Kallis Vs Sobers

[Ikki]

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.

It was already mentioned: NZ, Pak and Ind were what you may consider minnows during his team. Not as poor as Bangladesh but more or less like Zimbabwe. He did extremely well against Pak and Ind but very poorly against NZ - in 12 Tests, he only scored 1 100 and no 50s.

 

[ankitj]

It was already mentioned: NZ, Pak and Ind were what you may consider minnows during his team. Not as poor as Bangladesh but more or less like Zimbabwe. He did extremely well against Pak and Ind but very poorly against NZ - in 12 Tests, he only scored 1 100 and no 50s.

That's a fact that I cannot dispute. I am disputing the conclusion you have drawn from that fact.

 

[Ikki]

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

The debate was never about who had the better average. It's not even about who is the better batsman - I am fairly sure that one is clear.

Rather; who were the minnows and how did they do disregarding the matches they were filling their boots.

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.

Although the above is really a side-point; you can't exactly gauge cross eras when the performances against strong teams is only slightly in favour of one player. In fact, even in the same era a slightly higher average hardly says much. That's with the caveat that by slight you mean 1-2 runs difference in average.

That's a fact that I cannot dispute. I am disputing the conclusion you have drawn from that fact.

And what do you think my conclusion is, ftr?

 

[MrIncredible]

It was already mentioned: NZ, Pak and Ind were what you may consider minnows during his team. Not as poor as Bangladesh but more or less like Zimbabwe. He did extremely well against Pak and Ind but very poorly against NZ - in 12 Tests, he only scored 1 100 and no 50s.

Did u ever take the time to atleast research Y Sobers had a ordinary record vs NZ? Doesnt that strike u as odd that he did well vs all the teams of his time but failed badly s the worst team?

Im guessing the ansa is no. Do some research then get back to me/us.

 

[ankitj]

And what do you think my conclusion is, ftr?

That having an ordinary average after excluding minnows that Sobers did well against makes Sobers a lesser batsman. Was it not?

 

[Blaze 18]

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

I had missed this post. It is a very valid point : just because a team does not win a lot it does not mean they had crap bowlers. By the way, who were the two bowlers ? Fazal Mahmood and ?

Also, I am not sure if India-Pakistan were ever as bad as Bangladesh-Zimbabwe; the bowlers, especially Pakistan's, were much better. I suppose you could make a case for removing West Indies for Jacques Kallis as well, if you want to start nit-piking.

 

[fredfertang]

I suspect he means Khan Mohammad, though there is a flaw in the argument

 

[Blaze 18]

Meh, most arguments that rely solely on numbers are flawed, to be honest.

 

[fredfertang]

Meh, most arguments that rely solely on numbers are flawed, to be honest.

Couldn't agree more

 

[Ikki]

Did u ever take the time to atleast research Y Sobers had a ordinary record vs NZ? Doesnt that strike u as odd that he did well vs all the teams of his time but failed badly s the worst team?

Im guessing the ansa is no. Do some research then get back to me/us.

TBF, I've never heard of an explanation or extrinsic reason. If there is one, I'd like to hear it. Stats mean something because of context so if you can provide a context why over several tests/series/years he performed so badly it'd be welcome.

BTW, you're yet to show me parading Aussies around as unquestionably better than their rivals.

That having an ordinary average after excluding minnows that Sobers did well against makes Sobers a lesser batsman. Was it not?

A lesser batsman? Not sure. The whole point of that exercise for me was to show that Sobers himself has an inflated average - much like Kallis. I don't think it really makes him a lesser batsman per se, although if you gauge batsmen purely by their overall average it may come across as such.

I don't actually think Sobers' "real" average is below 50 or if that is a more accurate representation of him.

 

[Ikki]

Meh, most arguments that rely solely on numbers are flawed, to be honest.

Much like how most arguments that rely solely on hearsay are flawed.

 

[fredfertang]

Much like how most arguments that rely solely on hearsay are flawed.

Rather depends what sort of hearsay

Returning to Sobers and his record against NZ the man himself offers no explanation and takes it on the chin - he also says that the one occasion on which he scored a century against them he was put down at slip at the start of his innings - although Wisden suggests he was on 70 odd at the time

 

[joels344]

I went with Sobers, just for his godly batting ability. He was also a fine bowler too.

 

[slog sweep]

Jaques Kallis has the best statistics of any cricketer of his generation, and yet if you did a poll around the cricket world amongst players, fans and the media to name the 5 best cricketers of the current era, I'm not sure that he would make it. I suspect the result, in no particular order, would be Warne, Tendulkar, Lara, Murali and Gilchrist, with Mcgrath and Ponting there or thereabouts. Which basically reinforces my point that you cant judge the greatness of a cricketer simply on numbers. The thing about comparing Kallis to his contemporaries who we have all seen play, is that we can easily explain why we rate the other champions in front of him. It might be the sheer genius of Lara, the technical mastery of Tendulkar, or Warne's ability to rise to the occasion and get the job done in big games when it really mattered. Either way it is easily explainable because we have actually seen them perform.

The problem with comparing Kallis to a legend like Sobers from a previous era, is that because most of us didn't actually see him play, all we have to judge him on are his statistics which never tell you the whole story. It is like looking at a 3D object as a 2D image. You might see some of the picture, but never the full picture. What is completely apparent, however, is that everybody who has seen Sobers play is completely in awe of the man, and is in no doubt that he is the greatest all rounder the world has ever seen, and daylight to the next guy.

There was obviously a genius, a freakish brilliance, and a match-winning quality about Sobers, that those of us that didn't see him play, will never fully appreciate. From everything you read about the man, he was a batting genius like Lara, a brilliant game changing fielder like Viv Richards or Ricky Ponting, and he had the champion's ability to rise to the occasion and perform great feats in big matches when it really mattered. Maybe his bowling average is a little high, but it is entirely possible that he had a champion's capacity of taking the big wickets at the big moments and had the ability to change the course of a cricket match with moments of brilliance, which is why his bowling is rated higher than his numbers would suggest. But, again, unless you actually saw the matches unfold and saw Sobers impose his will on the contest, you will never fully appreciate all of these attributes. When you combine all of these factors, you are talking about a sportsman whose greatness and impact on the game goes far beyond his mere statistics, which is why he is so revered throughout the cricket world.

 

[honestbharani]

Jaques Kallis has the best statistics of any cricketer of his generation, and yet if you did a poll around the cricket world amongst players, fans and the media to name the 5 best cricketers of the current era, I'm not sure that he would make it. I suspect the result, in no particular order, would be Warne, Tendulkar, Lara, Murali and Gilchrist, with Mcgrath and Ponting there or thereabouts. Which basically reinforces my point that you cant judge the greatness of a cricketer simply on numbers. The thing about comparing Kallis to his contemporaries who we have all seen play, is that we can easily explain why we rate the other champions in front of him. It might be the sheer genius of Lara, the technical mastery of Tendulkar, or Warne's ability to rise to the occasion and get the job done in big games when it really mattered. Either way it is easily explainable because we have actually seen them perform.

The problem with comparing Kallis to a legend like Sobers from a previous era, is that because most of us didn't actually see him play, all we have to judge him on are his statistics which never tell you the whole story. It is like looking at a 3D object as a 2D image. You might see some of the picture, but never the full picture. What is completely apparent, however, is that everybody who has seen Sobers play is completely in awe of the man, and is in no doubt that he is the greatest all rounder the world has ever seen, and daylight to the next guy.

There was obviously a genius, a freakish brilliance, and a match-winning quality about Sobers, that those of us that didn't see him play, will never fully appreciate. From everything you read about the man, he was a batting genius like Lara, a brilliant game changing fielder like Viv Richards or Ricky Ponting, and he had the champion's ability to rise to the occasion and perform great feats in big matches when it really mattered. Maybe his bowling average is a little high, but it is entirely possible that he had a champion's capacity of taking the big wickets at the big moments and had the ability to change the course of a cricket match with moments of brilliance, which is why his bowling is rated higher than his numbers would suggest. But, again, unless you actually saw the matches unfold and saw Sobers impose his will on the contest, you will never fully appreciate all of these attributes. When you combine all of these factors, you are talking about a sportsman whose greatness and impact on the game goes far beyond his mere statistics, which is why he is so revered throughout the cricket world.

Awesome post... Though I reckon given how the mob here goes, you will soon be disillusioned with this place..



BTW, I would like to know how people rate Flintoff's bowling here..

 

[bagapath]

slog sweep! great post mate. fully agree with you.

 

[smash84]

Jaques Kallis has the best statistics of any cricketer of his generation, and yet if you did a poll around the cricket world amongst players, fans and the media to name the 5 best cricketers of the current era, I'm not sure that he would make it. I suspect the result, in no particular order, would be Warne, Tendulkar, Lara, Murali and Gilchrist, with Mcgrath and Ponting there or thereabouts. Which basically reinforces my point that you cant judge the greatness of a cricketer simply on numbers. The thing about comparing Kallis to his contemporaries who we have all seen play, is that we can easily explain why we rate the other champions in front of him. It might be the sheer genius of Lara, the technical mastery of Tendulkar, or Warne's ability to rise to the occasion and get the job done in big games when it really mattered. Either way it is easily explainable because we have actually seen them perform.

The problem with comparing Kallis to a legend like Sobers from a previous era, is that because most of us didn't actually see him play, all we have to judge him on are his statistics which never tell you the whole story. It is like looking at a 3D object as a 2D image. You might see some of the picture, but never the full picture. What is completely apparent, however, is that everybody who has seen Sobers play is completely in awe of the man, and is in no doubt that he is the greatest all rounder the world has ever seen, and daylight to the next guy.

There was obviously a genius, a freakish brilliance, and a match-winning quality about Sobers, that those of us that didn't see him play, will never fully appreciate. From everything you read about the man, he was a batting genius like Lara, a brilliant game changing fielder like Viv Richards or Ricky Ponting, and he had the champion's ability to rise to the occasion and perform great feats in big matches when it really mattered. Maybe his bowling average is a little high, but it is entirely possible that he had a champion's capacity of taking the big wickets at the big moments and had the ability to change the course of a cricket match with moments of brilliance, which is why his bowling is rated higher than his numbers would suggest. But, again, unless you actually saw the matches unfold and saw Sobers impose his will on the contest, you will never fully appreciate all of these attributes. When you combine all of these factors, you are talking about a sportsman whose greatness and impact on the game goes far beyond his mere statistics, which is why he is so revered throughout the cricket world.

Well said.

 

[Himannv]

Jaques Kallis has the best statistics of any cricketer of his generation, and yet if you did a poll around the cricket world amongst players, fans and the media to name the 5 best cricketers of the current era, I'm not sure that he would make it. I suspect the result, in no particular order, would be Warne, Tendulkar, Lara, Murali and Gilchrist, with Mcgrath and Ponting there or thereabouts. Which basically reinforces my point that you cant judge the greatness of a cricketer simply on numbers. The thing about comparing Kallis to his contemporaries who we have all seen play, is that we can easily explain why we rate the other champions in front of him. It might be the sheer genius of Lara, the technical mastery of Tendulkar, or Warne's ability to rise to the occasion and get the job done in big games when it really mattered. Either way it is easily explainable because we have actually seen them perform.

The problem with comparing Kallis to a legend like Sobers from a previous era, is that because most of us didn't actually see him play, all we have to judge him on are his statistics which never tell you the whole story. It is like looking at a 3D object as a 2D image. You might see some of the picture, but never the full picture. What is completely apparent, however, is that everybody who has seen Sobers play is completely in awe of the man, and is in no doubt that he is the greatest all rounder the world has ever seen, and daylight to the next guy.

There was obviously a genius, a freakish brilliance, and a match-winning quality about Sobers, that those of us that didn't see him play, will never fully appreciate. From everything you read about the man, he was a batting genius like Lara, a brilliant game changing fielder like Viv Richards or Ricky Ponting, and he had the champion's ability to rise to the occasion and perform great feats in big matches when it really mattered. Maybe his bowling average is a little high, but it is entirely possible that he had a champion's capacity of taking the big wickets at the big moments and had the ability to change the course of a cricket match with moments of brilliance, which is why his bowling is rated higher than his numbers would suggest. But, again, unless you actually saw the matches unfold and saw Sobers impose his will on the contest, you will never fully appreciate all of these attributes. When you combine all of these factors, you are talking about a sportsman whose greatness and impact on the game goes far beyond his mere statistics, which is why he is so revered throughout the cricket world.

Fantastic post. Cannot agree more.

 

[akilana]

Jaques Kallis has the best statistics of any cricketer of his generation, and yet if you did a poll around the cricket world amongst players, fans and the media to name the 5 best cricketers of the current era, I'm not sure that he would make it. I suspect the result, in no particular order, would be Warne, Tendulkar, Lara, Murali and Gilchrist, with Mcgrath and Ponting there or thereabouts. Which basically reinforces my point that you cant judge the greatness of a cricketer simply on numbers. The thing about comparing Kallis to his contemporaries who we have all seen play, is that we can easily explain why we rate the other champions in front of him. It might be the sheer genius of Lara, the technical mastery of Tendulkar, or Warne's ability to rise to the occasion and get the job done in big games when it really mattered. Either way it is easily explainable because we have actually seen them perform.

The problem with comparing Kallis to a legend like Sobers from a previous era, is that because most of us didn't actually see him play, all we have to judge him on are his statistics which never tell you the whole story. It is like looking at a 3D object as a 2D image. You might see some of the picture, but never the full picture. What is completely apparent, however, is that everybody who has seen Sobers play is completely in awe of the man, and is in no doubt that he is the greatest all rounder the world has ever seen, and daylight to the next guy.

There was obviously a genius, a freakish brilliance, and a match-winning quality about Sobers, that those of us that didn't see him play, will never fully appreciate. From everything you read about the man, he was a batting genius like Lara, a brilliant game changing fielder like Viv Richards or Ricky Ponting, and he had the champion's ability to rise to the occasion and perform great feats in big matches when it really mattered. Maybe his bowling average is a little high, but it is entirely possible that he had a champion's capacity of taking the big wickets at the big moments and had the ability to change the course of a cricket match with moments of brilliance, which is why his bowling is rated higher than his numbers would suggest. But, again, unless you actually saw the matches unfold and saw Sobers impose his will on the contest, you will never fully appreciate all of these attributes. When you combine all of these factors, you are talking about a sportsman whose greatness and impact on the game goes far beyond his mere statistics, which is why he is so revered throughout the cricket world.

Great post. I'd rather look at players record(numbers) than their popularity to judge them. McGrath is arguablly a better player than Sachin, Lara, Warne and Murali but may not win the popularity contest but he's still a better player than any of them. It's just some people are overrated and some are underrated.

 

[smash84]

Great post. I'd rather look at players record(numbers) than their popularity to judge them. McGrath is arguablly a better player than Sachin, Lara, Warne and Murali but may not win the popularity contest but he's still a better player than any of them. It's just some people are overrated and some are underrated.

Given that I rate good bowlers higher than good batsmen I would rate Mcgrath above Tendulkar, Ponting, and Laraa but I would say that Warne and Murali might have a good case of being considered better than McGrath although they were such different types of bowlers.