Kallis Vs Sobers

[Jarquis]

Cribb to post standardised averages..

 

[MrIncredible]

I recall earlier in this thread where I compared the minnows in their times and India/NZ/Pak weren't much better - if at all actually - than Zimbabwe.

Oh it was u. If memory serves me correctly (Im closing in on 40 + years) Pakistan beat every team during Sobers era in atleast one test (similar for India)

NZ were woeful so Sobers actually benefits from excluding them and Sobers was great/very good vs the other 2 teams of his time.

Last but not least Sobers played ten world Xi test match series (considered tests at the time) an certainly distiguished himself. Dont believe e ask Keith Miller, Lillee, Ian Chappell. Actually i dont have to ask ive seen both cricketers live and Sobers is definitely ahead.

 

[Ikki]

I am looking for some of the posts I made regarding this; here's one.

Pakistan during Sobers' career were about the same as India. The same with New Zealand.

Zimbabwe also beat Pakistan and India in series in the late 90s. Unfortunately, people have poor memories.

Back in those days also there were much more draws. For example, India beat WIndies at home (in Sobers last series against them) but how did they win? They drew 3 tests and snuck one...thanks to the awesome Gavaskar who averaged 155 in his debut series.

During that time (the ~20 years Sobers played) Pakistan, India and New Zealand really only have much success against each other. Against Australia, England and WIndies it was about as limited as Zimbabwe in the 90s... a win here or there.

In Sobers' 20 year career:

Pakistan:
West Indies: 3 wins
England: 1 win
Australia: 1 win

New Zealand:
S.Africa: 2 wins
West Indies: 2 wins
Australia: 1 win

India:
England: 5 wins
Australia: 3 wins
West Indies: 1 win

Which could be a bit misleading as Gavaskar debuts and turns India into another team (Sobers only faced Gavaskar for one series) They won half as much without Gavaskar in the 17 years prior.

Zimbabwe:
Pakistan: 2 wins
India: 2 wins

You should also know that Zimbabwe only started playing Tests in 92 and stopped in 2006 - which is actually less time than the above teams (20 years); 6 years less.

Or how about this telling stat:

New Zealand in the 90s:
India: 2 wins
Australia: 2 wins
West Indies: 2 wins
Pakistan: 2 wins
England 2 wins
S.Africa 1 win

When you think of NZ in the 90s, they weren't a strong team...yet they have a better record comparatively than the teams in question.

I am sure I also made a comparison between their batting and bowling averages and them being similar too.

 

[Ikki]

Oh it was u. If memory serves me correctly (Im closing in on 40 + years) Pakistan beat every team during Sobers era in atleast one test (similar for India)

NZ were woeful so Sobers actually benefits from excluding them and Sobers was great/very good vs the other 2 teams of his time.

Last but not least Sobers played ten world Xi test match series (considered tests at the time) an certainly distiguished himself. Dont believe e ask Keith Miller, Lillee, Ian Chappell. Actually i dont have to ask ive seen both cricketers live and Sobers is definitely ahead.

Sobers is probably the greatest #6 of all time and one of the greatest batsmen of all time. However, his average probably does flatter him. I say this because Marc has mentioned that Kallis' average flatters him because of the minnows. Both have some easy-kills but they are both all time great bats.

Personally, I think this poll gives too much respect to the Sobers legend and it should probably be much more close than it appears here.

 

[MrIncredible]

Thats ur opinion and ur entitled to it but most of the crcketing world thinks otherwise.

Same applies to many other great players.

I dont need to tell u what most of the world thinks of players like Warne and Viv but there r many players who r there about stats wise but if u post a poll they'd win unanimously against most players who have similar skills.

Hope i make sense

 

[MrIncredible]

I am looking for some of the posts I made regarding this; here's one.



I am sure I also made a comparison between their batting and bowling averages and them being similar too.

Foot in mouth dere bro. Neither Zim nor Bang had a win against ne top team (Bang has yet to win a test at all). India and Pakistan?? Really? Pakistan like i said beat every team of their time. Same applies to India. Admit NZ were woeful but excluding them actually helps Sobers and lastly Sobers was good/great vs the established teams

 

[smash84]

Personally, I think this poll gives too much respect to the Sobers legend and it should probably be much more close than it appears here.

Ikki you have to be one of the most difficult people to debate against on this forum. As much as I might disagree with your points so many times but I do have to admire your ability to argue well.

What is your profession by the way??? I think you might make yourself a fortune by becoming a lawyer.

I dont need to tell u what most of the world thinks of players like Warne and Viv but there r many players who r there about stats wise but if u post a poll they'd win unanimously against most players who have similar skills.

Hope i make sense

You mean against players of similar averages????

Interesting point and carries some good weight IMO.

 

[Ikki]

In 20 years Pak had 1 win against Aus, 1 against Eng and 3 against WIndies. Whether they had a win against each doesn't matter since NZ and Pak were just as bad as they were. The notable wins are the aforementioned.

Zimbabwe in only 14 years had 2 wins against Pak and India each. Pak were very good in the 90s and the India they beat were pretty good. Certainly not much in it between NZ, Pak & Ind of Sobers' time and Zim of Kallis'.

So if we are dismissing weak teams; let's do so for both eras. There's no point fretting on Kallis having his way against poor teams when Sobers' engorged himself against Pak and Ind. Worse; Sobers was poor against NZ. Also, I think this is a good point:

New Zealand in the 90s:
India: 2 wins
Australia: 2 wins
West Indies: 2 wins
Pakistan: 2 wins
England 2 wins
S.Africa 1 win

When you think of NZ in the 90s, they weren't a strong team...yet they have a better record comparatively than the teams in question.

If you only count the top sides Sobers' faced; his average is 53 IIRC. If you include his poor record against NZ; it is actually under 50 IIRC. Again, IMO, the averages of both men flatter them.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki you have to be one of the most difficult people to debate against on this forum. As much as I might disagree with your points so many times but I do have to admire your ability to argue well.

What is your profession by the way??? I think you might make yourself a fortune by becoming a lawyer.

Well, let's hope so as I am a Law student.

 

[smash84]

Well, let's hope so as I am a Law student.

lol.......I should have known......and you have found a good way to practice law outside the court and the classroom (i.e. debating against hapless forum goers)

 

[MrIncredible]

In 20 years Pak had 1 win against Aus, 1 against Eng and 3 against WIndies. Whether they had a win against each doesn't matter since NZ and Pak were just as bad as they were. The notable wins are the aforementioned.

Zimbabwe in only 14 years had 2 wins against Pak and India each. Pak were very good in the 90s and the India they beat were pretty good. Certainly not much in it between NZ, Pak & Ind of Sobers' time and Zim of Kallis'.

So if we are dismissing weak teams; let's do so for both eras. There's no point fretting on Kallis having his way against poor teams when Sobers' engorged himself against Pak and Ind. Worse; Sobers was poor against NZ. Also, I think this is a good point:



If you only count the top sides Sobers' faced; his average is 53 IIRC. If you include his poor record against NZ; it is actually under 50 IIRC. Again, IMO, the averages of both men flatter them.

And Bangladesh?

 

[honestbharani]

Well, let's hope so as I am a Law student.

And I hope all your clients are Aussies as well..

 

[vcs]

And I hope all your clients are Aussies as well..

Well played.

 

[Xuhaib]

TBF, Sobers also had India, Pakistan and NZ who were clearly weak opponents for much of his career. In his era, it was basically two different tiers: Aus, Eng and WI in one and NZ, Pak and Ind in another.

Pakistan had two fast bowlers who averaged under 25 in test cricket during sobers time so he surely not minnow bashing over there.

 

[Migara]

I recall earlier in this thread where I compared the minnows in their times and India/NZ/Pak weren't much better - if at all actually - than Zimbabwe.

So what? Brad man played against a test quality Eng and second tier as well. Averaging 85 against a single opponet is not a big deal. Many great batsmen can do it. If you use the same argument Bradman also becomes a super minnow basher. Sorry Ikki, like most of the time your arguments just open a can of ****.

 

[Ikki]

And Bangladesh?

No argument with them. Clearly the worst team of the lot.

So what? Brad man played against a test quality Eng and second tier as well. Averaging 85 against a single opponet is not a big deal. Many great batsmen can do it. If you use the same argument Bradman also becomes a super minnow basher. Sorry Ikki, like most of the time your arguments just open a can of ****.

Averaging in the 80s against two teams that win very little against the best and have poor ratios is different to averaging in the 80s against a team almost as good as yours. If you, by yourself, as Bradman may have done, can make it so your team is in another tier of quality then that is only to your credit. Although, that's not what happened as Bradman won 17 tests vs England and lost 11 - showing that they were clearly on the same 'tier'.

Unfortunately, like a lot of the time, you're missing the point.

And I hope all your clients are Aussies as well..

I didn't know Kallis was Australian.

 

[honestbharani]

No argument with them. Clearly the worst team of the lot.



Averaging in the 80s against two teams that win very little against the best and have poor ratios is different to averaging in the 80s against a team almost as good as yours. If you, by yourself, as Bradman did, can make it so your team is in another tier of quality then that is only to your credit. Although, that's not what happened as Bradman won 17 tests vs England and lost 11.

Unfortunately, like a lot of the time, you're missing the point.



I didn't know Kallis was Australian.

lol, Ikki.. don be mad.. U know I am juz ribbin' ya..

 

[Blaze 18]

I am actually surprised that twenty six people have voted for Jacques Kallis. To be honest, I do not think Jacques Kallis even merits comparison with Sir Gary Sobers, who is arguably the greatest cricketer of all-time; but that is just my opinion.

 

[Ikki]

Sigh.

 

[Migara]

Averaging in the 80s against two teams that win very little against the best and have poor ratios is different to averaging in the 80s against a team almost as good as yours. If you, by yourself, as Bradman may have done, can make it so your team is in another tier of quality then that is only to your credit. Although, that's not what happened as Bradman won 17 tests vs England and lost 11 - showing that they were clearly on the same 'tier'. Unfortunately, like a lot of the time, you're missing the point.

Once again pathetic. There are batsmen who average 75+ against test quality sides. Ex. Sehwag averages 91 against Pakistan, Mahela Jayawardane averages 70 against SAF, 67.5 gainst IND, Headly 71 & Dempster 88 against ENG, and the list goes on. WI, SAF, IND in Bradman's era was as appalling as NZ, IND and PAK of Sobers era. Guess what, Sobers played three quality sides where Bradman played only one of them. As I have shown earlier there are PLENTY of batsmen who has averaged heaps against a single test quality side.

Either Bradman should be a minnow basher because he only played a one good side, and Sobers too. Or otherwise Sobers and Bradman both played test quality sides with possibility of one minnow. You cannot have it both ways.