Kallis Vs Sobers

[Blaze 18]

Haha. He is actually a classic example

Of how statistics can be misleading

 

[honestbharani]

Agree with PEWS. To judge on the basis of what we see is to flatter ourselves that we understand all the nuances of the game Nor would I take ex-cricketers' testimony in rating a cricketer because their impressions can be clouded by biases too (who did well in the games they played etc).

There are right and wrong ways of looking at stats, but ultimately stats are the only objective facts at our disposal. There are cricketers that have looked amazing to my eye, but I don't rate them very highly because they don't have great stats even if I don't fully appreciate why not.

As for Kallis, not having a double hundred and taking less than 2 wickets in a match would go against him when it comes to assessing his ability to impact a game.

Cricket is not an objective game.. To analyze a cricketer objectively is to misunderstand the game of cricket completely. It is played by human beings who do not behave the way cricket sims will want them to behave.

 

[bagapath]

As for Kallis, not having a double hundred and taking less than 2 wickets in a match would go against him when it comes to assessing his ability to impact a game.

i have had long debates about this double hundred thingy with some of the posters before. some of my old mates on this forum might actually think that 8ankitj is a multi of mine if they read this point. thankfully ankit writes better than me so i cant be accused of masquerading as someone else to underline my pet points using a different name.

I, for one, certainly believe that a great batsman should have scored at least one double hundred in his career against a tough opponent. kallis and herbert sutcliffe are among the statistically most successful players (along with several very good batters like m.waugh, vengsarkar, richardson, cowdrey, anway and vaughan) to have not achieved this feat. i would blame kallis' snail like pace for this black blot on his resume. until he shows to the world that he is capable of building a monument and not just single storey buildings, he will remain in the lower echelons of batsmanship AFAIAC.

 

[honestbharani]

It is amazing what the fans of stats say though.. The stats can only show you so much, no matter how much you want to analyze it. Stats, and PEWS standardized averages thingys included, DO NOT show you if a guy always turned up at crunch games.. See Laxman and where he stands. It does not take into account the conditions ON THAT DAY. It is very possible for an Agarkar to do what he did Adelaide one day and what he did n Melbourne the next... Scoring against him in his Adelaide form IS NOT the same as scoring against him at his usual self. What stats are gonna account for that?


And it is arrogance of the highest order to disregard opinions of people who actually have seen players play. We are not talking about every Tom,Dick and EWS here.. Men who actually have a much better idea of what playing at the international level is all about are pretty much unanimous on where Kallis stands among the other greats of this era. Yeah, right, they are all wrong and our statsgurus are always right..

 

[Blaze 18]

It is amazing what the fans of stats say though.. The stats can only show you so much, no matter how much you want to analyze it. Stats, and PEWS standardized averages thingys included, DO NOT show you if a guy always turned up at crunch games.. See Laxman and where he stands. It does not take into account the conditions ON THAT DAY. It is very possible for an Agarkar to do what he did Adelaide one day and what he did n Melbourne the next... Scoring against him in his Adelaide form IS NOT the same as scoring against him at his usual self. What stats are gonna account for that?


And it is arrogance of the highest order to disregard opinions of people who actually have seen players play. We are not talking about every Tom,Dick and EWS here.. Men who actually have a much better idea of what playing at the international level is all about are pretty much unanimous on where Kallis stands among the other greats of this era. Yeah, right, they are all wrong and our statsgurus are always right..

Top class post, honestbharani.

 

[ankitj]

Cricket is not an objective game.. To analyze a cricketer objectively is to misunderstand the game of cricket completely. It is played by human beings who do not behave the way cricket sims will want them to behave.

Well most of the times what we observe subjectively will agree with what we get objectively (i.e. from stats). How likely it is that Mohd Kaif will have a better batting average than Tendulkar? So that's probably 99% of cases. But we rarely compare cricketers that are that far apart and therefore run into situations where stats don't seem to agree with our subjective impressions.

And yes, I enjoy cricket subjectively as much as anyone else does. But when it comes to rating cricketers, it's hard to ignore when stats rebel against your subjective impressions.

 

[ankitj]

It is amazing what the fans of stats say though.. The stats can only show you so much, no matter how much you want to analyze it. Stats, and PEWS standardized averages thingys included, DO NOT show you if a guy always turned up at crunch games.. See Laxman and where he stands. It does not take into account the conditions ON THAT DAY. It is very possible for an Agarkar to do what he did Adelaide one day and what he did n Melbourne the next... Scoring against him in his Adelaide form IS NOT the same as scoring against him at his usual self. What stats are gonna account for that?


And it is arrogance of the highest order to disregard opinions of people who actually have seen players play. We are not talking about every Tom,Dick and EWS here.. Men who actually have a much better idea of what playing at the international level is all about are pretty much unanimous on where Kallis stands among the other greats of this era. Yeah, right, they are all wrong and our statsgurus are always right..

I fully understand HB where you are coming from. But it's not that international cricketers always agree and always talk sense. Gavaskar once said Tendulkar is better than Wally Hammond, Viv Richards and Greg Chappell put together! They can be fanboys too.

But as I said, I understand your point of view too.

EDIT: And the number of times Laxman has rescued India while batting with tail is also a stat That Wasim Akram can make the ball talk is not.

 

[Himannv]

And the number of times Laxman has rescued India while batting with tail is also a stat That Wasim Akram can make the ball talk is not.

Akram: A bit more to the left.
Ball: GAGF.

 

[weldone]

That Wasim Akram can make the ball talk is not.

Akram is a great bowler, statistically. Period.

 

[Teja.]

Thing is ATG bowlers usually have a period of a decade where they are really good and a couple of years that side or this side where they are in decline or have just started their career, The problem with taking Akram's overall statistics on face value or doing any analysis on his overall stats is unfair as not only did he have more than a 3 year decline period but also he had a full five-year period until he became a bowler of ATG quality. Despite this he has an entire decade of a magnificent ATG career.(The entire 90s)

When comparing him with say, McGrath or Ambrose who had similar magnificent decades but not close to as long ends or starts , You have to account for this.

 

[Teja.]

Overall:-

414 wickets @ 23.62 and a wpm of 3.98

The decade of the 90s:-

289 wickets @ 21.45 and a wpm of 4.66

If you're comparing him to say, Ambrose who played his career in his peak, It is only fair if you analyze Akram's period for the same length of time and not add on a really long start and decline to his stats where he was still one of the best bowlers for his country but by no means an ATG bowler.

 

[honestbharani]

Well most of the times what we observe subjectively will agree with what we get objectively (i.e. from stats). How likely it is that Mohd Kaif will have a better batting average than Tendulkar? So that's probably 99% of cases. But we rarely compare cricketers that are that far apart and therefore run into situations where stats don't seem to agree with our subjective impressions.

And yes, I enjoy cricket subjectively as much as anyone else does. But when it comes to rating cricketers, it's hard to ignore when stats rebel against your subjective impressions.

Some kind of moderation is required. AFAIC, stats can tell you which players can be GROUPED together, but if I have to pick between Sachin and Lara, for instance, I will definitely go beyond the stats, however standardized they may be... In this case, statistically yes, Sobers and Kallis can be grouped together but to choose BETWEEN those two, you have to have the ability to read beyond the stats.


Look, if all your standardized averages and stats nit picking so bloody damn good, why don't you put in formulae and tell me exactly what each person will score in the next Ashes test???????


THAT is the test of any conclusion and we can see based on how people predict in various tour threads that your predictions have as much, if not a better, chance of being correct if it is based on your READING of the game than just reading of statsguru.

 

[Hit Wicket]

i have had long debates about this double hundred thingy with some of the posters before. some of my old mates on this forum might actually think that 8ankitj is a multi of mine if they read this point. thankfully ankit writes better than me so i cant be accused of masquerading as someone else to underline my pet points using a different name.

I, for one, certainly believe that a great batsman should have scored at least one double hundred in his career against a tough opponent. kallis and herbert sutcliffe are among the statistically most successful players (along with several very good batters like m.waugh, vengsarkar, richardson, cowdrey, anway and vaughan) to have not achieved this feat. i would blame kallis' snail like pace for this black blot on his resume. until he shows to the world that he is capable of building a monument and not just single storey buildings, he will remain in the lower echelons of batsmanship AFAIAC.

Tendulkar did not have a double hundred throughout the 90s and there was never a shadow of doubt about his greatness, even all time greatness, throughout the 90s. By the time he scored his first double hundred against a 'tough' opponent in 2004, his greatness and legendary status had already been sealed. At that point it would not have mattered if Tendulkar even picked up a cricket bat ever again before the Sydney test in 2004.

Hobbs, a very strong candidate for the top 5 batsmen of all time, has just one double hundred in his career. And it came against South Africa against an attack you would surely not classify as 'tough' at the age of 40+ years. By that time, his position as an all time batting great and pioneering batsmen had long been sealed and it would have hardly mattered if Hobbs scored a golden attack against an attack which collectively took 100 odd test wickets.

Just to clarify, I am not saying Kallis is an all time great batsman, or in the same league as Tendulkar or Sobers. I don't think he is. I just don't agree with the criteria being used for the categorization. Such retrospective benchmarking of greatness is just baffling. People who lived through the careers of Hobbs and Tendulkar always knew they were witnessing something special. The same cannot be said of Kallis, the batsman regardless if he notches up the double century against a 'tough opponent'.

Sorry, to digress the topic with my very first post. Thought it might be relevant for the Sobers and Kallis discussion as well. Retrospectively lining up numbers will never reveal the complete picture of the two players.

 

[vcs]

Tendulkar did not have a double hundred throughout the 90s and there was never a shadow of doubt about his greatness, even all time greatness, throughout the 90s. By the time he scored his first double hundred against a 'tough' opponent in 2004, his greatness and legendary status had already been sealed. At that point it would not have mattered if Tendulkar even picked up a cricket bat ever again before the Sydney test in 2004.

Hobbs, a very strong candidate for the top 5 batsmen of all time, has just one double hundred in his career. And it came against South Africa against an attack you would surely not classify as 'tough' at the age of 40+ years. By that time, his position as an all time batting great and pioneering batsmen had long been sealed and it would have hardly mattered if Hobbs scored a golden attack against an attack which collectively took 100 odd test wickets.

Just to clarify, I am not saying Kallis is an all time great batsman, or in the same league as Tendulkar or Sobers. I don't think he is. I just don't agree with the criteria being used for the categorization. Such retrospective benchmarking of greatness is just baffling. People who lived through the careers of Hobbs and Tendulkar always knew they were witnessing something special. The same cannot be said of Kallis, the batsman regardless if he notches up the double century against a 'tough opponent'.

Sorry, to digress the topic with my very first post. Thought it might be relevant for the Sobers and Kallis discussion as well. Retrospectively lining up numbers will never reveal the complete picture of the two players.

Great first post, welcome to the forum.

 

[Himannv]

All these new posters need to post more IMO. They make much more sense than the rest of us.

 

[ankitj]

Akram: A bit more to the left.
Ball: GAGF.

Too pithy for me. Didn't understand

 

[bagapath]

All these new posters need to post more IMO. They make much more sense than the rest of us.

welcome hit wicket. superb post. disagree with you, though.

 

[Himannv]

Too pithy for me. Didn't understand

Lame joke lol..

 

[Hit Wicket]

welcome hit wicket. superb post. disagree with you, though.

Thanks for the welcome, guys!

Disagreements are fine. I just thought to bring forth the flaw in your methodology to determine greatness. Surely, a method applying which Tendulkar was not a great for the best 14 years of his career, Hobbs does not qualify as a great, and S Waugh does by 1 run deserves a bit of tweaking if not an overhaul.

Was going through the thread and lot about Sobers has already been said by posters far more informed than me, a lot of whom have watched him live as well. One of the strongest point made has been the near unanimous position that Sobers holds as the leading all rounder amongst people who have lived through his time, including some I know. Across generations, countries, and occupations they might have changed their opinions on a lot of things in the past 40-50 years, but not on who has been the greatest all rounder. That is some solid testimony,

It's a huge thread, so I might have missed out some chunks of it. Specially when the thread started meandering into quite mindless drivel at times frankly. But there does not seem to be much of a mention of Sobers' performance for World XI. Those matches were top quality cricket by all accounts. Sobers had a huge series in 1970 against England playing for the World XI. He scored more than 500 runs and took 20+ wickets in 5 tests. He was the top run scorer and wicket taker in the series,

The following year he top scored for World XI against Australia again. By this time, his bowling was decidedly starting to fade away, but he was 35+ with 18 years of cricket behind him.

 

[Blaze 18]

Tendulkar did not have a double hundred throughout the 90s and there was never a shadow of doubt about his greatness, even all time greatness, throughout the 90s. By the time he scored his first double hundred against a 'tough' opponent in 2004, his greatness and legendary status had already been sealed. At that point it would not have mattered if Tendulkar even picked up a cricket bat ever again before the Sydney test in 2004.

Hobbs, a very strong candidate for the top 5 batsmen of all time, has just one double hundred in his career. And it came against South Africa against an attack you would surely not classify as 'tough' at the age of 40+ years. By that time, his position as an all time batting great and pioneering batsmen had long been sealed and it would have hardly mattered if Hobbs scored a golden attack against an attack which collectively took 100 odd test wickets.

Just to clarify, I am not saying Kallis is an all time great batsman, or in the same league as Tendulkar or Sobers. I don't think he is. I just don't agree with the criteria being used for the categorization. Such retrospective benchmarking of greatness is just baffling. People who lived through the careers of Hobbs and Tendulkar always knew they were witnessing something special. The same cannot be said of Kallis, the batsman regardless if he notches up the double century against a 'tough opponent'.

Sorry, to digress the topic with my very first post. Thought it might be relevant for the Sobers and Kallis discussion as well. Retrospectively lining up numbers will never reveal the complete picture of the two players.

That is an all-time great post, hit wicket. What a way to make your entry!