Kallis Vs Sobers

[honestbharani]

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.

Harris bowls to tie up an end.. Pollock tries to atack from the other end. Harris has worse economy than Pollock.. So that means Harris was trying to get wickets????????

 

[Ikki]

Harris bowls to tie up an end.. Pollock tries to atack from the other end. Harris has worse economy than Pollock.. So that means Harris was trying to get wickets????????

No, imagine Harris who is a specialist bowler...now imagine there is also another like Harris in the team...so 2...now imagine an all-rounder who is worse than the 2 Harris-like players at tying an end and tell me why the West Indies "needed" Sobers to tie an end...for 40 overs.

Remember, Sobers is worse than the Harris-like bowler. So, imagine the kind of all-rounder he is then.

Whilst I am sure Sobers was asked to tie an end at times...it wouldn't explain the difference in his SR. The only reason it would, to a large extent, is if that is what he was asked to do...all the time. And then, if we even accept that is what happened...it puts his bowling in a pretty poor light anyway - that he was only good enough to tie an end.

 

[Ikki]

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..

But you don't seem to understand. Sobers had good spinners in his team throughout his career. It's not like he was obliged to because there was no one else. So he had all due reason in bowling something that would help his team more.

Furthermore, he was captain for only 7 years, what happened to the other 13? Second of all, and funny enough, it was during his time as captain where he bowled his pace.

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?

That argument falls flat on it's arse because of what I mentioned above, and because Sobers, even compared to spinners, wasn't that good. Kallis bowled pace, and was better than Sobers who bowled both. Again, versatility for versatility's sake is not a good argument. If bowling both to a good standard was what we had, then I'd agree. But that's the whole contention...it wasn't a good standard - it was below the standard of his time.

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?

It is hearsay, it is information gained from some other party. It's not factual. If it were closer to the truth, it'd have more substance. But the fact that Sobers was supposedly the best all-rounder without question...yet his bowling doesn't even meet the standard average of his time, leaves one to question the people who "saw" him.

It's simply not about "who" holds him in high esteem but "why" and "how". Arguments that keep repeating "but all these people said he was good" don't cut the mustard because the stats are so damning.

The writers of the time itself didn't have a grasp of how important SR was...you expect the average fan to have? Back then things were propagated as hearsay; where else were they going to get the information? The Internet?

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?

You're right, there are many things out there that can skew cricket stats, which is why it's always a dangerous thing when you compare two players of similar stats. But this is not such a case.

Ponting also averages 47 to Lara's 34 overall against India. But what does that mean by itself? Nothing.

Your example is not even apt/relative. We're talking about the difference in their WHOLE career stats...not just one country. You're trivializing/confusing something that's pretty cut and dry.

 

[Slifer]

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.

at Home

 

[honestbharani]

But you don't seem to understand. Sobers had good spinners in his team throughout his career. It's not like he was obliged to because there was no one else. So he had all due reason in bowling something that would help his team more.

Furthermore, he was captain for only 7 years, what happened to the other 13? Second of all, and funny enough, it was during his time as captain where he bowled his pace.



That argument falls flat on it's arse because of what I mentioned above, and because Sobers, even compared to spinners, wasn't that good. Kallis bowled pace, and was better than Sobers who bowled both. Again, versatility for versatility's sake is not a good argument. If bowling both to a good standard was what we had, then I'd agree. But that's the whole contention...it wasn't a good standard - it was below the standard of his time.




It is hearsay, it is information gained from some other party. It's not factual. If it were closer to the truth, it'd have more substance. But the fact that Sobers was supposedly the best all-rounder without question...yet his bowling doesn't even meet the standard average of his time, leaves one to question the people who "saw" him.

It's simply not about "who" holds him in high esteem but "why" and "how". Arguments that keep repeating "but all these people said he was good" don't cut the mustard because the stats are so damning.

The writers of the time itself didn't have a grasp of how important SR was...you expect the average fan to have? Back then things were propagated as hearsay; where else were they going to get the information? The Internet?



You're right, there are many things out there that can skew cricket stats, which is why it's always a dangerous thing when you compare two players of similar stats. But this is not such a case.

Ponting also averages 47 to Lara's 34 overall against India. But what does that mean by itself? Nothing.

Your example is not even apt/relative. We're talking about the difference in their WHOLE career stats...not just one country. You're trivializing/confusing something that's pretty cut and dry.

Without wanting to get into this long winded debate again, because it is quite obvious that you are simply not going to accept anything beyond numbes.... Let me just ask you this. Are you simply saying that all those cricketers, journos and everyone who rate Sobers are simply rating him that high because he was flashy or whatever?



You talk about the big stats difference, I am talking about the big opinion difference. If it was just a few guys telling Sobers was that good, then yes, I can imagine them being wrong due to whatever reasons.. What you are arguing against is an almost universal consensus among the men who have seen Sobers PLAY and there are a number of them who have seen Kallis play too.... You asked me to explain the big stats difference (only in SR, the averages are almost the same)... I am asking you to explain why THIS many of the men who know a lot more about cricket at the highest level than you or I do rate him so far ahead of someone like Kallis?????????????????

 

[honestbharani]

No, imagine Harris who is a specialist bowler...now imagine there is also another like Harris in the team...so 2...now imagine an all-rounder who is worse than the 2 Harris-like players at tying an end and tell me why the West Indies "needed" Sobers to tie an end...for 40 overs.

Remember, Sobers is worse than the Harris-like bowler. So, imagine the kind of all-rounder he is then.

Whilst I am sure Sobers was asked to tie an end at times...it wouldn't explain the difference in his SR. The only reason it would, to a large extent, is if that is what he was asked to do...all the time. And then, if we even accept that is what happened...it puts his bowling in a pretty poor light anyway - that he was only good enough to tie an end.

And if you really wanna dig so deep into the stats pool, try to get a breakdown of the overs he bowled, when he bowled and compare it with the specialist spinners in his side.. On what tracks did his specialist spinners bowl? And did Sobers bowl seam or spin on those pitches?


You seem to be thinking that Sobers bowled spin all the time.. He bowled medium pace on tracks assisting spinners so that his team was able to pick 2 specialist spinners... Maybe they got the better stats due to bowlng their spin in friendlier conditions than Sobers did.


For a man who thinks every failure of Warne in India and Ponting in India can be explained away, you are clinging on to basic stats a little too much in this argument.. Lara played against India in Indian once and 3 series in Windies. In 1 of them, he was carrying a chipped elbow and could not cut or pull or play any big bottom handed shots. That is the kind of stuff that won't go into the stats book. I know it because I saw every ball of the said series. Lara had a relatively poor tour of Australia in 2005. But having watched the series I KNOW he was playing as well as he ever did and was only sawn off by the poorest exhibition of umpiring I have seen in a long long while... Once again, not stuff that will be recorded by statsguru.


All I am asking of you, Ikki, (and I am not saying this to the other statsboys arguing the case here because I have more respect for you and your cricket knowledge and because I think you are a reasonable one), is show some respect for all those cricketers and journos who know a lot more about top level cricket than you do. I am sorry... I know enough of cricket to understand that there can be any number of explanations for every run scored and every ball bowled... And I don't think you get the sort of universal rating that Sobers did without being THAT good. You keep talking about how you won't believe if all these people said Bradman was crap. But that is just the point, isn't it? They DON'T say Bradman was crap. They saw the man in action and they KNOW he was the greatest. Let us say he only averaged 57, as much as your beloved Ponting... But still everyone who played with him, who watched him play as old men and who watched him play as young men rate him as the best ever because of various other factors.. Would you keep harping on that he was NOT that good?

 

[Ikki]

at Home

Welp, he only faced them for one series in the 90s and that was at home. Not sure that takes much away from him as SA have fairly better tracks than most places in the world for bowling pace.

 

[Ikki]

And if you really wanna dig so deep into the stats pool, try to get a breakdown of the overs he bowled, when he bowled and compare it with the specialist spinners in his side.. On what tracks did his specialist spinners bowl? And did Sobers bowl seam or spin on those pitches?

Such stats don't exist. That's why the myth is so easily propagated.

Generally, he bowled spin for the first part of his career, from mid-60s to early 70s he bowled his pace and then reverted again.

You seem to be thinking that Sobers bowled spin all the time.. He bowled medium pace on tracks assisting spinners so that his team was able to pick 2 specialist spinners... Maybe they got the better stats due to bowlng their spin in friendlier conditions than Sobers did.

He bowled mostly spin during his career and in the time-frame he bowled pace WIndies didn't lack pacemen - they had Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith.

I don't think you understand dear HB, teams in those days didn't pick just 4 bowlers. They had usually had 6-7 different bowlers in a match - plenty of all-rounders.

When your theories are full of "maybes" then I think you need to ask why you hold the original position in the first place. You either aren't sure of yourself or the stats in general.

For a man who thinks every failure of Warne in India and Ponting in India can be explained away, you are clinging on to basic stats a little too much in this argument.. Lara played against India in Indian once and 3 series in Windies. In 1 of them, he was carrying a chipped elbow and could not cut or pull or play any big bottom handed shots. That is the kind of stuff that won't go into the stats book. I know it because I saw every ball of the said series. Lara had a relatively poor tour of Australia in 2005. But having watched the series I KNOW he was playing as well as he ever did and was only sawn off by the poorest exhibition of umpiring I have seen in a long long while... Once again, not stuff that will be recorded by statsguru.

Because Warne's failure in India doesn't take away from his record in being the greatest spin bowler or Ponting's for the greatest batsman bar Bradman. Those to whom they're being compared to have as many holes if not more than them. And the comparison is close either way. It's not so here, so you can't use the same reasoning.

As you give an example of Lara, I give some for Warne where in that period he was getting tonked his shoulder was connected to his arm by something as thin as string and his finger in his bowling hand was deformed forever. But you see...we KNOW these things about them.

These things are not going to be recorded in statsguru...but Sobers doesn't have an example like the above...so your point is moot. Furthermore, it would only explain his inferiority for a portion of his career...how does it explain more than a decade of performances?

All I am asking of you, Ikki, (and I am not saying this to the other statsboys arguing the case here because I have more respect for you and your cricket knowledge and because I think you are a reasonable one), is show some respect for all those cricketers and journos who know a lot more about top level cricket than you do. I am sorry... I know enough of cricket to understand that there can be any number of explanations for every run scored and every ball bowled... And I don't think you get the sort of universal rating that Sobers did without being THAT good. You keep talking about how you won't believe if all these people said Bradman was crap. But that is just the point, isn't it? They DON'T say Bradman was crap. They saw the man in action and they KNOW he was the greatest. Let us say he only averaged 57, as much as your beloved Ponting... But still everyone who played with him, who watched him play as old men and who watched him play as young men rate him as the best ever because of various other factors.. Would you keep harping on that he was NOT that good?

I do have respect for Journos and former greats. Look at my views on Lillee or Sir Viv. But they are IN the ball-park. They are statistically amongst the flock. No matter what excuse or hypothesis you bring for Sobers, you aren't going to make up the difference, it's that bloody big.

If a batsman averages 35 in this era, how could anyone reasonably say he is the best batsmen in the world? He's not even in the statistical ball-park to be considered. Then imagine someone telling you "well everyone else says so", well what does it matter? You should be asking "why" they say so.

The Bradman example was to show you how ridiculous it is for hearsay to overthrow the statistical greatness of Bradman. If people were ignoring the stats and unanimously declared him crap...it wouldn't make sense. Likewise here, although not as blatant as the Bradman example, but still pretty blatant, his bowling record has a hole you can drive a truck through.

You keep talking about Sobers' repute. Forget that it's Sobers for a minute and look at his record and imagine it is player X. Using the principal that stats can be misleading or skewed is fine...but only for a few points...not a large amount of points. It's like contending that Harbhajan is the greatest spinner and keep saying "stats don't say everything"...well they might not, but what they do say is that he is definitely not the greatest spinner...no matter what anyone says - that's if you have a sane interpretation of them .

 

[honestbharani]

Such stats don't exist. That's why the myth is so easily propagated.

Generally, he bowled spin for the first part of his career, from mid-60s to early 70s he bowled his pace and then reverted again.



He bowled mostly spin during his career and in the time-frame he bowled pace WIndies didn't lack pacemen - they had Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith.

I don't think you understand dear HB, teams in those days didn't pick just 4 bowlers. They had usually had 6-7 different bowlers in a match - plenty of all-rounders.

When your theories are full of "maybes" then I think you need to ask why you hold the original position in the first place. You either aren't sure of yourself or the stats in general.



Because Warne's failure in India doesn't take away from his record in being the greatest spin bowler or Ponting's for the greatest batsman bar Bradman. Those to whom they're being compared to have as many holes if not more than them. And the comparison is close either way. It's not so here, so you can't use the same reasoning.

As you give an example of Lara, I give some for Warne where in that period he was getting tonked his shoulder was connected to his arm by something as thin as string and his finger in his bowling hand was deformed forever. But you see...we KNOW these things about them.

These things are not going to be recorded in statsguru...but Sobers doesn't have an example like the above...so your point is moot. Furthermore, it would only explain his inferiority for a portion of his career...how does it explain more than a decade of performances?



I do have respect for Journos and former greats. Look at my views on Lillee or Sir Viv. But they are IN the ball-park. They are statistically amongst the flock. No matter what excuse or hypothesis you bring for Sobers, you aren't going to make up the difference, it's that bloody big.

If a batsman averages 35 in this era, how could anyone reasonably say he is the best batsmen in the world? He's not even in the statistical ball-park to be considered. Then imagine someone telling you "well everyone else says so", well what does it matter? You should be asking "why" they say so.

The Bradman example was to show you how ridiculous it is for hearsay to overthrow the statistical greatness of Bradman. If people were ignoring the stats and unanimously declared him crap...it wouldn't make sense. Likewise here, although not as blatant as the Bradman example, but still pretty blatant, his bowling record has a hole you can drive a truck through.

You keep talking about Sobers' repute. Forget that it's Sobers for a minute and look at his record and imagine it is player X. Using the principal that stats can be misleading or skewed is fine...but only for a few points...not a large amount of points. It's like contending that Harbhajan is the greatest spinner and keep saying "stats don't say everything"...well they might not, but what they do say is that he is definitely not the greatest spinner...no matter what anyone says - that's if you have a sane interpretation of them .

But people don't say Harbhajan is the best.. That is my whole point. You are painting men who KNOW the game much better than most people. And your Harbhajan argument falls flat on its face because the only area Kallis is better than Sobers by any considerable margin is his bowling SR.


And I have never seen watched Sobers.. But I have watched Kallis so many times, I can tell u this, the number of times I have seen him come on, bowl, get a wicket and then gets taken off.. That will easily inflate ur SR compared to a more regular bowler who simply HAS to bowl a number of overs everyday...


Beyond this, Ikki, I realize you have quite gone over to the "stats are everything, opinions are meaningless" side to such an extent that you are now questioning the very validity of the judgement of some of the greatest players/writers of the game EVER. There is no real point in continuing here. If you think Kallis is a better all rounder because his SR is lesser, then so be it.



Just out of curiosity, what is his bowling SR against non-minnows?

 

[honestbharani]

Such stats don't exist. That's why the myth is so easily propagated.

Generally, he bowled spin for the first part of his career, from mid-60s to early 70s he bowled his pace and then reverted again.



He bowled mostly spin during his career and in the time-frame he bowled pace WIndies didn't lack pacemen - they had Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith.

I don't think you understand dear HB, teams in those days didn't pick just 4 bowlers. They had usually had 6-7 different bowlers in a match - plenty of all-rounders.

When your theories are full of "maybes" then I think you need to ask why you hold the original position in the first place. You either aren't sure of yourself or the stats in general.



Because Warne's failure in India doesn't take away from his record in being the greatest spin bowler or Ponting's for the greatest batsman bar Bradman. Those to whom they're being compared to have as many holes if not more than them. And the comparison is close either way. It's not so here, so you can't use the same reasoning.

As you give an example of Lara, I give some for Warne where in that period he was getting tonked his shoulder was connected to his arm by something as thin as string and his finger in his bowling hand was deformed forever. But you see...we KNOW these things about them.

These things are not going to be recorded in statsguru...but Sobers doesn't have an example like the above...so your point is moot. Furthermore, it would only explain his inferiority for a portion of his career...how does it explain more than a decade of performances?



I do have respect for Journos and former greats. Look at my views on Lillee or Sir Viv. But they are IN the ball-park. They are statistically amongst the flock. No matter what excuse or hypothesis you bring for Sobers, you aren't going to make up the difference, it's that bloody big.

If a batsman averages 35 in this era, how could anyone reasonably say he is the best batsmen in the world? He's not even in the statistical ball-park to be considered. Then imagine someone telling you "well everyone else says so", well what does it matter? You should be asking "why" they say so.

The Bradman example was to show you how ridiculous it is for hearsay to overthrow the statistical greatness of Bradman. If people were ignoring the stats and unanimously declared him crap...it wouldn't make sense. Likewise here, although not as blatant as the Bradman example, but still pretty blatant, his bowling record has a hole you can drive a truck through.

You keep talking about Sobers' repute. Forget that it's Sobers for a minute and look at his record and imagine it is player X. Using the principal that stats can be misleading or skewed is fine...but only for a few points...not a large amount of points. It's like contending that Harbhajan is the greatest spinner and keep saying "stats don't say everything"...well they might not, but what they do say is that he is definitely not the greatest spinner...no matter what anyone says - that's if you have a sane interpretation of them .

But Sobers averages only 3 or so more than Kallis.. How is that NOT IN the ball park?

 

[honestbharani]

Such stats don't exist. That's why the myth is so easily propagated.

Generally, he bowled spin for the first part of his career, from mid-60s to early 70s he bowled his pace and then reverted again.



He bowled mostly spin during his career and in the time-frame he bowled pace WIndies didn't lack pacemen - they had Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith.

I don't think you understand dear HB, teams in those days didn't pick just 4 bowlers. They had usually had 6-7 different bowlers in a match - plenty of all-rounders.

When your theories are full of "maybes" then I think you need to ask why you hold the original position in the first place. You either aren't sure of yourself or the stats in general.



Because Warne's failure in India doesn't take away from his record in being the greatest spin bowler or Ponting's for the greatest batsman bar Bradman. Those to whom they're being compared to have as many holes if not more than them. And the comparison is close either way. It's not so here, so you can't use the same reasoning.

As you give an example of Lara, I give some for Warne where in that period he was getting tonked his shoulder was connected to his arm by something as thin as string and his finger in his bowling hand was deformed forever. But you see...we KNOW these things about them.

These things are not going to be recorded in statsguru...but Sobers doesn't have an example like the above...so your point is moot. Furthermore, it would only explain his inferiority for a portion of his career...how does it explain more than a decade of performances?



I do have respect for Journos and former greats. Look at my views on Lillee or Sir Viv. But they are IN the ball-park. They are statistically amongst the flock. No matter what excuse or hypothesis you bring for Sobers, you aren't going to make up the difference, it's that bloody big.

If a batsman averages 35 in this era, how could anyone reasonably say he is the best batsmen in the world? He's not even in the statistical ball-park to be considered. Then imagine someone telling you "well everyone else says so", well what does it matter? You should be asking "why" they say so.

The Bradman example was to show you how ridiculous it is for hearsay to overthrow the statistical greatness of Bradman. If people were ignoring the stats and unanimously declared him crap...it wouldn't make sense. Likewise here, although not as blatant as the Bradman example, but still pretty blatant, his bowling record has a hole you can drive a truck through.

You keep talking about Sobers' repute. Forget that it's Sobers for a minute and look at his record and imagine it is player X. Using the principal that stats can be misleading or skewed is fine...but only for a few points...not a large amount of points. It's like contending that Harbhajan is the greatest spinner and keep saying "stats don't say everything"...well they might not, but what they do say is that he is definitely not the greatest spinner...no matter what anyone says - that's if you have a sane interpretation of them .

If they had 6-7 moe bowlers, how come Sobers and other specialist bowled so much?

 

[Sanz]

But Sobers averages only 3 or so more than Kallis.. How is that NOT IN the ball park?

Minus the minnows Sobers averages better. Please note that I am not cherry picking the stats merely applying the selective criteria ikki so loves to apply when it suits him (e.g. Warne Vs. Murli).

 

[Sanz]

And I have never seen watched Sobers..

Cricket Video - Gary Sobers

 

[Ikki]

But people don't say Harbhajan is the best.. That is my whole point. You are painting men who KNOW the game much better than most people. And your Harbhajan argument falls flat on its face because the only area Kallis is better than Sobers by any considerable margin is his bowling SR.

You don't seem to understand. I am comparing two players who DON'T have the requisite record to be considered superlative. Yet one IS considered as such...now explain.

And I have never seen watched Sobers.. But I have watched Kallis so many times, I can tell u this, the number of times I have seen him come on, bowl, get a wicket and then gets taken off.. That will easily inflate ur SR compared to a more regular bowler who simply HAS to bowl a number of overs everyday...

Dear HB...really. You count that against him? If you can bowl like that, on and off, yet take wickets then that's a skill. Furthermore, he's an all-rounder, his job is not to do any more than that.

Think about this:

Kallis
21 overs and takes 2 wickets per match.
Sobers
42 overs and takes 2.5 wickets per match.

0.5 wicket for 21 overs worth of more bowling.

Beyond this, Ikki, I realize you have quite gone over to the "stats are everything, opinions are meaningless" side to such an extent that you are now questioning the very validity of the judgement of some of the greatest players/writers of the game EVER. There is no real point in continuing here. If you think Kallis is a better all rounder because his SR is lesser, then so be it.

Yes, it is obvious I am questioning their judgment. The record Sobers has cannot match their over-exaggerations. This is a factual thing. It's not subjective like hearsay. Sobers did not meet the average standard of bowlers even of his own time.

As I said, I don't consider Kallis the better all-rounder. I just consider them very close. But the myth propagated for Sobers has some believing in this thread that the two aren't even comparable. One can only laugh.

Just out of curiosity, what is his bowling SR against non-minnows?

Who? Sobers or Kallis? Sobers? Well..his gets worse... Kallis, his are still comparatively better than Sobers'.

But Sobers averages only 3 or so more than Kallis.. How is that NOT IN the ball park?

Because their SR has some 20 points in difference. And before you say Cricket was played differently, remember that Sobers' average was 3 worse than the average of his time and his SR was 12 points worse than the average SR of his time.

If they had 6-7 moe bowlers, how come Sobers and other specialist bowled so much?

Probably had a lot to do with draws and fitness levels. Guys like Ramadhin and Valentine bowled 50-60 overs a match. Wes Hall, for example, only bowled 36 overs a match; Charlie Griffith even less than that.

Anyway, the point was, it's hard to argue Sobers was obliged to bowl anything because his team had adequate cover. I think it's more apt to argue that Sobers bowled so that an extra batsman could be picked.

 

[Ikki]

Minus the minnows Sobers averages better. Please note that I am not cherry picking the stats merely applying the selective criteria ikki so loves to apply when it suits him (e.g. Warne Vs. Murli).

But you are. And the way you present your case is very deceptive too.

Without minnows Kallis averages 34.09, to Sobers' 34.03. And before you say they're the same, they're not. The average in Kallis' era is 34.51 (which means Kallis is lower) whilst Sobers is still 3 full points higher than his era's average (31.18).

Furthermore, you can add another argument questioning the removal of Zimbabwe when as a bowling side neither India nor Pakistan were better in Sobers' era.

I've mentioned these things about 100 times now. I think I've done all I can do.

 

[Burgey]

And round and round goes the bloody great wheel with this never-ending stats-based discussion.

Honestly, we get it - one of you thinks Kallis is better, several of you/ us think Sobers. Each has given their reasons and backed them up with stats. And still the other doesn't agree.

Of course, in that circumstance, the best thing to do is simply keep on arguing, rather than accepting there's a disagreement.

And while we keep on arguing, let's throw in a few personal comments, increasing slowly but surely in intensity until the thread (which started off perfectly reasonably BTW) gets closed and, thankfully, consigned to the oblivion which it (now) so richly deserves.

 

[Ikki]

And round and round goes the bloody great wheel with this never-ending stats-based discussion.

Honestly, we get it - one of you thinks Kallis is better, several of you/ us think Sobers. Each has given their reasons and backed them up with stats. And still the other doesn't agree.

Of course, in that circumstance, the best thing to do is simply keep on arguing, rather than accepting there's a disagreement.

And while we keep on arguing, let's throw in a few personal comments, increasing slowly but surely in intensity until the thread (which started off perfectly reasonably BTW) gets closed and, thankfully, consigned to the oblivion which it (now) so richly deserves.

Yeah, I think I agree with the above sentiments. I'll shaddap. I've got a bad habit of beating a dead horse. I've said all I can say on the matter, anyway.

 

[steve132]

But people don't say Harbhajan is the best.. That is my whole point. You are painting men who KNOW the game much better than most people. And your Harbhajan argument falls flat on its face because the only area Kallis is better than Sobers by any considerable margin is his bowling SR.


And I have never seen watched Sobers.. But I have watched Kallis so many times, I can tell u this, the number of times I have seen him come on, bowl, get a wicket and then gets taken off.. That will easily inflate ur SR compared to a more regular bowler who simply as HAS to bowl a number of overs everyday...


Beyond this, Ikki, I realize you have quite gone over to the "stats are everything, opinions are meaningless" side to such an extent that you are now questioning the very validity of the judgement of some of the greatest players/writers of the game EVER. There is no real point in continuing here. If you think Kallis is a better all rounder because his SR is lesser, then so be it.



Just out of curiosity, what is his bowling SR against non-minnows?

Honestbharani:

Thanks for your excellent posts on this and other threads. You made as good a case as anyone could expect to see, but at a certain point it becomes apparent that there is little prospect of agreement.

After my experience with previous threads I was not at all optimistic about this one. I entered the debate only when those of us who recognize Sobers' achievements were accused of relying on "hearsay." I saw the man play on too many occasions for that line of argument to seem persuasive.

I'll close with a question. Hanif Mohammed said that "Sobers was sent to Earth by God to play cricket. All good players were rolled into one player and that was Sobers."

Can you imagine anyone - let alone a distinguished former Test player - making such an observation about Kallis? Hint: I can't.

 

[honestbharani]

Honestbharani:

Thanks for your excellent posts on this and other threads. You made as good a case as anyone could expect to see, but at a certain point it becomes apparent that there is little prospect of agreement.

After my experience with previous threads I was not at all optimistic about this one. I entered the debate only when those of us who recognize Sobers' achievements were accused of relying on "hearsay." I saw the man play on too many occasions for that line of argument to seem persuasive.

I'll close with a question. Hanif Mohammed said that "Sobers was sent to Earth by God to play cricket. All good players were rolled into one player and that was Sobers."

Can you imagine anyone - let alone a distinguished former Test player - making such an observation about Kallis? Hint: I can't.

yep indeed.. I mean, we all appreciate how good Kallis is but I don't feel the need to degrade the achievements of other all time greats to show how good he is.


I do feel Kallis is comparable to Sobers and so is Imran but when push comes to shove, I rate Sobers to be better than either of them as all-rounders..


It is pretty futile to enter into this debate any other time again. The people who feel he is not as good can rely on their stats and we can relive his genius through the wonderful stuff said and written about the genius.


I am sorry if I sound condescending, but I would rather enjoy the genius of past players and accept what has been said and written about him than just putting out spreadsheets and try and pick holes in their stats and "prove" they were not that good. Almost the whole cricketing world agrees that Sobers was the best, but if some guys here feel otherwise, it is their opinion. They can think they know better than everyone of the greats who rate him and therefore miss out on understanding the perhaps the ultimate genius in the game of cricket...

 

[Demon43]

Sobers is much better then kallis he not only captained a side but he was the individual best player of his time