Skip to main content

The Springbok Superman

Given his personality (or the supposed lack thereof), it feels slightly odd to imagine Kallis donning a cape and costume but amongst modern day cricketers (ie post 1990) he came closest to being superhuman in terms of his overall achievements in Test cricket alone. Tendulkar and Ponting have more runs (and the former more hundreds), Dravid has as many runs and a few more catches, Ponting and Waugh have more Test match wins, but the fact that Kallis scored as many runs as he did (at an average over 55), took nearly 300 wickets and picked up 200 catches puts him above them all as an all-round cricketer. Add to that over 11000 runs and 270 wickets in ODI cricket, and a pretty successful IPL career (including a pivotal role in one title win) and the superman image starts to build up quickly.

My memories of the man however are nowhere close to that image. The first two things that came to mind when Kallis announced his retirement were - 1) All of the cricketers on my favourite XI(I) are now retired, and 2) The top 5 run scorers of all time will not add to their tally any more. Kallis has always for me been about solidity and reliability and like the best functioning machines its hard to isolate moments and images that were remarkable. Partly because there were so many of them and partly because he did everything with such little flourish and pomp. The latter (and the fact that he was from South Africa who don't have a tradition of going overboard with their athletes) meant that he rarely got the kind of recognition he deserved from fans or the media. His team clearly acknowledged his greatness though with most of them unhesitatingly dubbing him the greatest South African cricketer ever. He may not have sold tickets or drawn in TV audiences but he won matches (or saved them from being lost) and that's a much more valuable (if sometimes under-appreciated) quality in a cricketer.

Much has also been made of the comparisons with Sobers and whether Kallis could really be called an allrounder (the blog post here being one example). I think the traditional or much bandied around definition of an all-rounder being one who can be selected in the team on the strength of any of his primary skills (batting, bowling, and/or keeping) is somewhat limited. To me the more sensible view is that an all-rounder gives his team the value of two players thereby allowing the team the luxury of playing a virtual 'extra' man. And this Kallis did much better than any cricketer in his generation and as well as Sobers, Botham, Miller, Imran and any other allrounder of any era. The other oft-quoted numerical bar for an all rounder is [batting average - bowling average] and on this criteria too Kallis (with a value of 22.72 in Tests and 13.07 in ODIs) surpasses most allrounders across eras and is very nearly the equal of Sobers. To be the second best of all time (behind a once in a lifetime genius) is not a bad way to call it a day.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...

First thoughts on the Ashes

The only minor surprise for me in the 2013 Australian Ashes squad announced last week was the selection of James Faulkner ahead of Moises Henriques as the second all-rounder. Minor because given  the Shane Watson shenanigans of recent times, I would have thought that Inverarity and co would have opted for a second batting all-rounder (which is what Henriques clearly is). Instead they've gone with a bowling all-rounder in Faulkner and it'll be interesting to see what happens if Watson's batting woes in Test match cricket continue in the first two Tests. As for the rest of the squad, given the way the inexperienced batting performed in India, Rogers and Haddin were always going to make it in to the team and the choice of Khawaja over Smith appears sound too given that the latter's strength is in playing spin bowling. The batting still looks as unsettled and shaky as the Indian fast bowling line-up and its here that the series will be won or lost for the Aussies. The retu...

Much ado about a run-out

Judging by the amount that's been said and written about Ian Bell's run-out-that-wasn't at Trent Bridge, you would think that it has been the most significant occurrence of the series so far when nothing could be further from the truth. Andrew Miller  and Samir Chopra seem to be of the opinion that it was the crucial turning point in the match, which I completely disagree with (the post-tea sessions on days one and two were far more critical and momentum shifting). Andy Flower says that if Tendulkar had been run-out similarly in Bombay, it would have caused an international incident. He's clearly feeling the effects of having been in the England cricket set-up for too long given that a) its very improbable that Tendulkar would do something as daft as Bell did, and b) when a controversial run-out (but within the laws) did happen to him (against Pakistan at Eden Gardens no less), Tendulkar went out to the crowd and appealed to them to calm down and let the game proceed...