Kallis versus ‘Flintham’

by The Editor

FEATURE: There is a tired old analysis that, thankfully, is doing the rounds less and less these days: that Jacques Kallis is boring – not a real ‘great’ because he never does anything memorable. It has recently been rehashed by Michael Henderson, writing in the Independent newspaper in Britian. He even suggests Ian Botham was superior. What nonsense. Here is why Kallis is better than not just Botham, but Botham and Flintoff combined – a new character I have created called ‘Flintham’.

Kallis versus ‘Flintham’

By: Gareth van Onselen


23 July 2012

With time and the sheer statistical weight of his genius, Jacques Kallis has silenced even his most hardened detractors. But the odd contrarian still crops up every now and then. A tour of England – the home of South African contrarians – was bound to turn up one or two. Sure enough, writing for the Independent, Michael Henderson has produced just such a piece.

He argues Kallis is a brilliant ‘accumulator’ but not a cricketing great, on the grounds that he is lifeless and dull. “One might as well argue,” he says “that Haydn was a greater composer than Beethoven because he wrote more than 100 symphonies to his pupil’s nine, but to do that you would have to be unfeasibly bold.”

In comparison, he evokes the names of Flintoff and Botham – statistically inferior to Kallis but, he says, ‘great’ because they could turn matches with moments of inspiration: “There is no “Kallis match” to relive, as one may recall the great moments of Ian Botham or Andrew Flintoff, two men who really did change games.”

This line really irked me: “[Ian] Botham, for instance, averaged 34 with the bat, which means he is 22 runs lighter than Kallis, but he won more matches, and that is surely the most reliable test.”

I cannot let that stand. It’s just nonsense.

So, I dug up a few stats to make my case – a comparison between Kallis and Botham.

And in order to make it stronger, I didn’t just use Botham, I combined his career stats with those of Andrew Flintoff (I have called this fictitious amalgam ‘Flintham’). In short, imagine Flintoff and Botham were one player, how would Kallis on his own stack up against this imagined cricketer?

Seeing as Henderson is concerned with winning, I only looked at the statistics of each player in wins. Here are the numbers:

Tests [Total played: Flintham: 181; Kallis: 153]
• Batting:
• Flintham: 63 wins. 3523 runs @ 41. (11 hundreds; 19 fifties)
• Kallis: 73 wins. 5854 runs @ 65. (20 hundreds; 26 fifties)
• Bowling:
• Flintham: 63 wins. 264 wickets @ 23. (2.9 RPO; 48 SR) (17 five-fors; 2 ten-fors)
• Kallis: 73 wins. 173 wickets @ 23. (2.7 RPO; 52 SR) (4 five-fors; 0 ten-fors)

ODIs [Total played: Flintham: 257; Kallis: 321]
• Batting:
• Flintham: 135 wins. 2915 runs @ 34. (102 SR) (1 hundred; 18 fifties)
• Kallis: 206 wins. 8012 runs @ 52. (76 SR) (13 hundreds; 58 fifties)
• Bowling:
• Flintham: 135 wins. 200 wickets @ 21. (4 RPO; 33 SR) (8 four-fors; 1 five-for)
• Kallis: 206 wins. 189 wickets @ 26. (4.4 RPO; 36 SR) (2 four-fors; 2 five-fors)

Combined [Total played: Flintham: 438; Kallis: 474]
• Batting:
• Flintham: 198 wins. 6438 runs @ 38. (12 hundreds; 37 fifties)
• Kallis: 279 wins. 13 866 runs @ 57. (33 hundreds; 84 fifties)
• Bowling:
• Flintham: 198 wins. 464 wickets @ 22. (3.2 RPO; 41.3 SR) (18 five-fors; 2 ten-fors)
• Kallis: 279 wins. 362 wickets @ 25. (3.4 RPO; 43.6 SR) (6 five-fors; 0 ten-fors)

It’s pretty devastating stuff.

In tests, and with regards to batting, Kallis has scored 2 331 more runs in wins than Flintoff and Botham combined (5 854 versus 3 523). Included in those are 12 more hundreds and, significantly, 30 more fifties. His average of 65 in wins is some 24 better than Flintham (41).

In One Day Internationals, again, Kallis reigns supreme. He has scored a massive 5 097 more runs in wins (8 012 versus 2915). His average of 52 is 18 better than Flintham, at 34. Admittedly Flintham scores at a faster pace (a strike rate of 102 versus 75 for Kallis, but if it results in less wins, what good is that?). Importantly, Kallis has 12 more hundreds (13 versus just 1) and an enormous 40 more fifties (58 versus 18).

When it comes to bowling, the two are closer, with Flintham pipping Kallis thanks in large part to his ODI performance. In tests there is little to separate the two. Kallis has 173 wickets at an average of 23 runs per wicket, Flintham 264, also at 23. Kallis’s runs per over conceded is slightly better (2.7 versus 2.9) but his strike rate is slightly worse (a wicket every 52 balls as opposed to Flintham who gets one every 48).

Flintham does have more five-fors (17 versus 4), arguably the sign of a match winning performance and achieved 2 ten-fors.

In ODIs the difference is bigger, arguably the one area where Flintham wins out indisputably (no thanks to Botham though, he is abysmal, its Flintoff who carries the day). Kallis has 189 wickets at 26; Flintham 200 at 21 (which really is excellent). Likewise, Flintham has the better strike rate – but only just (33 versus 36) and better economy (an RPO rate of 4 versus 4.4 for Kallis). Flintham has 2 five-fors; Kallis 1. Still, they not miles apart.

In both tests and ODIs, Kallis has been involved in more wins (Tests: 73 versus 63; ODIs: 206 versus 135) with a combined total of 278 wins versus Flintham’s 198. So 80 more victories for Kallis then. He also has a whopping combined total of 7 428 more runs than Flintham in wins (13 866 at an average of 57 versus 6 438 at an average of 38), which include 21 more hundreds (33 versus 12) and 47 more fifties (84 versus 37). Flintham has more wickets overall (464 versus 362) but his average is only slightly better (22 versus 25), as is his strike rate (41 versus 43). Flintham is, however, far head when it comes to five-fors (18 versus 6).

So, there can be little argument that, when it comes to the contribution made to victories, Kallis demolishes Flintham. Or, put another way, had England genetically mutated a combined player out of both Ian Botham and Andrew Flintoff, Kallis would still be superior. The enormous difference in his batting (68 more hundreds and fifties in wins) far outweighs the marginal difference in their bowling, even if you take into account the fact that Flintham has 12 more five-fors.

Henderson is talking nonsense.

But there is more.

Kallis has 204 catches in wins (Tests: 109; ODIs: 95) compared to Flintham, who has just 131 (Flintoff: Tests: 28; ODIs: 33; Botham: Tests: 47; ODI: 23) an average of 0.73 catches per win, compared to 0.66 catches per win for Flintham. So he contributes more here too.

But perhaps the final nail in Henderson’s coffin is man-of-the-match-awards. These haven’t been around forever, but long enough to incorporate the careers of all three players. Surely there can be no better illustration of a player’s contribution to a win?

In tests Kallis has 23 man-of-the-match-awards (incidentally, more than any other player – from Tendulkar through Pointing through Muralitharan). Despite having played 23 more tests Flintham only managed 18. Likewise with man-of-the-series awards: Kallis 9; Flintham 7. It is true these awards are given even in drawn games but that would apply equally to both and, on the whole, it is reasonable to assume just as Kallis has more overall, so he will have more in wins.

The ODI man-of-the-match awards are similar. 32 to Kallis; at most 24 to Flintham (Cricinfo doesn’t record those who received less than ten, and Botham did not receive even that, no doubt significantly less given his completely mediocre ODI record). Same with man-of-the-series awards: Kallis 6; Flintham 3.

The problem with English cricket commentators is that years of completely mediocre cricket (and that is being kind) mean that get overly excited when they win something. Flintoff and Botham helped them win the ashes. So of course they will remember that. It’s like Zimbabwe winning a test series. What they forget is that, on either side of those victories, are decades of losses, often humiliating. South Africa win more – historically we are simply better at cricket – so we get less excited by victories and, when we do win, they are often comprehensive victories. Henderson wouldn’t know what Beethoven sounds like, he’s been listening to Katy Perry his whole life.

As for Kallis being unmemorable – speak for yourself. I would argue there are few more beautiful things to watch in world cricket than Kallis at the crease. His cover drive is etched into my memory. And, being a South African, there are no end to the number of match winning innings of his I can recall.

But forget panache. The man is a match winner. It’s indisputable. The statistics are inarguable. And not just any match winner – one of the greatest match winners in the history of cricket.

The ultimate test of these kind of things is to put the critic in charge of selection. Let Henderson chose the best side he can and in the single all rounder slot available to him, let him chose between Botham, Flintoff and Kallis. You would be a mad fool to select either of the other two ahead of Kallis. Hell, Kallis would be chosen as a batsman before you even got to the all rounder position.

So bravo to Flintoff and Botham’s fireworks display in those few ashes series. And horray for great specials at Tescos. If its five star food you want, however, you could only ever chose to dine out on Kallis.

Finally, if its memories you want, just ask the England team about Kallis. Trust me, they won’t be forgetting this last test, or Kallis’s role in it, in a long while.

To follow Inside Cricket by e-mail simply go to the bottom of the page and fill in your address. When you confirm it, you will receive an e-mail the moment any new post is loaded to the site.