Kallis Vs Sobers

[Matt79]

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.

I'm generally in the camp that says contemporary opinion is of equal worth to statistical record in comparing across eras, but with the important qualification that as much as possible you need to look at the opinions of people who played against both, or played against neither, or if that's not possible, compare the opinions of their peers rather than only the opinions of past players who played against say, Sobers, and only watched Kallis from the stands.

It's a consistent trend of almost all ex-players to rate those that they themselves played against that little bit higher than those who follow. It's not even really vanity, its just I'd suspect that while the mastery of a spell from Dennis Lillee, or the sublimity of a Garry Sobers innings, might be engravened on the mind of the poor bugger trying to keep Dennis out, or trying to work out where to bowl to Sobers, that same person watching from the stands isn't going to appreciate a Dale Steyn or Ricky Ponting innings in the same vivid manner. And thus, when asked who was the best bowler you've seen, they'll automatically say "Lillee".

 

[Uppercut]

I'm generally in the camp that says contemporary opinion is of equal worth to statistical record in comparing across eras, but with the important qualification that as much as possible you need to look at the opinions of people who played against both, or played against neither, or if that's not possible, compare the opinions of their peers rather than only the opinions of past players who played against say, Sobers, and only watched Kallis from the stands.

It's a consistent trend of almost all ex-players to rate those that they themselves played against that little bit higher than those who follow. It's not even really vanity, its just I'd suspect that while the mastery of a spell from Dennis Lillee, or the sublimity of a Garry Sobers innings, might be engravened on the mind of the poor bugger trying to keep Dennis out, or trying to work out where to bowl to Sobers, that same person watching from the stands isn't going to appreciate a Dale Steyn or Ricky Ponting innings in the same vivid manner. And thus, when asked who was the best bowler you've seen, they'll automatically say "Lillee".

There's this, and also the fact that Kallis doesn't inspire awe in the way that a lot of cricketers do. You rarely watch a Kallis innings or bowling spell and think- Wow, that's the greatest thing I've ever seen, what an absolutely fantastic player. He's often forgotten because there's nothing especially flashy about him. There's no one incredible signature stroke everyone remembers, few memorable one-on-one battles, few utterly unplayable deliveries pegging back a star batsman's off-stump.

But none of those things win cricket matches- runs, catches and wickets do- and Kallis just keeps churning out all three with an efficiency so good it's almost unbelievable that he's done it for so long in such an era. That's why i think he's such an under-appreciated player. He's not as good as some at blowing away spectators, but he's damn good at winning your side a game of cricket.

 

[Matt79]

Disagree to an extent. If there's nothing striking about your play, ultimately, you don't worry your opponents in the way that a striking player does. Over time, that aura starts to win your team matches. Batsmen, esp. tailenders who can otherwise bat, panic because its SHANE WARNE bowling at them. Bowler's panic and forget their plans when a Viv Richards or Matthew Hayden start going after them. I'm not saying than that aura will make a poor player a good one, or a good one a great one, but a player with that aura will win you more matches than his more boring counterpart. A lot of international cricket is played between the ears.

 

[Prince EWS]

Disagree to an extent. If there's nothing striking about your play, ultimately, you don't worry your opponents in the way that a striking player does. Over time, that aura starts to win your team matches. Batsmen, esp. tailenders who can otherwise bat, panic because its SHANE WARNE bowling at them. Bowler's panic and forget their plans when a Viv Richards or Matthew Hayden start going after them. I'm not saying than that aura will make a poor player a good one, or a good one a great one, but a player with that aura will win you more matches than his more boring counterpart. A lot of international cricket is played between the ears.

That's something that would reflect in a player's numbers anyway though. A wicket taken through aura still goes down as a wicket and, utlimately, Kallis's performances through the eyes of either statistical analysis or match context have been as good as any.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, that's true, unless your ultra-consistently accurate medium fast partner in crime picked up their wicket while they were distracted thinking about their next over against you.

 

[Uppercut]

Disagree to an extent. If there's nothing striking about your play, ultimately, you don't worry your opponents in the way that a striking player does. Over time, that aura starts to win your team matches. Batsmen, esp. tailenders who can otherwise bat, panic because its SHANE WARNE bowling at them. Bowler's panic and forget their plans when a Viv Richards or Matthew Hayden start going after them. I'm not saying than that aura will make a poor player a good one, or a good one a great one, but a player with that aura will win you more matches than his more boring counterpart. A lot of international cricket is played between the ears.

Yeah that's true, but it's just a difference between players like Warne and players like Kallis. Kallis doesn't use the aura the way Warne does, in the same way as he doesn't use spinning the ball (as much). He takes wickets in other ways- being accurate, moving the ball in the air, etc. As PEWS says, a wicket is a wicket regardless of how you get it.

It does come into it when I judge personal preference, or how good a player was to watch. Personally I love Warne.

 

[zaremba]

It's a consistent trend of almost all ex-players to rate those that they themselves played against that little bit higher than those who follow. It's not even really vanity, its just I'd suspect that while the mastery of a spell from Dennis Lillee, or the sublimity of a Garry Sobers innings, might be engravened on the mind of the poor bugger trying to keep Dennis out, or trying to work out where to bowl to Sobers, that same person watching from the stands isn't going to appreciate a Dale Steyn or Ricky Ponting innings in the same vivid manner. And thus, when asked who was the best bowler you've seen, they'll automatically say "Lillee".

Very well put.

Although it had veered off course at points, this thread is now nicely back on track. A really enjoyable debate.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

you write pretty well yourself.



And as for the actual points, yes, if more than 80% of Gandhi's contemporaries considered him a prick, it probably would be true... But that is not the case. And anyways, there is obvious reason why Churchill would consider Gandhi a prick.. It makes as much sense as listening to how good Andrew Symonds is from Harbhajan Singh...


You are certainly going on a huge tangent comparing Sobers' contemporary opinions and Churchill's opinions on Gandhi. But I know you are better than that. And actually, I can see where you were going with that example.


As I said, it is one thing when few people say that Sobers was that good but that is not the case. The respect and admiration for him and his rating as the greatest are almost universal. The best players, journalists and commentators of his era, and the next and the next to the next all think the same thing. I am sorry, but that kind of consensus simply cannot exist if he was not that good. I hate to rate players I have never seen but I am more than willing to buy this many people's views than statsguru.


The first thing that one should know about cricket is that matches can be won by scores of 30s and lost by 100s, when talking about batsmen. Stats are important but if you don't have the proper perspective of it, it can only help to conceal rather than reveal the truth.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm generally in the camp that says contemporary opinion is of equal worth to statistical record in comparing across eras, but with the important qualification that as much as possible you need to look at the opinions of people who played against both, or played against neither, or if that's not possible, compare the opinions of their peers rather than only the opinions of past players who played against say, Sobers, and only watched Kallis from the stands.

It's a consistent trend of almost all ex-players to rate those that they themselves played against that little bit higher than those who follow. It's not even really vanity, its just I'd suspect that while the mastery of a spell from Dennis Lillee, or the sublimity of a Garry Sobers innings, might be engravened on the mind of the poor bugger trying to keep Dennis out, or trying to work out where to bowl to Sobers, that same person watching from the stands isn't going to appreciate a Dale Steyn or Ricky Ponting innings in the same vivid manner. And thus, when asked who was the best bowler you've seen, they'll automatically say "Lillee".

yeah.. but what about those who have ONLY watched both of them play from close quarters, like the journos and commentators?



Surely they can't be biased about how Sobers thrashed them or their team, because the chances are they felt the same way about Kallis.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, I did try to reflect that in what I said - if someone has only watched both of them they're less likely to be biased. Although there again exists an element of nostalgia once the observer gets older, for most people it seems, past a certain point, the past was always better, and you can't help but think of Pietersen as a modern day Richards and hence inadvertantly rate Richards higher. Similarly, I think all of us will always retain a significant bias towards the players we first fell in love with as fans - others will come and go, but none will ever make us feel the same way again. For me, Ponting doesn't mean as much to me as Steve Waugh did, simply because I was a kid when Waugh started, and he was my hero, whereas I've appreciated Ponting as an adult. I'd imagine it will be the same for the Lara and Tendulkar fans out there. Once Sachin is gone, even when India later produces a batsman of similar standard, they won't be able to easily bring themselves to rank him ahead of Sachin, even those those who don't remember the 90s and 00s don't get what the fuss was about regarding a little bloke with a crook elbow who played the second half of his career on predominantly flat pitches. Every generation of fans will have their favourites, who will always be their favourites, regardless of what happens afterwards.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, I did try to reflect that in what I said - if someone has only watched both of them they're less likely to be biased. Although there again exists an element of nostalgia once the observer gets older, for most people it seems, past a certain point, the past was always better, and you can't help but think of Pietersen as a modern day Richards and hence inadvertantly rate Richards higher. Similarly, I think all of us will always retain a significant bias towards the players we first fell in love with as fans - others will come and go, but none will ever make us feel the same way again. For me, Ponting doesn't mean as much to me as Steve Waugh did, simply because I was a kid when Waugh started, and he was my hero, whereas I've appreciated Ponting as an adult. I'd imagine it will be the same for the Lara and Tendulkar fans out there. Once Sachin is gone, even when India later produces a batsman of similar standard, they won't be able to easily bring themselves to rank him ahead of Sachin, even those those who don't remember the 90s and 00s don't get what the fuss was about regarding a little bloke with a crook elbow who played the second half of his career on predominantly flat pitches. Every generation of fans will have their favourites, who will always be their favourites, regardless of what happens afterwards.

tbh, I always feel it is the other extreme.. People are so taken in by the current players/superstars that they often oh-so-easily forget how good their predecessors were... And the arguments against Sobers here are some of the best examples of that particular genre...

 

[Matt79]

Happens mainly with people who have no clear memory of what's gone before IMO. Once they've seen one generations of players enter with a splash, and only a few last the course at that same standard, they start to take a more realistic view of these things.

 

[Jono]

Kallis having played under very different circumstances, and in an era where genuine batsmen alone struggles to average in the 50s consistently due to the vast amount of cricket

Say what?

 

[silentstriker]

Fair points. Exactly why I discourage omission of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from the stats of Kallis when comparing to Sobers. Because, with all due respect, I don;t think for a second that India (and perhaps, only perhaps) Pakistan were not the best bowling teams during those times. I agree and have acknowledged the superlative record of Sobers against England, but I think Kallis having played under very different circumstances, and in an era where genuine batsmen alone struggles to average in the 50s consistently due to the vast amount of cricket, he has done an astounding job with both the bat and the ball.

As with the above...lolwat?

 

[steve132]

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

True - both Sobers and Everton Weekes, to name only two great batsmen, considered Gupte to be the best leg spinner they ever saw.

 

[Richard]

I think the above post is a classical example of the demonstration of:

It's a consistent trend of almost all ex-players to rate those that they themselves played against that little bit higher than those who follow. It's not even really vanity, its just I'd suspect that while the mastery of a spell from Dennis Lillee, or the sublimity of a Garry Sobers innings, might be engravened on the mind of the poor bugger trying to keep Dennis out, or trying to work out where to bowl to Sobers, that same person watching from the stands isn't going to appreciate a Dale Steyn or Ricky Ponting innings in the same vivid manner. And thus, when asked who was the best bowler you've seen, they'll automatically say "Lillee".

I myself have no doubt Gupte was a terrific wristspinner, and I've had cogent, very sensible explanations of why his Test bowling figures do not accurately reflect the calibre of his bowling and thus am more than happy to accept accounts of how good he was.

However, I'll never believe he was better than Warne or Muralitharan. Or probably O'Reilly or Grimmett either, though I know this particular comparison doesn't involve the two and nor, indeed, does any other I've ever seen.

 

[zaremba]

I'll never believe he was better than Warne or Muralitharan. Or probably O'Reilly or Grimmett either, though I know this particular comparison doesn't involve the two and nor, indeed, does any other I've ever seen.

It depends on when Sobers and Weekes ventured their opinion about Gupte. If it was before (say) 1995 or so then there's no reason why they should necessarily think that Warne was the better.

I'm not sure how Murali figures in this because he's not a legspinner.

 

[The Sean]

I don't know when Sobers first put the view forward, but he still held it at the time of his autobiography coming out, which was either 2004 or 2005.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm not sure how Murali figures in this because he's not a legspinner.

Many people consider him to be a wrist spinner though.

 

[zaremba]

Many people consider him to be a wrist spinner though.

So do I, but the quoted opinion of Sobers/Weekes was about leg spinners.

both Sobers and Everton Weekes, to name only two great batsmen, considered Gupte to be the best leg spinner they ever saw.