Opinions of These Bowlers

[gettingbetter]

Jacques Kallis: his batting record is one of the best in modern times, but you could say that he has some claim to be the best all-rounder the game has ever seen. I've read posts on here before that have disclaimed his bowling, mainly due to the fact that he isn't really a front line bowler like Flintoff, Dev, Imran and Botham, but his record is rather impressive. Average below 31, strike is a little high though. Also note, that he has had to compete alongside Donald, Pollock, Nel, Ntini and now Steyn for the wickets. Another thing to note is that for the majority of his career, Lee average around the 31-32 area, as does Flintoff.

So Jacques Kallis, under-rated bowler or someone with favourable statistics next to his name? 244 career wickets and a realistic chance of reaching 300, I lend my name to the former.

Brett Lee: its easy to say that Lee is a good/great bowler. With him just reaching the 300 wicket milestone, it is probably good to look at his career now. He really did come onto the scene as an impact, and the last year, since the start of the Sri Lankan series, he has been a great bowler. In saying that, there aren't many members of the 300 club who average over 30. Whether this can be attributed to the fact that he was competing with McGrath, Gillespie and Warne and for his place as well - Bichel and Kaspa mainly, how has he fared in the greater scheme of things.

I just did an audit on Lee's form in the last year and his avereage performance in India reveals an average of 29.30. Obviously he has bowled better than that. IMO, I think Lee has been fortunate to receive such 'luck'. I don't think he is as good a bowler as people say.

Andrew Flintoff: a two-sides of the coin player, his last 4 yeaers, he probably has been England's best bowler - average of 28.42, which is significantly better than his career. I don't have all that much to say on Flintoff as I think more talk will develop, but in other threads - best all-rounder and the like, I think people have exaggerated his bowling compared to that of Kallis.

 

[Athlai]

Flintoff > Lee > Kallis

 

[grapedo]

Jaques Kallis is a skillful bowler. He gets natural swing and can crank the spped up to 145 km/h when angry. Best all rounder I think.

Lee is on and off like a light.

And Flintoff is much the same although when he bowls well it is spectacular to watch.

 

[grapedo]

usually I would say
flintoff > Kallis > Lee
But when they are all bowling well
Flintoff > Lee> Kallis

 

[Jono]

Without a doubt Flintoff and Lee are better bowlers than Kallis, but that being said, Kallis is a definitely underrated on this board as a bowler. I think that has to do with inferences regarding his attitude, and perceptions that he chooses when he wants to bowl, and when he doesn't.

I think over the last few years that's proben to be a falsity, but whether people will come around who knows.

What's for sure is Kallis is a gun, and definitely an all-time great cricketer.

 

[grapedo]

Without a doubt Flintoff and Lee are better bowlers than Kallis, but that being said, Kallis is a definitely underrated on this board as a bowler. I think that has to do with inferences regarding his attitude, and perceptions that he chooses when he wants to bowl, and when he doesn't.

I think over the last few years that's proben to be a falsity, but whether people will come around who knows.

What's for sure is Kallis is a gun, and definitely an all-time great cricketer.

Yeah imagine what a bowler he would become if he had a better attitude towards or it or if he focused on bowling I know there is no chance of that hapeening as he is one of the best batsman the game has witnessed and probably the best south african.

 

[Evermind]

Flintoff > Lee > Kallis

Maybe purely in the bowling sense, but Kallis >>>>> Flintoff >>> Lee when it comes to batting, so as an all-rounder, especially in tests, I'd rather have Kallis in my team.

 

[Athlai]

It is a thread on their bowling....

 

[Evermind]

oops

 

[gettingbetter]

It is a thread on their bowling....

Yeah, try to at least.

I think the overall theme I am trying to convey is that I really don't think that there is that big of a gulf between all 3.

 

[pasag]

Flintoff is the best bowler in the world after Steyn.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, Kallis a very underrated bowler for sure but not as good as the two you mentioned, two of the best quick bowlers in the world without a doubt.

 

[NZTailender]

Flintoff is the best bowler in the world after Steyn.

..really? Is this based on current form or overall careers? Regardless, I'd rather have Stuart Clark ahead of Flintoff if you completely ignore batting aspects.

 

[Precambrian]

..really? Is this based on current form or overall careers? Regardless, I'd rather have Stuart Clark ahead of Flintoff if you completely ignore batting aspects.

Ishant Sharma.

 

[GotSpin]

..really? Is this based on current form or overall careers? Regardless, I'd rather have Stuart Clark ahead of Flintoff if you completely ignore batting aspects.

Flintoff in full swing is amazing

 

[krkode]

While I have the utmost respect for Kallis, I do think that if he played a front-line bowler role, he would not have as good of a record as he does. As it stands, he does play a front-line batsman role and has contributed a lion's share to the quality of South African batting over the years, so kudos to him.

However, theoretically speaking, if SA did not have Pollock or Donald or Ntini or Steyn and Kallis was one of their 4 main bowlers as so often Lee and Flintoff are, the bowling burden, especially of bowling to top and middle order batsmen, would reflect more on his record, I think.

I wonder if it is easy to do an analysis like this but I wonder how many of Kallis' wickets are top order batsmen and how many are late-order or tail-enders. Because subjectively speaking, Kallis' role isn't a difficult one with the ball if by the time he comes on to bowl Pollock and/or Donald have already run through the top order. That is just my hunch, though, and I have no data to back it up... would just be interesting to consider. One very basic calculation you can do is just see how many overs each has bowled on average in a match. Lee and Flintoff average about 36 overs per match, whereas Kallis averages 26. Lot of other factors to consider and this is by no means an extensive calculation but it's meant to illustrate the "front-linedness" of the bowlers, which ultimately, we don't need numbers to show.

That's not to say I think Kallis isn't a worthy all-rounder because he is. But if I had to make rudimentary "tiers" for bowlers wherein McGrath and Akram belonged to tier 1, then I would put Lee and Flintoff in tier 2 or 3 and Kallis in 3 or 4.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Flintoff in full swing is amazing

Aye, which is not every test match.

 

[Richard]

Flintoff is the best bowler in the world after Steyn.

..really? Is this based on current form or overall careers? Regardless, I'd rather have Stuart Clark ahead of Flintoff if you completely ignore batting aspects.

Personally I don't really think you can say one is always better than the other. There are times when I'd rather have Clark ahead of Flintoff and Steyn; there are times I'd rather have Flintoff ahead of Clark and Steyn; there are times I'd rather have Steyn ahead of Flintoff and Clark.

A for-instance in each occasion:
1, You need 10 wickets in 50-odd overs defending 230 on a pitch that's started to break-up and move off the seam and bounce unevenly. You have a brand-new ball and overcast skies. Who do you want? Steyn, obviously. Neither of the other two are devastating enough and you don't need to worry about the run-rate.
2, You've posted 350 on a decent (but not rank road) batting surface, which is true in bounce and doesn't have much in it for seam. You need to take a first-innings lead, obv. Who do you want? Flintoff, obviously. Clark I can see not being that effective, Steyn ditto and would probably go for lots of runs which you can't afford.
3, You've won the toss on the opening morning, the pitch is green but the opposition batting is strong and has players who can play their shots. Who do you want? Clark, without a doubt. Can take advantage of seam and hits much better areas than Steyn so would likely get 5-40 rather than 6-110. Flintoff meanwhile might be more likely to get 3-40.

I don't think you can say that any of Clark, Steyn or Flintoff is the best as an overall thing, because they're all such radically different bowlers who comfortably trump each other under different circumstances.

 

[Richard]

And as for the subject matter:

Opinions of These Bowlers

Jacques Kallis

Brett Lee

Andrew Flintoff

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.

 

[Uppercut]

I wonder if it is easy to do an analysis like this but I wonder how many of Kallis' wickets are top order batsmen and how many are late-order or tail-enders. Because subjectively speaking, Kallis' role isn't a difficult one with the ball if by the time he comes on to bowl Pollock and/or Donald have already run through the top order. That is just my hunch, though, and I have no data to back it up... would just be interesting to consider. One very basic calculation you can do is just see how many overs each has bowled on average in a match. Lee and Flintoff average about 36 overs per match, whereas Kallis averages 26. Lot of other factors to consider and this is by no means an extensive calculation but it's meant to illustrate the "front-linedness" of the bowlers, which ultimately, we don't need numbers to show.

That's not to say I think Kallis isn't a worthy all-rounder because he is. But if I had to make rudimentary "tiers" for bowlers wherein McGrath and Akram belonged to tier 1, then I would put Lee and Flintoff in tier 2 or 3 and Kallis in 3 or 4.

See naturally i'd have thought the opposite, because Kallis tends to be used a lot for partnership breaking, i.e. he bowls at the worst possible times, when there's two well-set batsmen at the crease going strong. Flintoff i think tends to take more top-order wickets because he bowls back of a length and the tail tend to play and miss him a lot. Lee i suspect has more tail-enders than either.

Anyway, let's see

Wickets taken by batting order:

Kallis:
Positions 1-3 28%
Positions 4-7 45%
Positions 8-11 27%

Flintoff:
Positions 1-3 30.6%
Positions 4-7 46.6%
Positions 8-11 22.8%

Lee:
Positions 1-3 36%
Positions 4-7 37%
Positions 8-11 27%

Flintoff stands out as the best against top-order players (or, conversely, the worst at cleaning up the tail), but in truth none of them have their figures overly flattered by running through the bottom order. For comparison's sake, in his much shorter career, Dale Steyn has taken 35% of his wickets from numbers 8-11. His average is far, far lower than any of the players above though, so it implies he's better at cleaning up the tail than those above rather than being worse at bowling to the batsmen.