Kallis Vs Sobers

[honestbharani]

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.

I do, but I don't think you do. The only stats Ikki supplied to "validate" his claim that Pak in Sobers' era was like Zim in the 90s were the number of test wins. Did they take into account how good the respective other sides were? Does beating England in the 50s mean the same as beating England in the 90s? Has there not been changes in pitches, atmospheric conditions, players' quality, playing rules etc etc???????



I am interested to see you guys furnish out the exact numbers which takes into accounts every one of these and the million other things that can impact the numbers of any cricketer in history apart from just the quality of his batting or bowling..... ONce you guys come up with a fool proof numbers system that can calculate all this relatively and still offer us the exact numbers of where every player stands, there will always be only ONE fact about stats and that is that no matter how much micro-analysis you do with them, they will still always be just a guide of what numbers were put up rather than what the story behind those numbers were......


And if the stats are the only reason to follow the game, why watch cricket at all? I can just keep tab of the scores of every game, compare it with the overall averages of other players of the same era and come out and claim my guy is the best in the game.


And Ikki, with all due respect, your taking so much credence for peer rating for Warne and not for Sobers is completely hypocritical.... If you rate Warne so much coz of what is said about him, why should it be any different with Sobers??????

 

[honestbharani]

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.

WE never said that.


But every time someone who have seen Sobers play come out and tell about the reasons behind his numbers, all we get is the same pooh-poohing of those facts based on the records of OTHER players of the same time, conveniently forgetting that it is not about the others that we are discussing but about Sobers.


Of course, the Windies specialist spinners will have a better record than Sobers because it is the same bloody reason he actually boweld spin. He bowled spin on seamer friendly tracks so that a specialist extra seamer could be selected instead of a spinner and the attack will still have variety and a stock, into the wind bowler to keep things reasonably tight.

And on spinning tracks, he became the third seamer and allowed playing of two specialist spinners and still have a decent medium pace option on a flat or spin assisting track at first-change... How are stats going to prove these? Do we have numbers for the averages, strike rates and economies of the spinners in the games that they and Sobers both played? Do we have numbers of seamers in the same in the games that Sobers played? And can we break down the numbers to which games Sobers bowled spin and which games he bowled pace? He actually bowled both in the same games, based on conditions and what was needed and how long he was going to bowl...


Unless and otherwise we have all these exact stats, it is pretty futile trying to discuss in hindsight how good a player was. And remember, just because a specialist spinner had an economy of 1.8 and Sobers had an economy of 2.2 does not mean Sobers was not keeping it tight... The other spinner may have had attacking fields and trying to get the batsmen out and so the batsmen may have played with a lot of respect, while Sobers might have bowled a defensive line which means the batsman would be able to play him with a bit of more freedom.


It is not about how good he was as a spinner alone.. It was about how he took the roles that his team required him to take... It is a team game and you try and do what you can in the best interests of your team, not in the best interests of your stats book...


If you have ever been a regular into the wind bowler for your team, you will know what I am talking about. My school team had a guy who always bowled our 2nd over, into the wind and it was always difficult while playing in the beach ground with the gutsy wind around... He never bowled at full pace and he almost always went at more runs per over than the guy from the other end but he was still doing the job that I as a captain expected of him... In matches held at other grounds well away from the beach, he was awesome, but he was still not as good as our 1st over bowler and our 1st over bowler was not as good into the wind as this guy was..


But I be damned if I look at the stats book and say a bowler from some other team is a MUCH better bowler than him simply because he had a better SR...



And just for comparison's sake, how many wickets of Kallis' has been in RSA and how many away, esp. in the flat conditions in the subcontinent???

 

[thierry henry]

I do, but I don't think you do. The only stats Ikki supplied to "validate" his claim that Pak in Sobers' era was like Zim in the 90s were the number of test wins. Did they take into account how good the respective other sides were? Does beating England in the 50s mean the same as beating England in the 90s? Has there not been changes in pitches, atmospheric conditions, players' quality, playing rules etc etc???????



I am interested to see you guys furnish out the exact numbers which takes into accounts every one of these and the million other things that can impact the numbers of any cricketer in history apart from just the quality of his batting or bowling..... ONce you guys come up with a fool proof numbers system that can calculate all this relatively and still offer us the exact numbers of where every player stands, there will always be only ONE fact about stats and that is that no matter how much micro-analysis you do with them, they will still always be just a guide of what numbers were put up rather than what the story behind those numbers were......


And if the stats are the only reason to follow the game, why watch cricket at all? I can just keep tab of the scores of every game, compare it with the overall averages of other players of the same era and come out and claim my guy is the best in the game.


And Ikki, with all due respect, your taking so much credence for peer rating for Warne and not for Sobers is completely hypocritical.... If you rate Warne so much coz of what is said about him, why should it be any different with Sobers??????

Stats are a guide. Exactly.

This forum is not merely for expressing our enjoyment of cricket, but also debating anything we want to debate, if we feel like it. Statistics are certainly a useful starting point. Almost invariably they give an APPROXIMATE idea of the value of a player's performances. No-one can watch all or even most international cricket that is played, hence we cannot base everything on what we have seen with our own eyes.

 

[thierry henry]

WE never said that.

People certainly have. Perhaps not in as many words.

But every time someone who have seen Sobers play come out and tell about the reasons behind his numbers, all we get is the same pooh-poohing of those facts based on the records of OTHER players of the same time, conveniently forgetting that it is not about the others that we are discussing but about Sobers.

I would love it if the debate really went as follows.

(a) Someone questions why a player's stats and reputation do not coincide

(b) Someone responds with an explanation

And so on.

However, despite your claim, it usually doesn't.

 

[honestbharani]

Stats are a guide. Exactly.

This forum is not merely for expressing our enjoyment of cricket, but also debating anything we want to debate, if we feel like it. Statistics are certainly a useful starting point. Almost invariably they give an APPROXIMATE idea of the value of a player's performances. No-one can watch all or even most international cricket that is played, hence we cannot base everything on what we have seen with our own eyes.

which is why it makes sense to give some credence to what other people and observers, who are just as good at rating cricketers as we are, have to say...


I understand your point if it was only a few people who hold Sobers in such high esteem.. But from Bradman down to Yuvraj, almost all international cricketers hold him in the same awe.. Ditto for jounos and commentators.. The guys who were oldies when Sobers played, rated him the best.. The guys who were middle aged when Sobers played, still rate him the best. The guys who were young when Sobers played, still rate him the best.


Do you guys actually think ALL of these people are wrong simply because Kallis takes his wickets at about 20 balls lesser per wicket than Sobers does? Does the fact that there may be something like truth to what other people, who have SEEN the player and games in question, have said never cross your mind?


It is not the debate which gets tiring but it is the tone of what you guys say and how you pooh-pooh opinions simply because you have seen some numbers that gets tiring.


One thing about cricket will ALWAYS be true. Since it is as much a subjective game as it is an objective one, opinions will always hold as much water as stats... Of course, the proviso is that the opinions have to be from people with decent knowledge of the game and that they should be reasonably unbiased.. I feel the opinions and writings and sayings about Sobers qualify as stuff from people who are both knowledgable and reasonably unbiased and therefore, I am ready to accept their word that he was the best allrounder ever and accept the reasonings they do give for those stats....

 

[thierry henry]

which is why it makes sense to give some credence to what other people and observers, who are just as good at rating cricketers as we are, have to say...


I understand your point if it was only a few people who hold Sobers in such high esteem.. But from Bradman down to Yuvraj, almost all international cricketers hold him in the same awe.. Ditto for jounos and commentators.. The guys who were oldies when Sobers played, rated him the best.. The guys who were middle aged when Sobers played, still rate him the best. The guys who were young when Sobers played, still rate him the best.


Do you guys actually think ALL of these people are wrong simply because Kallis takes his wickets at about 20 balls lesser per wicket than Sobers does? Does the fact that there may be something like truth to what other people, who have SEEN the player and games in question, have said never cross your mind?

Once again you are arguing via popular consensus.

It is a completely meaningless line of reasoning IMO

It is not the debate which gets tiring but it is the tone of what you guys say and how you pooh-pooh opinions simply because you have seen some numbers that gets tiring.

I haven't even participated in the substantive part of the debate this time because of the condescending and quarrelsome attitudes of the "anti-stats brigade".

To try and paint Ikki (who is pretty much doing 99.99% of the arguing in this thread for "my" side of the argument) as the condescending one is mind-boggling. He is being treated like dirt and not taken seriously by most posters pretending to debate him.

One thing about cricket will ALWAYS be true. Since it is as much a subjective game as it is an objective one, opinions will always hold as much water as stats... Of course, the proviso is that the opinions have to be from people with decent knowledge of the game and that they should be reasonably unbiased.. I feel the opinions and writings and sayings about Sobers qualify as stuff from people who are both knowledgable and reasonably unbiased and therefore, I am ready to accept their word that he was the best allrounder ever and accept the reasonings they do give for those stats....

I sort of agree but sort of don't.

I think when it comes to analyzing players, a combination of stats (not raw career stats...stats in the sense that "Sobers played a fantastic innings of 245" is a stat, in that it details his achievements in a numerical sense- all effective contributions in batting and bowling have a numerical value one way or another) and explanations for stats should be used.

However, I DON'T think that so-and-so saying that "Sobers was the best" (or words to that effect) really has any value at all.

A well-researched and objectively considered opinion by e.g. a cricket historian would certainly hold some value to me though, if and only if he provided an explanation that was logically coherent to me.

 

[honestbharani]

I think the opinions of players ranging from Bradman to Yuvraj and the journos across eras is a much better thing to rely on than just SR. I would love to see how many overs Kallis bowls per game and compare it with Sobers... I would want my all rounder to be able to bowl a decent number of overs, firstly........

 

[thierry henry]

Once again you are arguing via popular consensus.

It is a completely meaningless line of reasoning IMO

I think I worded this a little bit strongly

This

I sort of agree but sort of don't.

I think when it comes to analyzing players, a combination of stats (not raw career stats...stats in the sense that "Sobers played a fantastic innings of 245" is a stat, in that it details his achievements in a numerical sense- all effective contributions in batting and bowling have a numerical value one way or another) and explanations for stats should be used.

However, I DON'T think that so-and-so saying that "Sobers was the best" (or words to that effect) really has any value at all.

A well-researched and objectively considered opinion by e.g. a cricket historian would certainly hold some value to me though, if and only if he provided an explanation that was logically coherent to me.

probably explains my position better

 

[honestbharani]

Once again you are arguing via popular consensus.

It is a completely meaningless line of reasoning IMO




I haven't even participated in the substantive part of the debate this time because of the condescending and quarrelsome attitudes of the "anti-stats brigade".

To try and paint Ikki (who is pretty much doing 99.99% of the arguing in this thread for "my" side of the argument) as the condescending one is mind-boggling. He is being treated like dirt and not taken seriously by most posters pretending to debate him.



I sort of agree but sort of don't.

I think when it comes to analyzing players, a combination of stats (not raw career stats...stats in the sense that "Sobers played a fantastic innings of 245" is a stat, in that it details his achievements in a numerical sense- all effective contributions in batting and bowling have a numerical value one way or another) and explanations for stats should be used.

However, I DON'T think that so-and-so saying that "Sobers was the best" (or words to that effect) really has any value at all.

A well-researched and objectively considered opinion by e.g. a cricket historian would certainly hold some value to me though, if and only if he provided an explanation that was logically coherent to me.

exactly and for those explanations, you need to be able to open your mind up. NOt everything can be covered in numbers and esp. not in cricket.



You say you wanted reasons and we have given the reasons. He bowled spin when pitches aided seam and he bowled seam when pitches aided spin so that specialists of the variety needed could be fitted into the side. Unless you are going to dig in and come up with stats that show that he did indeed bowl spin on spin friendly tracks and pace on pace friendly tracks, how on earth can you keep refuting it? So far, the only stats sprouted out have been ERs and SRs of the contemporary Windies spinners for Sobers... HOw is that meaningful is really beyond me? Ok, their records are better than Sobers but that is precisely the reason why Sobers did what he did. He allowed the specialist spinners to play in conditions aiding them and he himself bowled seam in those games for the most part... So, OBVIOUSLY, their records will be better...


Now, I am waiting for some MEANINGFUL stats that takes into account the variables and still proves that Sobers in fact did not do all this.


Compare this with Kallis, who, almost irrespective of the pitch conditions, never bowls longish spells, is basically looked at as a partnership breaker with slightly defensive fields and who most specialist batsmen actually look to go after when they are looking for quick runs.....

 

[thierry henry]

exactly and for those explanations, you need to be able to open your mind up. NOt everything can be covered in numbers and esp. not in cricket.

Yes, everything can be covered by numbers, although not always exact numbers. For example, a great piece of fielding is great because it has saved runs, even if you may not be able to specify how many.

Cricket is a game where the result is determined by scores. All actions in the game are directed at, at least in the long run, improving your team's position on the scoreboard.

You say you wanted reasons and we have given the reasons. He bowled spin when pitches aided seam and he bowled seam when pitches aided spin so that specialists of the variety needed could be fitted into the side. Unless you are going to dig in and come up with stats that show that he did indeed bowl spin on spin friendly tracks and pace on pace friendly tracks, how on earth can you keep refuting it? So far, the only stats sprouted out have been ERs and SRs of the contemporary Windies spinners for Sobers... HOw is that meaningful is really beyond me? Ok, their records are better than Sobers but that is precisely the reason why Sobers did what he did. He allowed the specialist spinners to play in conditions aiding them and he himself bowled seam in those games for the most part... So, OBVIOUSLY, their records will be better...


Now, I am waiting for some MEANINGFUL stats that takes into account the variables and still proves that Sobers in fact did not do all this.


Compare this with Kallis, who, almost irrespective of the pitch conditions, never bowls longish spells, is basically looked at as a partnership breaker with slightly defensive fields and who most specialist batsmen actually look to go after when they are looking for quick runs.....

You are mistaking me for someone else. I have not participated in the substantive Kallis v Sobers discussion in this thread.

ftr I believe Sobers was better, but not by much, and that Kallis may narrowly (only narrowly) be the superior bowler. For what it's worth.

 

[Ikki]

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.....

And with regards to this comparison...we have.

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.

I have played the game and at varying levels, I do understand that stats don't encapsulate everything in the game. But they do encapsulate the most simplest and, really, important things there are to it.

Sobers' overall bowling record is much too poor for the testimony it gets. And until you can make an argument where you can explain which intangibles explain his record in certain instances you aren't sitting on a valid argument. Sobers is one of the greatest all-rounders ever...but still falls short of the plaudits he gets; where he is the best without much doubt for most people. In reality, he is only a small fraction better than someone like Kallis.

It's all good and well that there may be extenuating circumstances, but it's upto you to prove there are in this case and why certain stats are misleading. Simply stating there is the possibility does not make the comparison any more accurate.

When you talk about different balls hitting different pitches...we've already looked at the standard Sobers bowled in...and he was much worse than what was considered average. So these IFs don't wash unless you can prove that they're relevant.

And for the 100th time again, it is NOT the only thing me or anyone has...

On the other hand, a better SR is the ONLY thing that you have...

A better SR and Average . And if it were only a little difference, it wouldn't matter...but it's not a little bit...it is a lot.

And really HB, you're delving into the low levels that Sanz and Lillian get to. It doesn't become you to be rude.

 

[Ikki]

I do, but I don't think you do. The only stats Ikki supplied to "validate" his claim that Pak in Sobers' era was like Zim in the 90s were the number of test wins. Did they take into account how good the respective other sides were? Does beating England in the 50s mean the same as beating England in the 90s? Has there not been changes in pitches, atmospheric conditions, players' quality, playing rules etc etc???????

But I have done much more than that. Not only in this thread, but in the Sobers vs Miller thread.

I even brought to you the difference in the bowling and batting records of all the countries and compared it to Zimbabwe of this time. I have gone even further and shown their win loss records to each other.

I have done everything relevant and gone even further than what is necessary to prove this point.

The funny thing is...even if we didn't touch Sobers record but removed Kallis' minnows he is STILL worse...after giving him all the benefits, so this is a futile argument.

I am interested to see you guys furnish out the exact numbers which takes into accounts every one of these and the million other things that can impact the numbers of any cricketer in history apart from just the quality of his batting or bowling..... ONce you guys come up with a fool proof numbers system that can calculate all this relatively and still offer us the exact numbers of where every player stands, there will always be only ONE fact about stats and that is that no matter how much micro-analysis you do with them, they will still always be just a guide of what numbers were put up rather than what the story behind those numbers were......

And if the stats are the only reason to follow the game, why watch cricket at all? I can just keep tab of the scores of every game, compare it with the overall averages of other players of the same era and come out and claim my guy is the best in the game.

And Ikki, with all due respect, your taking so much credence for peer rating for Warne and not for Sobers is completely hypocritical.... If you rate Warne so much coz of what is said about him, why should it be any different with Sobers??????

The irony is that we've done everything in our hands to gauge a possible standard...that Sobers falls much too short of. This is not even the standard of being "good" in his time...but merely average. Even in his 7 year PEAK (26 of his 93 matches) his average was something like 27 with an SR of 74. The rest of his career he averaged 40 with an SR of 100+. These are figures you cannot deny. In no point in cricket history does averaging that highly or striking that slowly become decent.

There is nothing hypocritical about my stance with Warne because Warne is at worst a few points off...not 10+. And when I bring an argument of stats not showing everything, I can prove it; with regards to Murali's home situation vs Warne's home situation.

You can't even bring up a reason without it being refuted in this thread. You've made many scenarios of "what ifs" without even knowing if they are true to begin with. Yet you hold tight to an opinion that is not founded on anything other than another's opinion...and that's all you have because you weren't even alive at the time yourself. The people who were, even, can't start explaining themselves - at least the confessed ones here.

 

[Ikki]

Thinking about it; I often feel that because Sobers was so versatile with his bowling that if he were to bowl one great spell and 3-4 poor ones people would still be lauding him because they'd remember the fact that a non-specialist bowled so well for that one spell - forgetting the others. Whereas a specialist would be critiqued much harsher.

 

[Perm]

You can't make those kind of assumptions without having watched him play, that's just ridiculous.

 

[Ikki]

You can't make those kind of assumptions without having watched him play, that's just ridiculous.

Do you need to watch someone play to know that averaging 40 and striking at 100+ for most of their career is bad? That's bad no matter what era you play in and no matter what you bowl.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

Actually it was just a response to your sarcastic remarks, but thanks for contributing.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

And really HB, you're delving into the low levels that Sanz and Lillian get to. It doesn't become you to be rude.

The fact that HB has lowered himself into the sewer with us lowlifes might tell you something about the utter **** that you insist on repeating.

 

[Ikki]

The fact that HB has lowered himself into the sewer with us lowlifes might tell you something about the utter **** that you insist on repeating.

I think it relates more to an adage regarding the company he is keeping. HB's a good lad, he shouldn't repeat your non-sense. It didn't make sense when you were saying it, it wouldn't just because he is.

 

[Perm]

Do you need to watch someone play to know that averaging 40 and striking at 100+ for most of their career is bad? That's bad no matter what era you play in and no matter what you bowl.

Which is completely different to the post I responded to.

You can't just go and make assumptions about why you think a player was so highly rated by his peers whilst trying to slag him off.

 

[Ikki]

Which is completely different to the post I responded to.

You can't just go and make assumptions about why you think a player was so highly rated by his peers whilst trying to slag him off.

And why can't I have an opinion about that? I genuinely think that's a possible reason why people may have overlooked his record. When you're bowling 3-4 different styles to a decent level and in some matches make a good contribution, I think people are more in awe that you were able to do so, rather than the fact that you did so consistently.

The irony is that the people arguing against me are making 101 assumptions on why he could have also been rated highly, in which it isn't reflect in his stats. I don't really understand your objection.