Kallis Vs Sobers

[Ikki]

Aus during the past two decades had arguably the greatest spinner, fast bowler and wicket-keeper/bat of all time. They also had arguably the best batsman since Bradman and one of the great opening partnerships of all time. YET they were not so far away from their contemporaries that matches would be uncompetitive.

And neither was Bradman's - even with the players you named. However, in his personel task, he was so far ahead that he made the duel between bat and ball a non-contest. Only a freak like Bradman explains that difference.

You're essentially arguing everybody was poor considering what Bradman's side did to them yet fail to understand that if a team had a player like that, that is the likely outcome. If a bowler averages 10 and takes 8 wickets a match; of course he is going to make the stats of everybody else look like crap.

Bradman was so good that the next batsman averages some 40 runs less per dismissal than him. So of course everybody else is going to look like a minnow against him. It doesn't mean they were a minnow with comparison to everybody else. England were so good that they beat Aus, with Bradman, 11 times.

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

Since you've excluded every other team; you want to exclude England too? For the love of god/The Don...

 

[marc71178]

Kallis is a selfish ****. Nuff said

One of the key points here IMO.

A lot of people are criticising Sobers for always doing what the team needed in terms of bowling, yet nobody criticises Kallis for his various injuries and niggles that preventing him bowling when the team needed him on flat wickets where the going was tough, injuries that cleared up within a week when a green pitch and weak batting line up were in opposition.

 

[kingkallis]

Sobers played 93 games in the span of 20 years.
Kallis played 142 games in the span of 14 years.

Obviously Kallis have to keep himself from bowling on roads. He also played with the likes of Donald, de Villiers, Pollock, Ntini, McMillan, Steyn, Morkel where he was not that much needed. Kallis was mainly used as No.5 and his record for a 5th bowler is pretty awesome.

In the Sobers era they had only Wes Hall so Sobers had to do the job on regular basis.

 

[marc71178]

And that's meant to help the case for Kallis how exactly?

And how come he wasn't needed when the going was tough (and the other great bowlers weren't getting much success) yet when the weaker teams were playing he was needed, surely it'd be the other way round?

 

[Prince EWS]

And that's meant to help the case for Kallis how exactly?

And how come he wasn't needed when the going was tough (and the other great bowlers weren't getting much success) yet when the weaker teams were playing he was needed, surely it'd be the other way round?

Maybe because it's a exaggerated myth perpetuated by you and a handful of others hell-bent on dragging him down.

 

[Migara]

Aus during the past two decades had arguably the greatest spinner, fast bowler and wicket-keeper/bat of all time. They also had arguably the best batsman since Bradman and one of the great opening partnerships of all time. YET they were not so far away from their contemporaries that matches would be uncompetitive.

Exactly the reason. England was no where near to what SAF was to Australia during 00s. That was after having 11 superstars in the team, who are collectively got to 4 - 5 Bradmans. (Bradman averaged 89 against ENG, and that is like having only one extra batsman). The gap between WI-PAK in 80s and AUS-SAF in 2000s is much less than AUS and ENG in Bradman's time. I agree that Bradman would have been a factor, but equal factor was having 2 ATG spinners in Aussie ranks. How about having Murali and Warne in the same team?

And neither was Bradman's - even with the players you named. However, in his personel task, he was so far ahead that he made the duel between bat and ball a non-contest. Only a freak like Bradman explains that difference.

I wouldn't buy in to that theory. Bradman was so ahead of others because of lower quality of cricket played. Look at some old clips of the batsmen batting in that era, and it looks appalling. If Bradman and Sobers both played today, I'll still think Bradman will lead, but not by 42 runs in their averages. Probably one third of that.

You're essentially arguing everybody was poor considering what Bradman's side did to them yet fail to understand that if a team had a player like that, that is the likely outcome. If a bowler averages 10 and takes 8 wickets a match; of course he is going to make the stats of everybody else look like crap.

That's one theory. But the other way is also possible. Because of fanboyisms we cannot accept most of the reports. There's no way to know TBH.

Bradman was so good that the next batsman averages some 40 runs less per dismissal than him So of course everybody else is going to look like a minnow against him. It doesn't mean they were a minnow with comparison to everybody else. England were so good that they beat Aus, with Bradman, 11 times..

Some major chunk of it was due to a body-line and sticky wickets IMO. Your argument of due to Bradman >> Peers, Bradman >> Everyone else is flawed. First you have to prove with enough evidence that Bradman's peers were as good as the modern cricketers. This will take average out of the equation, so don't bring averages in to it. Until you prove that Hammond was as good as Ponting, I will not think that Bradman >> everybody else.



Since you've excluded every other team; you want to exclude England too? For the love of god/The Don...[/QUOTE]

 

[kingkallis]

And that's meant to help the case for Kallis how exactly?

And how come he wasn't needed when the going was tough (and the other great bowlers weren't getting much success) yet when the weaker teams were playing he was needed, surely it'd be the other way round?

He was not needed cause they already have GOOD quick bowlers. In the era of Sobers they had Hall and Ramadhin and Valentine.

Only Hall being the quick bowler gave Sobers a chance to bowl 93 deliveries to get a wicket

 

[Teja.]

Sobers being a more aggressive batsman is balanced by Kallis being by far the more aggressive bowler, IMHO.

 

[GotSpin]

I wouldn't buy in to that theory. Bradman was so ahead of others because of lower quality of cricket played. Look at some old clips of the batsmen batting in that era, and it looks appalling. If Bradman and Sobers both played today, I'll still think Bradman will lead, but not by 42 runs in their averages. Probably one third of that.

Don't mind differing opinions, because I know you enjoy a crusade against Bradman, but this is so wrong

Goughy wrote a good paragraph or two about this not too long ago (Can't be bothered digging it up), but it basically argued that batsmen in the past adjusted their technique in order to accommodate for lack of protective equipment and variable bounce by generally playing the ball much later and on the back foot - Explaining why the late cut was so popular. As such, criticising batsmen in that era for looking appalling completely ignores that they employed a technique which was best for the available conditions. Part of the reason why the argument for flat track bullies often falls flat on its face. The batsmen of that era had to find the best method to combat the conditions, and just because it doesn't suit your modern eye doesn't therefore imply it was of an appalling standard

 

[Ikki]

Exactly the reason. England was no where near to what SAF was to Australia during 00s. That was after having 11 superstars in the team, who are collectively got to 4 - 5 Bradmans. (Bradman averaged 89 against ENG, and that is like having only one extra batsman). The gap between WI-PAK in 80s and AUS-SAF in 2000s is much less than AUS and ENG in Bradman's time. I agree that Bradman would have been a factor, but equal factor was having 2 ATG spinners in Aussie ranks. How about having Murali and Warne in the same team?

Huh? You imply that it was because of the likes of O'Reilly, Grimmett and Miller that Aus were so ahead then when I mentioned a team full of those kinds of players who weren't as far ahead you are saying everybody else was so poor? No, the difference was Bradman was inordinately superior to everyone. He made a great team that was probably matched by England far greater because of his input.

It goes back to the argument that if Bradman was overrated; so was everybody else. Your argument is ridiculous; you are basically saying every team of the time was a minnow instead of just acknowledging that Bradman was simply far better than everybody else in his time.

I wouldn't buy in to that theory. Bradman was so ahead of others because of lower quality of cricket played. Look at some old clips of the batsmen batting in that era, and it looks appalling. If Bradman and Sobers both played today, I'll still think Bradman will lead, but not by 42 runs in their averages. Probably one third of that.

Again, if you want to imply that during Bradman's time cricket was poor; you have to essentially strip the likes of Hammond and Hutton of their all-time status because they were only half as effective as Bradman - whom you can't bring yourself to credit.

That's one theory. But the other way is also possible. Because of fanboyisms we cannot accept most of the reports. There's no way to know TBH.

Some major chunk of it was due to a body-line and sticky wickets IMO. Your argument of due to Bradman >> Peers, Bradman >> Everyone else is flawed. First you have to prove with enough evidence that Bradman's peers were as good as the modern cricketers. This will take average out of the equation, so don't bring averages in to it. Until you prove that Hammond was as good as Ponting, I will not think that Bradman >> everybody else.

LOL the only way you can definitively prove that Bradman's peers were comparable to today's cricketers is to build a time-machine. Other than that, there are stats and historical opinion. The likes of Hobbs and Hammond were seen as all-time greats (they averaged in the 50s); comparable with batsmen like Richards and Tendulkar - but Bradman was far greater than Hammond or any batsman of his era. Either Bradman is average and the likes of Hammond suck; or Bradman is superhuman and Hammond and co. are still greats.

Frankly, those with enough grey matter know and this is one topic there should be absolutely no debate on. Go to any serious cricket follower and say "Bradman wasn't that good; everybody else was just really crap...I saw so from videos" and you'll be laughed at.

---

I mean what a preposterous side argument. We go from gauging how strong the likes of NZ, Pak and Ind were during Sobers' time to someone arguing that all teams Bradman played sucked.

 

[Blaze 18]

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?

Because there is not much that has not been said already over the forty eight pages and seven hundred and thirty odd posts, and neither side will change their viewpoints in any case.


Like I have mentioned a number of times already on other threads, statistics can and will never tell the whole story. They can be used to favour virtually any argument. If you go through the last page you will see one dude making a seemingly convincing argument using numbers that Zimbabwe of Jacques Kallis' era are comparable to Pakistan and India of Gary Sobers' era. Then, you have another dude who again makes a point using numbers about how Sir Donald Bradman may also be called a minnow-basher. I don't agree with either of those points, but you can see how easy it is to use numbers to suit whatever or whoever you are arguing for.

Let us take another example, this match :

5th Match, Group C: India v South Africa at Gros Islet, May 2, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

If someone looks at the scorecard twenty years down the line, they may be led to believe that Jacques Kallis played a brilliant innings and the rest of the team screwed up; but was it the case ? At no point during South Africa's chase did they have a realistic possiblity of overhauling the target set by India. Jacques Kallis' strike rate and number of runs scored will not tell you that.

Numebrs will tell you that Steve Waugh and VVS Laxman are ordinary in clutch situations; is it true ? Numbers will tell you that Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Brian Lara had careers that more or less mirrored each other, but no-one in their right mind would mention the former in the same breath as the latter. Again, like I mentioned, an all-time great should have, in addition to all other criteria, that unquantifiable X-factor - something that cannot be expressed numerically, something that separates the all-time greats like Sir Gary Sobers, Brian Lara, Shane Warne, Malcom Marshall, Glenn McGrath, Muttiah Muralitharan, Imran Khan, Sir Viv Richards, Sir Richard Hadlee, Sachin Tendulkar, Wasim Akram, Curtly Ambrose, Alan Donald et al from the excellent players like Jacques Kallis, Rahul Dravid, Ricky Ponting, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Jason Gillespie, Inzamam-ul-Haq et al.

Of course, all of the above is just my opinion

 

[ankitj]

Again, like I mentioned, an all-time great should have, in addition to all other criteria, that unquantifiable X-factor - something that cannot be expressed numerically, something that separates the all-time greats like Sir Gary Sobers, Brian Lara, Shane Warne, Malcom Marshall, Glenn McGrath, Muttiah Muralitharan, Imran Khan, Sir Viv Richards, Sir Richard Hadlee, Sachin Tendulkar, Wasim Akram, Curtly Ambrose, Alan Donald et al from the excellent players like Jacques Kallis, Rahul Dravid, Ricky Ponting, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Jason Gillespie, Inzamam-ul-Haq et al.

That will ruffle some feathers

 

[akilana]

x factor is over-rated..

 

[91Jmay]

Can i also get an explanation of how Chanderpaul and Lara's careers mirror each other:
11,953 runs at 52.88
plays
9,001 runs at 49.18

nearly 4 runs better average is a considerable amount considering Lara also has 3k more runs.

 

[Blaze 18]

That will ruffle some feathers

Why ? Like I said, it is just my opinion and I can more than understand if there are people who disagree. No disrespect intended to any player.

 

[Blaze 18]

Can i also get an explanation of how Chanderpaul and Lara's careers mirror each other:
11,953 runs at 52.88
plays
9,001 runs at 49.18

nearly 4 runs better average is a considerable amount considering Lara also has 3k more runs.

Even ignoring the likehihood of Shivnarine Chanderpaul closing the gap in statistical terms by the time he hangs his boots, the statistics are still close. Okay fine, replace him with Jacques Kallis and my point still stands.

 

[akilana]

so S Waugh had x factor?

 

[MrIncredible]

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.

Did well against. Agaisnt Eng/Oz he averages 53 i think not below 50

 

[ankitj]

Did well against. Agaisnt Eng/Oz he averages 53 i think not below 50

Doesn't suit our agenda. So we adds NZ, the minnow that Sobers didn't do well against. May sound bizarre, but it's his fault that he did not play for Australia

 

[MrIncredible]

Because there is not much that has not been said already over the forty eight pages and seven hundred and thirty odd posts, and neither side will change their viewpoints in any case.


Like I have mentioned a number of times already on other threads, statistics can and will never tell the whole story. They can be used to favour virtually any argument. If you go through the last page you will see one dude making a seemingly convincing argument using numbers that Zimbabwe of Jacques Kallis' era are comparable to Pakistan and India of Gary Sobers' era. Then, you have another dude who again makes a point using numbers about how Sir Donald Bradman may also be called a minnow-basher. I don't agree with either of those points, but you can see how easy it is to use numbers to suit whatever or whoever you are arguing for.

Let us take another example, this match :

5th Match, Group C: India v South Africa at Gros Islet, May 2, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

If someone looks at the scorecard twenty years down the line, they may be led to believe that Jacques Kallis played a brilliant innings and the rest of the team screwed up; but was it the case ? At no point during South Africa's chase did they have a realistic possiblity of overhauling the target set by India. Jacques Kallis' strike rate and number of runs scored will not tell you that.

Numebrs will tell you that Steve Waugh and VVS Laxman are ordinary in clutch situations; is it true ? Numbers will tell you that Shivnarine Chanderpaul and Brian Lara had careers that more or less mirrored each other, but no-one in their right mind would mention the former in the same breath as the latter. Again, like I mentioned, an all-time great should have, in addition to all other criteria, that unquantifiable X-factor - something that cannot be expressed numerically, something that separates the all-time greats like Sir Gary Sobers, Brian Lara, Shane Warne, Malcom Marshall, Glenn McGrath, Muttiah Muralitharan, Imran Khan, Sir Viv Richards, Sir Richard Hadlee, Sachin Tendulkar, Wasim Akram, Curtly Ambrose, Alan Donald et al from the excellent players like Jacques Kallis, Rahul Dravid, Ricky Ponting, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Jason Gillespie, Inzamam-ul-Haq et al.

Of course, all of the above is just my opinion

Great point that. Im old enough to know about Sobers 700 runs + 20 wicket series in England vs a great English batting/bowlin lineup. Then u have his exploits for the 2 world Xi teams including first bouncing out Lillee then taking him to the cleaners for like 250 + at the fag end of his career. No disrespect to Kallis but he doesnt have ne performance to match this.

And after reading some of this Ikki persons posts in other threads i realise his agenda. Only OZ players can be considered unquestionably better than other similar players with similar stats.

PS point made by Migara is a valid point. Sir Garry was good to great vs the supposed two 'better' teams of his time, while he bashed the minnows. Bradman was great vs the one decent team of his time and bashed other teams (whose records were even more pathetic than the so called minnows of Sir Garry's time).