Kallis vs Sobers, Donald vs Steyn, Trott vs Pollock

[smash84]

Exactly. The more common scenario is the part-time bowler who has some talent but whose average blows out because of all the short spells he bowls where he doesn't take a wicket. The fact that Kallis has been able to take wickets with relative regularity throughout his career despite not bowling long spells is really an indication of how effective his bowling has been.

It's actually quite hard to compare him to anyone as it's rare to find another bowler who has taken wickets with such consistency but bowled so infrequently. Of course, this is because it's hard to compare Kallis to anyone full-stop, as it's really only him and Sobers in test history who have been massively prolific batsmen and also genuine bowlers.

It's all speculative but I think it's much more likely, following basic cricketing logic, that Kallis' bowling record would look better, not worse, if he had bowled more.

Also, as obvious as this is to anyone who has briefly perused his cricinfo page, it bears repeating that Sobers only took 2.5 wickets per test match and took a wicket every 90 balls. I just don't see how any amount of explanation or romanticization or statistical manipulation can transform those figures into a picture of a consistently dynamic and menacing bowler. Certainly I can't take anyone seriously who says he was a vastly superior bowler to Kallis. It would require me believing that Sobers was, by some margin, the unluckiest bowler in cricket history.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

tbf to Sobers, at his peak he was taking around 3.5 wickets a match at an average of about 30 over 8 years. His SR though always seems a concern

 

[Prince EWS]

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

tbf to Sobers, at his peak he was taking around 3.5 wickets a match at an average of about 30 over 8 years. His SR though always seems a concern

When you're a batting allrounder you pretty much want your strike rate to be higher anyway (assuming a constant average ie. lower economy rate) as it's unlikely you're going to be one of the two best bowlers in the side. As a support bowler you almost want to put the game on hold in a way or at least slow it down as to give your better bowlers the biggest opportunity to roll the opposition for a low total. As long as it doesn't compromise your average then it doesn't matter unless you're in the best couple of bowlers in the side.

That said I definitely think Kallis was the better bowler anyway. Sobers was the better bat and overall the better cricketer, but it's ****ing close overall.

 

[thierry henry]

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

tbf to Sobers, at his peak he was taking around 3.5 wickets a match at an average of about 30 over 8 years. His SR though always seems a concern

Absolutely, and I fully acknowledge that. It indicates that for the bulk of Sobers' career he was a good bowler and shouldered more responsibility than Kallis. However, at either end of Sobers' career he bowled less (with Kallis-like frequency, really) but was far less effective than Kallis.

 

[smash84]

When you're a batting allrounder you pretty much want your strike rate to be higher anyway (assuming a constant average ie. lower economy rate) as it's unlikely you're going to be one of the two best bowlers in the side. As a support bowler you almost want to put the game on hold in a way or at least slow it down as to give your better bowlers the biggest opportunity to roll the opposition for a low total. As long as it doesn't compromise your average then it doesn't matter unless you're in the best couple of bowlers in the side.

That said I definitely think Kallis was the better bowler anyway. Sobers was the better bat and overall the better cricketer, but it's ****ing close overall.

Is that a compliment for Kallis or a back handed slap to Sobers?

 

[Prince EWS]

Is that a compliment for Kallis or a back handed slap to Sobers?

Bit of both I guess. Reckon Sobers's bowling is slightly over-rated by the wider community and Kallis's career bowling is probably under-rated right now because he's not the bowler he was.

 

[Zinzan]

^ Agree, it continues to astonish me how many special exceptions are made by people (especially on this forum) to overrate Sober's & underrate Kallis. Their logic changes like the weather. In 20-30 years time people will look at Kallis' record and assume he was a superman.

 

[smash84]

in retrospect for people looking at statsguru will rate Kallis > Sobers

 

[marc71178]

If Kallis was such a good bowler in comparison, how come he never got a higher ranking?

 

[smash84]

If Kallis was such a good bowler in comparison, how come he never got a higher ranking?

because there were lots of good bowlers going around in Kallis's time?

 

[Prince EWS]

The ICC rankings are (pretty poor) measure of how good a bowler is at given time. Using peak rankings just show arbitrary peaks (that are biased by having them achieved at any earlier point); nothing more. Looking at how good a bowler is across his career is a lot different.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, and clearly Sobers over his career has higher ratings and rankings.

I find it odd that suddenly the number of great bowlers during Kallis' time is supposedly a lot when by common consent, that same period is one of the worst for bowlers in the last 50 years.

 

[thierry henry]

If Kallis was such a good bowler in comparison, how come he never got a higher ranking?

Because there are more teams and players now?

What I don't get is how people say that Sobers played in a tough era for bowling, yet never take that into account in his batting stats. Likewise for Kallis, if this is such an easy time for batsmen then surely his bowling stats are super impressive comparatively speaking?

 

[longtom]

First of all I reckon this thread had all the ingredients to become a flame war. Good on all that it didn't (also some appeared to try ... ).

These comparisons are always difficult to conclude and a definite yes or no will probably not be established. However, whenever you see people comparing players who are still playing to players of the past, the past almost always wins. Humans generally have the tendency to forget about the bad stuff and remember the good.

I remember Donald bowling in the past and not being thrilled at all. Thought at times he really lost it - and I still think he did. Today he is a great and the apparent yardstick at which Steyn is measured. In my opinion Donald might have been at Steyns level (or possibly above - also that is a stretch already) for only a very short period of time, whereupon Steyn is a great bowler for quite some time, which his rankings show. Donald was never up there in the rankings (stand to be corrected) for any substantial amount of time.

Kallis appears to be a player who divides the realm into 2 opposing camps with very little in between. This forum has very little active South African members, therefore everybody makes up their mind without taking South African circumstances as well as politics into consideration. To bloom in conditions like that in teams which were not always world class under administrators who mostly lost the plot and to perform consistently the way he did is more than amendable. His talent, ability and mental strength is beyond question. I would definitely not group him with Pietersen, Dravid etc but above that lot.
The argument that he has not won matches for his team is also somewhat ludicrous for mine. He has played in many a match where he was the main contributor and without him the game would have been lost.
And his dancing steps when a ball doesn't quite bounce the way he expects ... he is certainly right on top in that category ....

Comparing present players with retired players will hardly ever work out - we always see the greats of the past through our pink glasses, don't we, especially when they happen to come from our country.

 

[vic_orthdox]

CBF checking, anyone want to give me a career breakdown on overs per match, in stages throughout their career?

 

[smash84]

Yes, and clearly Sobers over his career has higher ratings and rankings.

I find it odd that suddenly the number of great bowlers during Kallis' time is supposedly a lot when by common consent, that same period is one of the worst for bowlers in the last 50 years.

Because there are more teams and players now?

What I don't get is how people say that Sobers played in a tough era for bowling, yet never take that into account in his batting stats. Likewise for Kallis, if this is such an easy time for batsmen then surely his bowling stats are super impressive comparatively speaking?

Exactly

 

[uvelocity]

The argument that he has not won matches for his team is also somewhat ludicrous for mine. He has played in many a match where he was the main contributor and without him the game would have been lost.

Nice post, especially about how he did it through periods of team political instability, fair point. In regard to my earlier posts about the above, it's only in relation to vs Australia. It's all I've seen of him pretty much. Stand by what I said ftr.

 

[MrPrez]

First of all I reckon this thread had all the ingredients to become a flame war. Good on all that it didn't (also some appeared to try ... ).

These comparisons are always difficult to conclude and a definite yes or no will probably not be established. However, whenever you see people comparing players who are still playing to players of the past, the past almost always wins. Humans generally have the tendency to forget about the bed stuff and remember the good.

I remember Donald bowling in the past and not being thrilled at all. Thought at times he really lost it - and I still think he did. Today he is a great and the apparent yardstick at which Steyn is measured. In my opinion Donald might have been at Steyns level (or possibly above - also that is a stretch already) for only a very short period of time, whereupon Steyn is a great bowler for quite some time, which his rankings show. Donald was never up there in the rankings (stand to be corrected) for any substantial amount of time.

Kallis appears to be a player who divides the realm into 2 opposing camps with very little in between. This forum has very little active South African members, therefore everybody makes up their mind without taking South African circumstances as well as politics into consideration. To bloom in conditions like that in teams which were not always world class under administrators who mostly lost the plot and to perform consistently the way he did is more than amendable. His talent, ability and mental strength is beyond question. I would definitely not group him with Pietersen, Dravid etc but above that lot.
The argument that he has not won matches for his team is also somewhat ludicrous for mine. He has played in many a match where he was the main contributor and without him the game would have been lost.
And his dancing steps when a ball doesn't quite bounce the way he expects ... he is certainly right on top in that category ....

Comparing present players with retired players will hardly ever work out - we always see the greats of the past through our pink glasses, don't we, especially when they happen to come from our country.

Top, top quality post. SA have a couple of posters on here, but we can't compete with Eng/Aus etc. Imho in terms of batting, Kallis=Tendulkar=Ponting, but I prefer watching Kallis due to aesthetics (although that could be biased). As a cricketer, Kallis wins due to his bowling.

I never got to watch Graeme Pollock, and I wish I had. Can't say much then.

I got to watch bits of Donald as a youngster but honestly can't remember enough to build a quality comparison between him and Steyn. All I know is that Steyn is insanely beautiful to watch.

 

[marc71178]

Exactly

So I contradict your point and you agree with me, rendering your previous comment inaccurate I would say.

 

[Howe_zat]

So I contradict your point and you agree with me, rendering your previous comment inaccurate I would say.

Looks like he's agree with henry's reply, and quoting your post for context.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Just did the sums...

Kallis averages 75.77 balls per innings in which he bowled in, as opposed to Sobers who had 136.43.

Sobers nearly had double the workload over his career, some of that would be spin though.