Kallis Vs Sobers

[G.I.Joe]

It is possible that the extra 'fingers' made it tough for him both as a batsman and bowler by getting in the way of a proper grip. One has to remember that superfluous digits are almost always mere stubs and are not under voluntary control as regular digits are. Sobers wouldn't have amputated them himself if they weren't getting in the way.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

Ahh. I'd give the bowling to Kallis purely on the grounds that he's maintained a good standard for so much longer. Sobers it seems had a period of real quality medium-paced bowling but for a much longer period was a sub-standard spinner.

It's a bit harsh to give Sobers fielding too, since Kallis has only ever really fielded as a specialist slipper- the most important of all field positions- and has done so absolutely flawlessly, but I see what you're getting at. No argument whatsoever with regards to batting, and as the difference there is greatest it's hard not to go with Sobers.

I voted for Kallis anyway, because i think he has a right to be spoken of in the same vein as Sobers is. It irritates me a touch when it's treated as a ridiculous non-comparison simply due to Sobers's reputation.

 

[Sanz]

I voted for Kallis anyway, because i think he has a right to be spoken of in the same vein as Sobers is. It irritates me a touch when it's treated as a ridiculous non-comparison simply due to Sobers's reputation.

So you also think that Sobers is better but still voted for Kallis because of the above ?

 

[honestbharani]

Not really gonna say much more..


We have seen what one of the few people who have seen both play had to say on the matter. And how much that man's opinion is respected here need not be said. Thanks for the piece about Sobers again, SJS... I don't think the averages and strike rates tell the whole story about how good Sobers really was with the ball and how much injustice the figures actually do to him and how stupid it is to NOT consider his role in the side... I feel Sobers is a league or wo ahead of Kallis as a batter, slightly better as a bowler (at least the same class, but gives more variety to me, if I am the captain) and the better fielder (Kallis is a great catcher but he was never the quickest running around)...


The result sounds about right, inspite of the pity votes for Kallis.

 

[Uppercut]

So you also think that Sobers is better but still voted for Kallis because of the above ?

Yep, and i made a post to that effect as soon as i voted.

 

[SJS]

Twenty years from now, I may be dead but you guys will be around so see how history treats them when both have become history.

Send me a note then

 

[Evermind]

Twenty years from now, I may be dead but you guys will be around so see how history treats them when both have become history.

Send me a note then

I have a feeling that 20 years from now, there'll be a guy who has a batting average of 60 and bowling average of 28, and guys on crickweb (the name of the game will have been shortened in 20 years) will all be talking about how Kallis was "so much better".

And I will be trying to convince the few who disagree that ah, I watched Kallis in his heydey, and he was like a god among men, swatting away the girly pies of the Australians. And people will rejoice, and be thoroughly convinced, because older is always better.

 

[archie mac]

I have a feeling that 20 years from now, there'll be a guy who has a batting average of 60 and bowling average of 28, and guys on crickweb (the name of the game will have been shortened in 20 years) will all be talking about how Kallis was "so much better".

And I will be trying to convince the few who disagree that ah, I watched Kallis in his heydey, and he was like a god among men, swatting away the girly pies of the Australians. And people will rejoice, and be thoroughly convinced, because older is always better.

No they won't, Kallis was never considered the best batsman of his generation.

Sutcliffe ave: more then Hobbs and Hammond but no one thinks him the better batsman because of contemporary opinion I would imagine

Same for Barrington and Sobers, or Barrington and G. Pollock

It happens again when comparing Viv and Javed

And it will happen again in twenty years when they mentioned Lara and Kallis

And hopefully someone who reads, but is only 19 will jump in and say neither were as good as Mr. Sobers

 

[zaremba]

Cricinfo nicks another article from a CW thread

Edit: apologies if this has already been posted. I cbf to go through this entire soul-sapping thread to find out whether it has or not.

 

[archie mac]

Cricinfo nicks another article from a CW thread

Edit: apologies if this has already been posted. I cbf to go through this entire soul-sapping thread to find out whether it has or not.

Yep someone has posted it

 

[zaremba]

I was waiting for you to say that!
There does seem to be a horrible symmetry about it

 

[Demon43]

Ahh. I'd give the bowling to Kallis purely on the grounds that he's maintained a good standard for so much longer. Sobers it seems had a period of real quality medium-paced bowling but for a much longer period was a sub-standard spinner.

It's a bit harsh to give Sobers fielding too, since Kallis has only ever really fielded as a specialist slipper- the most important of all field positions- and has done so absolutely flawlessly, but I see what you're getting at. No argument whatsoever with regards to batting, and as the difference there is greatest it's hard not to go with Sobers.

I voted for Kallis anyway, because i think he has a right to be spoken of in the same vein as Sobers is. It irritates me a touch when it's treated as a ridiculous non-comparison simply due to Sobers's reputation.

The thing that makes sobers so much better as far as bowling goes not only was he a world class pace bowler but he was also a world class left arm spinner which is what everyone seems to forget about

 

[Ikki]

The thing that makes sobers so much better as far as bowling goes not only was he a world class pace bowler but he was also a world class left arm spinner which is what everyone seems to forget about

LOL, that's what this whole thread about. People arguing that he wasn't such things. It's debatable that he was an average pace or spin bowler...not so much that he was world-class. Definitely not.

 

[Richard]

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.

Perhaps there have been times when he does. But there've also been times - not massively regular, no, but times nonetheless - where I've seen him rip batsmen apart by producing the RUDs. Kallis, every now and then, can be devastating.

Maybe, yes, Sobers between '62 and '68 (I think it's around about that time) was more so, however.

 

[Richard]

No they won't, Kallis was never considered the best batsman of his generation.

Kallis is irrefutably at worst almost as good as Ponting and others who've made hay since 2001/02.

Hopefully in time the 2001/02-onwards run-scoring boom might come to be viewed more carefully and less callously. Because it's the before-and-after that, not any nonsense about not being a dominator, which really shows Tendulkar, Lara, and Stephen Waugh to be so clearly superior to the likes of Kallis and Ponting.

 

[The Sean]

Question for you Rich - what in your mind would a Ponting/Kallis/Sanga have to achieve for you to consider them worthy of a placement alongside those champions of the 1990s? Or does your opinion on the relative ease of modern batting preclude them from ever attaining that stature, regardless of their runscoring exploits?

 

[Ikki]

Kallis is irrefutably at worst almost as good as Ponting and others who've made hay since 2001/02.

Hopefully in time the 2001/02-onwards run-scoring boom might come to be viewed more carefully and less callously. Because it's the before-and-after that, not any nonsense about not being a dominator, which really shows Tendulkar, Lara, and Stephen Waugh to be so clearly superior to the likes of Kallis and Ponting.

Which is why the likes of Tendulkar are averaging in the 40s (without minnows) for this decade?

I wonder what you'd have thought in the early 90s. When someone like Gooch struggled in the 80s then moved into his own in the 90s or Waugh who suddenly became a better batsman in that same fashion? Or look how easy it has become that even an 18 year old can compete

I wonder if we'd get the same reasoning: it's easier now, wasn't then, etc.

 

[Uppercut]

Kallis is irrefutably at worst almost as good as Ponting and others who've made hay since 2001/02.

Hopefully in time the 2001/02-onwards run-scoring boom might come to be viewed more carefully and less callously. Because it's the before-and-after that, not any nonsense about not being a dominator, which really shows Tendulkar, Lara, and Stephen Waugh to be so clearly superior to the likes of Kallis and Ponting.

Something I pointed out in another thread is where Kallis has been playing his cricket. If you look at the difficulty of batting in South Africa in the 2000s compared with the difficulty of batting anywhere in the 90s, the difference becomes a lot more negligible.

 

[Richard]

Question for you Rich - what in your mind would a Ponting/Kallis/Sanga have to achieve for you to consider them worthy of a placement alongside those champions of the 1990s? Or does your opinion on the relative ease of modern batting preclude them from ever attaining that stature, regardless of their runscoring exploits?

I've always said Sangakkara is worthy of placement close to the likes of Tendulkar, Lara and Waugh. And certainly ditto Dravid. Maybe in time Pietersen as well.

It's basically a case of what they do and what they don't. There's no blanket "everything from 2001/02 onwards was easier than before then". You just have to look very carefully.

I believe Sangakkara has (and Pietersen has the ability to) prove himself capable of widespread success in the toughest conditions, the way Ponting and Kallis have already proven themselves incapable of. And Dravid already, in the same timeframe, proved himself capable of.

 

[Richard]

Which is why the likes of Tendulkar are averaging in the 40s (without minnows) for this decade?

No, that's because Tendulkar declined in 2003.

I wonder what you'd have thought in the early 90s. When someone like Gooch struggled in the 80s then moved into his own in the 90s or Waugh who suddenly became a better batsman in that same fashion? Or look who easy it has become that even an 18 year old can compete

No, I'd have thought they got better, which they clearly did. Given that 1 batsman got better at 1 time, and another did 3 years later, rather than 5 or 6 batsmen supposedly getting better at the exact same time.

Gooch hardly struggled in the '80s BTW. Nor did Kallis or Ponting struggle up to August 2001.