Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[bagapath]

It's possible that his relative slow scoring in comparison to his peers has contributed to the fact that he hasn't scored a double hundred;

fair enough, mate. I will leave it at that.

minus minnows this is what we have

St GS Sobers 93 8032 365* 57.78 26 235 6/73 34.03 6 109
JH Kallis 119 9281 186 51.56 27 220 6/54 33.96 3 135

Sobers is clearly ahead of Kallis as an all rounder any which way you look at it. I dont see any serious competition coming from kallis at all. Therefore I have no problem with the majority of the cricket fans not bothering to even discuss them on the same plane. On top of this is the way they played their cricket. Even if they had had similar stats Sobers' more exciting game would have given him the edge. as it stands, his superior stats put him ahead of Kallis on their own, but the style takes him to a much higher plane altogether.

That being said, on its own, Kallis' career has been a stellar one. Scoring 10000 runs, however slowly, and taking 200 wickets is an achievement worthy of an all time great postion. He is a top 30 batsman with the ability to take good wickets when given the ball. Sobers is an all time top 5 batsman who was also a handy bowler. Same type of cricketers but the difference in quality is very similar to the miller-cairns gap. no disrespect to any of the names here; but that is the way it is IMO

 

[bagapath]

That can't be a serious argument, surely. Boycott and Gavaskar both got double hundreds. They're certainly not fast scorers either.

yeah. they were actually slower than kallis. but cricket has changed. they could bat for several sessions in that fashion and earn the respect of the opponents whereas in these days of 3+ RR, a 45 minus SR is slower than a snail. If you think my reasoning is not serious, I hope you are able to think about it and give me your explanation about why he is not able to go past 200.

 

[Ikki]

yeah. they were actually slower than kallis. but cricket has changed. they could bat for several sessions in that fashion and earn the respect of the opponents whereas in these days of 3+ RR, a 45 minus SR is slower than a snail. If you think my reasoning is not serious, I hope you are able to think about it and give me your explanation about why he is not able to go past 200.

But if you think your explanation suffices, then surely it's less his fault and the fact that his era's playing style has changed. And if that is so, then credit cannot be given to the likes of Gavaskar, Boycott or many others.

Also, I am pretty sure Kallis is closer to the SR of his time than the aforementioned two were. Especially Boycott.

 

[Prince EWS]

On top of this is the way they played their cricket. Even if they had had similar stats Sobers' more exciting game would have given him the edge. his superior stats put him ahead of Kallis but the style takes him to a much higher plane altogether.

Haha, this is what I can't agree with at all. Even I rate Sobers as a better allrounder than Kallis as he was the better batsman and although Kallis was the better bowler, the difference between their batting was probably just that little bit greater. However, I don't see why style has to come into it; it's far too subjective. There's actually no-one I'd rather watch bat than Kallis - I just love the purity of his technique and the awesome consistency of his shot selection.. so does this give me the right to rate him above someone better than him as a batsman, like Sobers, based on my style preference? If you're effective, you're a good player. The more effective you are, the better you are. What people prefer watching is a completely different (not to mentionally totally subjective) discussion that really shouldn't have any effect on the rating of the cricketer.

 

[bagapath]

Haha, this is what I can't agree with at all. Even I rate Sobers as a better allrounder than Kallis as he was the better batsman and although Kallis was the better bowler, the difference between their batting was probably just that little bit greater. However, I don't see why style has to come into it; it's far too subjective. There's actually no-one I'd rather watch bat than Kallis - I just love the purity of his technique and the awesome consistency of his shot selection.. so does this give me the right to rate him above someone better than him as a batsman, like Sobers, based on my style preference? If you're effective, you're a good player. The more effective you are, the better you are. What people prefer watching is a completely different (not to mentionally totally subjective) discussion that really shouldn't have any effect on the rating of the cricketer.

Well, I would also prefer an effective Border to a stylish Gower. But everyone would prefer a stylish and more effective Greg Chappell to a boring but less effective Boycott. I have made it clear in my post that Sobers is ahead of Kallis on substance alone. When you add style to it, there is no comparison. This whole argument was started because someone wondered why Kallis doesnt get the same respect as Sobers. The point I am making here is he will never get it. For that he should have equally solid numbers. Even if he had lagged behind minutely, had he been more attractive and more exciting as a player he would have given Sobers a closer competition. Like Pietersen being better than Dravid for instance. But Kallis not only lags behind statistically but also in terms of entertainment value.

 

[bagapath]

But if you think your explanation suffices, then surely it's less his fault and the fact that his era's playing style has changed.

then he probably doesnt belong in this era. if you think he is not that slow, then what do you think is going on here?

 

[honestbharani]

It was just the best example. I could just as easily have used this match, where he hit 177 before getting out. I don't believe his failure to add 23 more runs to a team total of 658/9d detracts from his position as a player whatsoever. But in your mind, those 23 irrelevant runs he didn't get are a blight on Kallis's career.

You do understand that by double century we don't strictly mean scoring exactly 200, right???


It can be 250s or 280s too, for that matter... And if you say scoring 177 instead of 200 is ok, then so is scoring 77 instead of a 100 and scoring 27 instead of a 50... And you are talking about isolated instances when the rest of the batters did well too... When the rest of the batters are doing well, even scoring a 100 is enough instead of 170.. But that is not the point. He has had 130 tests to score a double century from whatever situation.. But he has failed every time..


It is not THOSE 23 runs that are a blur.. It is the fact that in 130 tests, he could not even once get a score of 200 that is the blur.. But you are juz failing to grasp the context...

 

[Prince EWS]

Well, I would also prefer an effective Border to a stylish Gower. But everyone would prefer a stylish and more effective Greg Chappell to a boring but less effective Boycott. I have made it clear in my post that Sobers is ahead of Kallis on substance alone. When you add style to it, there is no comparison..

I actually agree that Sobers is ahead of Kallis on substance alone - I said that alraedy - but I don't think style should be added to it at all as it's completely subjective and irrelevant to a player's effectiveness. My gripe isn't with the assertion that Sobers > Kallis, but that style is in some way relevant to why that is the case. I actually prefer Kallis's style to Sobers but it doesn't blind me to the fact that Sobers was better; I don't see why style is brought into any debate about who is better, ever.

But Kallis not only lags behind statistically but also in terms of entertainment value.

Entertainment value is completely irrelevant to quality.

 

[bagapath]

I don't see why style is brought into any debate about who is better, ever.

I am not bringing it in to decide who is better. Sobers is better. I am bringing it in to seal the case that not only is Sobers better, Kallis doesnt even deserve a comparison with him.

Viv Richards or Gavaskar? Tougher, much closer argument. Gavaskar played some great fast bowlers Richards never had to face. Averaged more than him. Scored more runs, centuries. But Richards is still greater because he scored faster and his playing style was more entertaining. Even in cases such as this where Gavaskar is statistically superior, the playing style takes Richards ahead of him.

In case of Sobers and Kallis, Sobers is well ahead of Kallis in terms of career records alone. Add the playing style to it, Kallis is quickly relegated to the reserves.

 

[honestbharani]

Even though this is very, very debatable, I'll just pretend it's true for a minute and say.. so what? The ability to convert scores of 150 to 200 is pretty useless in the grand scheme of things. I'd much have a batsman who scored 110 and 90 than 200 and 0, actually, and that's what we're talking about as despite not adding cheap runs to his tally when he's on 120 odd, he still stacks up with the best in terms of how many runs he scores and what he averages - he catches up in other areas.



The difference here is that scores of 120, 130 etc are already "big scores" - he's not failing to convert, because he already has. Fifties from top order batsmen can be inconsequential which is why Fleming was criticised so much early in his career, but scores of 120, 140 etc are exactly what you want from the members of your top order. Not going on to 200 means **** all, particularly if you still manage to score as many on average as those who do as it shows you're scoring more in other areas - either getting to 50 or 100 more often in the first place to make up for it.

depends... If the 200 helps you set up 500 in the first dig and the 110 means you get bowled out for 350, then the second dig figures become pretty irrelevant.


Here is the scenario:


You score 200, team scores 500, neeeds 120 to win in fouth dig, you get out for 0, but match is still won.


The other one:

You score 110. Team scores 320. Ends up needing 400 in last dig. You score 90. Team still loses.



Who do you prefer to be?


I understand how hypothetical my point but that is the fact. Cricket is a very unique game where every single knock cannot be classified to be of the same type.. You are only looking at numbers and averages... Not at how they contribute to wins and defeats. As I said earlier, cricket is played on a computer sim based on the numbers you have got. The numbers indicate what you have done till that point, NOT what you are going to do. It is a guide, it is not the be-all and end-all. And assuming that a guy who averages 35 with 10 doubles is a worse player than a guy who averages 35 with 0 doubles is as silly as it gets.


Given the number of flat tracks and stuff around, it is safe to assume that when you go past 100 you are set and in control and if you still cannot push on and cash in to make a really big score, helping your team reach a huge score as well, then you ARE doing your team a disservice wasting your good form...

 

[Prince EWS]

I am not bringing it in to decide who is better. Sobers is better. I am bringing it in to seal the case that not only is Sobers better, Kallis doesnt even deserve a comparison with him.

Style shouldn't factor a mention.

But Richards is still greater because he scored faster and his playing style was more entertaining. Even in cases such as this where Gavaskar is statistically superior, the playing style takes Richards ahead of him.

I couldn't disagree more. "Playing style" is not relevant to quality; if someone is more effective, they are better.

Add the playing style to it

This should not be a factor.



That's my argument. You keep debating things I don't actually disagree with, like that Sobers was better Kallis. What I disagree with is that:

• Sobers is on a completely different plane to Kallis
• Kallis not scoring a double hundred is in some way relevant to his effectiveness as a batsman.

and most of all..

• "Playing style" or "entertainment value" is relevant to player quality.

You don't need to reply again telling me that Sobers was better than Kallis on substance alone, because I agree with that. My issue is with the assertion that playing style is, or should be, a contributing factor to a player's (any player, not just Sobers or Kallis) overall rating. It's far too subjective a thing to factor in given people have different tastes (myself being the ultimate example) not to mention the fact that it's actually completely irrelevant to a player's effectiveness anyway.

 

[honestbharani]

I just flat out disagree. I don't see it as an issue. It's something I have great trouble comprehending actually - people really seem to want to over-romanticise their rating of the greats by incorporating all sorts of strange criteria like how many crowd members ooed-and-arred when they played a certain shot, how many books people wrote about them, how entertaining they were in general or indeed, how many times they crossed an inconsequential landmark. How good a cricketer someone is really shouldn't be determined by any of that - it should be determined purely by how effective they were when they played. The difference between getting out for 177 or going on to make 260 on a flat pitch in a game destined for either a draw or a comfortable victory means much less than the ability to score regular hundreds.

Kallis wouldn't be deemed any more effective in my book had he converted that 177 against England into a score of 201. It's a big score regardless. Sobers himself only did it twice - once in a team score of almost 800/3 and once in a draw in which only only 18 wickets were taken in the entire match. They may have enhanced his star quality more than if he'd fallen for 177 but they didn't prove him to be any more effective than he would have been without them - and that's what batsmen and indeed all players should be rated by. I should make it clear here that, like Uppercut, I rate Sobers a better batsman than Kallis, but this particular criticism of him (no double tons) really grinds my gears.. not because it's not true, because it clearly is, but because it's completely irrelevant to anything.

Depends on context my friend. Lara could score double centuries when his team only scored 360... Can Kallis do the same?



You are right that it doesn't matter when comparing clearly inferior batsmen but between batsmen of comparable averages, the SR and big scores DO matter... You watch the game over a period of time and you can understand why the bigger scores mean something.. But I do agree that 150 can be considered a big enough score and that 200 is a bit less relevant than perhaps 150... Coz generally a par value for a good total on most pitches is 450, IMHO. And if one guy can get 150+ it means, you are generally setting up a 450 score even if half of the others play well...

 

[bagapath]

You don't need to reply again telling me that Sobers was better than Kallis on substance alone, because I agree with that.

When you compare two equally effective players, the more aggressive and entertaining player does get my vote (Pietersen Vs Dravid; Greenidge Vs Boycott). When a player is clearly ahead of the other in terms of substance, and he is also more entertaining and stylish I dont care to compare the inferior player with him at all. (Sobers Vs Kallis, Richards Vs Boycott, Warne Vs Kumble)

 

[Prince EWS]

When you compare two equally effective players, the more aggressive and entertaining player does get my vote (Pietersen Vs Dravid; Greenidge Vs Boycott). When a player is clearly ahead of the other in terms of substance, and he is also more entertaining and stylish I dont care to compare the inferior player with him at all. (Sobers Vs Kallis, Richards Vs Boycott, Warne Vs Kumble)

Yeah, and this attitude is what I disagree with so vigorously. When you compare two equally effective players, they are equal. Sobers was indeed better than Kallis, but it's actually pretty damn close - Sobers was the better batsman but Kallis is the better bowler of the two. I think the difference in their batting overshadows the difference in their bowling but I certainly think they're worth comparing. Strike rate, aggression, double hundreds and how many people liked watching them are all completely irrelevant to me.

 

[NUFAN]

HB and Bagapath..

Did you consider Sachin Tendulkar an all time great after playing 70 Tests??SRT's career up until 28 October 1999

 

[Ikki]

then he probably doesnt belong in this era. if you think he is not that slow, then what do you think is going on here?

It certainly isn't skill because he is more skilled than many who have scored double-centuries and is one of the best batsmen of his era. It isn't because of speed because he is fast enough and I think it's a stretch to say that he doesn't have the temperament. Scoring 200 you'll need a few circumstantial factors on your side and I think he has been unlucky with those. It is strange how a batsman of his class doesn't have one but I am not sure it'd really demean his batting record much, if at all.

 

[bagapath]

HB and Bagapath..

Did you consider Sachin Tendulkar an all time great after playing 70 Tests??SRT's career up until 28 October 1999

not having a double hundred up to that point was certainly a hole on his CV. I remember celebrating in kashmir the day his double century happened. imagine sachin playing for 130 tests and finishing with a highest score of 177 and still claiming greatness!!!!

to answer your question straight, I started considering sachin a top 10 all time great test player after the 99-00 series against australia. before that he was in my top 30. an all time great, yes, but not higher than top 30 ( the same status I am giving kallis now) and it was also because of other factors, like scoring in australia against warne and mcgrath and not just the lack of double century. though it would suit my argument, i dont want to lie.

those who prefer lara to sachin cite several reasons for that choice including lara's bigger hundreds, world record scores, quicker scoring and more stylish batting. all are valid reasons, in my opinion. in fact even i might choose lara to sachin by a milli meter for those same reasons. but luckily sachin is also exciting to watch, has piled up a lot of big scores on his own, has shown more consistency than lara and also been an aggressive batsman who could lead his team's batting attack. so this comparison has been a very valid one.

had sachin averaged 6 runs less than lara against big teams (he averages one run less) and been slower by 20% and not had even one double hundred to his name, I am sure lara's position as the greatest batsman of the last 20 years would have remained unchallenged. even the no.2 spot would have gone to ponting easily and had sachin really been so boring a batsman, he would have been left far far behind them. that is why i think kallis doesnt deserve a comparison with sobers.

 

[bagapath]

Scoring 200 you'll need a few circumstantial factors on your side and I think he has been unlucky with those.

you dont have a reason. it is just that you want to deny my point that he is slow. well, ikki. that is not enough for me. you can be unlucky for a few tests. not for 130. the fault lies with him.

if he manages to score to a double at any point, it would be an out-of-character innings. his playing method had not been good enough in 13 years. dont see him succeeding on this front without changing it.

on a much lower plane of class, srinath used to be called unlucky for not getting enough five-fers. the fact is he was bowling a yard short all his life. had he learned to pitch it up he would have benefited more from the swing and the discomfort he would have created for the batsman from a good length. he was not unlucky, he had issues that needed to be resolved. (i have said this is on a much lower plane. so dont accuse me of comparing srinath with kallis.) similarly kallis needs to improve his scoring rate. this is not good enough.

 

[Prince EWS]

200s are not comparable with 5fas though. Hundreds are comparable with 5fas - Kallis has plenty of those...

 

[bagapath]

Sobers was the better batsman but Kallis is the better bowler of the two.

Sobers took 2.5 wickets per test; Kallis, not even 2. Even though Kallis had a superior strike rate, his average is better only by 0.07 runs. Had Kallis had a significantly better average or got more wickets per test or more five-fers (he took only 3 compared to 6 by sobers despite playing in 27 extra tests) then he would have been clearly a better bowler. he did not. so he is not. i would, at max, have them ranked equal as bowlers. there is no reason i want to rank kallis ahead of sobers so easily. I would be equally non-decisive if someone calls Sobers the better bowler of the two. there is no clear cut case here unlike in that of their batting skills.