Kallis Vs Sobers

[aussie]

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.

Hahaha, word. Nothing is wrong with a proper stats arguments though, but in this thread & a few others i have seen in my time on this site (Richards vs Tendulkar), (Lillee vs Marshall).

Is how some people do some research last week & want to throw it in your face as facts. Totally discrediting what players of that past said & saw, along with the writings of great cricket historians as well.

 

[archie mac]

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

 

[archie mac]

Hahaha, word. Nothing is wrong with a proper stats arguments though, but in this thread & a few others i have seen in my time on this site (Richards vs Tendulkar), (Lillee vs Marshall).

Is how some people do some research last week & want to throw it in your face as facts. Totally discrediting what players of that past said & saw, along with the writings of great cricket historians as well.

Well if those players, historians and supports of the time, would have just used stats guru they would not have said/written those spurious statements

 

[thierry henry]

Is how some people do some research last week & want to throw it in your face as facts. Totally discrediting what players of that past said & saw, along with the writings of great cricket historians as well.

I don't understand

Every stat on statsguru is a fact: fact

Everything that players of the past and cricket historians saw, apart from saying "so and so scored 57 runs and took 3 wickets for 27" etc, is merely an opinion: fact

 

[Sanz]

Every stat on statsguru is a fact: fact

But statements like 'India/Pakistan teams of Sobers era were like today's Bangladeh/Zim' etc are opinions. If you are going to use stats as the sole criteria for picking Kallis over Sobers then you should say so, I dont think many are going to debate with you.

But the moment you start making some outlandish and outrageous statements and start twisting stats to support those claims, it people are going to resent and question the stats posted.

 

[chasingthedon]

And why?

They have comparable bowling records without minnows, 34 each.

And if you remove India out of Sober's record, since India of the 1950s were like Zimbabwe of the pre 2003, the bowling average becomes even worse.

Not to mention that Sober's batting record too is inflated heavily by India figures again.

EDIT : Thanks Mr. Mystic Z for the vote. With your immense predictive skills of late, who knows I might not be another Diamanti??

See this article - haven't done Kallis' era yet, but Sobers was the player of the 60s by some way, and his performances were just as exceptoinal against England and Australia as India.

 

[chasingthedon]

But statements like 'India/Pakistan teams of Sobers era were like today's Bangladeh/Zim' etc are opinions.

See this article, where I restrospectively applied the ICC rating system from the beginning of Tests. India weren't as bad as Zimbabwe/Bangladesh, more like Sri Lanka of the late 90s.

 

[Ikki]

But statements like 'India/Pakistan teams of Sobers era were like today's Bangladeh/Zim' etc are opinions. If you are going to use stats as the sole criteria for picking Kallis over Sobers then you should say so, I dont think many are going to debate with you.

But the moment you start making some outlandish and outrageous statements and start twisting stats to support those claims, it people are going to resent and question the stats posted.

But it isn't an opinion. It's a fact. The distance between batting averages between Zimbabwe and S.Africa was the same between India/Pakistan and West Indies.

You keep denying this and can't counter the facts but resort to belittling the information. Frankly, if you can't debate properly, don't even get in the discussion.

 

[Ikki]

See this article, where I restrospectively applied the ICC rating system from the beginning of Tests. India weren't as bad as Zimbabwe/Bangladesh, more like Sri Lanka of the late 90s.

The last Test Sobers plays against India is during 70/71 - when they are 2nd worst team in Tests. Your analysis has them peaking after that.

Don't show Sanz stats, otherwise he'll belittle them. Or maybe if they're in his favour he'll accept them .

 

[Evermind]

If you really need it explaining how little can be gleaned by quoting stats then you should probably take up knitting instead.

Yeah, better instead to go by the hype of the player, and what was written, though massively biased, in history books, and what cherry-picked opposition has to say about him, and how good he looks on TV, rather than the actual number of runs he scored.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah, better instead to go by the hype of the player, and what was written, though massively biased, in history books, and what cherry-picked opposition has to say about him, and how good he looks on TV, rather than the actual number of runs he scored.

..........excellent, let me know where you want the needles sent.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, better instead to go by the hype of the player, and what was written, though massively biased, in history books, and what cherry-picked opposition has to say about him, and how good he looks on TV, rather than the actual number of runs he scored.

yeah, coz u saw the player and hence KNOW he was not that good.



Obviously, all of us know who are the best cricketers because we can all access statsguru.



Seriously, it is not cherry picked... Tell us the greats amongst the players and journos who thought he was NOT that good...

 

[honestbharani]

The last Test Sobers plays against India is during 70/71 - when they are 2nd worst team in Tests. Your analysis has them peaking after that.

Don't show Sanz stats, otherwise he'll belittle them. Or maybe if they're in his favour he'll accept them .

2nd worst team in tests is an extremely relative term. And averages and average differences are all relative too.... People have seen the teams in action and feel India were not that bad. You are simply looking at numbers a good 50 years later and saying no they were... If only cricket were that easy...

 

[Evermind]

..........excellent, let me know where you want the needles sent.

Have you considered applying to be a selector for India? I hear they have elevated ignoring statistical records and going by regional favouritism into an art form. Why bother with a batsman's average being 3.6 over 40 games, when he has the most beautiful looking cover drive in the world, he looks like Brad Pitt, and his mother thinks he's the messiah?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Have you considered applying to be a selector for India? I hear they have elevated ignoring statistical records and going by regional favouritism into an art form. Why bother with a batsman's average being 3.6 over 40 games, when he has the most beautiful looking cover drive in the world, he looks like Brad Pitt, and his mother thinks he's the messiah?

You're obviously desperate so I'll supply the wool as well.

 

[GIMH]

I don't understand

Every stat on statsguru is a fact: fact

Everything that players of the past and cricket historians saw, apart from saying "so and so scored 57 runs and took 3 wickets for 27" etc, is merely an opinion: fact

But stats are manipulated by different unquanitifable factors - this is also a fact

Therefore using them as the sole criteria to rate players is mindless

 

[steve132]

The last Test Sobers plays against India is during 70/71 - when they are 2nd worst team in Tests. Your analysis has them peaking after that.

Don't show Sanz stats, otherwise he'll belittle them. Or maybe if they're in his favour he'll accept them .

India beat the West Indies in the West Indies in 1970-71. They then beat England in England during the summer of 1971. England had just beaten Australia in Australia to regain the Ashes.

Far from being the "2nd worst team in Tests" India were as strong as any team in that period with the probable exception of South Africa, which was then banned from Test cricket. In fact, I remember some Indian fans hailing their team as world champions after the England series.

You really need to become better informed before posting on matters of cricket history.

 

[Sanz]

Yeah, better instead to go by the hype of the player, and what was written, though massively biased, in history books, and what cherry-picked opposition has to say about him, and how good he looks on TV, rather than the actual number of runs he scored.

Yeah every history book, all the historians, cricketers, every single one of them is biased.

 

[Sanz]

India beat the West Indies in the West Indies in 1970-71. They then beat England in England during the summer of 1971. England had just beaten Australia in Australia to regain the Ashes.

Far from being the "2nd worst team in Tests" India were as strong as any team in that period with the probable exception of South Africa, which was then banned from Test cricket. In fact, I remember some Indian fans hailing their team as world champions after the England series.

You really need to become better informed before posting on matters of cricket history.

Thanks for making the point, I would not have replied to that member anyway.

 

[Sanz]

Have you considered applying to be a selector for India? I hear they have elevated ignoring statistical records and going by regional favouritism into an art form. Why bother with a batsman's average being 3.6 over 40 games, when he has the most beautiful looking cover drive in the world, he looks like Brad Pitt, and his mother thinks he's the messiah?

Same selectors selected Sachin Tendulkar and more recently Ishant Sharma without much statistical data available to them. Now please do not tell me you prefer Raman Lamba over Tendulkar and Paras Mhambre over Ishant based on statistics.