Kallis Vs Sobers

[Ikki]

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.

Like which small differences? Add them up, and see if they make sense and cover the difference.

You say that's ALL Sobers is asked to do. And I replied that it didn't happen. Bowlers aren't brought on for 40+ overs a game just to tie an end. In fact, can you name me bowlers who bowled that much, over the same amount of time, and had such a - comparatively - bad record?

 

[Ikki]

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...

In my all-time XI I'd have Sobers too...but he would never touch the ball, Hence he would never be used as an all-rounder. Sobers was a viable all-rounder option for his team at that time. But outside of that, it's hard to justify why he is better than the likes of Imran, Miller or Botham IMO. And it's really silly to suggest he is that much better than Kallis as some have been suggesting here.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Like which small differences? Add them up, and see if they make sense and cover the difference.

You say that's ALL Sobers is asked to do. And I replied that it didn't happen. Bowlers aren't brought on for 40+ overs a game just to tie an end. In fact, can you name me bowlers who bowled that much, over the same amount of time, and had such a bad record?

I didn't say that was ALL Sobers was asked to do, I mentioned it as a factor in the number of balls he bowled per wicket. You said that bowlers don't bowl just to tie up an end - which they do.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

That's true to a certain extent, but on the other hand his home tests were played in South Africa, where the pitches are generally much more difficult than either Australia or India, or even the West Indies. It's also worth noting that against nobody does his record really stink up the joint, even his lowest average by team, against Australia, is 38.

You could certainly build a case for him if you really wanted to. When someone averages over 50 with minnows removed, there's a number of factors that influence how difficult things were for him- some in his favour, some working against him. There aren't many who would add it all up to Kallis being the greatest around, but it's certainly a defensible position.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

That's true to a certain extent, but on the other hand his home tests were played in South Africa, where the pitches are generally much more difficult than either Australia or India, or even the West Indies. It's also worth noting that against nobody does his record really stink up the joint, even his lowest average by team, against Australia, is 38.

You could certainly build a case for him if you really wanted to. When someone averages over 50 with minnows removed, there's a number of factors that influence how difficult things were for him- some in his favour, some working against him. There aren't many who would add it all up to Kallis being the greatest around, but it's certainly a defensible position.

I stand to be corrected but I suspect the post by Ikki was an attempt at sarcasm.

 

[Uppercut]

I stand to be corrected but I suspect the post by Ikki was an attempt at sarcasm.

 

[Ikki]

That's true to a certain extent, but on the other hand his home tests were played in South Africa, where the pitches are generally much more difficult than either Australia or India, or even the West Indies. It's also worth noting that against nobody does his record really stink up the joint, even his lowest average by team, against Australia, is 38.

I agree with the pitches, but I am not sure it entirely makes up the difference. His failings are by opponents, not that he lacks a little here or a little there against everybody where the pitches play a constant menace. He's either not that good against a team or thrashes the daylights out of them.

His worst may not be as bad as the others; Ponting's worst...yes worst, is 47 (India), Lara has India (35) and Tendulkar has S.Africa (35) but when you look at who he scored, the proportion leads one to believe he wasn't as good as the above when facing better opponents. The others also belted the other sides but not to the same extent.

You could certainly build a case for him if you really wanted to. When someone averages over 50 with minnows removed, there's a number of factors that influence how difficult things were for him- some in his favour, some working against him. There aren't many who would add it all up to Kallis being the greatest around, but it's certainly a defensible position.

TBF, I'd like to hear it, with all sincerity as I often think Kallis is treated like a stray dog. But the minnows are only 2 teams, there are a host of others. You can average 90 against New Zealand and average 30 against Australia but end up with an average over 50. I mean, you may argue that from an angle Kallis is better against weaker sides and that has to count for something, although I am not sure that will have a lot of buyers.

Of course, he'll go down as one of the greats but can you see a realistic argument for him being the 2nd best batsman ever? I can see some good argument with the aforementioned 3.

I stand to be corrected but I suspect the post by Ikki was an attempt at sarcasm.

Why do you say that?

 

[sammy2]

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.

no, not at all. I'm Happy to see everyone voted for sobers, but the person who made this thread was clearly intented to embarrass kallis.

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?

no, I was banned for posting my views before Eng even laned in the WI.

I told my friend about this thread, and he got offended.

But it's kool.

 

[The Sean]

no, not at all. I'm Happy to see everyone voted for sobers, but the person who made this thread was clearly intented to embarrass kallis.

The person who made this thread voted for Kallis.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Again, Ikki, you are drawing your conclusions post these matches.. Are you actually saying you know more about what Sobers was doing than the guys who actually watched those games and are therefore more aware of what the circumstances might have been when he bowled or how he bowled?

 

[honestbharani]

Stupidest idea ever?

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

why is it the stupidest idea? He probably realized he wanted the best bowlers amongst the specialist of the type that the wicket suits and the overs needed to be bowled by the other style of bowlers, he bowled in a tight way so that he was doing the holding the one end job whilst the specialist of the other types attacked from the other end...



Standard cricket tactics.. The mind boggles that people can't comprehend that...

 

[Ikki]

Again, Ikki, you are drawing your conclusions post these matches.. Are you actually saying you know more about what Sobers was doing than the guys who actually watched those games and are therefore more aware of what the circumstances might have been when he bowled or how he bowled?

The circumstances in which he bowled? Did he bowl do or die circumstances his whole career? Against Pakistan, New Zealand and India? Did they all suddenly smart whacking him for 4 and being mediocre against the other bowlers, thus hiding how good Sobers really was...for his whole career? Because unless it was like that, I don't care what the people around him said. They could all say Bradman was crap and I wouldn't believe it.

The point is hearsay alone is not enough. It can't fix his record. And the fact that the only thing you have to rely on is other people's opinion because you can't put together an argument on what he really achieved (the record) should be more damning than anything else. Not everything is quantifiable in statistics, I am a firm believer in that; that's why I give leeway in arguments where the two players are close statistically...but a great deal is quantifiable and prove things without much fuss.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I would guess some of the tests Vs India.. I never said he didn't bowl.. Just that he didn't bowl THAT much in those tracks..

 

[GIMH]

Whatever their respective merits in Test cricket, we can be sure Sobers is a better beach cricketer than Kallis.

This is my favourite post in this thread

Anyhow - good to see CC has its own version of Religion V Science: Stats V Opinions. To quote Casson, "I wonder who will win?"

 

[Ikki]

why is it the stupidest idea? He probably realized he wanted the best bowlers amongst the specialist of the type that the wicket suits and the overs needed to be bowled by the other style of bowlers, he bowled in a tight way so that he was doing the holding the one end job whilst the specialist of the other types attacked from the other end...
Standard cricket tactics.. The mind boggles that people can't comprehend that...

Except that the specialists at the other end who were not bowling tight, as you put it, conceded even less than Sobers. And there wasn't just one of them in his side, there were quite a few. So that argument doesn't make sense and goes against all logic for a side aiming to win.

 

[Matt79]

no, not at all. I'm Happy to see everyone voted for sobers, but the person who made this thread was clearly intented to embarrass kallis.

They definitely intended to embarrass neither Kallis nor Sobers.

I told my friend about this thread, and he got offended.

Your friend is a bit of a novice when it comes to the internet then, and probably needs to develop some tolerance for people disagreeing with him.

 

[pasag]

Frigging Statistics Terrorists..

 

[zaremba]

Frigging Statistics Terrorists..

One of only 2 kinds of FST that I can't stand.

 

[grant28]

Too hard to decide. Sobers is probably nudging ahead for me with 51% to 49%, but I just can't vote Sobers, its a draw.

 

[honestbharani]

The circumstances in which he bowled? Did he bowl do or die circumstances his whole career? Against Pakistan, New Zealand and India? Did they all suddenly smart whacking him for 4 and being mediocre against the other bowlers, thus hiding how good Sobers really was...for his whole career? Because unless it was like that, I don't care what the people around him said. They could all say Bradman was crap and I wouldn't believe it.

The point is hearsay alone is not enough. It can't fix his record. And the fact that the only thing you have to rely on is other people's opinion because you can't put together an argument on what he really achieved (the record) should be more damning than anything else. Not everything is quantifiable in statistics, I am a firm believer in that; that's why I give leeway in arguments where the two players are close statistically...but a great deal is quantifiable and prove things without much fuss.

I am not sure you are getting what I meant. There are a number of occassions in cricket when you need a bowler to bowl to tie an end up, be the into-the-wind bowler... Be the bowler who bowls to give the others a break... I understand what you are trying to get at like asking "if Sobers was that good as a medium pacer, why didn't he bowl THAT on a track that assists that type of bowling and instead bowl spin?".. The answer is, when he was captain, a number of times, he just bowled spin on seaming tracks to provide the variety option for his side and also to keep himself fresh for batting... There have been numerous times when Kallis never bowls a longish spell at good batsmen in good form on a flat track... He comes in and has a spell of 4 or 5 overs and if he doesn't get a wicket, he goes back and doesn't bowl for quite a while..

The only argument you keep harping on is about his strike rate, Ikki and I can tell you this, if Kallis ever bowled a bit of spin to tie an end up and he was of a decent standard as a spinner, don't you think Smith would drop Harris and select another seamer if he had a good one to call upon and leave the spinning duties to Kallis?


And btw, this is not hearsay.. You are almost insulting all the players and journos who have actually SEEN the man play with that word. These opinions are not of people who just read about Sobers.. These opinions are of the people who have seen him play. As Steven put it, that covers 3 seperate generations and almost all of them held Sobers in the same high pedestal. The guys who were kids during the Bradman generation, the guys who were kids when Sobers first came in and the guys who were kids when Sobers was at his best and then retired... Matt said people are loathe to put someone higher up than their childhood heroes but the Bradman generation had no problem accepting Sobers to be the best all rounder, did they?

Once again, Ikki, cricket stats can be affected by any number of things and that is why the perspective of the numbers is more important than the numbers itself. You talked about explaining away small differences but not big ones.. Here's one for you... Ponting averages 20 in India which is a good 10 points lesser than the worst of Lara and Sachin.. That reason enough for you to accept he is not as good as the other two?