Why is it so underrated?

Trevor Goddard - when is the last time he was brought up in a discussion of great all-rounders? 3.00wpm@26.22, 1.64 econ (!!!), 34.46 ave, 24.0% score percentage

Hugh Tayfield - one of the true great off spin bowlers, particulary when it comes to holding a batting card down for pace bowlers. 4.59wpm@25.91, 1.94 econ, 14 5WI, 2 10WM in just 37 Tests.

Dudley Nourse - not just against the pre-war awful bowling attacks, one of the best bats of his generation. 53.81, superb 37.0% score percentage and extremely impressive 6.89 century rate, a number in particular that ranks with the greats

not to mention that that 1970 team was destined to rival the 1984 West Indian side as the greatest in the history of the game (and I suppose now also the 2001 Australian team). Why the lack of apprieciation?

No one underrated the likes of Dudley Nourse and Hugh Tayfield. I don't know their personal views, but it was not their fault that they lived and played during that awful system. Nourse, whose career was interrupted like many others by WW2, was a great batsman that averaged 50+ in Tests and a fine captain known for his sportsmanship. He was particularly scathing of his own players if he felt that they were wasting time on the field to save a match; nor did he allow any sort of negative tactics. In fact, his sportsmanship cost South Africa the Test match in Durban during England's 1948-9 tour; the quick changes between overs allowed an unexpected final over in which Alec Bedser & Clifford Gladwin took a leg bye off the very last ball to win the match for England.

Considering recent events in world cricket, a captain like Dudley Nourse would have been a welcome relief.

Clearly you don't Nostromo, but essentially people talk exclusively about Australian, West Indian and English cricketers pre-1970 which I find a real shame. I'd say in Australia like 2% of CRICKET fans (not general public) for instance know who Neil Adcock is. Same goes for these guys. Tayfield in particular of those three could lay claim with Underwood and Laker (I guess) as the best slow bowler ever before the 1990's.

Considering that side was destined to never actually play probably half the other teams that actually played Test cricket at the time, that's a bold statement to make.

To be honest I am also upset about the lack of recognition Kallis has got. He has got some but he's hardly ever mentioned as an all time great even by SA supporters.

Just put his stats next to that of Sobers and you will see what I mean.

Totally true and I am baffled as well. Even the most patriotic South African would hesitate mentioning Kallis in the same breath as Sobers. Why? Sobers was a great all-rounder, no doubt, but he was just another human being and a falliable one at that given some of his pre-marital antics off the field. There is no reason whatsoever to elevate him to the status of a demi-god.

I have mentioned before that it is a psychological thing. Sobers, and to a lesser extent Imran and Botham, were larger than life characters who also happened to be playing at the right era. Kallis comes across as a rather colourless, bland man who could easily lose himself in a crowd despite his large frame. Moreover, Kallis is playing in an era where cricket players, like most other celebrities, are finely dissected by the media and critics, often to a disadvantage.

I also think the media/supporters in SA are not as vocal as other countries.

Hmm. Interesting post.

Well I am South African and I would never compare Kallis to Sobers. Stats is one thing but if you compare the averages with other top players in the same era, you will find that in the Kallis era, batting averages are far higher than in Sobers's era. Also, Sobers played on uncovered pitches.

I agree that Kallis is truely a great SA player. I think the reason that he does not get as much praise as he deserves is the fact that he tends to play for milestones and sometimes ignores the match situation. This has cost SA many times but we tend to forget the number of times he saved us.

As you can see from my user name (biased yes) I would personally prefer to watch Gibbs play over Kallis. People will go to a match to watch Gibbs play just like people would go to see Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar. Most people I know do not enjoy watching Kallis bat. In fact when he and Prince are batting together, I switch off the tv. I realise that this is not fair as every team needs these types of players, but I personally prefer to watch the naturally gifted Gibbs than the "hard working" Kallis even though I am disappointed more often than not.

One sad thing about stats is that is does not mention the players ability but I guess if you have the talent and dont use it, then you probably deserve to be "forgotten".

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

Eddie Barlow, Clive Rice, Mike Proctor, Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards and ??????? (abducted by England)


????????? =

Well, we only have fractions of careers to deal with here, and obviously politics played a factor, I thought it was pretty obvious that my statement was if we could have disregarded politics and focused on the talent on the field. A team that included Peter and Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards, Eddie Barlow, Mike Procter, Lee Irvine, the tail end of Trevor Goddard's career, would have soon included Kepler Wessels, Tony Greig and Clive Rice seems to, on paper, have few peers. I think even taxing the numbers of those players due to lack of available Test data, the conclusion would be that that would be a dominant team, like all dominant teams, it's fast bowling prowess would have been beyond reproach, save perhaps the aforementioned 1984 West Indian team.