Whilst I do understand the point of view that is being made, many traditional cricket lovers actually like the type of attritional competition that Kallis can have with his opponents. If Kallis had of scored maybe 4000 runs and taken 125 wickets, that would make it far easier to downgrade his achievements. The cold hard fact remains, that he has scored almost 10000 runs at 55-60, and has taken 250 odd wickets. In this particular circumstance ( and Im not one to dwell on statistics, RE Keith Miller, who IS the greatest all rounder of all time, and whose statistics compared to some might be perceived as being say above average ) Kallis’s stats speak volumes about his great achievements. Boring player, well maybe to a few, but a great player, yes.

THe Key is producing special innings when it counts, and coming in and breaking partnerships when needed.

Kallis has saved south africa from trouble many times. Winning matches is what he does, considering the amount of times he has gog MOM awards.

Consider how Kevin Peterson threw his wicket away in Englands 2nd innings just 2 days ago, arguably gifting south africa the series - kallis would never look to play such a rash stupid shot. HE is one that the team can rely on and i am sure he would take alot more wickets but he prefers to relax at 1st slip now that age is catching up with him, and why not? if you can bat like that why do you need to bowl? I shudder to think what would have happened if he only concentrated on batting his entire career!

nice piece of writing. I really think that a subjective measure "greatness" can not be argued from an objective measures of averages. Kallis is a fortress but what Smith did in the last test match against England.. that is what greatness is about. The score was not the highest in the world. Didn't break many records, wouldn't change Smith's average by much, but I don't think any one would disagree that the innings was one of the greatest. Numerically speaking the only record broken was the highest number of runs chased in the last innings in that ground, subjectively speaking one of the greatest innings atleast in the last few years.

Kallis has the number but doesnt have the "umph"factor, the memorable spells or innings which really put him in the greats catagory. In comparison all rounding under acheivers such as Imran, Botham, Wasim, etc have such spells and innings which were "great" and that is why they beat Kallis in subjective assessment just as Smiths innings did