Kallis Vs Sobers

[Lillian Thomson]

I assume Burgey has now shot himself.

 

[chasingthedon]

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....

What you're saying is true when considering an individual innings or match, but over the course of a career of 100 Tests or more, that's a large enough statisitical sample for those issues which affect individual games to effectively even out. So career stats do have meaning.

 

[steve132]

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.

Honestbharani:

I have admired your posts on this and other threads, but I think that the time has come to pass on to you some advice that Sanz gave to me. To be specific, you need to recognize the limitations of rational argument. Some people will NEVER be persuaded, irrespective of how cogent and well-reasoned your arguments are.

Fortunately, they are in a distinct minority. The current poll for this thread is running 4-1in Sobers' favor after posters have read arguments from all sides. Any comparable poll of first class cricketers and journalists who actually saw Sobers and Kallis would produce an even more lopsided result.

We should probably be satisfied with this. It is about as clear cut a decision as can reasonably be expected.

 

[Burgey]

I assume Burgey has now shot himself.

Nah, tt's now gone from a tragedy to a tragi-comedy....

 

[Precambrian]

Ikki You are the man when it comes to Statsguru application in CW arguments. I wholly agree with your observations that Kallis bowled better than Sobers, and perhaps batted too.

 

[shivfan]

I accept that Kallis' stats are comparable to Sobers' own....

However, remember that in those days they played far less test cricket than they do now. After a while, Sobers went into decline, and his stats suffered as a result.

Kallis is just over his peak now, and his stats will go into decline. When Kallis is ready to call it quits, I'm willing to bet that Sobers will have marginally better stats than Kallis.

That said, I'm prepared to say that Kallis is the second-best allrounder of all time....

 

[honestbharani]

Cricinfo - Kallis or Sobers?



Cricinfo doing it again, it seems..

 

[Ikki]

Cricinfo - Kallis or Sobers?
Cricinfo doing it again, it seems..

LOL, ridiculous.

 

[Uppercut]

Cricinfo - Kallis or Sobers?



Cricinfo doing it again, it seems..

Haha, that's pretty well-written actually.

 

[Redbacks]

Nice article so far, hoping to finish the second half over the next 2 hours

 

[Zinzan]

Interesting that of the 27 players who scored more than 1000 test runs & took more than 200 test wickets, only these 8 players have positive batting v bowling variations

All Rounder Records and Statistics (Test Cricket)
Players Scoring 1000 Runs and Taking 200 Wickets



Sobers, G West Indies; Batting ave 57.78 Bowling ave 34.04 variation + 23.75
Kallis, J H South Africa; Batting ave 54.43 Bowling ave 31.26 variation + 23.17
Imran Khan Pakistan; Batting ave 37.69 Bowling ave 22.81 variation + 14.88
Pollock, S South Africa; Batting ave 32.32 Bowling ave 23.12 variation + 9.20
Botham, I T England; Batting ave 33.55 Bowling ave 28.40 variation + 5.15
Hadlee, R New Zealand; Batting ave 27.17 Bowling ave 22.30 variation + 4.87
Cairns, C New Zealand; Batting ave 33.54 Bowling ave 29.40 variation + 4.13
Kapil Dev India; Batting ave 31.05 Bowling ave 29.65 variation + 1.41

 

[Ikki]

That analysis seems to really favour batting all-rounders though.

 

[Zinzan]

That analysis seems to really favour batting all-rounders though.

True, still 200 test wickets is a reasonable qualifier isn't it?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

True, still 200 test wickets is a reasonable qualifier isn't it?

It's all dependent on what you factor in. The Sober's detractors who don't understand what his role was as a bowler always look at his Strike Rate which sends him falling down any list if it's factored in.

 

[Ikki]

True, still 200 test wickets is a reasonable qualifier isn't it?

It is, but it still benefits batting-all rounders. Sobers and Kallis had long careers and thus picked up 200 wickets. They were both average bowlers on the whole. All the qualifier does is remove batting all-rounders that didn't bowl enough.

You have more room to maneuver with your average as a batsman than you do as a bowler. The difference between fast bowlers, for example, averaging 20 against the other's 25 is much more noticeable than the one between batsmen averaging 50-55. The diminishing returns argument and all that.

 

[Uppercut]

It's all dependent on what you factor in. The Sober's detractors who don't understand what his role was as a bowler always look at his Strike Rate which sends him falling down any list if it's factored in.

That's silly. The role of a test bowler is almost always to take wickets. Strike rate is an excellent measure, so it has to be factored in. Even if you do want to qualify it by arguments that don't make a great deal of sense.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

That's silly. The role of a test bowler is almost always to take wickets. Strike rate is an excellent measure, so it has to be factored in. Even if you do want to qualify it by arguments that don't make a great deal of sense.

That's not true though. There's been many bowlers who have bowled on a length from one end attempting to keep it tight with the strike bowlers operating in rotation at the other end on a flat wicket.

 

[Uppercut]

That's not true though. There's been many bowlers who have bowled on a length from one end attempting to keep it tight with the strike bowlers operating in rotation at the other end on a flat wicket.

But their job is still to take wickets. Whether that's by frustrating the batsman into a mistake with a defensive line or trying to bowl wicket-taking deliveries, their job is still the same, and taking wickets sooner is pretty much always better than taking wickets later (assuming it's done so while conceding the same number of runs).

It doesn't reflect well on Sobers' ability if he was constantly doing the defensive bowling anyway.

 

[fredfertang]

Strike Rate on it's own is no more helpful in isolation than any stat - to take two (almost) contemporaries Frank Tyson had a strike rate of 45 and Alec Bedser 67 but I doubt many will dispute that Bedser were the better bowler

 

[Uppercut]

Strike Rate on it's own is no more helpful in isolation than any stat - to take two (almost) contemporaries Frank Tyson had a strike rate of 45 and Alec Bedser 67 but I doubt many will dispute that Bedser were the better bowler

Yes indeedy. But if you fancy taking a ****tail of indicators to analyse bowlers you'd be kidding yourself if you left out strike rate.