|Walton T20 Series|Bangladesh V South Africa 2nd T20I @ Potchefstrom 29th October 18:30 BDT 22:30 AEDT

[tiger1000]

Originally Posted by Gowza
Flintoff would be more useful ODIs. kallis doesn't bat fast enough which is the problem, kohli, ab, viv etc would get a spot as batsmen ahead of him and kallis isn't a good enough bowler to be picked as a front line bowler so that puts him at the number 7/8 spot which is out of position for him plus he doesn't bat fast enough plus you'd pick the better more dangerous bowler in that position.

Hence it's not so laughable to compare Flintoff with kallis.

Straight up though the averages do favour kallis.

But ODIs, kallis' strike rate is 72, bowling average is 31 compared to flintoff's 24. Flintoff also has a better economy and strike rate with the ball. As a bat the average is much in favour of kallis but strike rate of Flintoff is 88/89 compared to that 72 for kallis and batting at 7/8 strike rate is very important plus a 32 bat average is still very respectable for a 7/8.

So the only way you're getting kallis into the team is if he bats up the order but there are many more capable ODIs bats to pick ahead of kallis.

How many ODI bowlers average 24 with a 32 average strike nearing 90, and pretty sure kallis in a particular position in ODIs averages over 40 with a pretty high strike rate.

Although in t20s it's closer, possibly in kallis' favour.

I was really talking from a test stand point

As for odis, it's closer than tests for sure

Flintoff is the better bowler

As for batting, it's not even close, you don't judge them by looking at all time XI, you judge them against each other and fact is Kallis was the backbone of the team, Flintoff was a lower order slogger

How many average 32 and 24, well how many average 44 and 31

All this without mentioning longevity

Further, an ability of a player is mostly judged on test cricket ability and Kallis dwarfs Flintoff there

[Gowza]

Originally Posted by tiger1000
I was really talking from a test stand point

As for odis, it's closer than tests for sure

Flintoff is the better bowler

As for batting, it's not even close, you don't judge them by looking at all time XI, you judge them against each other and fact is Kallis was the backbone of the team, Flintoff was a lower order slogger

How many average 32 and 24, well how many average 44 and 31

All this without mentioning longevity

Further, an ability of a player is mostly judged on test cricket ability and Kallis dwarfs Flintoff there

From a test standpoint it is a no contest but in ODIs they offer different roles, Freddie is a top quality bowler and lower order hitter whereas kallis is very much an anchor batsmen who can give you 10 overs if needed.

Kallis was actually quite capable as a bowler but in ODIs Freddie was an atg bowler if not then was very close to it.

Imo you need a common context to compare them otherwise you can't do a fair comparison because they did play different roles.

For me anytime if I could only pick one, I'll take a 24 average bowler with a 32 average bat striking at near 90 over a 44 average bat striking at 72 with a bowling average of 31.

Because at the end of it Freddie was an atg bowler in ODIs and a consistent enough lower order hitter. Kallis's ODI batting might of had a 44 average but he was nowhere near an atg bat in ODIs and his bowling was good but was it better than Freddie's batting? Imo no, maybe on par but then that would leave Freddie ahead because of his atg bowling.

[Gowza]

Kallis didn't really slow down, he was still bowling 140 when he was older, he just wasn't bowling as often.

I do wonder how good kallis would've been if he didn't bat and focused only on bowling, reckon he would've been pretty exceptional.

[godzilla]

Come on now, Flintoff > Kallis as a complete allrounder? Nah man. Kallis was a complete allrounder, Flintoff was more of a bowling allrounder. You probably would pick Flintoff the BOWLER ahead of Kallis but in no world would he top Kallis as the better allrounder.

And did I read Ashwin > Shakib as a complete allrounder? Lol. As a bowler, yes. As an allrounder ... LOL.

Just like Kallis, Shakib is a complete allrounder. Not someone who can bat a bit or bowl a bit. It's questionable of he will end up as an atg but that doesn't mean he is not a complete allrounder. Ashwin and Jadeja are both bowling allrounder, no one expects them to win matches with the bat.

[Eclipse]

Originally Posted by godzilla
Come on now, Flintoff > Kallis as a complete allrounder? Nah man. Kallis was a complete allrounder, Flintoff was more of a bowling allrounder. You probably would pick Flintoff the BOWLER ahead of Kallis but in no world would he top Kallis as the better allrounder.

And did I read Ashwin > Shakib as a complete allrounder? Lol. As a bowler, yes. As an allrounder ... LOL.

Just like Kallis, Shakib is a complete allrounder. Not someone who can bat a bit or bowl a bit. It's questionable of he will end up as an atg but that doesn't mean he is not a complete allrounder. Ashwin and Jadeja are both bowling allrounder, no one expects them to win matches with the bat.

Shakib isn't comparable to Ashwin as an all rounder? Wow. Just because Shakib-Al-Hasan plays for an inferior team like Bangladesh and considered as a vital cog in Bangladeshi lineup doesn't necessarily mean he would've been treated similarly if he had played for other top teams.

Had he played for a superior team he wouldn't have been selected just for his bowling or batting alone, which means he isn't a complete allrounder. If u truly believe that shakib is skillful enough to get I to the indian or southafrican side just as a batsman or as a bowler then I've to say that u r living in ur own lala land.


Shakib is an excellent allrounder but he still hasn't achieved much to be compared to players like Flintoff or kallis. And statement like "he's way better allrounder than Ashwin" is just hilarious. Ashwin is an excellent bowling allrounder whereas shakib is an excellent batting allrounder.


I'll put shakib ahead of Ashwin in lois due to his ability to score quickly, but in tests Ashwin is slightly ahead as an all rounder. Unlike shakib neither does he consistently play against minnows like Zimbabwe nor does he get enough chance to bat to pad his batting stats.

But shakib as an all rounder is highly overrated in this forum. Some ppl even call him GOAT... LOL. Shakib is a good allrounder in lois but he still hasn't crossed the level of pre ban hafeez or daniel vettory. Players like Flintoff, kallis r still way ahead of him.