Kallis Vs Sobers

[thierry henry]

Very wise, saves wasting time on actually watching a game of cricket.

Indeed, tis a pity though, I might have something very poetic to say if I could just completely ignore those pesky runs and wickets. It's all about the vibe of the thing tbh.

 

[Ikki]

Indeed, tis a pity though, I might have something very poetic to say if I could just completely ignore those pesky runs and wickets. It's all about the vibe of the thing tbh.

not sure our non-Aussie members will get the joke .

 

[thierry henry]

Sobers certainly had some mad vibe. No-one has ever been able to extract that much vibe from trundling away at 2 runs an over without taking any wickets with the possible exception of Daniel Vettori.

 

[honestbharani]

Hmm, why do you say this? Is it because he has trouble accelarating and/or dominating an attack?

I think Kallis gets unfairly criticised for his style a touch- Dravid too. I'd tend to think of them both in the same league as the others but their biggest asset is their incredible concentration. You can't see it when you watch them bat but it's the reason they score just as many runs as the Tendulkars and Laras of the world (until Dravid's recent dip). I'm big on effectiveness, as you've probably gathered, run-scoring is what it's all about for me.

Although they're both nowhere near the class of the three mentioned in ODI cricket. So as a complete overview, there's no real comparison.

I don''t think he is as good as those 3, simple as that.. I can't always pull out the stats in support for this, if that is what you are looking for... But I think he was not as good as the other 3 against really top class bowling and I fully expect his batting average to come down quite a bit from now... Make no mistake, he is a great batsman and a definite all time great all rounder, but as a pure batsman, I would easily have Ponting, Lara and Sachin in my side before Kallis... I believe you take out the minnow numbers and actually check on his record against the best sides, you will certainly find it interesting. Don't remember exactly but have read those stats about Kallis somewhere before here on CW forums.

 

[The Sean]

Has anyone else ever been the best batsman in the world, and bowled the overs of a front line bowler, for the vast majority of their career?

Grace, as has been mentioned.

The only other contender that I can think of is Wally Hammond. He probably bowled a bit less than Kallis but from what I've read it seems he was a bowler of comparable style and ability. His reign as the world's best batsman was brief - he only made his debut a year before Bradman. But as a batting all-rounder, he's right up there.

I considered both of these - Grace is certainly accurate, though only in FC cricket. He wasn't often a frontline bowler in Test matches (9 Test wickets at 26 IIRC).

Hammond fell down on the fact that for most of his career he was only the second best batsman in the world (when ironically he may also have been the second best batsman of all time) and while he was a high quality fast-medium bowler, a rate of less than one wicket per Test (again haven't looked it up but I think it was 83 in 85) indicates he didn't do quite as much front line bowling as he might have.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

And as I told you then, it doesn't make sense for a bowler to be used for 40 something overs a match to simply tie an end. Especially, when he has more economic bowlers right next to him with the likes of Valentine and Ramadhin. Gibbs had a better ER as well, so they were already packed to the brim with economic spinners. Furthermore, if it wasn't for his 5 year spell of very good medium pace his stats would be even worse (much worse) than what they are and would be pretty bad for a spinner anyway. Even further, if for most of his career all he was doing was tying an end...that just speaks volumes about the kind of bowler he was.

As I said in that thread, Sobers was a part-time bowler for most his career bowling specialist amount of overs. The reasoning brought that he simply tied an end is simply lazy and whilst it's true that he often had to work for the team, bringing that reason and generalising across his whole career doesn't make much sense. It raises more questions than it answers.

I didn't say it was the only reason, I simply mentioned it as a factor and the most pertinent aspect was you claiming that it didn't happen.

 

[honestbharani]

The funny thing about Kallis is that when not bowling as a front-liner, he's generally been used as a partnership-breaker, coming on to try to buy a wicket when two batsmen are well set.

That's a fancy way of saying he only bowls at the most difficult possible time to do so.

You could.. But I have seen him NOT bowl on flat tracks so that he will be fresh for his batting. It cuts both ways really...


And there is the small matter of how Sobers always bowled seam on a flat track so that his side could fit in an extra specialist spinner or bowled spin in seaming conditions so that his side could fit in an extra fast bowler...


As I said, there are a million things stats cant show...

 

[Matt79]

^^ Kallis would be the only other one who comes close, since Grace probably. And he's never been clearly the world's best batsman and has bowled less than a front-line bowler for large chunks of his career.

The funny thing about Kallis is that when not bowling as a front-liner, he's generally been used as a partnership-breaker, coming on to try to buy a wicket when two batsmen are well set.

That's a fancy way of saying he only bowls at the most difficult possible time to do so.

Fair enough, but I think Jack's question probably related to having the ability/physique to sustain both roles for prolonged periods. It probably also reflects the strength of SA's seam attack for much of Kallis' career that he hasn't bowled more, vs say, Miller, who would have liked to bowl less but for whom there simply was no alternative.

(That said, Miller clearly demanded to be bowled ahead of any alternatives barring at different times Lindwall and Davidson, which is not really something you can say for Kallis vs. Donald, Pollock and Ntini. Clear to say though that Miller's batting record doesn't match Kallis' however, and we're not comparing Kallis to Miller here).[/tangent]

 

[thierry henry]

And there is the small matter of how Sobers always bowled seam on a flat track so that his side could fit in an extra specialist spinner or bowled spin in seaming conditions so that his side could fit in an extra fast bowler...

Stupidest idea ever?

Deliberately bowling the least effective style in all conditions...the mind boggles...

 

[Ikki]

I don''t think he is as good as those 3, simple as that.. I can't always pull out the stats in support for this, if that is what you are looking for... But I think he was not as good as the other 3 against really top class bowling and I fully expect his batting average to come down quite a bit from now... Make no mistake, he is a great batsman and a definite all time great all rounder, but as a pure batsman, I would easily have Ponting, Lara and Sachin in my side before Kallis... I believe you take out the minnow numbers and actually check on his record against the best sides, you will certainly find it interesting. Don't remember exactly but have read those stats about Kallis somewhere before here on CW forums.

Yep, when you take out minnows his record is 0.4 runs on average less than Tendulkar.

In all seriousness, if you look at the stats there is a lot of truth there. Kallis did not succeed against the best and is more awesome at beating minnows/average sides.

Then again, Sobers' record also owes a great deal to those kinds of teams too.

 

[Ikki]

I didn't say it was the only reason, I simply mentioned it as a factor and the most pertinent aspect was you claiming that it didn't happen.

Well, mate, my whole argument asks for good reasons to explain the difference. Not small differences here and there. If the differences in the stats were only a few points...okay, good point. But it isn't, it's pretty large.

 

[sammy2]

kallis being compared to a man who has been regarded as the greatest cricketer in cricketing history. A lot of WI would be very disrespected by this thread, as they should.

 

[thierry henry]

kallis being compared to a man who has been regarded as the greatest cricketer in cricketing history. A lot of WI would be very disrespected by this thread, as they should.

lol

The sad thing is that so many people actually do seem to be personally offended by comparing Sobers to anyone.

 

[Matt79]

kallis being compared to a man who has been regarded as the greatest cricketer in cricketing history. A lot of WI would be very disrespected by this thread, as they should.

Sammy, really if you're going to take offense every time someone debates the merits of a West Indian player, you're going to be continuously offended around here. Players from all countries are continually having their records and merits debated and dissected here.

 

[Uppercut]

I don''t think he is as good as those 3, simple as that.. I can't always pull out the stats in support for this, if that is what you are looking for... But I think he was not as good as the other 3 against really top class bowling and I fully expect his batting average to come down quite a bit from now... Make no mistake, he is a great batsman and a definite all time great all rounder, but as a pure batsman, I would easily have Ponting, Lara and Sachin in my side before Kallis... I believe you take out the minnow numbers and actually check on his record against the best sides, you will certainly find it interesting. Don't remember exactly but have read those stats about Kallis somewhere before here on CW forums.

Nah, Kallis's record is almost identical to Tendulkar's, with or without Bangladesh and Zimbabwe included. Lara's is much the same too and Ponting is miles ahead of them all. You could point to Tendulkar's superior performances against Australia, I could point out that Kallis outperformed Tendulkar almost without fail when they played against each other. You could point out Tendulkar's better strike rate, I could point out that Kallis's home pitches were generally more awkward to bat on.

The overall point being, of course, that you just end up with a massive ****tail of arguments and counter-arguments that it's difficult to decipher. Picking purely for batting, I too would have Tendulkar first, but it's certainly possible to make a case for Kallis. I reckon people can make a case for Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar or Kallis, often largely depending on their nationality. A lot of it is personal preference, and for whatever reason, Kallis ain't a popular man, so i think his ability is under-appreciated considerably at times.

Oh, also, can you give me an example of him not bowling in a test because the pitch was too flat? Serious question btw.

 

[zaremba]

kallis being compared to a man who has been regarded as the greatest cricketer in cricketing history. A lot of WI would be very disrespected by this thread, as they should.

You seem to have a very thin skin when it comes to WI cricket and cricketers being "disrespected". Am I imagining it, or did you keep a pretty low profile on CW after the Test at the Viv Richards Stadium?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well, mate, my whole argument asks for good reasons to explain the difference. Not small differences here and there. If the differences in the stats were only a few points...okay, good point. But it isn't, it's pretty large.

The "small differences here and there" can add up to make a difference, but that ceased to be the point. More relevant is you saying something as basic as that didn't happen, which calls into question your interest in cricket beyond dissecting numbers.

 

[honestbharani]

Dear HB, the standards in Cricket have not changed that much. Averaging in the 30s with the ball in the 60s is pretty much what averaging 30s are right now. Averaging in the 50s with the bat in the 50s is pretty much what averaging 50s now is. It's not that different.

People's perceptions are what can muddy the waters. People think because there are more batsmen with averages of 50 now that it is that much easier to attain. That's an error in perception. It's because there are more good teams and more teams overall.

There are things that have changed about the game but it's basically the same. If I had only numbers, I'd be in trouble. But I have a good idea about the rules, the way the game was played, how it was played, etc and I use these outside facts to create judgments. And when I miss out a fact like that (i.e. lots of draws in one certain era) I invite people to clarify. But when they can't and constantly attack the numbers, then there isn't much to sway me to believe what they think.

No Ikki, unlike many others here, I have a lot of time for you and your views on cricket. If I didn't, I would not have cared to debate this issue.. So I don't think you are going only by stats. I mean, at least you feel you have more than just stats to back up your case.... But I don't think so. And we have pretty much always been on opposite camps in this issue. Let me just try one last time..


Put it this way... It is possible for any player to rack up any kind of numbers in cricket.. And when we are talking about all time greats, the numbers are always close. And it is always possible to put up some permutations and combinations to get out the numbers to look good for the guy we like. You must have seen enough of that in the Warne Vs Murali and Sachin Vs Lara threads...

Amongst the best, as you yourself once said, once they have reached certain points in terms of stats, they become meaningless when comparing with other greats.. For me, once a batsman is good enough to average in excess of 50 in any era is good enough to be compared to a guy averaging 50 in any other era. I understand there will be exceptions, but just for the sake of comparisons, I think they do belong in that category. And once that point has been reached, it is stuff like the regard in which your peers hold you, how you fared against the best and how much of a match winner you were are the things that matter.. And to me, Sobers fares better than Kallis in almost all of these things... I am sorry, Ikki.. I understand where you are coming from but there is no way in the world any numbers will sway me from believing the almost universal consensus on one of the greats of the game.... And to the question at hand, I would almost ALWAYS prefer Sobers to Kallis as my #6.. Forget the numbers, just going by the kind of team combination I want, Sobers is the guy who will get in...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

kallis being compared to a man who has been regarded as the greatest cricketer in cricketing history. A lot of WI would be very disrespected by this thread, as they should.

Why? He is winning the poll by a considerable margin and it's only statsboys, the sympathy vote and people who think all older cricket is crap who have voted against him.

 

[Ikki]

I reckon it's hard to build a case for Kallis, personally. He didn't do well against the best of his time and if you go through his stats really relied on crushing the lesser sides. He was pretty good against Ambrose and Walsh though.