Opinions of These Bowlers

[Richard]

Given Flintoff's Yorker skills (way outdoes either of the others', though Kallis actually used to be damn good at them too and was a fine ODI death bowler up to about 2001 or so) that really is pretty incredible.

Is there any chance you could do a breakdown of Flintoff's 2001/02-2003 and 2003/04-2008 wickets-by-position?

 

[Uppercut]

Given Flintoff's Yorker skills (way outdoes either of the others', though Kallis actually used to be damn good at them too and was a fine ODI death bowler up to about 2001 or so) that really is pretty incredible.

Is there any chance you could do a breakdown of Flintoff's 2001/02-2003 and 2003/04-2008 wickets-by-position?

Can, but it's much more difficult, i'm using howstat so i can only work with what they give me. At a glance, of his 119 wickets since november 2004, 24 have come from positions 8-11. So about 20%. Doesn't look like there's been a great deal of difference.

 

[krkode]

Thanks for the stats, Uppercut!

I would've thought Lee would be good at cleaning up the tail. Maybe that's just because there's this illusion of speed to his bowling, or at least there used to be.

I guess as it stands now, he is no longer head and shoulders the fastest bowler in the world...

 

[Uppercut]

Just thought too, it could be related to bowling alongside other bowlers who are great against the tail. Lee had Warne to compete with for a lot of his career, for instance. Seeing the tail wag against Australia really wasn't common for much of Lee's career.

 

[IndGunner]

Just thought too, it could be related to bowling alongside other bowlers who are great against the tail. Lee had Warne to compete with for a lot of his career, for instance. Seeing the tail wag against Australia really wasn't common for much of Lee's career.

And also micheal clarke has a knack of cleaning up the tail :P and maybe by the stage the aussies reach the tail the literally cant afford too bowl Lee due to over rates. Maybe we could get some sort of stat on that? i dunno its kinda of a stab in the dark but i presume Lee bowls less to the tail than Flintoff and Kallis.

 

[gettingbetter]

And as for the subject matter:

I think I'm going to leave-off assessing Lee until the end of his career. Things could now go either way. If he has a poor year this year and is dropped never to be seen again, he'll go down to me as a two-year wonder. Someone who started their Test career briefly and brilliantly for a year, then had one superlative year 8 years later. And for all the rest of the time was a waste of space. However, if he goes well for the next year and keeps that up for another year or two again, he'll be someone who was rubbish for a long time but managed to have a fine Indian-summer to his career.

Kallis for the last 5 years hasn't been the bowler he was for much of the time beforehand. However, Kallis beforehand was always a confusing presence. He was occasionally devastating, usually on the button, but you always felt he was better than he actually was. He looked like a bowler, but he only actually bowled a devastating spell once a series or so, sometimes not even that. Also, in the last, perhaps, year, I've felt Kallis was bowling better than at any time 2003/04-2006/07.

Flintoff, well, again, a hell of a lot depends on what happens next. Right now he's hard to offer much of an assessment of. He's missed 18 months and has only played 3 Tests since coming back from that, in which he really was same-old-same-old. Looked fantastic, started well quite often, was almost always difficult to get on top of, but in the end just didn't quite pick the wickets you felt he could have done. Hopefully in the next year or two he might do, or might at least get back to where he was 2003/04-2006.

Fair analysis. I know which way you head. But going by stats, could you make an arguement that Kallis is a good a bowler as Lee or Flintoff? On face value stats, he is nearly as good as Lee and better than Flintoff, but that is just on face value. Another poster used a tier system to rank the bowlers. Once again on face value, Kallis would be ranked alongside Lee and Flintoff.

I must admit that I find Kallis' case rather amusing and complicated at the same time. I'm not sure what he initially was; a batsman who could bowl or a batting all-rounder, but at the start of his career I would of expected him to average 40+ with the ball and play a Steve Waugh (circa 1996 and beyond), Tendulkar, Ganguly, C. McMillan et. al type of role with the ball. Partnership breaker, someone who would 'chip in.'

With 5 5-fors (Flintoff having 2, Lee having 9) he has certainly gone past being a handy bowler. I'm not sure whether it is his batting prowess or the role he plays in his team, there is something holding him back from being regarded in the same league as Lee and Flintoff.

Note: I'm of the opinion that he should be alongside Lee and Flintoff, but pyschologically, I can't place him there for other reasons.

 

[gettingbetter]

Just thought too, it could be related to bowling alongside other bowlers who are great against the tail. Lee had Warne to compete with for a lot of his career, for instance. Seeing the tail wag against Australia really wasn't common for much of Lee's career.

Like in all other aspects of the bowling game, I recall McGrath and Warne cleaning up the tail.

And also micheal clarke has a knack of cleaning up the tail :P and maybe by the stage the aussies reach the tail the literally cant afford too bowl Lee due to over rates. Maybe we could get some sort of stat on that? i dunno its kinda of a stab in the dark but i presume Lee bowls less to the tail than Flintoff and Kallis.

Clarke hasn't taken that many wickets in general and this over rate business has only been an issue that has been created in the last month. (At least to chang bowling combinations).

 

[Uppercut]

And also micheal clarke has a knack of cleaning up the tail :P and maybe by the stage the aussies reach the tail the literally cant afford too bowl Lee due to over rates. Maybe we could get some sort of stat on that? i dunno its kinda of a stab in the dark but i presume Lee bowls less to the tail than Flintoff and Kallis.

Actually i would expect Kallis to bowl least to the tail out of the three. Captains would:

1. Tend to bring more aggressive, strike bowlers into the attack in order to clean up the tail quickly and
2. Like to let their star batsman focus on his batting towards the end of the opposition innings.

I can't find any easily-accessed stats on how many balls they each bowled to the tail, but I can tell you that Lee averages around 10 bowling to numbers 8-11, Kallis averages around 12 and Flintoff averages around 16. Strike rate would probably be more useful, but that's the best i can do.

 

[Richard]

Fair analysis. I know which way you head. But going by stats, could you make an arguement that Kallis is a good a bowler as Lee or Flintoff? On face value stats, he is nearly as good as Lee and better than Flintoff, but that is just on face value. Another poster used a tier system to rank the bowlers. Once again on face value, Kallis would be ranked alongside Lee and Flintoff.

I must admit that I find Kallis' case rather amusing and complicated at the same time. I'm not sure what he initially was; a batsman who could bowl or a batting all-rounder, but at the start of his career I would of expected him to average 40+ with the ball and play a Steve Waugh (circa 1996 and beyond), Tendulkar, Ganguly, C. McMillan et. al type of role with the ball. Partnership breaker, someone who would 'chip in.'

With 5 5-fors (Flintoff having 2, Lee having 9) he has certainly gone past being a handy bowler. I'm not sure whether it is his batting prowess or the role he plays in his team, there is something holding him back from being regarded in the same league as Lee and Flintoff.

Note: I'm of the opinion that he should be alongside Lee and Flintoff, but pyschologically, I can't place him there for other reasons.

Flintoff and Kallis' bowling has essentially gone in opposite directions of course. Kallis started as a 27-28-29-average merchant (averaged that over an extended period even while, as I say, only fairly rarely putting in match-influencing performances) then declined to a mere batsman-who-bowled. Flintoff of course was useless 2001/02-2003 (he should never have played before that and in truth when he did he didn't bowl all that much) and then became a fine bowler in 2003/04. His batting actually improved at the same sort of time as his bowling, though he's always remained a bowler who can also bat to my mind.

Lee's, as I say, has been completely different again. And no-one can really know what's going to happen next with Lee, as I say, so I think it's wise to wait and see before offering an assessment.

It's certainly true that people tend to struggle to credit batting-all-rounders as bowlers as much as a specialist bowler would do under the same circumstances. Just seems a bit much I suppose.

 

[gettingbetter]

I don't know if there is that big a gulf between Flintoff and Kallis, nor do I think there is much of a gulf between there match winning performances. I think the only reason it favours Flintoff more so is that he is looked upon as a front-line bowler.

2/13 of Flintoff's games where he has got 4 or more wickets in an innings have resulted in wins. Kallis on the other hand, in games where he has got 4 or more wickets in a innings, South Africa have 11/12 games.

 

[Richard]

I think the main thing that makes people think Flintoff > Kallis is that Flintoff started poor and got better, Kallis started well and got worse. Both bowlers had extended periods of being poor and being good, so it's not comparable to an excellent bowler who had a bad few games at the start and\or end of their career or someone (dare we say it - like Lee might possibly end-up) who had a few decent games at some point and was poor for the most part.

But most recent is often best remembered when parts are both of considerable length.

 

[gettingbetter]

I think the main thing that makes people think Flintoff > Kallis is that Flintoff started poor and got better, Kallis started well and got worse. Both bowlers had extended periods of being poor and being good, so it's not comparable to an excellent bowler who had a bad few games at the start and\or end of their career or someone (dare we say it - like Lee might possibly end-up) who had a few decent games at some point and was poor for the most part.

But most recent is often best remembered when parts are both of considerable length.

Would you say that an average difference of 1 over the period of a career is anything of note?

 

[Uppercut]

I think the main thing that makes people think Flintoff > Kallis is that Flintoff started poor and got better, Kallis started well and got worse. Both bowlers had extended periods of being poor and being good, so it's not comparable to an excellent bowler who had a bad few games at the start and\or end of their career or someone (dare we say it - like Lee might possibly end-up) who had a few decent games at some point and was poor for the most part.

But most recent is often best remembered when parts are both of considerable length.

Truth in what you say, but there's too much deep thought in there for me. The thing that makes people think Flintoff is better than Kallis is much simpler- he looks like he's better. He bowls faster, puts massive amounts of effort in, and is constantly surrounded by fantastic drama. Kallis trundles in and the ball comes out at a reasonable pace.

As you say, their respective career figures suggest there's no great difference in how effective they've been in terms of taking wickets.

 

[thierry henry]

Kallis' bowling- so underrated

 

[gettingbetter]

Truth in what you say, but there's too much deep thought in there for me. The thing that makes people think Flintoff is better than Kallis is much simpler- he looks like he's better. He bowls faster, puts massive amounts of effort in, and is constantly surrounded by fantastic drama. Kallis trundles in and the ball comes out at a reasonable pace.

As you say, their respective career figures suggest there's no great difference in how effective they've been in terms of taking wickets.

Poor examples. Your description of Flintoff is similar to that of how Sami, Collins, Tait and others bowl, while your description of Kallis is akin to McGrath and Pollock.

 

[Precambrian]

Anybody has the wickets percentage of both bowlers? If am not hugely mistaken, Kallis generally takes out lower order guys, while Flintoff takes the top order ones.

 

[Athlai]

Kallis
66 wickets 8-11 27%

Flintoff
37 wickets 8-11 18%

Lee
80 wickets 8-11 26.7%

 

[Precambrian]

Kallis
66 wickets 8-11 27%

Flintoff
37 wickets 8-11 18%

Lee
80 wickets 8-11 26.7%

Ah. Thanks man.

 

[zaremba]

Flintoff when the force is with him is a magnificent sight who can take top-quality wickets; and he is also a very fine containing bowler.

The biggest thing he lacks is the ability to destroy a batting line-up. It's an astonishing stat but he has only taken 3 five-fors in his entire First Class career (compared with Kallis 8, Lee 18 and, for what it's worth, Mushy 104 and Murali 117 ).

 

[tooextracool]

With all due respect to all 3, they are all overrated on this board. Kallis perhaps is the least accomplished, but hes just as talented as the other 2. However, all 3 of them were really made to hold the candle for someone far superior to them rather than lead an attack on their own. They are the Gillespies to the Glenn Mcgraths and the fact that 2 of them are the top 2 bowlers in the world right now is more indicative of the bowling quality in the world rather than anything else.