Kallis Vs Sobers

[steve132]

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.

In fact, according to Dave Wilson's series of articles, Sobers' average rating during the 1960's was higher than that of any player in any decade up to and including the 1970's. It will be interesting to see what the results for the 80's, 90's and the current decade will look like.

 

[Pothas]

Didn't really see this becoming such a heated debate. Like most people voted for Sobers and did not find it a particularly difficult decision to make, primarly due to Sobers position in history and his superior batting but can never really get envolved in these debates as more often than not I find them completely pointless. Have always thought that people who get so obsessed with one player being better than the other must not actually enjoy watching the game all that much.

 

[chasingthedon]

In fact, according to Dave Wilson's series of articles, Sobers' average rating during the 1960's was higher than that of any player in any decade up to and including the 1970's. It will be interesting to see what the results for the 80's, 90's and the current decade will look like.

Thanks Steve - 1980s is done and out for comment to the staff - will be posted in the next couple of days.

 

[chasingthedon]

Didn't really see this becoming such a heated debate. Like most people voted for Sobers and did not find it a particularly difficult decision to make, primarly due to Sobers position in history and his superior batting but can never really get envolved in these debates as more often than not I find them completely pointless. Have always thought that people who get so obsessed with one player being better than the other must not actually enjoy watching the game all that much.

Surely it shows a passion for the game?

 

[zaremba]

Didn't really see this becoming such a heated debate. Like most people voted for Sobers and did not find it a particularly difficult decision to make, primarly due to Sobers position in history and his superior batting but can never really get envolved in these debates as more often than not I find them completely pointless. Have always thought that people who get so obsessed with one player being better than the other must not actually enjoy watching the game all that much.

Fair point. But sometimes in these sorts of debate (futile as they ultimately are) you can come across the odd argument or factual snippet which makes you stop and think and see things from a different perspective.

 

[chasingthedon]

Fair point. But sometimes in these sorts of debate (futile as they ultimately are) you can come across the odd argument or factual snippet which makes you stop and think and see things from a different perspective.

What?! Someone who is prepared to listen to objective assessment and <gasp> possibly CHANGE THEIR MIND?! How did you find your way onto cricketweb? You clearly don't belong here, pooor deluded fool.

BTW, realted to your avatar pic:-

Cricket Web - Features: Series Points - A New Way of Ranking Test Players - The 1920s

 

[chasingthedon]

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

Could you please explain the knitting metaphor?

 

[nightprowler10]

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.

Have really enjoyed your posts in this thread mate. Do you have an opinion on the Pakistani sides in Sobers' time of playing as others have inquired in the thread? My opinion is that with guys like Fazal Mahmood, Hanif, Khan, Mushtaq Mohammad, Asif Iqbal in those sides, no Zimbabwe/Bangladesh team can be compared to them.

 

[fredfertang]

In 1956, just over a year before Sobers got his 365, Pakistan walloped Australia by 9 wickets in their first test against them - only 3 lbw's so they couldn't even blame the umpiring - Pakistan had also drawn their first series in England in 1954 so they were a decent side

 

[pasag]

In 1956, just over a year before Sobers got his 365, Pakistan walloped Australia by 9 wickets in their first test against them - only 3 lbw's so they couldn't even blame the umpiring - Pakistan had also drawn their first series in England in 1954 so they were a decent side

Wasn't that the match played on matting?

 

[fredfertang]

Yes ......... do I detect an excuse in the offing?

 

[pasag]

Yes ......... do I detect an excuse in the offing?

Trying to recall a quote from Menzies on the wicket, think Archer was pretty badly injured from it as well.

 

[fredfertang]

Wisden suggested the Aussies were knackered after their tour of England

 

[Pothas]

Fair point. But sometimes in these sorts of debate (futile as they ultimately are) you can come across the odd argument or factual snippet which makes you stop and think and see things from a different perspective.

That is true and I do learn a lot about players from posters who have a good deal more knowledge than I do, it is just as you say, the actual devates are futile.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Wow, India beat West Indies 1 time in 20 years...you just proved they were great.

We've been through this and you have a very selective memory...winning a Test match here and there doesn't exactly cover you in glory when your batsmen and bowlers are regularly contributing as much as the minnows now did.

This is the whole point when one is talking about batting and bowling statistics. When Zimbabwean batsmen cost no more than 24-25 runs a wicket and Indian batsmen cost no more than 26-27 then it's really the same. The context of the argument was removing minnows...if Zimbabwe is a minnow, then by the same standard India should be one. Winning a test match does not disprove that they are a minnow. Zimbabwe also beat Pakistan of the 90s and India of the late 90s. It doesn't mean they aren't a minnow.

Saying India were as good as any team in that period is such tripe...that it doesn't deserve an answer. It's only after Gavaskar debuts that they start being non-minnows IMO, otherwise even their winning/loss record is almost identical to Zimbabwe's. In Sobers' last series against India...Gavaskar debuts - this is in April, just before that summer.

I give your advise back to you: You really need to become better informed before posting on matters of cricket history

 

[JBH001]

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

Could not agree more, HB.

Come to that some of the stats = facts nuts really need to read a little about methodology and philosophy of science.

If only cricket were that easy...

It is a good thing it isnt, isnt it?

 

[JBH001]

Didn't really see this becoming such a heated debate. Like most people voted for Sobers and did not find it a particularly difficult decision to make, primarly due to Sobers position in history and his superior batting but can never really get envolved in these debates as more often than not I find them completely pointless. Have always thought that people who get so obsessed with one player being better than the other must not actually enjoy watching the game all that much.

Haha, yeah!

One reason I cant be arsed getting into extended post-athons. After all cricket, as much as I love it, is just a game. Far more important stuff to waste my time over.

 

[JBH001]

chasing don, nice article on Sobers and the rating system. Boy, was he a good 'un!

I should read the CW features more often!

 

[Ikki]

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...

You compare teams within themselves and against others and it's really not that tough of a task.

Wins/Victories is really what can mislead.

Say Team A plays Team B. Team A's batsmen all average 50, Team B's Batsmen all average 49. Team A beats Team B every time.

Let's say the standard of batsmen stays the same, just the quality of batsmen changes in teams.

Now 20 years later, Team C plays Team D. Team C's batsmen all average 50 and Team D's batsmen average 42. Team C beats team D every time bar once. Does that mean comparatively Team D's batsmen were better than Team B's?

No, it doesn't. It means they simply were able to pull a win once or twice, or whatever. But they still average the same amount of runs and the bowlers that concede those runs still do so, regardless of the outcome of a match.

 

[archie mac]

Didn't really see this becoming such a heated debate. Like most people voted for Sobers and did not find it a particularly difficult decision to make, primarly due to Sobers position in history and his superior batting but can never really get envolved in these debates as more often than not I find them completely pointless. Have always thought that people who get so obsessed with one player being better than the other must not actually enjoy watching the game all that much.

I think many people just don't like other posters quoting some stats, saying that proves I am right so and so was overrated.

And why wouldn't you uphold the reputation of a great player?