A two-minute video on the ECB’s YouTube channel sells it well. First, Kallis is almost inconceivably late getting his bat down to block out a yorker that narrowly misses his off stump. Kallis simply responds with a wry smile and laughs it off.

Flintoff follows it with a combination of sharp bouncers and yorkers, one of which strikes Kallis on the toe in front of off stump but is somehow not given out by umpire Aleem Dar. An attempted booming drive through the covers off a good length ball gives an indication of Kallis’ unsettled mindset before a yorker honed in off stump finally gets the better of Kallis.

It is, without doubt, a very good spell. With Mark Nicholas and a raucous Edgbaston crowd providing the soundtrack, it more than just echoes Flintoff’s famous over in 2005 at the same ground that saw him dismiss both Justin Langer and Ricky Ponting. The wicket-taking delivery came 15th in ESPNcricinfo’s ‘Balls of the Century’ countdown list earlier this year and that ECB video of the spell there is no mention of any mitigating circumstances in either the description or the top comments.

There is one thing, though, that does somewhat demean the spell; Kallis couldn’t actually see half of the deliveries. At the close of play, when asked about the battle Kallis was gracious in defeat. “The one that got me out was a good nut, fair play,” said Kallis. “It swung late and was in the right area. It was a good delivery. You’ve got to work hard and fight through a spell like that. You’ve got to hang in there. But it’s tough when someone is bowling a world-class quality spell like that.”

But he also alluded to the issue of picking the ball up from above the sightscreen. “The light wasn’t an issue,” added Kallis. “The dark windows above the sightscreen, that was the issue. I hope common sense prevails and we get a sheet over there so we can carry on, otherwise we’re going to get tall guys running in and bowling yorkers all day. It was really just the yorkers, the rest you could pick up.”

Fast forward 24 hours and common sense had not yet prevailed. The windows above the sight screen were still not covered despite South African complaints. Come the second innings, Flintoff made best use of the advantage for the second time in the match – he was the only England bowler tall enough to use the dark windows to his benefit.

Another YouTube video shows the extent of the uphill battle South Africa’s batsmen faced. Opener Neil McKenzie, clearly unable to pick out the ball, fell lbw, taking evasive action and turning away from a Flintoff full-toss, a dismissal not dissimilar to Chris Read’s infamous ducking into a full bunger nine years previously.

Kallis then succumbed to Flintoff for the second time in the match, ducking into a thigh-high full-toss and given out lbw. Again, the batsman had clearly not picked up the ball. The normally mild-mannered Kallis was apoplectic, chuntering all his way off the field. A piece in the Independent by former England quick Angus Fraser sided with the South Africans. Fraser explained that Flintoff was the only bowler on either side whose release point was in front of the window; Morne Morkel, the tallest player in the game, had a release point too high to cause issues for the batsmen.

Fraser wrote: “The bowler in me rarely has much sympathy for those pampered prima donnas who wield the willow but this was a ridiculous response to a reasonable request. Surely it is the role of officials to enable rather than hinder a player seeking to perform to his full potential. What the hell are sightscreens for if they do not assist the batsman in seeing the ball? When a bowler moves from over the wicket to round, the sightscreen moves with him. What is the difference between this and whitening an area where the batsman is struggling to see the ball?”

Long story short, that spell to Kallis in the South Africa first innings was an exciting and impressive display of quick bowling. But part of what makes it so thrilling to watch is the sight of one of the world’s greatest ever batsmen swaying out the way for his own safety, giving the impression that Flintoff’s spell was quicker and more threatening than it actually was. Without its context, it’s almost something else entirely.