Kallis Vs Sobers

[zaremba]

Really?

I find that remarkable

Do you ever change your own opinion on current players who you have watched because a writer/commentator watched the same thing and had a different opinion?

2 points:

(1) Yes I'm influenced by lots that I read and hear. What I want from a commentator or a reporter or a writer is something informative and/or interesting. I would find reading about cricket a pretty barren experience - and I'd be a pretty arrogant and closed-minded individual - if I wasn't prepared to have my mind changed.

(2) In the case of Sobers, those of us who are too young to have seen him play are reliant on the comments of others who watched him. Even if you believe that your view is more informed or more accurate than that of any writer, player or commentator (and I'm afraid this is how your argument is coming across), even you are necessarily reliant on those commentators who actually watched the guy play (I assume you never saw him play). Unless, of course, you take the view that the opinions of all such people are irrelevant, and all that matters are the set-in-stone records in the scorebook.

 

[thierry henry]

2 points:

(1) Yes I'm influenced by lots that I read and hear. What I want from a commentator or a reporter or a writer is something informative and/or interesting. I would find reading about cricket a pretty barren experience - and I'd be a pretty arrogant and closed-minded individual - if I wasn't prepared to have my mind changed.

I'm certainly prepared to have my mind changed but tbh it doesn't often happen because I'm not usually someone who jumps to conclusions or silly, exaggerated opinions about players. Usually I give it some thought (usually, lol).

I can't remember ever having my mind changed by a cricket writer who had just watched something that I had watched (or watched a player I had watched over an extended period.) I don't think that's closed-minded, it's just that, once I've watched a player and analyzed him, there aren't usually too many complicating factors that might change my mind that only become apparent when a cricket writer draws my attention to them. Such a case would be very rare indeed.

(2) In the case of Sobers, those of us who are too young to have seen him play are reliant on the comments of others who watched him. Even if you believe that your view is more informed or more accurate than that of any writer, player or commentator (and I'm afraid this is how your argument is coming across), even you are necessarily reliant on those commentators who actually watched the guy play (I assume you never saw him play). Unless, of course, you take the view that the opinions of all such people are irrelevant, and all that matters are the set-in-stone records in the scorebook.

Well, I believe that my view is the equal of anyone else's, certainly. I don't think there is some great "secret" to analyzing or rating a player that other people know and I don't.

I know for a fact that I often disagree with the majority when talking about a player we have all seen.

I also accept the fact that most people who saw both Kallis and Sobers say that Sobers was better. But what can I do with that information? The majority believe something, I sometimes/often disagree with the majority. Popularity is proof of nothing but popularity.

I also know that I have rarely ever come across a player who I have seen play whose statistics I think grossly misrepresent that player. That's probably the most important point. From experience of players I have watched I know that the statistics are usually pretty close to the truth as I perceive it.

 

[Anil]

Exhibit A and B, dear Slifer.

good, you are marking out the posts that make the most sense...

 

[steve132]

I'm sure Sobers made 500000 runs and took 10000 wickets in highschool, but we're talking about TEST cricket. Kallis vs. Sobers as TEST players. Also, did Miller play cricket when Sobers was playing? No.

Um... Miller's and Sobers' careers overlapped - they played against each other in the Caribbean in 1955. In fact, Sobers' first achievement of note in international cricket was scoring 43 in 15 minutes when opening the batting for the West Indies against Lindwall and Miller.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Sobers. Kallis is South African for a start.

 

[steve132]

I'm certainly prepared to have my mind changed but tbh it doesn't often happen because I'm not usually someone who jumps to conclusions or silly, exaggerated opinions about players. Usually I give it some thought (usually, lol).

I can't remember ever having my mind changed by a cricket writer who had just watched something that I had watched (or watched a player I had watched over an extended period.) I don't think that's closed-minded, it's just that, once I've watched a player and analyzed him, there aren't usually too many complicating factors that might change my mind that only become apparent when a cricket writer draws my attention to them. Such a case would be very rare indeed.



Well, I believe that my view is the equal of anyone else's, certainly. I don't think there is some great "secret" to analyzing or rating a player that other people know and I don't.

I know for a fact that I often disagree with the majority when talking about a player we have all seen.

I also accept the fact that most people who saw both Kallis and Sobers say that Sobers was better. But what can I do with that information? The majority believe something, I sometimes/often disagree with the majority. Popularity is proof of nothing but popularity.

I also know that I have rarely ever come across a player who I have seen play whose statistics I think grossly misrepresent that player. That's probably the most important point. From experience of players I have watched I know that the statistics are usually pretty close to the truth as I perceive it.

Obviously, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But what, precisely, makes yours any more valuable or insightful than those of, say, Don Bradman or E.W. Swanton or the hundreds of first class cricketers or journalists still alive who saw Sobers play?

 

[Burgey]

Um... Miller's and Sobers' careers overlapped - they played against each other in the Caribbean in 1955. In fact, Sobers' first achievement of note in international cricket was scoring 43 in 15 minutes when opening the batting for the West Indies against Lindwall and Miller.

Actually, Sobers first achievement of note was drinking a bottle of scotch with Lindwall and Miller when they barged into his hotel room mid-Test and refused to leave until they, Sobers and Sobers' room mate finished the whole thing.

 

[steve132]

Haha, that's a shocker. They've never even seen the man play and they imply that anyone who compares him to the current greatest all-rounder in the world is stupid. It's so fallacious i don't even know where to begin. Poor form, guys.

Excuse me, but some of us did have the privilege of seeing Sobers play MANY times. While I don't know anyone who doubts that Kallis is a very talented cricketer, the people who saw both him and Sobers unanimously or almost unanimously consider Sobers to be the greater all-rounder.

You need not take my word for this. Feel free to ask any of the hundreds of first class cricketers and journalists who are in a position to make this judgment. We are not, after all, talking about ancient history. Sobers was in his prime from the late fifties to the early seventies, and most of his contemporaries are still alive.

This board is the only place that I know where there is, or would be, any serious debate on this issue. Even here the vote is currently running at 80 per cent to 13 per cent in Sobers' favor.

In fact, it is precisely the people who never saw cricket in that period who are responsible for some astonishing claims - for example, that Test cricket was easier in the 1960's, that spinners such as Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Ramadhin and Valentine are "overrated," and generally that first class cricketers and journalists are incompetent in terms of evaluating players. Having gone through some of this nonsense in previous threads I'm not inclined to write another point by point refutation. I can only recommend that you try to read some of the books written about Test cricket in that era - not just the stats, but the memoirs and match accounts that put stats into context.

 

[Sanz]

Um... Miller's and Sobers' careers overlapped - they played against each other in the Caribbean in 1955. In fact, Sobers' first achievement of note in international cricket was scoring 43 in 15 minutes when opening the batting for the West Indies against Lindwall and Miller.

Obviously, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But what, precisely, makes yours any more valuable or insightful than those of, say, Don Bradman or E.W. Swanton or the hundreds of first class cricketers or journalists still alive who saw Sobers play?

Excuse me, but some of us did have the privilege of seeing Sobers play MANY times. While I don't know anyone who doubts that Kallis is a very talented cricketer, the people who saw both him and Sobers unanimously or almost unanimously consider Sobers to be the greater all-rounder.

You need not take my word for this. Feel free to ask any of the hundreds of first class cricketers and journalists who are in a position to make this judgment. We are not, after all, talking about ancient history. Sobers was in his prime from the late fifties to the early seventies, and most of his contemporaries are still alive.

This board is the only place that I know where there is, or would be, any serious debate on this issue. Even here the vote is currently running at 80 per cent to 13 per cent in Sobers' favor.

In fact, it is precisely the people who never saw cricket in that period who are responsible for some astonishing claims - for example, that Test cricket was easier in the 1960's, that spinners such as Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Ramadhin and Valentine are "overrated," and generally that first class cricketers and journalists are incompetent in terms of evaluating players. Having gone through some of this nonsense in previous threads I'm not inclined to write another point by point refutation. I can only recommend that you try to read some of the books written about Test cricket in that era - not just the stats, but the memoirs and match accounts that put stats into context.

Dear Steve,

I consider It a privilege to be on this forum because of members like you. It is not just what you write but the way you write. Also I would like to point out that this is not really a debate, it is merely reaction from members who can't stand such outrageous claims about arguably the greatest cricketer of all time.

I personally have chosen to ignore such posts and those members who engage in belittling the greatest of the great cricketers.

 

[Ikki]

In seems as if ne one who is highly rated who is not Australian is overated according to Ikki.

Again, mention an Aussie I back that isn't backed by the requisite record. It's appalling that I have to repeat this. Do you ever hear me say Lillee is SO much better than Hadlee that the debate is silly? Well you get those reactions here. Pardon me, but it's asinine.

 

[Ikki]

Um... Miller's and Sobers' careers overlapped - they played against each other in the Caribbean in 1955. In fact, Sobers' first achievement of note in international cricket was scoring 43 in 15 minutes when opening the batting for the West Indies against Lindwall and Miller.

In Sheffield Shield?

 

[Ikki]

I think this is a pretty damning indictment of your outlook. If you don't think that watching a player bowl (or facing his bowling) is an important part of judging his ability, then you may be beyond redemption. Enjoy your time on statsguru!

The point being, Sobers' record as a bowler is in some parts so poor that you cannot defend it with ANY argument. Mate, we had a thread before where I invited those saying Sobers was so much better than the others to build a case and explain the weaknesses in his record.

They couldn't! They just come back with "well everybody thinks Sobers is the best so he must be". So if the only retort is "everybody that saw him was the best" without looking at his record, then I can't take those observations seriously.

As I mentioned before, the literature of Sobers' time places no value on strike rate and delves very little into close statistical scrutiny. It was an age where a great performance in this year would be good enough to cement your reputation for another few more years.

 

[steve132]

Dear Steve,

I consider It a privilege to be on this forum because of members like you. It is not just what you write but the way you write. Also I would like to point out that this is not really a debate, it is merely reaction from members who can't stand such outrageous claims about arguably the greatest cricketer of all time.

I personally have chosen to ignore such posts and those members who engage in belittling the greatest of the great cricketers.

Sanz:

Thanks for your kind words.

Opinions are two a penny, and it's not too surprising that there is a fair amount of silliness on this forum. I tend to steer clear of the controversies about current players, on the charitable assumption that it may be too early to make final judgments on some issues.

In the case of Sobers, however, a consensus about his greatness developed while he was still active, and no informed observer has questioned it since then. Sometimes it's a bit difficult to take the sheer hubris of people who dismiss as worthless the views of virtually everyone who has written about the game over the past forty years.

 

[steve132]

In Sheffield Shield?

I'm not sure why the Sheffield Shield is relevant. For one thing, you stated that "we're talking about TEST cricket." Secondly, you claimed that Miller did not play cricket (not Sheffield Shield cricket) when Sobers was playing. That statement is, as I indicated, demonstrably false.

 

[Ikki]

I'm not sure why the Sheffield Shield is relevant. For one thing, you stated that "we're talking about TEST cricket." Secondly, you claimed that Miller did not play cricket (not Sheffield Shield cricket) when Sobers was playing. That statement is, as I indicated, demonstrably false.

Because if you had read the post to which my post replied to, it was talking about Sobers' leading wickets or breaking records in Sheffield Shield.

But having re-read that post you're right to respond like that as I wasn't clear what I was referring to.

 

[honestbharani]

Agree wholly to the bowling and fielding aspects.

But don't you think Sober's average of 57 is a tad over-rated? Considering his averages are boosted heavily by performances against India, who were minnows as far as bowling was concerned during that period??

And Kallis had much more pressure coping with a hectic International schedule, more nations to tour, ODI matches to play, etc? So should we not make some allowance in that regard?

Any bowling attack with Subash Gupte is not a minnow bowling attack..

 

[honestbharani]

Sanz:

Thanks for your kind words.

Opinions are two a penny, and it's not too surprising that there is a fair amount of silliness on this forum. I tend to steer clear of the controversies about current players, on the charitable assumption that it may be too early to make final judgments on some issues.

In the case of Sobers, however, a consensus about his greatness developed while he was still active, and no informed observer has questioned it since then. Sometimes it's a bit difficult to take the sheer hubris of people who dismiss as worthless the views of virtually everyone who has written about the game over the past forty years.

hey, what is 40 years of history compared to 40 minutes of statsguru?

 

[thierry henry]

Obviously, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But what, precisely, makes yours any more valuable or insightful than those of, say, Don Bradman or E.W. Swanton or the hundreds of first class cricketers or journalists still alive who saw Sobers play?

Nothing.

What point are you trying to make?

 

[Uppercut]

Excuse me, but some of us did have the privilege of seeing Sobers play MANY times. While I don't know anyone who doubts that Kallis is a very talented cricketer, the people who saw both him and Sobers unanimously or almost unanimously consider Sobers to be the greater all-rounder.

You need not take my word for this. Feel free to ask any of the hundreds of first class cricketers and journalists who are in a position to make this judgment. We are not, after all, talking about ancient history. Sobers was in his prime from the late fifties to the early seventies, and most of his contemporaries are still alive.

This board is the only place that I know where there is, or would be, any serious debate on this issue. Even here the vote is currently running at 80 per cent to 13 per cent in Sobers' favor.

In fact, it is precisely the people who never saw cricket in that period who are responsible for some astonishing claims - for example, that Test cricket was easier in the 1960's, that spinners such as Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Ramadhin and Valentine are "overrated," and generally that first class cricketers and journalists are incompetent in terms of evaluating players. Having gone through some of this nonsense in previous threads I'm not inclined to write another point by point refutation. I can only recommend that you try to read some of the books written about Test cricket in that era - not just the stats, but the memoirs and match accounts that put stats into context.

Oh it's fair enough for you to judge Sobers as better if you watched him play many, many times. My comment was aimed solely at the two posts ikki quoted.

You write very well but you rather offend the historian in me. Why shouldn't we question perceived wisdom? The general consensus is that Sobers is better than Kallis, but why can't I look at the facts and ask whether it's entirely true or not? Should we all look at Churchill's comments on Gandhi and say, "hey, none of the facts support the theory that Gandhi's a prick, but Churchill was actually there so he must have been right"? In truth plenty of people are massively overappreciated or underappreciated by contemporaries, and hindsight is a fantastic tool with which to judge players. So why is it so morally offensive for me to look at Jacques Kallis- IMO one of the most underrated players in the world, if not ever- and Garry Sobers and ask questions like: if Sobers was SO much better, why did they score such similar amounts of runs and take such similar amounts of wickets?

I can see where this is going- I'll roll out numbers, and you'll label me a number-cruncher and I'll happily agree but point out that they're the numbers that win cricket matches. And you'll roll out contemporary opinions, and I'll label you a bookworm and you'll happily agree but point out that those who were there probably have a better idea of how good a cricketer he was than we do. And all it comes down to is that we have two sources and I consider one to be the more important and you consider the other to be the more important, and we'll agree to disagree.

But please don't patronise or criticise people just for asking the question.

 

[Prince EWS]

Oh it's fair enough for you to judge Sobers as better if you watched him play many, many times. My comment was aimed solely at the two posts ikki quoted.

You write very well but you rather offend the historian in me. Why shouldn't we question perceived wisdom? The general consensus is that Sobers is better than Kallis, but why can't I look at the facts and ask whether it's entirely true or not? Should we all look at Churchill's comments on Gandhi and say, "hey, none of the facts support the theory that Gandhi's a prick, but Churchill was actually there so he must have been right"? In truth plenty of people are massively overappreciated or underappreciated by contemporaries, and hindsight is a fantastic tool with which to judge players. So why is it so morally offensive for me to look at Jacques Kallis- IMO one of the most underrated players in the world, if not ever- and Garry Sobers and ask questions like: if Sobers was SO much better, why did they score such similar amounts of runs and take such similar amounts of wickets?

I can see where this is going- I'll roll out numbers, and you'll label me a number-cruncher and I'll happily agree but point out that they're the numbers that win cricket matches. And you'll roll out contemporary opinions, and I'll label you a bookworm and you'll happily agree but point out that those who were there probably have a better idea of how good a cricketer he was than we do. And all it comes down to is that we have two sources and I consider one to be the more important and you consider the other to be the more important, and we'll agree to disagree.

But please don't patronise or criticise people just for asking the question.

Yep.