Kallis Vs Sobers

[Ikki]

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?

Because it would be misleading to do so?

 

[archie mac]

Because it would be misleading to do so?

IYO you should say

 

[Ikki]

IYO you should say

Well, that goes without saying . As does the reason why people wouldn't hold Sobers' repute to the same level.

 

[weldone]

If there's one batting all-rounder who can be compared to Sobers, no doubt he is Kallis...But without a doubt I shall keep Sobers in front because of his slightly (it's called sugar-coating, you know) better batting and, more importantly, higher longetivity (till now of course, as Kallis hasn't finished yet)...Now this is my contribution to this thread, that's all folks...

 

[Ikki]

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

Pakistan during Sobers' career were about the same as India. The same with New Zealand.

Zimbabwe also beat Pakistan and India in series in the late 90s. Unfortunately, people have poor memories.

Back in those days also there were much more draws. For example, India beat WIndies at home (in Sobers last series against them) but how did they win? They drew 3 tests and snuck one...thanks to the awesome Gavaskar who averaged 155 in his debut series.

During that time (the ~20 years Sobers played) Pakistan, India and New Zealand really only have much success against each other. Against Australia, England and WIndies it was about as limited as Zimbabwe in the 90s... a win here or there.

In Sobers' 20 year career:

Pakistan:
West Indies: 3 wins
England: 1 win
Australia: 1 win

New Zealand:
S.Africa: 2 wins
West Indies: 2 wins
Australia: 1 win

India:
England: 5 wins
Australia: 3 wins
West Indies: 1 win

Which could be a bit misleading as Gavaskar debuts and turns India into another team (Sobers only faced Gavaskar for one series) They won half as much without Gavaskar in the 17 years prior.

Zimbabwe:
Pakistan: 2 wins
India: 2 wins

You should also know that Zimbabwe only started playing Tests in 92 and stopped in 2006 - which is actually less time than the above teams (20 years); 6 years less.

Or how about this telling stat:

New Zealand in the 90s:
India: 2 wins
Australia: 2 wins
West Indies: 2 wins
Pakistan: 2 wins
England 2 wins
S.Africa 1 win

When you think of NZ in the 90s, they weren't a strong team...yet they have a better record comparatively than the teams in question.

 

[steve132]

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

Your argument has now degenerated into the realm of the absurd. India did not just "win a Test match here and there." They won consecutive away series against two of the strongest teams then active. This is by any measure a significant achievement, and it was recognized as such at the time.

Consecutive away series victories against strong teams are well beyond the scope of " the 2nd worst team in Tests." Zimbabwe have never achieved any results remotely comparable to these.

Gavaskar, great player though he undoubtedly was, could not single-handedly transform a mediocre team into a strong one. He had an outstanding series in the Caribbean in 1970-71, but averaged only 24 in the subsequent series in England, which India also won.

Is this really the best you have to offer in terms of a rational argument?

 

[Top_Cat]

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

Not to mention, the only true 'facts' recorded are number of runs and number of wickets. The rest are calculations. Those facts say nothing about the other qualities which are important in determining the quality of a player/innings (opposition, conditions, etc.) so as far as internal validity goes, they're not the greatest even if they're all we've got at this point. That's why all sports statistics need to be treated as a mere guide, really.

 

[Ikki]

Your argument has now degenerated into the realm of the absurd. India did not just "win a Test match here and there." They won consecutive away series against two of the strongest teams then active. This is by any measure a significant achievement, and it was recognized as such at the time.

I already showed you, they had won 1 test and 3 draws to win that series. In 20 years...they only beat West Indies in 1 test. It just happened to be the decider for once. In those days, games were built for draws, there were 154 draws to 199 wins/losses in that period.

Nevermind that this is all post-Gavaskar. Which doesn't explain the 17 years prior.

Gavaskar, great player though he undoubtedly was, could not single-handedly transform a mediocre team into a strong one. He had an outstanding series in the Caribbean in 1970-71, but averaged only 24 in the subsequent series in England, which India also won.

He averaged 155 for 8 innings for christ's sake. Prior to Gavaskar they only had 5 wins (against Eng,Aus, WI) in the previous 17 years of Test cricket (the previous 17 years of Sobers' career).

Before Gavaskar debuts, in the 17 years prior, India's only series win against the top 3 was once against England in 61. 0 others. Then Gavaskar debuts and they had 3 on the trot.

It doesn't explain really their success against England, as he wasn't good against them...but everybody else it does.

Is this really the best you have to offer in terms of a rational argument?

Please, you should stop trying to misinform people. You make one misleading claim and you have 20 people waiting to eat it up. Be a bit more responsible. Do you even post on anything other than Sobers here? This is the 3rd thread I have had to keep arguing against you: the Keith Miller comparison, the "Is Sobers a black magician" and this one.

"India were as good as any team at the time".

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Could you please explain the knitting metaphor?

Knitting is almost as boring as the people who think they know anything about cricket because they can dissect numbers. But in the case of knitting it's only the knitter that gets bored with it.

 

[steve132]

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.

Nightprowler 10:

Thanks.

Sobers played against Pakistan only in 1958 and 1959. The West Indies and Pakistan did not meet for sixteen years after that, and by then Sobers had just retired.

I assume, however, that you are asking about Pakistan over Sobers' career - i.e from the mid-50's to the mid 70's. In general (unlike India) their batting was stronger than their bowling. The Pakistani teams of the 60's were better than those of the 50's, the teams of the 70's were better than those of the 60's and the 80's teams were stronger than those of the 70's.

At any stage, however, Pakistan would have been stronger than contemporary Zimbabwe teams, and MUCH stronger than Bangladesh's. In terms of assessing a team's talent I normally ask whether its players would be selected for a strong Test team. The West Indies teams of the mid-60's were the strongest during Sobers' era. Hanif Mohammad would have been an automatic selection for this team, because West Indies never found a suitable opening partner for Conrad Hunte. Fazal Mahmood would also have been picked - he would have complemented the attack of Hall, Griffith, Gibbs and Sobers very well.

Of the players who appeared in the second half of this period, Intikhab Alam was probably the best leg-spinner of his time after Chandrasekhar, while Zaheer Abbas was a marvellous stroke player. Both Intikhab and Zaheer were picked for Rest of the World XI's in the early 70's that Sobers captained against England and Australia. and both would be selected for a strong Test team. Pakistan also had other fine players in the 60's and early 70's such as Mushtaq Mohammad (one of the leading all-rounders of the period), Majid Khan, Saeed Ahmed and Asif Iqbal.

These players were obviously not all at their peak at the same time (if they had been, Pakistan would probably have been the world's best team). Nevertheless, this list shows that Pakistan had at its disposal from the mid 50's to the mid 70's far, far more talent than Zimbabwe could ever call upon. .

 

[Ikki]

These players were obviously not all at their peak at the same time (if they had been, Pakistan would probably have been the world's best team). Nevertheless, this list shows that Pakistan had at its disposal from the mid 50's to the mid 70's far, far more talent than Zimbabwe could ever call upon. .

And yet they have identical records...go figure.

Zaheer Abbas was a great stroke-player...screw Andy Flower.

 

[Pothas]

Ikki, just a quick question. Do you think Sobers was a great player? Cause if you do then why all the stress??

 

[Ikki]

Ikki, just a quick question. Do you think Sobers was a great player? Cause if you do then why all the stress??

LOL, the fact is that I think he is a great player. But the esteem he has been held in as an all-rounder, or the way his bowling has been adjudged is so skewed that it beggars belief.

This isn't the only thread we've argued about Sobers. In fact, if it hasn't been because of these arguments pushing many people, we'd still be arguing Sobers was a better bowler than Harmison, nevermind Kallis - a comparison made in an older thread, to which I go to even greater lengths to disprove the exaggerations.

The incredulity displayed in Sobers debates is so bad, I wonder if it's the same logical and smart people I am talking to outside of these Sobers debates. However, it's the same handful that get into every debate, not contributing anything but putting in potshots and insults; trying to stifle questions of Sobers (steve, Sanz, Lillian).

 

[chasingthedon]

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

I should read the CW features more often!

Thanks a lot, JBH. I'm particularly interested now to see how Kallis fairs.

 

[chasingthedon]

Knitting is almost as boring as the people who think they know anything about cricket because they can dissect numbers. But in the case of knitting it's only the knitter that gets bored with it.

Wow - people still carry on knitting even when they're bored with it? Now that's dedication!

 

[Evermind]

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

Excellent - I see that you have nothing to contribute other than an insipid metaphor, so I'll take it that you have no real points to make about Sobers/stats.

 

[honestbharani]

Excellent - I see that you have nothing to contribute other than an insipid metaphor, so I'll take it that you have no real points to make about Sobers/stats.

do u have anything better to contribute apart from routinely criticizing BCCI and make fun of people who have played and know more about the game far far better than you do???

 

[honestbharani]

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.

It would not mean a thing unless you take into the account the pitches, the conditions and the overall bowling standards, the rules, the wickets being uncovered/covered.....


Frankly a million things affect cricket and that is why it is such a subjective game. The bowler can deliver a ball with the exact same action and the exact same speed and pitch it on the same spot on the same pitch and it can still do bloody different things........ You really need to play the game often to understand just how many bloody silly things can affect the game. Unlike most other sports, context is almost all important in cricket, even more than stats. And that is why peer opinion and respect is what ultimately seperates the great from the merely good. And Thank God the majority here and around the cricketing world understand that the game is a LOT LOT more than just spreadsheets and statsguru or statsspider.

 

[thierry henry]

Not to mention, the only true 'facts' recorded are number of runs and number of wickets. The rest are calculations. Those facts say nothing about the other qualities which are important in determining the quality of a player/innings (opposition, conditions, etc.) so as far as internal validity goes, they're not the greatest even if they're all we've got at this point. That's why all sports statistics need to be treated as a mere guide, really.

I think pretty much everyone understands what the stats mean.

I think it's extremely disappointing that these threads degenerate into each "side" patronizing the other side by pretending they don't understand stats.

Deep down surely we are all aware that the other side is aware of exactly what the stats mean.

 

[thierry henry]

..Frankly a million things affect cricket and that is why it is such a subjective game. The bowler can deliver a ball with the exact same action and the exact same speed and pitch it on the same spot on the same pitch and it can still do bloody different things........ You really need to play the game often to understand just how many bloody silly things can affect the game. Unlike most other sports, context is almost all important in cricket, even more than stats. And that is why peer opinion and respect is what ultimately seperates the great from the merely good. And Thank God the majority here and around the cricketing world understand that the game is a LOT LOT more than just spreadsheets and statsguru or statsspider.

May I just reiterate...

I find it bizarre and perverse that, in a forum environment ostensibly encouraging healthy debate, people can say with a straight face that "the best proof is popular opinion".

Hearing that sentiment actually makes me feel a little queasy. It is anathema to debate and discussion.