Kallis Vs Sobers

[tait express123]

Sir Garfield Sober's for me.

 

[honestbharani]

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




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.



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.

No mate, the stats do not encapsulate the most important things.


The numbers themselves, the runs scored, wickets taken, balls bowled, balls faced are all recorded but the fact of the matter is that each and every one of those numbers are affected factors as unquantifiable as nature itself. If there was a way to record numbers alone and draw conclusions from it, we won't need discussions.


Opinions do mean something.. It is easy enough to bring up his SR but I believe his average with non-minnows is only 3 points lower than Sobers.. And he definitely bowls a lot less than Sobers. Overs/game is as important to me for an all-rounder as anything.. And of course, I have seen Kallis play majority of his cricket on wickets aiding seam/swing bowling. The argument you make for Murali against Warne applies here too. Sobers DID NOT bowl swing/seam in most of that type of wickets and he did NOT bowl spin on most of the wickets supposed to aid spin... Like all people, he and his team mates could have read pitches wrong but he bowled spin on pitches they supposed helped seamers and bowled seam up on pitches they thought would aid spin more..


These are not recorded in statsguru. You can only take the word of the people who have seen the games for this. And once again, if your only argument is SR and a 3 point average (which can both be affected by number of overs bowled, check Kallis Vs Sobers again on that), I would rather take the peer opinion, which is overwhelmingly unanimous here, over those numbers....

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Reg. your first point, yes he is perhaps under-rated.. But I don't see him as a great batsman. I am not sure about the stats but I feel more confident watching a Sachin or Lara against McWarne than I would do with a Kallis. And for a debate Vs Sobers, there are very many people whose opinion most people respect, who would put Sobers above Lara and Sachin.. So I do think Sobers was a great batsman in a league slightly higher than Kallis.


Regarding your second point, most of the times runs scored and wickets taken are important but not always. There are factors affecting them often. Of course, over a big career, one would assume most factors faced by player A and his contemporaries will kind of even out but there are extenuating factors, like Lillee in Pakistan or Lara in India. That is why a mixture of both stats and peer opinion and first hand accounts of games are needed to even get a picture of how good a past player was.


And for me, just by stats alone, Sobers' numbers are impressive enough... But going by what has been written and said about him by all his contemporaries, I am willing to accept the few points stats difference between the average numbers and his numbers for the unique role which he had to play within that team, which is something no one has done since him and perhaps, no one has done before him. I am not that much up on my history of the game to say it for sure.. Will love to know if there is any player similar to him before he was around.


And if you go by those numbers alone, there is very good ground to consider Sobers just as good as Kallis. There is the difference in average (only 3 or so, I think) but I have not completely gone through the statsguru to find out what is what. But the diff. in SR and average can be explained by their respective roles, I feel. Kallis is mainly used as a partnership breaker most of the time. He comes in, bowls his spell and unless he is bowling really well, they generally take him off after a spell. They use Harris or a Ntini or someone as their stock bowler.. So many times, Kallis comes in, gets a wicket, gets 1 or 2 more overs and then gets taken off for a specialist bowler.. That was not Sobers' role was it?


And even as a stock bowler, your ER can go up.. People will be looking to score more freely with field set back and ones and twos on offer.. It is what makes his ER go up as a stock bowler, I feel.. I haven't obviously seen the man play but I do think this is one plausible reason why that could have happened.



BTW, Ikki, I did not mean to sound as bad. It somehow seemed to be lot less offensive when I read it before posting. I had had a horrible day and maybe it just came out. Did not mean to come on so bad even though I do still think it is hypocritical of you to not accept this universal consensus. I guess you have your reasons but obviously, I don't think much of them. Maybe we can just agree to disagree on that part and just continue the discussion if you feel so.

 

[Precambrian]

Do you work night shift? Coz otherwise it has to be real bad to ruin your day by 9.30 AM.

 

[Top_Cat]

HB = legend. Agree with him or not, he's always detailed, cogent and respectful.

 

[Ikki]

No mate, the stats do not encapsulate the most important things.

Wickets, runs, balls...the most important things.

The numbers themselves, the runs scored, wickets taken, balls bowled, balls faced are all recorded but the fact of the matter is that each and every one of those numbers are affected factors as unquantifiable as nature itself. If there was a way to record numbers alone and draw conclusions from it, we won't need discussions.

No, they are very quantifiable. There are certain things that are not quantifiable but most things are and leave the matter far from uncertain. In cases where stats are so close, this is an argument that has some validity.

In Sobers' case, there is no such argument that makes questioning uncertain factors relative. His record as a bowler is, for the most part, not simply good enough for that kind of defense.

Opinions do mean something.. It is easy enough to bring up his SR but I believe his average with non-minnows is only 3 points lower than Sobers.. And he definitely bowls a lot less than Sobers. Overs/game is as important to me for an all-rounder as anything.. And of course, I have seen Kallis play majority of his cricket on wickets aiding seam/swing bowling. The argument you make for Murali against Warne applies here too. Sobers DID NOT bowl swing/seam in most of that type of wickets and he did NOT bowl spin on most of the wickets supposed to aid spin... Like all people, he and his team mates could have read pitches wrong but he bowled spin on pitches they supposed helped seamers and bowled seam up on pitches they thought would aid spin more..

Opinions mean something if they can be represented in some form of statistical analysis, otherwise they are simply highly subjective and arbitrary.

Kallis' average is better, his SR is much much better and when you look at the standards of both eras he is still ahead.

You are yet to counter these points and keep repeating yourself. In fact, you keep pointing out flawed generalisations about his career, regarding when he bowled and what he bowled, without understanding that regardless of what he bowled...he didn't even meet the standard of his time. Sobers bowled 40+ overs a match, saying he did so, all the time, and always on pitches that didn't suit is such a fallacious argument that it should be put to the wayside. I've already shown you Sobers' contemporaries and how his team was constituted. Sobers may have bowled at times a certain type of bowling which suited his team and not him, but not for his whole career.

These are not recorded in statsguru. You can only take the word of the people who have seen the games for this. And once again, if your only argument is SR and a 3 point average (which can both be affected by number of overs bowled, check Kallis Vs Sobers again on that), I would rather take the peer opinion, which is overwhelmingly unanimous here, over those numbers....

Unfortunately, your argument simply does not cut the mustard and I've wasted enough bandwidth repeating the same points. 3 points in average and 20+ in SR is a huge, huge difference. And we already know, despite all the mitigating circumstances that close that gap he is still quite behind.

Saying stats don't tell the whole story is irrelevant, because they tell enough. The simple fact that you do not know enough about his career and resort to asking me questions or hypothesising certain scenarios to exonerate Sobers from the claim that the is overrated should weigh in your mind that what you have heard or think you know is simply not enough.

 

[honestbharani]

Wickets, runs, balls...the most important things.



No, they are very quantifiable. There are certain things that are not quantifiable but most things are and leave the matter far from uncertain. In cases where stats are so close, this is an argument that has some validity.

In Sobers' case, there is no such argument that makes questioning uncertain factors relative. His record as a bowler is, for the most part, not simply good enough for that kind of defense.



Opinions mean something if they can be represented in some form of statistical analysis, otherwise they are simply highly subjective and arbitrary.

Kallis' average is better, his SR is much much better and when you look at the standards of both eras he is still ahead.

You are yet to counter these points and keep repeating yourself. In fact, you keep pointing out flawed generalisations about his career, regarding when he bowled and what he bowled, without understanding that regardless of what he bowled...he didn't even meet the standard of his time. Sobers bowled 40+ overs a match, saying he did so, all the time, and always on pitches that didn't suit is such a fallacious argument that it should be put to the wayside. I've already shown you Sobers' contemporaries and how his team was constituted. Sobers may have bowled at times a certain type of bowling which suited his team and not him, but not for his whole career.



Unfortunately, your argument simply does not cut the mustard and I've wasted enough bandwidth repeating the same points. 3 points in average and 20+ in SR is a huge, huge difference. And we already know, despite all the mitigating circumstances that close that gap he is still quite behind.

Saying stats don't tell the whole story is irrelevant, because they tell enough. The simple fact that you do not know enough about his career and resort to asking me questions or hypothesising certain scenarios to exonerate Sobers from the claim that the is overrated should weigh in your mind that what you have heard or think you know is simply not enough.

Ok, it is obvious we are not going anywhere from now. Till now, I did think there was a chance to continue.. It is obvious that I can't continue with you unless I start digging up statsguru myself. I feel Sobers is a better all rounder than Kallis and there ends the matter. I have my reasons and it is obvious you don't think much of them. I have heard your reasons too and I still don't think much of them. Gotta let this go now... I really don't have the time to dig up the stats and my interpretations of them...


FWIW, I didn't Sobers ALWAYS bowled in certain ways to help the team. I said he did that the MAJORITY of his career. Again, without the exact stats, it is reasonable, I feel, to take the words of the people who were around then.. Probably you don't but we will leave it at that.

 

[Top_Cat]

Wickets, runs, balls...the most important things.

No, they are very quantifiable. There are certain things that are not quantifiable but most things are and leave the matter far from uncertain. In cases where stats are so close, this is an argument that has some validity.

In terms of internal validity in determining who the better player is, those are remarkably insensitive measures. It's all we have, true, but it pays to keep it in mind that even the most basic stats kept, by most scientific standards, are fairly weak measures.

That said, coming up with decent measures would be a freaking nightmare for a statistician....

 

[Precambrian]

HB = legend. Agree with him or not, he's always detailed, cogent and respectful.

Unlike....???

Fully agree though.

 

[honestbharani]

HB = legend. Agree with him or not, he's always detailed, cogent and respectful.

thanks, mate.. I really do respect most of the posters and their opinions here. So that helps me to be like that. There are few exceptions like MNS and even Social at times, but generally, I really do like debating with the other forum members here.. Respect their opinions even if I disagree with those.

 

[Ikki]

Regarding your second point, most of the times runs scored and wickets taken are important but not always. There are factors affecting them often. Of course, over a big career, one would assume most factors faced by player A and his contemporaries will kind of even out but there are extenuating factors, like Lillee in Pakistan or Lara in India. That is why a mixture of both stats and peer opinion and first hand accounts of games are needed to even get a picture of how good a past player was.

Yes, and Sobers' extenuating factors have been discussed...they don't close the difference between his bowling and Kallis'. The difference between Lillee and those who he is compared to is very small, unlike Sobers and his contemporaries.

And for me, just by stats alone, Sobers' numbers are impressive enough... But going by what has been written and said about him by all his contemporaries, I am willing to accept the few points stats difference between the average numbers and his numbers for the unique role which he had to play within that team, which is something no one has done since him and perhaps, no one has done before him. I am not that much up on my history of the game to say it for sure.. Will love to know if there is any player similar to him before he was around.

How are they impressive? He is not as good as the average spinner and neither the average pacer.

And if you go by those numbers alone, there is very good ground to consider Sobers just as good as Kallis. There is the difference in average (only 3 or so, I think) but I have not completely gone through the statsguru to find out what is what. But the diff. in SR and average can be explained by their respective roles, I feel. Kallis is mainly used as a partnership breaker most of the time. He comes in, bowls his spell and unless he is bowling really well, they generally take him off after a spell. They use Harris or a Ntini or someone as their stock bowler.. So many times, Kallis comes in, gets a wicket, gets 1 or 2 more overs and then gets taken off for a specialist bowler.. That was not Sobers' role was it?

Numbers alone...there is absolutely 0 case to consider him as good as Kallis as a bowler. If there is one, I'm yet to hear it.

The difference is 3...but the difference is in Kallis' time he is 2 points UNDER the standard of his time whereas Sobers is 3 points OVER the standard of his time.

If you are going to do a straight comparison like that, then the initial 25 difference in SR should remain, but really it shouldn't. When taking in the average standard in the time, Kallis is more like 12 or so ahead in SR.

Regardless of the role you think Sobers played...he was never much a wicket-taker. Even most his fans would admit that. If anything playing longer spells helped him take more wickets.

BTW, Ikki, I did not mean to sound as bad. It somehow seemed to be lot less offensive when I read it before posting. I had had a horrible day and maybe it just came out. Did not mean to come on so bad even though I do still think it is hypocritical of you to not accept this universal consensus. I guess you have your reasons but obviously, I don't think much of them. Maybe we can just agree to disagree on that part and just continue the discussion if you feel so.

I would agree to disagree if we were arguing points where we could contend the difference is merely one of opinion. But I am not giving much of my opinion, I am giving you the cold-hard-numbers.

 

[honestbharani]

Unlike....???

Fully agree though.

Thanks again..


And yeah, not the best way to start a day but waiting to talk to my counterpart in the US.. So got nothing better to do in the mean time..

 

[Ikki]

In terms of internal validity in determining who the better player is, those are remarkably insensitive measures. It's all we have, true, but it pays to keep it in mind that even the most basic stats kept, by most scientific standards, are fairly weak measures.

That said, coming up with decent measures would be a freaking nightmare for a statistician....

They're very insensitive, but not very uncertain. When the difference is a few points, then a great game here and a poor one there could be all there is to separate the records. When we are talking about vast differences, arguing that stats are fallible is just a red herring.

Then what? Sobers was a better batsman than Bradman because stats are insensitive and weak measures?

 

[Ikki]

Ok, it is obvious we are not going anywhere from now. Till now, I did think there was a chance to continue.. It is obvious that I can't continue with you unless I start digging up statsguru myself. I feel Sobers is a better all rounder than Kallis and there ends the matter. I have my reasons and it is obvious you don't think much of them. I have heard your reasons too and I still don't think much of them. Gotta let this go now... I really don't have the time to dig up the stats and my interpretations of them...
FWIW, I didn't Sobers ALWAYS bowled in certain ways to help the team. I said he did that the MAJORITY of his career. Again, without the exact stats, it is reasonable, I feel, to take the words of the people who were around then.. Probably you don't but we will leave it at that.

I am more than willing to change my position...but you have to PROVE your assertions. "Prove" may be a strong word; as what I really mean is that you have to put forth evidence that is not easily refutable and that stands up to defend your position.

Thus far, all we are getting are generalisations that you've heard from others, and for all you know they aren't even true, nor make sense...unless you do "digg up statsguru".

For the majority of his career Sobers had two specialist spinners worth of note and at worst one other...yet you want to keep contending that instead of giving them the load to bowl (because they are much better at tying up an end, taking wickets, bowling, etc) they gave it to Sobers to bare the burden. And then also contend that he was a better pacer. So the better pacer, who had two specialist spinners in his side (along with other all-rounders who could bowl spin) decided to bowl spin, even though the pitch wasn't good for it. It doesn't even begin to make sense; and then you say he did it for the majority of his career...

Well, show it to us so we can know that we are wrong. Show us a sample of games which constitute a majority and shows him doing this very thing you are saying he does.

 

[Top_Cat]

They're very insensitive, but not very uncertain. When the difference is a few points, then a great game here and a poor one there could be all there is to separate the records. When we are talking about vast differences, arguing that stats are fallible is just a red herring.

Then what? Sobers was a better batsman than Bradman because stats are insensitive and weak measures?

Sports stats in general are highly contextual. It's why I refuse to compare blokes I've not seen.

 

[Ikki]

Sports stats in general are highly contextual. It's why I refuse to compare blokes I've not seen.

Same game, same rules, etc. The context is largely the same. 20 years difference is hardly something to throw out all the stats. The level of bowling/batting is largely the same - personally, I'd make the case that it's harder to be a Cricketer nowadays, but let's ignore that for the sake of argument.

Arguing that there were different players during each era, or different kinds of pitches is myopic as we can gauge how the average player in a certain discipline did during his time, with all those different players and pitches.

For Sobers, he is below that standard. For Kallis, he is above it. That alone should say enough, before even beginning to compare them to each other.

 

[honestbharani]

Same game, same rules, etc. The context is largely the same. 20 years difference is hardly something to throw out all the stats. The level of bowling/batting is largely the same - personally, I'd make the case that it's harder to be a Cricketer nowadays, but let's ignore that for the sake of argument.

Arguing that there were different players during each era, or different kinds of pitches is myopic as we can gauge how the average player in a certain discipline did during his time, with all those different players and pitches.

For Sobers, he is below that standard. For Kallis, he is above it. That alone should say enough, before even beginning to compare them to each other.

Those "average" standards can also be affected by the teams involved at the time and their "standards". For instance, is Kallis still above standard excluding Bang/Zim? Can we have the average numbers without Bang/Zim? And even then, if a certain generation has more great bowlers than a current generation, that can screw up the numbers too...


Taking average of the generation and comparing them based on that is on the assumption that both generations have equally good players in terms of standards..

 

[Ikki]

Those "average" standards can also be affected by the teams involved at the time and their "standards". For instance, is Kallis still above standard excluding Bang/Zim? Can we have the average numbers without Bang/Zim? And even then, if a certain generation has more great bowlers than a current generation, that can screw up the numbers too...

I've already mentioned this very point...you haven't been reading the thread, it seems, at all. Kallis is still better without them. IIRC he is a something like 0.5 runs above the average and 4-5 balls over the SR...still much better than Sobers.

This is even giving Sobers a benefit because neither New Zealand/Pakistan/India were better than Zimbabwe. In terms of their batting and bowling records or even in terms of results against the other teams. BUT, even giving him that benefit he is behind.

Taking average of the generation and comparing them based on that is on the assumption that both generations have equally good players in terms of standards..

If anything, the standard has improved during Kallis' time.

Apart from that, the difference is not big, no matter how you wish to portray it. Batsmen averaging 50+ now would have done so similarly in Sobers' period - yes, Sobers' batting period is not strong. The bowlers are much better. But essentially, great cricketers then would do roughly the same as they are doing now, and great cricketers now would do roughly the same as then.

Sobers:
Average: 34.04 SR: 91.9

The rest:
Average: 31.18 SR 79.8

Kallis:
Average: 31.12 SR: 66.2

The rest:
Average: 33.07 SR 66.3

 

[honestbharani]

I've already mentioned this very point...you haven't been reading the thread, it seems, at all. Kallis is still better without them. IIRC he is a something like 0.5 runs above the average and 4-5 runs over the SR...still much better than Sobers.

This is even giving Sobers a benefit because neither New Zealand/Pakistan/India were better than Zimbabwe. In terms of their batting and bowling records or even in terms of results against the other teams. BUT, even giving him that benefit he is behind.



If anything, the standard has improved during Kallis' time.

Apart from that, the difference is not big, no matter how you wish to portray it. Batsmen averaging 50+ now would have done so similarly in Sobers' period - yes, Sobers' batting period is not strong. The bowlers are much better. But essentially, great cricketers then would do roughly the same as they are doing now, and great cricketers now would do roughly the same as then.

I am sorry if I am confusing you but I am asking, did u calculate the over all average of all bowlers around the world "removing" Bang and Zim and does Kallis make the cut even in that case?


If you have done that and he s still in the benchmark, then yes, I will need to check up on something. I calculated that he was not quite a while back.. Maybe I had the wrong formula or whatever.. Need to check..

 

[Ikki]

I am sorry if I am confusing you but I am asking, did u calculate the over all average of all bowlers around the world "removing" Bang and Zim and does Kallis make the cut even in that case?

If you have done that and he s still in the benchmark, then yes, I will need to check up on something. I calculated that he was not quite a while back.. Maybe I had the wrong formula or whatever.. Need to check..

Yes, including all the bowlers removing Bang and Zim.

Without those minnows:

Kallis:
Average: 34.09 SR: 72.0

The rest:
Average: 33.45 SR 66.9

so even with that unfair standard, Kallis' record is better than Sobers' record with regards to the rest of the bowling of his time. This is with Sobers keeping his record against his minnows whilst Kallis has to remove his.

And we haven't even started a defense of Kallis' record. Things like: how much harder it has been to bowl during his time, on flat pitches, against more quality batsman and being 3rd in line for wickets in his team.

I hope we can finally put this to bed.