Kallis Vs Sobers

[Ikki]

When originally mentioned it was one minor point that helped to inflate his strike rate. If Doby Gillis hadn't claimed it was something that has never happened in cricket it would have just been accepted as such and forgotten.

LOL, it was you and your excuse trying to say that it made up the difference. No bowler goes through a whole career bowling 40 overs a match just to tie up an end.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

LOL, it was you and your excuse trying to say that it made up the difference. No bowler goes through a whole career bowling 40 overs a match just to tie up an end.

No, I said it was one factor that helped to inflate it. You on the other hand said such things don't happen at all (LOL).

 

[Evermind]

It's interesting when you consider that Kallis's ER is 2.81, while the ER of all bowlers in the 21st century is 3.19. Significant difference.

 

[Ikki]

No, I said it was one factor that helped to inflate it. You on the other hand said such things don't happen at all (LOL).

Because the fact that it inflates his SR which is something like 20 points poorer is a non-point. I assumed you meant it makes up the difference...in which case...it doesn't happen at all. No player plays that role. Being the troll you are, you took it to mean that I never thought it happened... ever.

Even my favourite player of all time (Warne) did it, why wouldn't Sobers? That was never the point though.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Because the fact that it inflates his SR which is something like 20 points poorer is a non-point. I assumed you meant it makes up the difference...in which case...it doesn't happen at all. No player plays that role. Being the troll you are, you took it to mean that I never thought it happened... ever.

Even my favourite player of all time (Warne) did it, why wouldn't Sobers? That was never the point though.

Your exact words were "No one bowls balls JUST to lessen the run-rate. Especially long spells."
Not really open to much mis-interpretation even by a troll - doesn't show much cricketing knowledge either.

 

[Ikki]

Your exact words were "No one bowls balls JUST to lessen the run-rate. Especially long spells."
Not really open to much mis-interpretation even by a troll - doesn't show much cricketing knowledge either.

Exactly, no one bowls JUST to lessen the run-rate - meaning no one makes a 40-over-a-test-career out of it, not that bowling tight never happens. And no one does it in LONG spells (we're talking about 2-3 sessions worth) and no one does it for all their career.

It's conceivable that an all-rounder would come in and bowl to lessen the run-rate for a session, but to do it for the whole game? No. Sobers bowls 40 overs a match, so what else was he doing with the rest of his spin?

Even to do that one session-or-so's worth every game? They'd be more like a part-timer than an all-rounder. And if you argue they do, then that just speaks volumes about the kind of all-rounder they were...doesn't it?

So no matter how/where you turn, you're **** out of luck. Thanks, troll.

 

[honestbharani]

The theory that Sobers was tight and "tied up one end" doesn't hold much water considering the fact that his overall ER is 2.22, and the ER of all bowlers in the 1950s, for example, was 2.30. Hardly a Bracken of the Windies.

Hell this part timer who played with him had an ER of 1.90:

Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Denis Atkinson

Lance Gibbs of course had a far superior ER, SR and AVG.

Hell, Frank Worrell had a similar record as Sobers and he was decidedly part-time.

Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Sir Frank Worrell

Harris bowls to tie an end up and Pollock tries to get wickets. Harris goes for 25 in 10 overs and Pollock goes for 22... Therefore, Harris DIDN'T tie an end up???????????????????

 

[Ikki]

Harris bowls to tie an end up and Pollock tries to get wickets. Harris goes for 25 in 10 overs and Pollock goes for 22... Therefore, Harris DIDN'T tie an end up???????????????????

Harris would need to have 2 more spinners (who are also better than him) for that example to be relevant.

 

[honestbharani]

Harris would need to have 2 more spinners (who are also better than him) for that example to be relevant.

I am talking about a generalized example here... When you are bowling to tie an end up, there are times when you are still giving away more than the attacking bowler at the other end... But as long as you are keeping the shackles on, that is what is called keeping an end tight..


No need to know what the other two spinners were and how good their figures are. And as I have said before, unless you have their exact figures when both Sobers and these guys bowled spin in the same match, same innings, it is pretty futile to compare. There have been accounts of how Sobers bowled medium pace on spin friendly wickets to allow them to play the specialist spinners. So it is not exactly unbelieveable that they have better figures than him.... He was bowling seam up when it was easier to bowl spin.

 

[thierry henry]

Personally I don't think it's possible for a bowler to average 34 and be a "good" test bowler.

I don't believe there is a test bowler in the history of the game who averaged 34+ and could genuinely be classified as "good". I have certainly not seen one in my 17 years of watching cricket.

If Sobers really was a "good" test bowler then he is a massive anomaly. Excuse me for being sceptical.

 

[Ikki]

I am talking about a generalized example here... When you are bowling to tie an end up, there are times when you are still giving away more than the attacking bowler at the other end... But as long as you are keeping the shackles on, that is what is called keeping an end tight..

No need to know what the other two spinners were and how good their figures are. And as I have said before, unless you have their exact figures when both Sobers and these guys bowled spin in the same match, same innings, it is pretty futile to compare. There have been accounts of how Sobers bowled medium pace on spin friendly wickets to allow them to play the specialist spinners. So it is not exactly unbelieveable that they have better figures than him.... He was bowling seam up when it was easier to bowl spin.

But the point is, when people say Sobers bowled spin as a duty, to tie up an end, it doesn't make sense because he wasn't the only spinner and he certainly wasn't the best at tying up an end. So why would he bowl spin when it suited and/or was better at pace?

We don't need their exact figures. Sobers overall record, with his years as pacers mixed in (which would help his record) barely matches those like Valentine, and is behind Ramadhin and Gibbs who only bowled spin.

Furthermore, we know mostly that for the first part of his career he bowled primarily spin and towards the end backed off pace. That's more than a decade of bowlinig spin and in those periods his average is in the 40s and SR in the 100s IIRC.

 

[honestbharani]

But the point is, when people say Sobers bowled spin as a duty, to tie up an end, it doesn't make sense because he wasn't the only spinner and he certainly wasn't the best at tying up an end. So why would he bowl spin when it suited and/or was better at pace?

We don't need their exact figures. Sobers overall record, with his years as pacers mixed in (which would help his record) barely matches those like Valentine, and is behind Ramadhin and Gibbs who only bowled spin.

Furthermore, we know mostly that for the first part of his career he bowled primarily spin and towards the end backed off pace. That's more than a decade of bowlinig spin and in those periods his average is in the 40s and SR in the 100s IIRC.

Again, Ikki... You are getting yourself confused here.. Let me say if I had 4 good to decent fast bowlers in my side and I had the option of using my #6 (Sobers) as the spinner to tie up an end on a seamer friendly track. Of course, Sobers could well bowl seam up and as good a seamer as he was, and help us get the wickets. But if the specialist seamer is just as good as Sobers, then there is no reason for me to not pick the specialist seamer instead of my regular spinner and use Sobers to fill in as the spinner as and when needed. Also remember that bowling real fast medium for a number of spells can take it out of you and Sobers is a batting all-rounder than a bowling one..


Similarly, if I have two good specialist spinners, then on a spinning track, I would drop one of my specialist seamers and play both spinners and ask Sobers to do the 3rd seamers' duty.


In such cases, it is obvious that his figures will be diluted.


And any which ways, it is not massively diluted compared to others of that era, apart from the huge difference in strike rate, which can be explained by the fact that he bowled as a stock bowler most of his career and bowled the variety least suited to the pitch for the sake of team balance and attack variety. And also for the sake that he was seen as mainly a batter.


You are telling he wasn't the best at tying up an end based on numbers alone, Ikki. Again I ask you about the Harris example, just because he seemed to go at a few decimal points per over more than Pollock, does it mean he is NOT tying an end up? Tying an end up means not allowing EASY runs for the batsman at the other end while an attacking bowler is trying to get you out from one end. It so often happens that the attacking bowler ends up with a better ER because batsmen are trying to face them out but at the other end they are actually looking to score and with defensive fields, the singles are very easily obtained even of basically defensive shots, while the same cannot happen at the other end with more attacking fields. Also, if a batsman is going at 2.3 an over, I WOULD call that tying an end up...


The one thing you all need to understand is that no one is telling Sobers was a great spinner.. Not even a good spinner. He was a serviceable spinner in that he can hold an end up and get the odd wicket whilst he was a very very good medium pacer. But he juz happened to be that much more valuable as a batsman/stock bowler so that he was always putting himself at lesser risk of injuries. Had he bowled his flat out fast to fast medium swinging stuff, there is no real doubt that he would have had much better figures.


These are the stuff you can't break down with stats and that is why it is better to listen to any past player or any journalist who has seen him play. You don't get that kind of universal respect without being that good....

 

[Ikki]

Again, Ikki... You are getting yourself confused here.. Let me say if I had 4 good to decent fast bowlers in my side and I had the option of using my #6 (Sobers) as the spinner to tie up an end on a seamer friendly track. Of course, Sobers could well bowl seam up and as good a seamer as he was, and help us get the wickets. But if the specialist seamer is just as good as Sobers, then there is no reason for me to not pick the specialist seamer instead of my regular spinner and use Sobers to fill in as the spinner as and when needed. Also remember that bowling real fast medium for a number of spells can take it out of you and Sobers is a batting all-rounder than a bowling one..

That has nothing to do with Sobers' situation though. If anything, consider having to decide whether Sobers is to bowl, when you already have two specialist spinners and other all-rounders in your squad. That was essentially the make-up of Sobers' West Indies.

Similarly, if I have two good specialist spinners, then on a spinning track, I would drop one of my specialist seamers and play both spinners and ask Sobers to do the 3rd seamers' duty.

You're hypothesizing a situation that wasn't likely to happen. WIndies weren't reliant on two specialist spinners, they had a host of all-rounders which included the likes of Worrell, Holford, Atkinson and Smith.

And the irony is that actually on spinning tracks vs. India that he has better stats, not worse. So that argument doesn't even apply.

In such cases, it is obvious that his figures will be diluted.

How would it? Was Kallis any more than a 3rd seamer? Why are his figures much better? And still, the stats of a 3rd seamer are better than a spinner who ties an end. So the dilution is only beneficial towards his stats.

And any which ways, it is not massively diluted compared to others of that era, apart from the huge difference in strike rate, which can be explained by the fact that he bowled as a stock bowler most of his career and bowled the variety least suited to the pitch for the sake of team balance and attack variety. And also for the sake that he was seen as mainly a batter.

It is massively diluted. He bowled Pace for most if not all of the 60s. It's during this period that for around 26 Tests - 6-7 years - that he has his peak of averaging 26-27 and SR in the 70s. It affects his record massively, because for the rest of his career, discounting this period, he averages in the 40s and SR is 100 IIRC. We've been through this in the Miller thread.

So the point is: not only was he not upto the standard pacer, but not even the standard spinner of his time. His versatility is not much of a saving grace.

You are telling he wasn't the best at tying up an end based on numbers alone, Ikki. Again I ask you about the Harris example, just because he seemed to go at a few decimal points per over more than Pollock, does it mean he is NOT tying an end up? Tying an end up means not allowing EASY runs for the batsman at the other end while an attacking bowler is trying to get you out from one end. It so often happens that the attacking bowler ends up with a better ER because batsmen are trying to face them out but at the other end they are actually looking to score and with defensive fields, the singles are very easily obtained even of basically defensive shots, while the same cannot happen at the other end with more attacking fields. Also, if a batsman is going at 2.3 an over, I WOULD call that tying an end up...

He wasn't as good...because he wasn't as good. The likes of Valentine and Ramadhin's ER were 1.8-1.9. I am not comparing him to a seamer (as you do with your Harris example) but with the other spinners in his team who were no more than defensive bowlers themselves.

The one thing you all need to understand is that no one is telling Sobers was a great spinner.. Not even a good spinner. He was a serviceable spinner in that he can hold an end up and get the odd wicket whilst he was a very very good medium pacer. But he juz happened to be that much more valuable as a batsman/stock bowler so that he was always putting himself at lesser risk of injuries. Had he bowled his flat out fast to fast medium swinging stuff, there is no real doubt that he would have had much better figures.

Exactly, Sobers merely "did a job" with his bowling - whether that was spinning or as a pacer. His all-round skills are overrated frankly. How he is universally lauded beggars belief.

These are the stuff you can't break down with stats and that is why it is better to listen to any past player or any journalist who has seen him play. You don't get that kind of universal respect without being that good....

No, most of this "stuff" I did break down into stats and they're very easily analysed. The hearsay is exaggerated and I will never ignore stats that are this bad for hearsay.

As I keep repeating to you. The fact that you have to hypothesis certain situations that "may" have occurred and keep trying to exonerate his bowling should serve as a red flag for you. There are only so many excuses.

 

[honestbharani]

ok, got the exact games when Sobers bowled spin alongside the two spinners?



got the numbers for those games and the rest?


got the numbers for when he bowled spin vs when he bowled pace?



are you sure the other spinners were doing the "same" job as him in the team??


And the period where his bowling stats suffered were when he became a great batsman.. greatest since Bradman according to many. So it is obvious he concentrated more on batting and less on bowling and given his incredible variety and talents, he was bowling the type that was least amicable to the surface so that he can do a "job" for the "team". How is that a reflection of his bowling prowess?


Imran had better batting stats when he bowled lesser and the same pretty much applies to Kallis. Being an allrounder is incredible hard work and when you are so so talented in one facet, it is obvious that it will be regarded as the more important part by your teammates and therefore you do the dirty job in the other facet so that you give your team the best of both worlds and allow them to play specialists of the type of bowling that is being aided by the pitch.


Again, unless you have the stats to disprove this part (we will need his exact break up in terms of when and how much he bowled spin and pace and what his stats were in regard to that), you cannot simply pooh-pooh away the opinions of people who saw him.


BTW,it is not "hearsay".. It is hearsay on my part but the opinions of guys like Bradman and all those other players and journos were based on having watched him play.. which you haven't. So a bit more respect to the greats, please... You are the one who is going by hearsay and stats mate.. They WATCHED the man and regarded him the best........

 

[Ikki]

ok, got the exact games when Sobers bowled spin alongside the two spinners?
got the numbers for those games and the rest?
got the numbers for when he bowled spin vs when he bowled pace?
are you sure the other spinners were doing the "same" job as him in the team??

This is getting tiresome, we already know what he generally bowled and when. We know his general record as a spinner, and we know general record his record as a pacer. You can't get stats of Sobers (or anyone) when he bowled spin and when he bowled pace separately. Nor do you need to.

The great irony is, the more you can prove he bowled pace the worse his record looks. A 3rd seamer > a spinner who ties an end. So if he was a 3rd seamer, for any great length of time, it would mean it improves his stats with regards to his spinning - making them look better than what they are, and not the other way round; as you're trying to say.

And the period where his bowling stats suffered were when he became a great batsman.. greatest since Bradman according to many. So it is obvious he concentrated more on batting and less on bowling and given his incredible variety and talents, he was bowling the type that was least amicable to the surface so that he can do a "job" for the "team". How is that a reflection of his bowling prowess?

He was a poor bowler even before he ever became a good batsman. If you know anything about Sobers, you should know these things.

Besides, being an all-rounder is what he is alleged to have been. If his batting interfered with his bowling (to which you could argue Kallis had an even heavier schedule and bowled pace for all his career) then he had to deal with it. If his batting affected his bowling, to the extent as you like to suggest, then it means he wasn't a good bowler - for whatever reason; use that one if you like.

Imran had better batting stats when he bowled lesser and the same pretty much applies to Kallis. Being an allrounder is incredible hard work and when you are so so talented in one facet, it is obvious that it will be regarded as the more important part by your teammates and therefore you do the dirty job in the other facet so that you give your team the best of both worlds and allow them to play specialists of the type of bowling that is being aided by the pitch.

You'd save us the trouble with your hypothesis if you cared to look at his record for once.

Sobers bowled many less overs when he was picked for his bowling only and hadn't hit the heights his batting eventually did. It's after he comes into his own with the bat that he starts bowling more and helping more with the ball.

Again, unless you have the stats to disprove this part (we will need his exact break up in terms of when and how much he bowled spin and pace and what his stats were in regard to that), you cannot simply pooh-pooh away the opinions of people who saw him.

I don't need the exact stats to disprove it. If anything, you need the exact stats to refute me. You hypothesize situations that wouldn't occur much and you don't even know if they occurred at all. How about some proof for once HB?

We already know, by the opinions of the people who saw him, that until 1960 he was primarily a spinner. From 1960-1970 he started bowling pace and became pretty good at it at one point. From that point till the end, he bowled spin again due to age.

BTW,it is not "hearsay".. It is hearsay on my part but the opinions of guys like Bradman and all those other players and journos were based on having watched him play.. which you haven't. So a bit more respect to the greats, please... You are the one who is going by hearsay and stats mate.. They WATCHED the man and regarded him the best........

Many of those opinions are hearsay. No one was at every match Sobers played. Furthermore, if they can substantiate what they heard, then why aren't those that put value on such words coming forward and showing the matches in question where he was hindered, etc?

Until then, it's highly subjective and arbitrary information. And how can you demean the hearsay I am using? I am using your own.

 

[0RI0N]

Personally I don't think it's possible for a bowler to average 34 and be a "good" test bowler.

I don't believe there is a test bowler in the history of the game who averaged 34+ and could genuinely be classified as "good". I have certainly not seen one in my 17 years of watching cricket.

If Sobers really was a "good" test bowler then he is a massive anomaly. Excuse me for being sceptical.

/
javagal srinath claims india have the best new ball attack.zaheer ave 33 ,sharma + - 30.
But i agree with you wrt ave 30 +,the bowler is just average to very bad IF he is a frontline bowler.If he's a part timer/he's okay- ish.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Exactly, no one bowls JUST to lessen the run-rate - meaning no one makes a 40-over-a-test-career out of it, not that bowling tight never happens. And no one does it in LONG spells (we're talking about 2-3 sessions worth) and no one does it for all their career.

It's conceivable that an all-rounder would come in and bowl to lessen the run-rate for a session, but to do it for the whole game? No. Sobers bowls 40 overs a match, so what else was he doing with the rest of his spin?

Even to do that one session-or-so's worth every game? They'd be more like a part-timer than an all-rounder. And if you argue they do, then that just speaks volumes about the kind of all-rounder they were...doesn't it?

So no matter how/where you turn, you're **** out of luck. Thanks, troll.

Oh dear. No one is interested in your lame attempts to disguise your previous clueless comments.
Become a traffic warden or something, they're more interested in numbers than people.

 

[Uppercut]

/
javagal srinath claims india have the best new ball attack.zaheer ave 33 ,sharma + - 30.
But i agree with you wrt ave 30 +,the bowler is just average to very bad IF he is a frontline bowler.If he's a part timer/he's okay- ish.

If Zaheer is still averaging 33 by the time his career ends we'll know he wasn't really much of a bowler.

 

[Perm]

Personally I don't think it's possible for a bowler to average 34 and be a "good" test bowler.

I don't believe there is a test bowler in the history of the game who averaged 34+ and could genuinely be classified as "good". I have certainly not seen one in my 17 years of watching cricket.

If Sobers really was a "good" test bowler then he is a massive anomaly. Excuse me for being sceptical.

Vettori? I know you don't rate him, and neither do I, but there's no denying he's actually quite a 'good' bowler.

 

[0RI0N]

Vettori? I know you don't rate him, and neither do I, but there's no denying he's actually quite a 'good' bowler.

/
good-ish.
He has his moments.He is on the honours board at Lords.Going to check warne n murali's record at Lords later.not that it says anything about your bowling ability
Brilliant vs bangladesh.Other than that...