Lance Klusener - Where Does He Stand

[gettingbetter]

Kallis has not played as many match-winning inning sas Kallis? ITSTL.

Presuming you mean Kallis has not played as many match-winning innings as Klusener... well, TBH I don't think so. He may not have played as many dramatic match-turning-in-4-or-5-overs innings as Klusener, but I do think his runs have made many massive contributions to South Africa both winning and losing by smaller margins than they otherwise would have.

As I said - Kallis >>> Klusener as a batsman for me. And both have been equally disappointing (though far from useless) with the ball.

LK never had the opportunity to build an innings like Kallis has and that is evident with him only having two 100s next to his name. I'm thinking this is a point to agree to disagree.

But would you say that Klusener is better than Kallis overall?

 

[gettingbetter]

Not if the bowlers on the opposition side go for 4.2-4.3-an-over, though, that's the point.

4.7 isn't bad for someone who had to bowl on roads in South Africa with an injury. Also, how many bowlers go for 4.2 or less? I can only think of maybe 5-10 since 1995, so Klusener would be below average. And considering the small fields and batsmen friendly conditions ( which seem to be more of a problem in tournaments), Klusener is doing rather well.

 

[gettingbetter]

Another load of bollocks,and you are getting more sillier

Here are the top 3 captains for SL. (Name, duration, matches played, wins, lossed, ties, NRs, win %)

ST Jayasuriya     	1998-2003	118	66	47	2	3	58.26
MS Atapattu      	2001-2006	63	35	27	0	1	56.45
DPMD Jayawardene	2004-2008	67	37	25	0	5	59.67

Win % of 58 in 118 matches is a poor record. My, My!

My apologies, never knew he was that good of a captain, still I don't think he is better than the other two in the list.

 

[Craig]

So therefore Brett Lee is a crap ODI bowler (econ. 4.71) despite his average and strike rate? I think cricket is defiantly changing, I mean 320 on a pretty good wicket is do-able, then again over 400 isn't safe

 

[Richard]

You know I've never thought as much of Brett Lee as some have, though that's less to do with his economy-rate and more to do with how his wickets have come. If you take (as opposed to being gifted) wickets with an abnormally good strike-rate, a poor economy-rate doesn't neccessarily make you a poor bowler.

But yes, Lee's economy-rate has mostly been poor, and excluding substandard sides paints a better picture, too. (That is - in his first 20 games he did well, conceding 4.34-an-over with an average of 22.26; thereafter, he's conceded 4.88-an-over, with an average of just under 24.)

 

[Richard]

4.7 isn't bad for someone who had to bowl on roads in South Africa with an injury. Also, how many bowlers go for 4.2 or less? I can only think of maybe 5-10 since 1995, so Klusener would be below average. And considering the small fields and batsmen friendly conditions ( which seem to be more of a problem in tournaments), Klusener is doing rather well.

1995 isn't a seminal point, 1990 or 1992 would be a better one. Before then, a serious front-line bowler needed to be going for less than 4-an-over; since 1990 or 1992 (take your pick) such an economy-rate has been outstanding and somewhere a little over it has been the benchmark.

There haven't been that many bowlers in recent times (ie, since 2000) who've conceded good economy-rates, for a wide variety of reasons. That doesn't make Klusener's any better.

I'm very much to-be-convinced of how impossible-to-bowl-economically-on the surfaces he got at home were either, and he wasn't exactly bowling with an injury, he simply had a one-off injury that reduced his effectiveness. This wasn't his fault, but that's what it did nonetheless - it made a non-reversible, long-term change in the calibre of his bowling.

 

[Richard]

LK never had the opportunity to build an innings like Kallis has and that is evident with him only having two 100s next to his name. I'm thinking this is a point to agree to disagree.

But would you say that Klusener is better than Kallis overall?

Klusener did have the chance to build innings, though - he was pushed up the order a good deal around about the 1997, 1998 sort of time. It was clearly a role he was most dissuited to, and it was almost immediately obvious he was far more use down the order. So there he was put back to.

Kallis, on the other hand, is the precise opposite. And I will always rate a top-order batsman above a tail-end biffer.

As I say - with the bat Kallis >> Klusener. With the ball Kallis-Klusener=.

 

[gettingbetter]

Klusener did have the chance to build innings, though - he was pushed up the order a good deal around about the 1997, 1998 sort of time. It was clearly a role he was most dissuited to, and it was almost immediately obvious he was far more use down the order. So there he was put back to.

Kallis, on the other hand, is the precise opposite. And I will always rate a top-order batsman above a tail-end biffer.

As I say - with the bat Kallis >> Klusener. With the ball Kallis-Klusener=.

As I said, I think we'll agree to disagree on tis matter.

 

[Richard]

'Tis t'only way ITBT.