Am I the only person who thinks Kallis was a better player than Tendulkar?

[jonbrooks]

Yes. He is a better player. Not sure he's a better batsman but than again I don't think tendulkar is the best batsman.

 

[OverratedSanity]

SL btw around 18.

And this is hilarious. An average of Less than 24 . Because Imran averages 25.13 in the West Indies and 24.64 in England so put the cut off at 24

It's like he's just deciding an arbitrary cutoff to suit his agenda and prove a non existent point. Stats picking of the worst kind

 

[OverratedSanity]

And wtf is a ridiculous Imran vs Sobers debate doing in the middle of a thread about kallis and Tendulkar?

 

[Ray.]

Nothing wrong with saying Sachin is better but your argument is weak. Btw Sachin faced mighty WI attack in India in his last test and didn't hit a hundred.

I will anyday rate WI bowling attack over India's.

 

[kyear2]

That's true about Benaud but he only watched Grimmett and O'Reilly once as a 9 yo just before the war. Entitled to his opinion just as I'm entitled to be sceptical of the value of it in those limited and naïve circumstances. Another thing about Benaud is that he has an annoying tendency to promote the new in an effort to appear hip some of the time. .

Didn't Grimmett mentor him though?

 

[Energetic]

Its really a matter of opinion. Both were simply world class in terms of batting.

 

[kyear2]

It's like he's just deciding an arbitrary cutoff to suit his agenda and prove a non existent point. Stats picking of the worst kind

Wasn't an arbitrary number, it's the number he didn't average less than anywhere.

If you average 18 at home on flat pitches, why comparably struggle on pitches offering more assistance vs the same opposition.
The initial point was that Imran was basically the same as MM as a bowler, was just disputing that.

But I digress, Sachin and Kallis thread and all.

 

[smash84]

The initial point was that Imran was basically the same as MM as a bowler, was just disputing that.

l.

What the ****? Whoever said anything like this? I said Imran is in the same ballpark as MM. There isn't daylight between Malcolm Marshall and a lot of the other fast bowlers. The 1 or 2 run average difference doesn't mean that Marshall was definitively better than his peers. Heck his 1-2 run better average probably results from the fact that he played for such a strong team. He had great support that the others lacked. It really isn't quite as clear cut for MM as the greatest paceman as you make it out to be.

Some of the other bowlers that I have seen over the years who I would rate as slightly better than Imran are McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee, for sure. This doesn't mean that there is daylight between these guys and the rest. The fact that Imran was a significantly better bat than these guys and the fact that he was a great leader add to his overall value to any team

And if this was the initial point then how did it become a Sobers vs Imran debate? Probably because you started pulling down every other all rounder bar Sobers with supposed problems in their resumes. Some of the **** that you point out aren't even problems FFS

 

[OverratedSanity]

Wasn't an arbitrary number, it's the number he didn't average less than anywhere.

It's arbitrary because you've taken that number 24 to be some sort of accepted figure over which a bowler's performance isn't considered great. It's like saying, If you average 66 at home, like Sobers did, then why does he only average 50 away? Why the difference? Why does he average less than 47 (an arbitrary number I chose to suit my agenda) in half the countries he plays in?

Now do you realise how stupid this sounds? It's a ridiculous loop with no end, where you point out some "flaw" in Imran's stats and don't apply the same standard to Sobers. Smali then replies by poking some hole in Sobers' record to prove that point. You see? Try to find some other way to debate their merits and demerits instead of just trying to read into some stats from the surface which don't really have anything to say

 

[smash84]

I need to dig up that PEWS post earlier in the thread regarding kyear2. I hope you read it kyear

 

[smash84]

Yeah but what you or any other one individual thinks isn't relevant to what you're actually arguing. If you want to say that Sobers was the best allrounder then your opinion and your reasons for it are absolutely important, but what you're trying to say is that there's an absolute consensus, that it's beyond doubt. "For you" is an irrelevance to that argument.



Have you ever considered that might be because of where you live? Does it really surprise you that the one place you've seen someone say a West Indian wasn't the greatest is the place you converse most often with cricket fans from outside the West Indies?

Sobers is widely regarded as the greatest allrounder to play the game. However it is certainly not beyond debate; there are many who think otherwise, myself included. Whether or not you think they're wrong isn't the issue here; you claimed that there was "no doubt" he was, and whether you think he is or not, or indeed whether he actually is or not, there certainly is doubt and an argument to be had. And that's a good thing; all these ATG threads you post in would be bloody boring if there was a universal consensus on everything.

Marshall is even more debatable. I actually agree with you on your actual opinion there - I think he was the best fast bowler of all time - but again there are definitely some differing opinions across the cricket community about that.

I struggle with you sometimes. It's hard to quite put into words. I've heard people say you put your opinion across as fact, but it's not quite that; it's something a bit different. You seem to be in a life-long pursuit of a consensus among fans as to who the best players were, and this causes you to make claims of universally agreed upon pseudo-facts on certain things when they're not really there. When called on it you, for some reason, reply with your own opinion as if it somehow backs up your point. People aren't actually arguing with your opinion of the best allrounder or the best fast bowler so telling us why you think they were best doesn't support or defend your argument; what people are doing are saying there is some disagreement there across the wider cricket community, even if not always from themselves. To argue that you should not be telling us what you think but in fact supplying evidence of what everyone else thinks, which is a hard task (and no, I do not mean 20 ATWXI's either).

This is the one. I would have sigged it if it wasn't so long

 

[kyear2]

It's arbitrary because you've taken that number 24 to be some sort of accepted figure over which a bowler's performance isn't considered great. It's like saying, If you average 66 at home, like Sobers did, then why does he only average 50 away? Why the difference? Why does he average less than 47 (an arbitrary number I chose to suit my agenda) in half the countries he plays in?

Now do you realise how stupid this sounds? It's a ridiculous loop with no end, where you point out some "flaw" in Imran's stats and don't apply the same standard to Sobers. Smali then replies by poking some hole in Sobers' record to prove that point. You see? Try to find some other way to debate their merits and demerits instead of just trying to read into some stats from the surface which don't really have anything to say

The difference is that I wasn't applying any standard to the number, that's just the number as it stands. Wasn't even comparing him to Sobers in any way either.
It's to the point of automatically assigning greater value to a player based purely on secondary skill. I look at the primary skill and what extra value that carried as per the discussion regarding Kallis and Tendulkar (parallel argument really). As I mentioned in another thread, in a team.like the West Indies of their era where Imran's extra batting and captaincy would not have been as valuable to the team as Marshall's superior bowling especially away from home.
I would also propose that the difference between Marshall's and Imran's bowling is the same as the proposed difference between Tendulkar and Kallis' s batting and as such the added value of Imran's secondary skills depends on the team situation and requirements and Marshall for us held a greater value.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Coming to the thread topic, I think Tendulkar is better by a reasonable distance as a batsman. He's definitely more versatile than Kallis when it comes to balancing attack and defence and switching that gear and going on a burst of quick runs when he feels it's necessary. The first half of Tendulkar's career was just filled with superb counterrattacking innings the likes of which kallis probably hasn't produced that often. I realise he's a different sort of batsman but Tendulkar could play the kallis sheet anchor role to perfection, too. And did on numerous occasions, especially in his second peak. It just makes Tendulkar a more complete batsman in my opinion.

History will undoubtedly remember Tendulkar as a greater batsman because he produced too many memorable and iconic moments/innings to ignore. It may or may not be a fair way of judging who is the greater batsman but a relative lack of iconic innings is something which will probably relegate kallis to below the trio of Tendulkar Ponting and Lara. I personally think it's fair. Those three produced roughly the same output in terms of runs but had more iconic moments in terms of batsmanship in the eyes of most fans.

As a cricketer, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that with time, he will come to be rated as an equal of Sobers. He's too good to not merit an equal standing

 

[kyear2]

This is the one. I would have sigged it if it wasn't so long

Have no problem with that post really. Quite good actually.

A couple points. First, was not comparing Sobers to your precious Imran. Been there, done that and finished with it. I personally don't rate bowling All rounders that highly, especially as highly as Pews, Ikki's, Smali etc and as I gave said I would even prefer a great batsman who was equally great in my cordon that to have a Hadlee/ Imran at 8 over a Marshall/ Warne (just batting wise, not even factoring in bowling) if given a choice. But will not go into that now.

Now to Pews post I will disagree with one point. Sobers was not just widely regarded as the best all rounder, it's more like an overwhelming consensus, not fully unanimous but not that far off either. When I said people's general opinion I don't mean people in the W.I, I mean scouring the net, looking for references and listening to older players, journalists and commentators.
Pews said the 20 ATG XI's don't matter, but those are the people that understand the game and it's history. Sobers makes every single team, Imran less than half and Kallis none. Cricinfo and Wisden's teams at least should be respected they both select Sobers, Cricinfo unanimously. When Smali is asked why Imran doesn't make more of these teams, he says that some only look for one all rounder and they choose Sobers over him. I think it's more than that, but that's his explanation. When historians and experts look at the great players it's a couple they place above the rest. Grace, Hobbs, Bradman and Sobers, if it's limited to tests and abbreviated it's Bradman and Sobers. Cricinfo had an Article once, who after Bradman and Sobers, there was a thread here not to long ago an ATG XI without the two certainties Bradman and Sobers. I have read articles that state when making two ATG XI's the only difference between the two are the aforementioned. I know it's not totally unanimous, but one cannot suggest that it's not an overwhelming majority.

Agree with Pews regarding Marshall though. For the title of greatest fast bowler he has challengers from Lillee (from past players, journalist etc) and from McGrath (stats). Marshall still comes out on top on most occasions, but I know it's far from unanimous and probably a narrow but existing consensus.
I will admit to that being an agenda as I think he is the most under rated cricketer (similar to how see the comparison to Murali and Warne) and looses out to Lillee for some due to Lillee's persona and excitement and has little to do with on field performance. Lillee was the fast bowlers fast bowler and he burst onto the scene similar to Warne and excited a nation and the cricketing community. But yes he is not seen in many circles as being in the same company as Bradman and even Sobers though he is being recognized in more XI's to almost an unanimous level. For me his top three all time, but I also know that as you are with some of your opinions, in the minority in that issue.

 

[kyear2]

Coming to the thread topic, I think Tendulkar is better by a reasonable distance as a batsman. He's definitely more versatile than Kallis when it comes to balancing attack and defence and switching that gear and going on a burst of quick runs when he feels it's necessary. The first half of Tendulkar's career was just filled with superb counterrattacking innings the likes of which kallis probably hasn't produced that often. I realise he's a different sort of batsman but Tendulkar could play the kallis sheet anchor role to perfection, too. And did on numerous occasions, especially in his second peak. It just makes Tendulkar a more complete batsman in my opinion.

History will undoubtedly remember Tendulkar as a greater batsman because he produced too many memorable and iconic moments/innings to ignore. It may or may not be a fair way of judging who is the greater batsman but a relative lack of iconic innings is something which will probably relegate kallis to below the trio of Tendulkar Ponting and Lara. I personally think it's fair. Those three produced roughly the same output in terms of runs but had more iconic moments in terms of batsmanship in the eyes of most fans.

As a cricketer, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that with time, he will come to be rated as an equal of Sobers. He's too good to not merit an equal standing

Agree with three quarters of your post. The last bit though is disingenuous. You have no doubt that Kallis I'll be seen by history to being behind Lara, Sachin and Ponting as a batsman but will be seen as the equal to Sobers as an All Round player.
If Kallis is seen as behind the aforementioned trio of his era and definitely some distance behind Sachin then he is the same distance behind Sobers who along with Richards and Sachin himself are mainly seen as the best middle order batsmen behind Bradman. As fielder's Sobers is also ahead, in the slips and definitely everywhere else so then we come to bowling. Kallis has a better strike rate but Sobers the higher WPM and was much more important to his team and team success as a bowler and bowler far more and was more versatile. So let's call that one even. So then how is it that over all they are somewhat even when Sobers is so far ahead as a batsman and fielder and even as bowlers.

 

[akilana]

To quote your favourite line -- Kallis was 'competing with the bowlers like Steyn Donald etc for wickets.' Sobers could have bowled fast, spin or whateve he preferred but the results clearly shows he was less effective than Kallis.

 

[kyear2]

Never said he was, what I said is that Sobers was more important to his team. Nothing else.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Amongst some admittedly humorous paeans, this is what yours truly was saying last week

 

[smash84]

a very interesting piece. Although I do wonder if the author really distinguishes between bowling and batting all rounders?

 

[ankitj]

I thought that was a really poor article. I couldn't even finish it.