Kallis Vs Sobers

[Flem274*]

Would be interesting to see someone play Devil's Advocate and argue Bradman was a minnow bashed because he only played one decent side.

 

[GotSpin]

Would be interesting to see someone play Devil's Advocate and argue Bradman was a minnow bashed because he only played one decent side.

That's your first problem. England weren't just decent

 

[Flem274*]

That's your first problem. England weren't just decent

Taking things literally ftl.

Would be interesting to see someone argue he was a minnow basher because he only played one very good side.

Happy?

 

[Migara]

Would be interesting to see someone play Devil's Advocate and argue Bradman was a minnow bashed because he only played one decent side.

Don't you think that it already has begun?

 

[Ikki]

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.

Again, you're missing the point.

No one is saying India and Pakistan were poor because Sobers averaged in the 80s against them. I am saying Sobers averaged so high because they were poor. How else do we know they were poor? They won very few matches in the 20 years Sobers played, against the best teams, and their bowling and batting stats suggest they were a way off of being competitive.

You're suggesting that I am dismissing a team merely because a player scored highly against them. Not so.

 

[Flem274*]

To those who say it's Sobers by light years then leave the thread, I raise you this: If it is so clear cut and you are extremely confident in your opinion, why the insecurity and reluctance to argue your convictions?

Note: I know some people have laid out their reasons why they think Sobers and it was an interesting read.

 

[GotSpin]

Taking things literally ftl.

Would be interesting to see someone argue he was a minnow basher because he only played one very good side.

Happy?

Yeah it might be pedantic but it's a very important point that often gets overlooked - England were the best team at the time, and Australia only managed to even the equation because of Bradman.

By suggesting England were only a decent side, even by sheer wording, belittles the achievements of Bradman

 

[Migara]

Again, you're missing the point.

No one is saying India and Pakistan were poor because Sobers averaged in the 80s against them. I am saying Sobers averaged so high because they were poor. How else do we know they were poor? They won very few matches in the 20 years Sobers played, against the best teams, and their bowling and batting stats suggest they were a way off of being competitive.

No, YOU are missing the point. bradman averaged 150+ against IND and SAF because they were piss poor. They won very few matches (actually next to nothing) in the years that Bradman played. Their bowling and batting averages also shows that they wre way off being competitive. If Sobers is a minnow basher, so is Bradman, and a bigger one at that.

 

[GotSpin]

To those who say it's Sobers by light years then leave the thread, I raise you this: If it is so clear cut and you are extremely confident in your opinion, why the insecurity and reluctance to argue your convictions?

Note: I know some people have laid out their reasons why they think Sobers and it was an interesting read.

Kallis is a selfish ****. Nuff said

 

[Ikki]

No, YOU are missing the point. bradman averaged 150+ against IND and SAF because they were piss poor. They won very few matches (actually next to nothing) in the years that Bradman played. Their bowling and batting averages also shows that they wre way off being competitive. If Sobers is a minnow basher, so is Bradman, and a bigger one at that.

It doesn't matter an iota. Remove all the teams bar England - a team as strong as Bradman's - and Bradman's career average is ~90. It still makes him by far the greatest batsman of all time. Remove the minnows that Sobers did well against and his overall average drops below 50. See what I mean by missing the point?

Even in the examples you mentioned you're off. Which of those players, both home and away, shellacked the opposition to such a high average for 37 tests (or near) and for over 20 years? None of them.

 

[Migara]

It doesn't matter an iota. Remove all the teams bar England - a team as strong as Bradman's - and Bradman's career average is ~90. It still makes him by far the greatest batsman of all time. Remove the minnows that Sobers did well against and his overall average drops below 50.

See what I mean by missing the point? Even in the examples you mentioned you're off. Which of those players, both home and away, shellacked the opposition to such a high average for 37 tests (or near) and for over 20 years? None of them.

Not still not. Remove all decent sides from Sehwag's stats and put Pakistan and Sri Lanka together. you'll get a Bradman. Get Boycott against Pakistan (84) or Miandad against NZ (over 17 years averages 80), and you'll have a Bradman. Your point has no merit. There are PLENTY of batsmen who have shellacked a single test class opposition but did less well against others. Bradman did well ONLY against one decent side and bashed the minnows, if you consider that Sobers ONLY played against three proper teams.

 

[Ikki]

Not still not. Remove all decent sides from Sehwag's stats and put Pakistan and Sri Lanka together. you'll get a Bradman. Get Boycott against Pakistan (84) or Miandad against NZ (over 17 years averages 80), and you'll have a Bradman. Your point has no merit. There are PLENTY of batsmen who have shellacked a single test class opposition but did less well against others. Bradman did well ONLY against one decent side and bashed the minnows, if you consider that Sobers ONLY played against three proper teams.

You're still not getting it. England were the best team of Bradman's era (apart from his own). Neither Pakistan nor Sri Lanka were the best teams of Sehwag's era. They are merely decent test sides that he has a good record against. Why remove decent sides? You were saying everybody bar England was a minnow for Bradman...so what are you talking about?

Furthermore, even in terms of minnows played; no one comes close to what The Don averaged against them.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...8;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

Whilst Sobers is just one of many, and not even the best.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Athlai]

Sample size is important there. Barrington though only guy you could say is certainly ahead.

 

[Ikki]

Sample size is important there. Barrington though only guy you could say is certainly ahead.

Barrington, Dexter are superior to him with large samples there. Borde, Umrigar, Manjrekar, Pullar near him with sizeable samples too; you could also add Davis, Weekes, Chappell.... come on. Sobers is not really doing anything superlative that others aren't getting close to with decent sample sizes.

I think the point is made. It's one thing to smash minnows; it's another thing to smash them like no one else could dream of smashing them.

 

[fredfertang]

In Tests against England alone Bradman averaged 89

In the same era against Australia alone Eddie Paynter averaged 84

Statistics are a very useful measure of a player's worth but in isolation they need to be approached with a great deal of caution

 

[Migara]

You're still not getting it. England were the best team of Bradman's era (apart from his own). Neither Pakistan nor Sri Lanka were the best teams of Sehwag's era. They are merely decent test sides that he has a good record against. Why remove decent sides? You were saying everybody bar England was a minnow for Bradman...so what are you talking about?

Wrong. England was not the best team of his era and there was a huge gap between W/L ratio of Aus vs Eng. You have no evidence to say that second team of this era was as good as ENG of Bradman's era. They was second because there were no competitors FFS!. If IND, PAK, BAN and ZIM are all the teams that Sehwag plays, PAK is automatically the best team he plays. First prove me that ENG of Bradman's era was as good as PAK of 80s or as good as SAF of 2000s. Then I'll give you the win.

Furthermore, even in terms of minnows played; no one comes close to what The Don averaged against them.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Whilst Sobers is just one of many, and not even the best.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Still there are plenty of blokes who average 90+ against minnows. Bradman was good because he knew how to bash the minnows than others.

 

[Ikki]

Wrong. England was not the best team of his era and there was a huge gap between W/L ratio of Aus vs Eng. You have no evidence to say that second team of this era was as good as ENG of Bradman's era. They was second because there were no competitors FFS!. If IND, PAK, BAN and ZIM are all the teams that Sehwag plays, PAK is automatically the best team he plays. First prove me that ENG of Bradman's era was as good as PAK of 80s or as good as SAF of 2000s. Then I'll give you the win.

Still there are plenty of blokes who average 90+ against minnows. Bradman was good because he knew how to bash the minnows than others.

The difference between the sides was Bradman. Not anything else. And as aforesaid. Bradman won 17 tests and lost 11 against England - that should show how good they were.

You are essentially saying everybody was a minnow but Australia. Get your head out of it mate, you're lost.

 

[Ikki]

In Tests against England alone Bradman averaged 89

In the same era against Australia alone Eddie Paynter averaged 84

Statistics are a very useful measure of a player's worth but in isolation they need to be approached with a great deal of caution

Sure, that's why you use more than one stat. Paynter played 7 tests in a span of 6-7 years against Aus. Bradman played 37 tests against England over a 20 year span.

Otherwise, you may just cite Ganteaume's batting average.

 

[Migara]

The difference between the sides was Bradman. Not anything else. And as aforesaid. Bradman won 17 tests and lost 11 against England - that should show how good they were.

You are essentially saying everybody was a minnow but Australia. Get your head out of it mate, you're lost.

That you have plainly hypothesised, that the difference was Bradman. And you have just omitted Grimmet and O'Reilly from the equation too. Then what about your most all rounded all rounder too? This is just becoming ridiculous FFS.

 

[Migara]

Sure, that's why you use more than one stat. Paynter played 7 tests in a span of 6-7 years against Aus. Bradman played 37 tests against England over a 20 year span.

Otherwise, you may just cite Ganteaume's batting average.

But it is only England. The sample size of the side is too small.