I has been drinking...

[BhupinderSingh]

I'm afraid you're wrong there, but we won't take this thread off topic.

No,I'm not wrong in this particular case & I'm pretty sure about it .

 

[chaminda_00]

But he didn't though, and you can only judge players on what they acheived, not what they could've.

Wouldn't you rather a player who stepped up when your team needed you to score runs, then someone who just smashed the crap out poor or already beaten bowling attacks.

 

[Perm]

No,I'm not wrong in this particular case & I'm pretty sure about it .

Basing your argument on statistics doesn't work buddy

 

[Perm]

Wouldn't you rather a player who stepped up when your team needed you to score runs, then someone who just smashed the crap out poor or already beaten bowling attacks.

I'd rather have somebody who was willing to bat and score runs against all opposition.

 

[NUFAN]

Why does everyone say Kallis now has substandard attacks, while in Sobers era it was tougher?

I mean surely not all sides were strong back 40 or whatever years ago, it's just not the case.

As cricket wasn't as professional the gap between players back in the day would have been greater then it is now.

I'm not going to say Kallis is better then Sobers, but he's an awesome Test Cricketer and will be remembered as one of the best players of all time when his career finishes.

 

[Perm]

Why does everyone say Kallis now has substandard attacks, while in Sobers era it was tougher?

Because Kallis has hit 214 unbeaten runs against Bangladesh and averages 169.75 against Zimbabwe. His bowling statistics are even more absurd, 13.57 against Bangladesh and 14.71 against Zimbabwe.

 

[NUFAN]

Because Kallis has hit 214 unbeaten runs against Bangladesh and averages 169.75 against Zimbabwe. His bowling statistics are even more absurd, 13.57 against Bangladesh and 14.71 against Zimbabwe.

OK so you take these out of the equation..

Sobers made his 365* against a team who's leading opening bowler bowled 5 balls in the entire innings so the team only had 2 decent bowlers in the innings by a woeful Pakistan outfit who lost by an innings and 174 runs,a similar loss which Bangladesh could get when a gun player like Kallis performs well..

 

[Richard]

Why does everyone say Kallis now has substandard attacks, while in Sobers era it was tougher?

I mean surely not all sides were strong back 40 or whatever years ago, it's just not the case.

As regards sides other than Bangladesh and post-2003 Zimbabwe (who surely no-one would deny are substandard), I think it's fairly obvious, TBH, that run-scoring was far more difficult in Sobers' day. Pitches of the 1950s and 60s were uncovered and are generally held to have been less than excellent. A weak attack was fairly rare, too - England, Australia and Pakistan were all pretty much without fail good, and India later on too.

Since 2001\02 - funnily enough the exact time Kallis, like a good few others, started to score obscenely heavily - run-scoring has been easier than probably any other time in cricket history, with only the 1930s coming close.

As cricket wasn't as professional the gap between players back in the day would have been greater then it is now.

If the amateurs were so poor they'd not have got into sides.

 

[Richard]

OK so you take these out of the equation..

Sobers made his 365* against a team who's leading opening bowler bowled 5 balls in the entire innings so the team only had 2 decent bowlers in the innings by a woeful Pakistan outfit who lost by an innings and 174 runs,a similar loss which Bangladesh could get when a gun player like Kallis performs well..

Pakistan weren't generally that poor, though. You could look at Inzamam's 329 and say New Zealand played one of the worsts Tests ever - which would be true.

But that really doesn't matter. Pakistan deserved Test-status at that time, and New Zealand deserved it in 2002. Bangladesh patently never have.

 

[pasag]

Why does everyone say Kallis now has substandard attacks, while in Sobers era it was tougher?

I mean surely not all sides were strong back 40 or whatever years ago, it's just not the case.

As cricket wasn't as professional the gap between players back in the day would have been greater then it is now.

I'm not going to say Kallis is better then Sobers, but he's an awesome Test Cricketer and will be remembered as one of the best players of all time when his career finishes.

Not sure about that tbh, maybe in SA.

 

[Perm]

OK so you take these out of the equation..

Sobers made his 365* against a team who's leading opening bowler bowled 5 balls in the entire innings so the team only had 2 decent bowlers in the innings by a woeful Pakistan outfit who lost by an innings and 174 runs,a similar loss which Bangladesh could get when a gun player like Kallis performs well..

Take these out of the equation and his batting average drops to about 53 and his bowling leaps up to 36 or something. No doubting those two countries have impacted upon his statistics in a very big way. You're talking about one innings though, which I don't think changes Sober's average all that much.

 

[Richard]

Not sure about that tbh, maybe in SA.

I don't see how Kallis won't be remembered as one of the best TBH - if Ponting, Hayden et al deserve to be, so does he.

 

[pasag]

I don't see how Kallis won't be remembered as one of the best TBH - if Ponting, Hayden et al deserve to be, so does he.

Best of all time though, I'm not so quick to let people into the club. Anyways, it's how he will be perceived, rightly or wrongly and I don't think he'll be seen that way by the populous.

 

[Richard]

Oh, no, quite, but I wasn't talking about the rabble, I was talking about those who actually know how to properly analyse cricket.

 

[NUFAN]

Take these out of the equation and his batting average drops to about 53 and his bowling leaps up to 36 or something. No doubting those two countries have impacted upon his statistics in a very big way. You're talking about one innings though, which I don't think changes Sober's average all that much.

I've only looked at one test. Your most likely right and actually I would agree with you on most instances.

I guess my main point is that often people are too quick to say how poor the bowling attacks are now, without looking at the attacks from previous eras (not saying you btw - just in general)..

I also think the fact that batsmen score faster these days obviously helps batsman score more runs, which is why the good players are averaging 55 + rather then 45 - 50 +

 

[chaminda_00]

I'd rather have somebody who was willing to bat and score runs against all opposition.

And Miller didn't do that? The only real fault in his batting was that when Australia were in the box seat he threw away his innings occasionally.

 

[Perm]

And Miller didn't do that? The only real fault in his batting was that when Australia were in the box seat he threw away his innings occasionally.

You yourself said Miller was well capable of averaging 50 if he put his mind to it. He didn't, therefore somebody who did and scored heavily, like Sobers, is a better batsman and all-rounder.

 

[shortpitched713]

Umm... well... Kallis has pretty much never stopped scoring the last 6 years - as haven't the Dravids, Pontings and Haydens.

There's really very little to divide the three in their ability to bash rubbish bowling.

I'm talking about something like 6 months of averaging 100+. I'm sure Ponting and Hayden have done it. Batsmen like that who are so dominant for a period of time tend to get more attention than ones who might be more consistent but do not have such runs of form. No doubt someone's now going to dig up a period where Kallis has done that.

 

[shortpitched713]

His bowling statistics are even more absurd, 13.57 against Bangladesh and 14.71 against Zimbabwe.

All top quality bowlers should be doing that. Just shows that Kallis always takes playing for his country seriously regardless of the opposition, and thats something for which he should be commended, tbh.

 

[shortpitched713]

I also think the fact that batsmen score faster these days obviously helps batsman score more runs, which is why the good players are averaging 55 + rather then 45 - 50 +

I'm pretty sure that the higher averages are mostly down to the quality of the pitches though, not the rate of the scoring. IMO, the rate of the scoring has more to do with the development of more aggresive batsmen, due to limited overs cricket. The rule of first innings batting in Test cricket is almost always to bat at the rate that will maximize your score, and for most batsmen nowadays that rate is faster than it was for batsmen before because they are comfortable with more aggressive batting.

Its clear from watching cricketers of the past though that most modern batsmen would struggle to score as prolifically on the pitches of an earlier time. The techniques of those players are just so different from those of today's players and they were made to handle the extra movement and uneven bounce of the pitches of the time.