Jacques Kallis - dramatically underrated

And on the other side in the encounter between the world's top 2 sides - Jacques Kallis scored his 39th hundred to draw level with Ricky Ponting. Even now, having finally scored a double hundred in this series and then moving to second in the all-time Test century makers list (as he's played less Tests than Ricky Ponting and/or he's earlier in the alphabet?!), I can't help feeling he's massively underrated....especially in England as he's not been at his best against us. Given that he's scored as many hundreds as Ponting, the Aussie skipper seems like a good man to compare him against....

Kallis is a guy who averages 56.4 compared to Ponting's 53.5, averages 32 with the ball at an economy rate of well under 3 (he'll take well over 300 Test wickets by the time he's done - he's on 270 at the moment), and has as good a set of hands as Ponting, having taken 166 catches (to Ponting's 178). A truly class act, and if he were Australian he'd be in the Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath bracket (or perhaps of those only Warne can claim to be his equal) but somehow he sneaks under the radar as an all-time great as he plays for South Africa. He makes my all-time international XI comfortably.

Is it best to be occasionally brilliant?

Now that Australia have finally dropped Mitchell Johnson I think it raises some interesting questions about why some bowlers are retained for longer than others. Some seem to be retained against all common sense, while others are always talked about as close to being dropped. I'm no psychologist, but it must come down to people (and selectors) feeling more favourable towards players who give brilliant performances and very poor ones, compared to the steady-eddies.

Of course the best bowlers are always steady-eddies and can occasionally put in brilliant match-winning performances too. I'm thinking of bowlers like McGrath, Warne, and dare I say his name in the same breath, Flintoff in his latter career (NB. he had a far better later part of his career). Their worst was a decent Test match performance. And their bowling averages - yes, I know stats don't tell the full story - back that up.

But then you've got the steady-eddies who don't seem to ever be quite as revered as the scattergun occasional match winners. I'm thinking of the likes of Angus Fraser who averaged 27 but always seemed to be on the verge of being dropped in the second half of his career. Or Matthew Hoggard, who's average of 30.5 puts him miles ahead of Devon Malcolm (37), Steve Harmison (31.8), and Flintoff's overall average of 32.8. But no-one remembers Hoggard's regular 3 fors, just the 9 in an innings that Malcolm got against South Africa, Harmison's 7 for 12 against West Indies, or Flintoff's 5 for at Lord's against Australia.

Mitchell Johnson (30.1) had a sensational period in Test cricket and will remember some real highs, such as his 8 for against South Africa. But somehow those highs stopped the selectors from assessing him as they should have done, just as England did with Harmison. Then consider this against Stuart Clark, who averages 23.9 in Tests, only took a 5 for twice and never took 10 in a match, and was swiftly forgotten after injury pegged him back a little (sorry Dave, just had to mention Clark one more time to rile you!!).

Anyone with me on this theory that players get cut far more slack if they can be a matchwinner occassionally rather than a steady performer almost every match?!?

International Team of the Decade

It's that time of year again. Here's who I've gone for....controversial no doubt! I'm sure Aussies will be aghast that Sangakkara gets in ahead of Gilchrist, but they've both had very tricky bowlers to keep to, and Sangakkara averages far more than Gilchrist. Waugh only played until 2004 but I needed a captain (Warne was also in the mix) and someone who could offer the 6th bowling option if necessary.

I also had real problems trying to think of a bowler to open with Glenn McGrath - testament to the dearth of quality fast bowling in the "noughties". For a bit more spice, and because he bowled left-arm and could create rough for the spinners, I wanted to pick Wasim Akram, but given that he finished in 2003 and averaged 10 less with the bat than Shaun Pollock, I went for Pollock. Not the fastest, even in his prime, but worthy of a place in the team, at least for me.

Matthew Hayden
Virender Sehwag
Rahul Dravid
Jacques Kallis
Sachin Tendulkar
Steve Waugh (captain)
Kumar Sangakkara
Shaun Pollock
Shane Warne
Glenn McGrath
Mattiah Muralitharan

The unlucky ones? For me the unluckiest are Lara, Jayawardene and Gilchrist. Lara, and Dravid are different types of players but Dravid shaded it on the basis of longevity. And Dravid is a true number 3 which allows Kallis more time to recover from bowling as necessary.

Go on then. Who have I forgotten?

ICC Awards

Ricky Ponting is most people's pick for the cricketer of the year award - no suprises there. For me Mohammed Yousuf gets the Test player award at a stroll and Jacques Kallis just takes the ODI player award. The ODI is the only one there can be much debate on - the candidates are all worthy - Hayden, Ponting, Kallis and McGrath. It may be that McGrath gets it for sentimental reasons....certainly no-one could complain about that as an ODI bowler who averages under 20 is a massive rarity.

You can see all the award noninees at Cricinfo.

Misdirected bowling

Steve Harmison and Liam Plunkett seemed to have all sorts of problems at Lords in finding a decent line, but in the India game yesterday Ramesh Powar went one better and managed to get the ball to go to mid-off despite completing a full rotation of his arm - that was pretty special I thought.

What is it about the bowling these days? Comparatively the standard of batting in Test Cricket seems so much higher than the bowling and with McGrath and Warne gone things will only get worse in the bowling department. I wonder how these things come about....will we find the bowlers on top of the batsmen in a decade and sides bowled out for 120 all the time?