Kallis Vs Sobers

[Lillian Thomson]

Nassar Hussein batted somewhere between 3 and 6 in the order - not uncommon. Sober's batted high in the order, as a bowler he sometimes took the new ball, sometimes bowled first change, bowled orthodox off-spin or chinaman or as a stock bowler tying up an end. Dig out the stats of all his "contemporaries" that had the same role in their team.

 

[Ikki]

Nassar Hussein batted somewhere between 3 and 6 in the order - not uncommon. Sober's batted high in the order, as a bowler he sometimes took the new ball, sometimes bowled first change, bowled orthodox off-spin or chinaman or as a stock bowler tying up an end. Dig out the stats of all his "contemporaries" that had the same role in their team.

But Hussain was a captain and at times was asked to anchor and at times to attack, etc...... every player has certain circumstances where they play a role, this is no different.

We don't have to dig out for contemporaries in the same "role". We know that Sobers falls short for even the spinners of his time (33, 89)*, and someway short for the pacers of his time (29, 71).

If we consider him primarily a spinner for most his career (which he was), then it makes his record even more worse because for a period between 61-68 (his peak) he was bowling pace and that would help his spin-figures greatly - compared to all the other spinners who only bowled spin - in effect, it would benefit him, not impair him. Yet even though they are reduced/helped, his record is still worse than the average spinner of the time. (34, 92 vs 33, 89)

Your point would be like me saying since Symonds bowled pace, spin and batted at 6 he is better than Keith Miller, and you can't compare Symonds with anyone else because no one else had that "role" in other sides side. Hence, I am right, and there is no way you can prove me wrong.

Or even simpler, you're suggesting that you can't compare a specialist's bowling with an all-rounder's bowling, simply because they have different roles. But you can, if all you're concerned with is their bowling then all that is relevant is their bowling records. Just because one happens to be an all-rounder, does not mean he is going to bowl a style a different way or not try his best to take wickets at lower runs and as fast as possible.

P.S. Sobers didn't bat high in the order, he batted mostly at 6 - which is irrelevant as we are not discussing him as a batsman.

*(avg, SR).

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Everytime I try to preview a reply the post seems to have been edited again so I'll wait but you might want to reconsider your PS................perhaps statsguru can help you.

 

[Ikki]

Everytime I try to preview a reply the post seems to have been edited again so I'll wait but you might want to reconsider your PS................perhaps statsguru can help you help.

Sorry, I am just trying to make my post clearer. I reread it and thought if I said simply that his average was worse, it does not help since we do not know how much worse, so I added the numbers. It was also bunched together so I spaced it out. You can answer if you like now.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So now he was primarily a spinner? I give up. He was crap.

 

[zaremba]

Okay guys may I make a suggestion?

Each of you makes one last post in which you set out any points which you don't feel you've yet addressed, or which you feel might make the slightest difference to the other's perspective.

And then take a deep breath and move on...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Okay guys may I make a suggestion?

Each of you makes one last post in which you set out any points which you don't feel you've yet addressed, or which you feel might make the slightest difference to the other's perspective.

And then take a deep breath and move on...

I've already surrendered.

 

[Ikki]

So now he was primarily a spinner? I give up. He was crap.

Yes, in the sense that for most of his career he was a slow bowler. When we are looking at his record in terms of numbers, we have to know how a lot of those runs/overs/wickets were attained or lost. The argument tends to be that he bowled spin more than he bowled pace - whilst you cannot get an exact figure, it's the most likely - and that's apparently why his stats suffer. Of course, it doesn't matter because as a spin bowler he still fell short.

In fact, if it was the other way (as in, he bowled more pace), it would make his record look even worse. But, what we do know is that Sobers was generally a better pace bowler and in his touted peak from 61-68 he bowled pace. Of course, he bowled pace after, i.e. against the ROTW in 1970, but as he aged and slowed down it became less frequent.

But still, I showed you, we can separate his bowling as either and judge him. He is not incomparable, as you seemed to suggest.

 

[Ikki]

Okay guys may I make a suggestion?

Each of you makes one last post in which you set out any points which you don't feel you've yet addressed, or which you feel might make the slightest difference to the other's perspective.

And then take a deep breath and move on...

TBF, I am fine arguing this. I don't appreciate the wise-cracks or insults, but if there any questions I'll do my best to clarify and if my logic is challenged I'll do my best to retort. And if I can't, then I'll change my position.

 

[Uppercut]

Where are the well thought out points?
It really is very simple. No one is objecting to the crude number crunching just because it happens to involve a great cricketer like Sobers.
There are a number of things that stats don’t (and can’t) take into account, for example:
Weather condition
Ground and pitch conditions
Strength of opposition
Strength of own team
How well the opposition play on the day
Each unique match situation
Dropped catches
Umpiring errors
The role of the individual within the team
The fielding standards and performance of both sides
Each player’s individual career is totally unique and the list of things that can’t be determined by stats goes on forever and there isn’t a formula that can factor any of these things in.

I think that demonstrates how impossible it is to compare players across eras more than anything.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think that demonstrates how impossible it is to compare players across eras more than anything.

It does indeed, thus rendering the relentless churning out of stats in this thread invalid.

 

[Sanz]

Where are the well thought out points?
It really is very simple. No one is objecting to the crude number crunching just because it happens to involve a great cricketer like Sobers.
There are a number of things that stats don’t (and can’t) take into account, for example:
Weather condition
Ground and pitch conditions
Strength of opposition
Strength of own team
How well the opposition play on the day
Each unique match situation
Dropped catches
Umpiring errors
The role of the individual within the team
The fielding standards and performance of both sides
Each player’s individual career is totally unique and the list of things that can’t be determined by stats goes on forever and there isn’t a formula that can factor any of these things in.

When you have Statsguru, None of the above are needed.
Only thing you will ever need to be a truly analyze a cricketer, Statusguru.
Statsguru evaluates cricketers, Fair and Balanced, Like the famous News Source.

Only missing piece is Sean Hannity..well not really..If you know what I am referring to.

 

[Uppercut]

It does indeed, thus rendering the relentless churning out of stats in this thread invalid.

And indeed the churning out of contemporary opinion masquerading as fact.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

And indeed the churning out of contemporary opinion masquerading as fact.

In fact 29 pages of worthless tat with Sobers winning the poll by the expected landslide.

 

[Uppercut]

Quite. Well, I've only really tried to argue two things here. Firstly, that Kallis is inherently extremely underrated, and hence those putting forward his case against Sobers don't deserve the contempt they inevitably get. Secondly, that the number of runs someone scores and wickets they take is a better measure of how good someone is than what some people said about them at the time. Don't get me wrong though, they're both fairly useful.

 

[Precambrian]

In fact 29 pages of worthless tat with Sobers winning the poll by the expected landslide.

George Bush was elected twice to the White house.

 

[Pothas]

Quite. Well, I've only really tried to argue two things here. Firstly, that Kallis is inherently extremely underrated, and hence those putting forward his case against Sobers don't deserve the contempt they inevitably get. Secondly, that the number of runs someone scores and wickets they take is a better measure of how good someone is than what some people said about them at the time. Don't get me wrong though, they're both fairly useful.

Would just be nice if the people on the Kallis side of the debate would focus on the reasons why Kallis is so great and why he is underrated rather than picking holes in one of the great players in history. Not accusing you of this but it seems to be the general focus of this debate.

 

[JBH001]

Agreed, pothas. But this is not the first time its happened, and its probably not going to be the last either. Despite some good points being raised, actually only one point re. Sobers' bowling, it seems to me (like I have said before) an exercise in erecting a strawman, imagining it a horse, and then flogging it to bits.

Its ironic that in a 29 page thread about Kallis and Sobers, comparatively little has been said about Kallis.

Poor sod, always forgotten. Even by his supporters.

George Bush was elected twice to the White house.

Er no. Just once.

 

[Ikki]

Would just be nice if the people on the Kallis side of the debate would focus on the reasons why Kallis is so great and why he is underrated rather than picking holes in one of the great players in history. Not accusing you of this but it seems to be the general focus of this debate.

The problem is, you can't begin to say Kallis is great because almost invariably you're met with "Sobers is better" when he wasn't in some respects. For example, a lot of the same people in this thread used to say, "Sobers was better than Harmison, so don't even TRY to compare Kallis." Now that we've gotten a better understanding about how good Sobers really was, you can compare them fairly.

 

[zaremba]

an exercise in erecting a strawman, imagining it a horse, and then flogging it to bits.

That's one I'll be committing to the memory bank for future use...