Kallis Vs Sobers

[Evermind]

/
javagal srinath claims india have the best new ball attack.zaheer ave 33 ,sharma + - 30.

That's obviously rubbish. Nobody with any semblance of objectivity would call Khan and Sharma the "world's best new ball attack". It's like Ponting describing Hayden as the "best opener in history" or some crap like that.

 

[Richard]

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.

I know I haven't bothered with this rubbish and nor do I intend to now, and I also realise you might well not read this given there'll be another 100 replies between now and whenever you next view... but Sobers wasn't a good bowler all career, thus his career average is unimportant. He was only that good for about half of it, and in this time his average was good.

 

[Ikki]

I know I haven't bothered with this rubbish and nor do I intend to now, and I also realise you might well not read this given there'll be another 100 replies between now and whenever you next view... but Sobers wasn't a good bowler all career, thus his career average is unimportant. He was only that good for about half of it, and in this time his average was good.

During the 60s I'm guessing you mean? Even then, compared to the average pacer of his time he was simply average, maybe a bit better. This is his peak, of course.

 

[Richard]

I couldn't really care for comparisons - the simple point of importance is that Sobers did not go through his career averaging 34. It did not happen. Like most players who have a long career, things changed.

 

[Ikki]

I couldn't really care for comparisons - the simple point of importance is that Sobers did not go through his career averaging 34. It did not happen. Like most players who have a long career, things changed.

You're right it didn't. His peak, as pointed out by his fans, is between 61-68 where he bowled pace (which isn't half his career) where:

Sobers
Avg. 27.56 SR 74.2

The rest (pacers)
Avg. 30.49 SR 72.2

This is 26 Tests of his 93.

For the rest of his 67 tests:

Sobers
Avg. 39 SR 105

----

So for a great deal more he did average much worse than 34. His peak is short and no better than the average pacer.

 

[0RI0N]

That's obviously rubbish. Nobody with any semblance of objectivity would call Khan and Sharma the "world's best new ball attack". It's like Ponting describing Hayden as the "best opener in history" or some crap like that.

/
i know.i was like wtf?is javagal smoking someone's cricket socks.zaheer has 1 or 2 good spells per series.okay 3 or 4,else richard's gonna get pedantic up in here.
he has improved since his return from worcs, but he is still a woeful bowler.
sharma,lets see after a few years.
zaheer = harmlessone,thats harmison.

 

[Evermind]

/
i know.i was like wtf?is javagal smoking someone's cricket socks.zaheer has 1 or 2 good spells per series.okay 3 or 4,else richard's gonna get pedantic up in here.
he has improved since his return from worcs, but he is still a woeful bowler.
sharma,lets see after a few years.
zaheer = harmlessone,thats harmison.

I wouldn't call him woeful by any measure - he's definitely above average. But he's certainly not among the top 10 bowlers in the world, and neither is Ishant, so they can't possibly be the best "opening pair" in the world.

In an alternate universe, where chucking and nandralone in cricket are legal (those lawless BASTARDS), Asif and Akhtar are the best new-ball opening pair.

In our universe, it would be Steyn + Ntini.

 

[0RI0N]

I wouldn't call him woeful by any measure - he's definitely above average. But he's certainly not among the top 10 bowlers in the world, and neither is Ishant, so they can't possibly be the best "opening pair" in the world.

In an alternate universe, where chucking and nandralone in cricket are legal (those lawless BASTARDS), Asif and Akhtar are the best new-ball opening pair.

In our universe, it would be Steyn + Ntini.

/
agreed

 

[thierry henry]

but Sobers wasn't a good bowler all career, thus his career average is unimportant. He was only that good for about half of it, and in this time his average was good.

I'm not sure we disagree here....perhaps we just disagree in our preferred way of expressing what we think

I'm guessing you would describe Sobers as "a bowler who was good without being truly outstanding for a little less than half his test career, and somewhere between average and fairly poor for the rest"?

Yeah?

Well, I would go along with that, but I simply believe that it isn't a total fallacy to combine the two and say that "overall, Sobers' career as a bowler was somewhat below par"- it goes without saying that there were ups and downs, and it doesn't mean I'm not aware of them.

 

[Richard]

I'm not sure we disagree here....perhaps we just disagree in our preferred way of expressing what we think

I'm guessing you would describe Sobers as "a bowler who was good without being truly outstanding for a little less than half his test career, and somewhere between average and fairly poor for the rest"?

Yeah?

Pretty much.

Well, I would go along with that, but I simply believe that it isn't a total fallacy to combine the two and say that "overall, Sobers' career as a bowler was somewhat below par"- it goes without saying that there were ups and downs, and it doesn't mean I'm not aware of them.

I just don't see any point in combining them. There is no overall.

For a fairly lengthy period, Sobers was a superlative all-rounder, pure magnificence (though always more batsman than bowler). For another period, he was a superlative batsman who bowled a bit. For another period, he was a superlative batsman and OK-ish bowler.

And briefly at the start of his career he was a poor batsman and poor bowler. But so would just about anyone be if pitched into Test cricket as a 17-year-old.

 

[thierry henry]

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

The existence of Vettori is pretty much the biggest reason why I reckon Sobers was pretty *meh* as a bowler, despite everyone who saw him saying otherwise

I have a brilliant contemporary example of a modern left-arm spinner averaging 34 who everyone seems to think is good and I think is complete garbage.

 

[thierry henry]

I just don't see any point in combining them. There is no overall.

Because of threads like this....because people like to compare cricketers....because people like to make all-time XIs, etc

If we are comparing "Kallis v Sobers" then a way needs to be found to "average" Sobers' time as a *meh* bowler, with his time as an excellent bowler. Otherwise the comparison is very unfair on Kallis.

Perhaps that's the essential problem with the comparison- that Sobers, at times, looked an outstanding bowler, while Kallis never really has. For me, the more important thing is to look at overall achievement and factor in even the times when they were crap.

 

[Richard]

Because of threads like this....because people like to compare cricketers....because people like to make all-time XIs, etc

If we are comparing "Kallis v Sobers" then a way needs to be found to "average" Sobers' time as a *meh* bowler, with his time as an excellent bowler. Otherwise the comparison is very unfair on Kallis.

Perhaps that's the essential problem with the comparison- that Sobers, at times, looked an outstanding bowler, while Kallis never really has. For me, the more important thing is to look at overall achievement and factor in even the times when they were crap.

I don't think that's true at all. Kallis is exactly like Sobers in being for a time a poor bowler and for a time an excellent one. I've always said that I think Kallis bowling the best he bowled (ie, 1996 to 2001 or so) was probably better than Sobers bowling the best he bowled. Similarly, Kallis of more recent times, who's been pretty moderate, was certainly better than Sobers in his "bad" period.

I just don't see the sense, though, in trying to create something that simply did not exist to manufacture a comparison - or to make a comparison that is actually a difficult one seem an easy one.

Being overtly simplistic is usually something of a fool's paradise.

 

[thierry henry]

I don't think that's true at all. Kallis is exactly like Sobers in being for a time a poor bowler and for a time an excellent one. I've always said that I think Kallis bowling the best he bowled (ie, 1996 to 2001 or so) was probably better than Sobers bowling the best he bowled. Similarly, Kallis of more recent times, who's been pretty moderate, was certainly better than Sobers in his "bad" period.

hehe, try telling that to the pro-Sobers majority. I don't disagree ftr.

I just don't see the sense, though, in trying to create something that simply did not exist to manufacture a comparison - or to make a comparison that is actually a difficult one seem an easy one.

Being overtly simplistic is usually something of a fool's paradise.

Agreed for sure.

Honestly, my primary motivation for every posting in these threads is basically threefold- (a) frustration at the myth that Sobers was somehow in a different league to all other all-rounders (b) frustration at the ridiculous lack of regard given to Kallis (c) frustration at the myth that Sobers was, overall, just a flat-out excellent bowler.

I really don't think that "Kallis>Sobers", or that comparing them is straightforward at all, just think they bear comparison and it's an insult to Kallis the way some people carry on.

 

[Richard]

hehe, try telling that to the pro-Sobers majority. I don't disagree ftr.

I don't think anyone seriously believes Sobers was a superlative bowler. At his best he was a good one - the trouble is when people try to argue that he was a moderate bowler all his career, which is plainly and simply wrong.

Sobers > Kallis as a batsman very comfortably IMO, so thus Sobers > Kallis as an all-rounder without much question. Though some people probably do take Sobers' supremacy over other all-rounders a bit too far, thus leading to all these ridiculous arguments.

 

[SJS]

Sobers, when bowling with a new or semi new ball would produce unplayable deliverious, prodigious in-swingers, away cutters from an awkward length, yorkers and sudden unavoidable bouncers.

Kallis almost never appears to be doing that. He relies heavily on the batsman making a mistake.

Having said that about their bowling. It must never be forgotten that Sobers will sit comfortably in any shortlist of five greatest batsmen of all time. Some may argue against it but he is not a misfit and many will agree he belongs. Amongst left handers, almost all those who saw him play wil put him in a shortlist of one.

Where does that leave Kallis the batsman - no where in the picture I believe - not in the same picture at least.

As a fielder, Kallis is wonderful at slip - so was Sobers. He was as brilliant but he was equally brilliant at gully, leg slip, short leg and anywhere in the outfield. He had an explosive and unerring throw. In whats coming close to half a century of watching Test cricket, one hasn't seen a more complete all round fielder. Again, Kallis doesn't stand comparison inspite of being one of the finest slip fielders of his own time.

Their bowling is where they have the least difference (gap in class) and the batting where they have the greatest but the differences are there.

 

[Uppercut]

Kallis almost never appears to be doing that. He relies heavily on the batsman making a mistake.

I don't really agree with this. Kallis can swing the ball both ways and has an excellent cutter. He generally bowls to set people up for the straighter one. He doesn't swing the ball massively, but he gets enough movement to take the edge. Here is the esteemed list of players Kallis has got out, and how often he's gotten them.

But in fact, you don't even need to look that hard to find evidence that Kallis bowls wicket-taking deliveries. you only need to be watching the match that's going on at the moment.

 

[Zinzan]

Sobers, when bowling with a new or semi new ball would produce unplayable deliverious, prodigious in-swingers, away cutters from an awkward length, yorkers and sudden unavoidable bouncers.

Kallis almost never appears to be doing that. He relies heavily on the batsman making a mistake.

Having said that about their bowling. It must never be forgotten that Sobers will sit comfortably in any shortlist of five greatest batsmen of all time. Some may argue against it but he is not a misfit and many will agree he belongs. Amongst left handers, almost all those who saw him play wil put him in a shortlist of one.

Where does that leave Kallis the batsman - no where in the picture I believe - not in the same picture at least.

As a fielder, Kallis is wonderful at slip - so was Sobers. He was as brilliant but he was equally brilliant at gully, leg slip, short leg and anywhere in the outfield. He had an explosive and unerring throw. In whats coming close to half a century of watching Test cricket, one hasn't seen a more complete all round fielder. Again, Kallis doesn't stand comparison inspite of being one of the finest slip fielders of his own time.

Their bowling is where they have the least difference (gap in class) and the batting where they have the greatest but the differences are there.

Sober's may have even been a better fielder had he not self-amputated the two extra fingers he had on each hand when he was a kid

 

[SJS]

I don't really agree with this. Kallis can swing the ball both ways and has an excellent cutter. He generally bowls to set people up for the straighter one. He doesn't swing the ball massively, but he gets enough movement to take the edge. Here is the esteemed list of players Kallis has got out, and how often he's gotten them.

But in fact, you don't even need to look that hard to find evidence that Kallis bowls wicket-taking deliveries. you only need to be watching the match that's going on at the moment.

I never said Kallis does not swing the ball, nor that he doesn't cut it- just that he Sobers produced these unplayable deliveries.

Again I said the diofference between their bowling was minimal, so I wasn't running down Kallis just trying to show how the two of them are different. Both are primarily batting allrounders. Sobers being the vastly greater batsman and a superior all round fielder.

IOn bowling, Kallis is more the type who bowls rather mechanically on a line and the batsman will make the mistake, Sobers was more proactive and attacking in his medium paced stuff. Its two different approaches to bowling. Its McGrath versus Lillie (I know its not exactly the same) if you please - two truly great bowlers with different approaches to bowling.

 

[SJS]

Sober's may have even been a better fielder had he not self-amputated the two extra fingers he had on each hand when he was a kid

Point although having seen him field you would wonder how he could be better. He seemed to be everywhere