Kallis Vs Sobers

[MrIncredible]

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

Ok so ur including NZ the so called minnow but excluding the 2 other so called minnows (who were both better than NZ)?? And that makes sense??!!

 

[morgieb]

Maintain that Sobers is the better cricketer, but the gap isn't as large as most people think. If people use flat pitches to downgrade Kallis batting (and ftr, the gap between Sobers and Kallis batting > their batting), why don't they use the same with Sobers as he bowled in an easier time.

 

[MrIncredible]

I think Sobers is better. By how much is personal opinion.. I think its big enough. I dont think this pole is misleading at all. If ne thing it reflects what most of the world thinks.

Try polling Sachin vs ne decent batsman (ex Ponting, Dravid etc) I guarantee u he'll get at least 66% of the votes. Not because he is necessarily 66% better than Dravid but most people think he is better.

 

[Teja.]

lol x-factor lol

 

[kingkallis]

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).

How can he match that ( wickets ) when he has bowlers like Donald, Steyn, Pollock, Ntini doing it for the team?

He has done the job of a 4th or 5th bowler all the time and has a 4th or 5th seamer of the team, 267 wickets not a joke.

That too with a better SR than Sir Garfield, who happened to be the strike bowler for West Indies back in those days.

 

[Teja.]

Also,

If Sobers' bowling average is hurt by bowling on flat docile West Indian pitches, It means he batted half his matches on those wickets as well.

If Kallis' bowling average is helped by bowling on the greenest of pitches, It means he batted well enough to be a ****in' legend on those pitches as well.

 

[Ikki]

Ok so ur including NZ the so called minnow but excluding the 2 other so called minnows (who were both better than NZ)?? And that makes sense??!!

It makes complete sense. Sobers played NZ plenty of times and has a poor record. It should be held against him. If performances against good attacks are notable; failures against poor ones should be noted for the same reason.

The rest of your post against me is non sense frankly. I said Sobers is probably the best #6 of all time and unarguably one of the greatest batsmen of all time. However, it was suggested that Kallis' average flatters him because of minnows. Whilst that is true, the same goes for Sobers. So you can't denigrate one and not the other. Both are amongst the greatest bats of all time, but their records are a bit higher due to smacking minnows around. Both played in a batsman friendly era and even the best teams they faced didnt have the kind of attacks in the 90s, for example. Your other claim is also a figment of your imagination. At no time have I held Aus players unquestionably better than their rivals other than Bradman. If you have evidence to the contrary, show it; if you don't, retract that stupid statement.

Migara's point re Bradman is just bad. If every team of the time sucked; that goes for every player of that era, when you consider their records. And FTR England weren't decent; they were as good as Aus minus Bradman. Furthermore, Bradman's record against minnows is unsurpassed and unmatched. Even against teams other than England he averages 30-70 points higher compared to other batsmen - so even on that level is he comfortably ahead.

 

[smash84]

Also,

If Sobers' bowling average is hurt by bowling on flat docile West Indian pitches, It means he batted half his matches on those wickets as well.

If Kallis' bowling average is helped by bowling on the greenest of pitches, It means he batted well enough to be a ****in' legend on those pitches as well.

Good point.

 

[Prince EWS]

lol x-factor lol

Yeah, hate posts about 'x-factor'. It basically translates into "well even though there's no real evidence to suggest these players were better than a number of others, they seemed better when I was watching them and/or I like them more, so I'm going to say they are".

 

[ankitj]

It makes complete sense. Sobers played NZ plenty of times and has a poor record. It should be held against him. If performances against good attacks are notable; failures against poor ones should be noted for the same reason.

This is easily the funniest argument that I have come across on CW. It's not like he had a weakness against "minnows".

 

[ankitj]

You include a team in your filter because Sobers has poor average against that team and then we are supposed to be shocked that Sobers has a ordinary average against that group!! Texas sharpshooter fallacy, anyone? Ex-ante vs ex-post expectations?

 

[Ikki]

This is easily the funniest argument that I have come across on CW. It's not like he had a weakness against "minnows".

Disregarding opponents because they're poor and players will fill their boots with them is fine. On the other hand, it is much more notable for you to fail against such attacks. If you give someone credit for doing well against attacks because they are good; by the same token you should criticise someone for doing poorly against attacks that are bad. You cannot have it one way when you're differentiating between teams based on quality and the performances said players had against those teams.

For example, consider Team D and E minnows and the two players playing in different eras:

Player 1:

Team A: 50
Team B: 50
Team C: 50
Team D: 50
Team E: 50

Player 2:

Team A: 50
Team B: 50
Team C: 50
Team D: 30
Team E: 30

then are you going to remove D and E because they're minnows and then say Player 1 = Player 2? No, Player 2's failings should be noted, provided the sample is large enough. Doing poorly against minnows, for all-time greats, is a bad blot. If you do poorly against good teams; at least the quality of the teams is a factor in hindering you scoring more.

You include a team in your filter because Sobers has poor average against that team and then we are supposed to be shocked that Sobers has a ordinary average against that group Texas sharpshooter fallacy, anyone? Ex-ante vs ex-post filtering?

What? His average drops to about 49 with Eng, Aus and NZ. If there were more teams then that'd probably lessen the drag NZ has on his record.

In fact, that's kind of the problem. More than half the teams Sobers played (NZ, Pak an Ind) were of a very low standard. That's one reason his average is certainly a bit inflated. Kallis has a higher proportion of matches played against good sides.

 

[ankitj]

Disregarding opponents because they're poor and players will fill their boots with them is fine. On the other hand, it is much more notable for you to fail against such attacks. If you give someone credit for doing well against attacks because they are good; by the same token you should criticise someone for doing poorly against attacks that are bad. You cannot have it one way.



What? His average drops to about 49 with Eng, Aus and NZ. If there were more teams then that'd probably lessen that drag NZ has on his record.

In fact, that's kind of the problem. More than half the teams Sobers played (NZ, Pak an Ind) were of a very low standard. That's one reason his average is certainly a bit inflated.

EDIT: Your selection of NZ in that filter is ex-post. Explain that? Ex-ante they are a minnow and should be clubbed with minnows (going by your definition of "minnows")

 

[MrIncredible]

How can he match that ( wickets ) when he has bowlers like Donald, Steyn, Pollock, Ntini doing it for the team?

He has done the job of a 4th or 5th bowler all the time and has a 4th or 5th seamer of the team, 267 wickets not a joke.

That too with a better SR than Sir Garfield, who happened to be the strike bowler for West Indies back in those days.

If it were just about he takng 20 wkts in a series you'd have a point.

But Jacques Kallis had just as many opportunities to take great bowlers to the cleaners but didnt simple. One 700 + series vs th worst WI bowling attack of all time.

Great batsman nevertheless (Kallis ie)

 

[Ikki]

EDIT: Your selection of NZ in that filter is ex-post. Explain that? Ex-ante they are a minnow and should be clubbed with minnows (going by your definition of "minnows")

What is ex-post? I pointed out before; without minnows that Sobers did well against his average drops below 50. The only reason people exclude minnows is because a player has done inordinately well against them and inflated their averaged - which makes it difficult to compare career averages with a player who hasn't played minnows much or in a different era. If a player does poorly against them the reason to exclude them no longer exists.

I'll point it out again since it seems so funny to you - even though you fail to appreciate the logic: if you are going to make it a point to separate teams based on quality; then you have to criticise a player for doing poorly against a minnow.

 

[MrIncredible]

It makes complete sense. Sobers played NZ plenty of times and has a poor record. It should be held against him. If performances against good attacks are notable; failures against poor ones should be noted for the same reason.

The rest of your post against me is non sense frankly. I said Sobers is probably the best #6 of all time and unarguably one of the greatest batsmen of all time. However, it was suggested that Kallis' average flatters him because of minnows. Whilst that is true, the same goes for Sobers. So you can't denigrate one and not the other. Both are amongst the greatest bats of all time, but their records are a bit higher due to smacking minnows around. Both played in a batsman friendly era and even the best teams they faced didnt have the kind of attacks in the 90s, for example. Your other claim is also a figment of your imagination. At no time have I held Aus players unquestionably better than their rivals other than Bradman. If you have evidence to the contrary, show it; if you don't, retract that stupid statement.

Migara's point re Bradman is just bad. If every team of the time sucked; that goes for every player of that era, when you consider their records. And FTR England weren't decent; they were as good as Aus minus Bradman. Furthermore, Bradman's record against minnows is unsurpassed and unmatched. Even against teams other than England he averages 30-70 points higher compared to other batsmen - so even on that level is he comfortably ahead.

If ever there were a poster with a chip on their shoulder.

Ne way you dont need to convince me of the dons greatness. ne one with a bit of common sense that Bradman was the best of all time. We all know that and its undisputed.

I dont know who took a jab at Kallis for his minnow bashing (wasnt me). But even the greatest can be proven to be a minnow basher without denigrating his overall achievement.

 

[MrIncredible]

Disregarding opponents because they're poor and players will fill their boots with them is fine. On the other hand, it is much more notable for you to fail against such attacks. If you give someone credit for doing well against attacks because they are good; by the same token you should criticise someone for doing poorly against attacks that are bad. You cannot have it one way when you're differentiating between teams based on quality and the performances said players had against those teams.

For example, consider Team D and E minnows and the two players playing in different eras:

Player 1:

Team A: 50
Team B: 50
Team C: 50
Team D: 50
Team E: 50

Player 2:

Team A: 50
Team B: 50
Team C: 50
Team D: 30
Team E: 30

then are you going to remove D and E because they're minnows and then say Player 1 = Player 2? No, Player 2's failings should be noted, provided the sample is large enough. Doing poorly against minnows, for all-time greats, is a bad blot. If you do poorly against good teams; at least the quality of the teams is a factor in hindering you scoring more.




What? His average drops to about 49 with Eng, Aus and NZ. If there were more teams then that'd probably lessen the drag NZ has on his record.

In fact, that's kind of the problem. More than half the teams Sobers played (NZ, Pak an Ind) were of a very low standard. That's one reason his average is certainly a bit inflated. Kallis has a higher proportion of matches played against good sides.

Conclusions according to this Ikki fella:


Pakistan and India were of a very low standard in Sobers' time


However, WI, India, South Africa (all of whom the DOn played at home) were proper teams while Pak/Ind werent.

Sobers a man even Keith Miller named as the greatest ever was overated as a batsman even though he did very well against the two supposed proper teams of his time.

 

[ankitj]

What is ex-post? I pointed out before; without minnows that Sobers did well against his average drops below 50. The only reason people exclude minnows is because a player has done inordinately well against them and inflated their averaged - which makes it difficult to compare career averages with a player who hasn't played minnows much or in a different era. If a player does poorly against them the reason to exclude them no longer exists.

I'll point it out again since it seems so funny to you - even though you fail to appreciate the logic: if you are going to make it a point to separate teams based on quality; then you have to criticise a player for doing poorly against a minnow.

The bolded part is ex-post. If you are going to argue that a batsman doesn't do too well against minnows, you must select minnows ex-ante. That's all.

 

[Ikki]

If ever there were a poster with a chip on their shoulder.

What's the chip on my shoulder? I am simply making the comparison fair.

I dont know who took a jab at Kallis for his minnow bashing (wasnt me). But even the greatest can be proven to be a minnow basher without denigrating his overall achievement.

It was marc, and it doesn't have to be a jab at Kallis. It's fine to point out how players did against minnows. But let's accept minnows didn't start with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

I don't see what is controversial with my position at all: both played minnows; both have a bit of a high average. In the end; Sobers is still the better batsman IMO and is probably a couple points superior average wise - like their overall averages are at the moment.

 

[ankitj]

For example, consider Team D and E minnows and the two players playing in different eras:

Player 1:

Team A: 50
Team B: 50
Team C: 50
Team D: 50
Team E: 50

Player 2:

Team A: 50
Team B: 50
Team C: 50
Team D: 30
Team E: 30

then are you going to remove D and E because they're minnows and then say Player 1 = Player 2? No, Player 2's failings should be noted, provided the sample is large enough. Doing poorly against minnows, for all-time greats, is a bad blot. If you do poorly against good teams; at least the quality of the teams is a factor in hindering you scoring more.

In this case the two batsman will have different averages, so the conclusion is easy.

If two batsmen had identical averages but one did better against the stronger team (which implies that he did poorly against minnows), then yes, the batsman who does better against the stronger team would have to be considered better.