More »
Q) What do Chris Cairns, Andrew Flintoff, Jacob Oram and Shane Watson have in common?
A) They were all touted as genuine allrounders but never lived up to that billing, either due to lack of form or due to injuries.
Q) What is the most coveted commodity in a lineup irrespective of the format?
A) An allrounder.
It would make sense then that someone who consistently scored runs and took wickets without breaking down would be more important than someone who did just one of those. Instead, we have a situation where such a player has been branded as dour, uninspirational, and sometimes even selfish. After all, all cricket experts majored in psychology and have an insight into the minds of international cricketers.
It came as no surprise when the experts at Cricinfo voted Ricky Ponting the Player of the Decade. He fit the bill in pretty much every category that has forever been considered important, even if it makes absolutely no sense. Experts have forever tried to tie in individual successes with the team's fortunes. It's a good idea on the face of it - What good is a hundred if it's in a losing cause? - But it overlooks the fact that there are ten other players on the team, and that the batsman who scored that hundred didn't do it in the knowledge that it would be in a losing cause.
Let's take a look at what the Cricinfo editor had to say:
We asked the jury to choose the Player of Decade on the basis of quality of their performances, consistency and durability, contribution to their team's overall performance, and the impact they had on the game on the whole.
To me, the choice is pretty simple. A player who performs two roles consistently well trumps one who performs a single role with the same consistency. Every international side has been looking for their Jacques Kallis, none has been able to find theirs. On the other hand, every international side has a dominant batsman - Sehwag for India, Yousuf/Younis for Pakistan, Sangakkara/Jayawardene for Sri Lanka, Smith for South Africa, Pietersen for England, Lara for West Indies. Any of these batsmen could have replaced Ponting in the Australian lineup and it would have made barely any difference to the Australian side. Can the same be said about any batsman or bowler replacing Kallis?
We can talk about how Kallis is not as dominant as Ponting. We can say his side chokes on the big stage. And yet the sight of Kallis at the crease is a lot more reassuring than that of Ponting, not to mention the yawning gap between their bowling. When you pick Kallis you're essentially picking two players irrespective of the format. He has withstood the rigours of international cricket unlike the other allrounders of his era. He could have taken the easy way out by focusing on just one discipline or retiring from a format to preserve himself and make a quick buck, and yet he's routinely accused of playing for himself.
Showing posts with label ESPN Cricinfo Player of the decade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ESPN Cricinfo Player of the decade. Show all posts
The Case for Kallis
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
