Kallis vs Sobers, Donald vs Steyn, Trott vs Pollock

[Howe_zat]

But Kallis also often bowled a couple of overs, if nothing happened, he'd be off, and he also seems to have had a lot of days where he's got to knock over tail-enders (last week being the latest). A bad day for Kallis was none-for-forty, which has protected his average in some ways.

This, I think, needs to be addressed more when complimenting batting allrounders in general for their bowling averages. A very good point.

 

[uvelocity]

Stats aren't always a true reflection of who is better, but neither is the eye Burgey.

The No-Stats All-Star - NYTimes.com

Long story but a good'un.

Can't relate it to Kallis really though.

 

[Jono]

The reason it doesn't relate to Kallis is because Kallis exceeds at the "obvious" stats as well as the hidden ones.

 

[uvelocity]

What hidden one's pray tell? Don't recall him forcing hughes to nick into the slips by pushing him across his stumps.

It's a different sport.

 

[NasserFan207]

Kallis still bowls at 140+, and he's 36 years old. That tells you all you need to know about his talent as a bowler. Freddy Flintoff is five years younger and can barely walk.

In fact, the people downplaying his bowling because 'he didn't bowl much' have got things the wrong way round. When you bowl sparingly the skill diminishes, to be an effective international bowler you usually can't get away with 5 overs every match or so. Its a testament to Kallis' ability that he's remained effective at all. During his peak he never had an opportunity to be a frontline bowler, so we will never know what he was truly capable off. Its the other way round with Sobers, he was forced into carrying the attack at times.

Would be one of India's greatest ever fast bowlers.

 

[uvelocity]

Would be one of India's greatest ever fast bowlers.

lol I knew your username was a sign.

 

[NasserFan207]

lol I knew your username was a sign.

I know right, I have amazing taste.

 

[Burgey]

Long story but a good'un.

Can't relate it to Kallis really though.

I don't read any of Jono's links these days. Most of them are NSFW

 

[Flametree]

Kallis still bowls at 140+, and he's 36 years old. That tells you all you need to know about his talent as a bowler. Freddy Flintoff is five years younger and can barely walk.

... During his peak he never had an opportunity to be a frontline bowler, so we will never know what he was truly capable off. .

I think in this regard he was helped by being very much a front line bowler in one-day cricket, and there was/is of course so much one-day cricket. In that form of the game he often bowled in quite an attacking mode, so it didn't damage him too much. (Did he open the bowling for a time in ODIs? Seem to recall that around world cup 99 he was a serious threat with the swinging white ball, and bowling faster than Donald at times....).

 

[uvelocity]

What hidden one's pray tell? Don't recall him forcing hughes to nick into the slips by pushing him across his stumps.

It's a different sport.

What I wrote doesn't really make sense I think. I was meaning it in regard to the article, discussing putting Kobe Bryant in a low percentage position, it's not something that applies in cricket. If you're fielding in the slips all you can do is take the catch. All you can do bowling is take the wicket or keep down the runs.

I was trying to say Kallis can't physically move the batsman when he is fielding. If he is bowling he either gets the wicket or doesn't, I just can't see moneyball stuff being applicable here.

 

[NasserFan207]

I think in this regard he was helped by being very much a front line bowler in one-day cricket, and there was/is of course so much one-day cricket. In that form of the game he often bowled in quite an attacking mode, so it didn't damage him too much. (Did he open the bowling for a time in ODIs? Seem to recall that around world cup 99 he was a serious threat with the swinging white ball, and bowling faster than Donald at times....).

Yeah he may have done, but I don't think he ever got an opportunity for an extended period of time. He was always the fourth/fifth bowler and replacement strike bowler, who was never used significantly due to fears it would effect his batting. Anyway, SA have always had an abundance of frontline pacers, at one time it was similar to Australia's batting riches

 

[kyear2]

Completely agree. For what it's worth on the less-debated elements of the original post, Pollock RG was a true great of the game. Donald still beats Steyn - his average is a point lower isn't it?

Now... Kallis vs Sobers.

I'm a kiwi/Brit and have seen Kallis do well against NZ a few times. Saw him bowling in the World Cup in '99 when he was seriously quick and seriously good. But....

1. His minnow-bashing is absurd. 80 with the bat, 15 with the ball. It almost looks mean-spirited...

2. My perception is that there was a time when more than once, SA were well ahead but he never tried to accelerate at times when quick runs to set up a declaration were needed. It felt like getting his average over 50 was a huge thing for him. This is a few years back, I agree he's a more attacking player now. But still, you suspect Sobers wouldn't have known his batting average to the nearest five runs...

3. Sobers was a front-line bowler in over half his tests, Kallis was a fourth bowler. You can have a decent debate about which is the harder role. Sobers got a new ball quite often, fresh wicket sometimes. But the workload was much higher. Kallis got an older ball, occasionally set batsmen. But Kallis also often bowled a couple of overs, if nothing happened, he'd be off, and he also seems to have had a lot of days where he's got to knock over tail-enders (last week being the latest). A bad day for Kallis was none-for-forty, which has protected his average in some ways.

4. South Africa, I think we can all agree, have underperformed in the past 10 years. Given the players they've had, they should have won more test series, and they should have been a tougher opponent for Australia (especially at home). Kallis, possibly through no fault of his own, has been a big part of that, so I feel he'll never get the recognition he deserves because the side hasn't done as well as it should have.

5. Finally, Sir Gary was a true globetrotter. His image is of a guy who played for fun. He went on all sorts of "international xi" type tours, played for the Rest of the World, delighted county fans in his stints at Notts. (Yeah, I know he probably did this for money, just like everyone, but still, I can't imagine Kallis giving up his off-season break to go to Pakistan for two months on a tour.) He could drink most of us under the table then turn up at the ground and make a hundred. He bowled seam/swing, finger spin and wrist spin. He was a fantastic fielder. He made crazy declarations as captain. His batting was poetry in motion (possibly because he had that left-hander's natural grace?). Kallis, though technically sound with the bat, and occasionally menacing with the ball, and very good in the slips, just really never ever sets anyone's pulse racing.

I will always freely admit that Kallis's stats make him one of the top two to four allrounders ever (along with Sobers, Imran, and Miller for me, with Procter in a "maybe" category). But I don't think I could ever rate him as number one.

Very well written, Kallis is a Great, Great player, and one of the top four All Rounders of All-Time, but he isnt Garry Sobers. Sobers was the best batsman of his generation and one of the top 5 of All-Time, Kallis is top five of his generation and definately behind Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting, and on par with Dravid and ahead of the Sangakkara's ect.
Bowling wise Sobers had to carry the load in a batting friendly era, where long spells and containing lines were the order of most days, he bowled genuinely fast, medium, and two types of spin, some times all three in one match, this was a player who at different times opened the batting and others opened the bowling with little to no support, Kallis was/is a good support bowler to Donald, Pollock, Ntini, Steyn and Morkel, if he was ineffective, he was taken off, Sobers changed lines and started again. In the field Kallis is brilliantly reliable in the slips, but Sobers was one of, if not the best ever, everywhere, especially close to the batsman, watch some of his cathes on you-tube, he created chances, not just took them. Kallis is Great, Sobers is in the Pntheon with Bradman and Grace.

 

[NasserFan207]

Why are people talking about Kallis as if his career has finished? The man is planning to play untill the 2015 world cup, FFS. He's nuts.

I also have Sobers ahead, but not by much. Kallis could pass him.

 

[Flametree]

I don't think Kallis's bowling average will go anywhere but up if he keeps playing for three more years.

 

[benchmark00]

Yazz The only way is up Lyrics - YouTube

 

[L Trumper]

In fact, the people downplaying his bowling because 'he didn't bowl much' have got things the wrong way round. When you bowl sparingly the skill diminishes, to be an effective international bowler you usually can't get away with 5 overs every match or so. Its a testament to Kallis' ability that he's remained effective at all. During his peak he never had an opportunity to be a frontline bowler, so we will never know what he was truly capable off. Its the other way round with Sobers, he was forced into carrying the attack at times.

He never had a peak as a test bowler. Consistently ok but not a front line bowler let alone being in top 5 pacers in the world. There was a time when oppositions feared sobers bowling them out, with kallis that was never the case.

 

[thierry henry]

In fact, the people downplaying his bowling because 'he didn't bowl much' have got things the wrong way round.

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.

 

[watson]

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.

Sobers' record would also look better, not worse, if he had bowled more. Unfortunately when Sobers was at his bowling peak the West Indies had an excellent bowling attack.

And in the eight years when Sobers was at the peak on his bowling powers, he was among the best in that aspect too: only three bowlers took more than 100 wickets at an averge lower than Sobers' 27.93. West Indies had a pretty useful attack during that period too: Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith took care of the fast-bowling duties, while Lance Gibbs was the number one spinner. Since Sobers obviously wasn't the leading fast bowler or spinner, he was more of a support act, and hence seldom got the opportunity to bowl fast with the wind or slow against it. Later in his career with West Indies' fast-bowling resources dwindling, Sobers bowled long spells with defensive fields, but he managed that too without his bowling stats suffering too much.

Stats analysis: Garry Sobers: An allrounder like no other | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Also, has the bowling average of Kallis ever been in the top 4 for a stretch of about 8 years?

 

[thierry henry]

Sobers' record would also look better, not worse, if he had bowled more. Unfortunately when Sobers was at his bowling peak the West Indies had an excellent bowling attack.

You're saying Sobers was hampered by not bowling as much as he could have, yet that analysis makes it very clear that he bowled far more at the time when the Windies had "an excellent bowling attack" then at any other time in his career

The idea of Sobers stats getting blown out because of the periods when he was trundling away without much reward at the start and end of his career isn't backed up by the fact that he clearly did less bowling during these periods of his career. He was only taking 1-2 wickets per match and his average and strike rate were poor. This totally backs up my point.

Also, has the bowling average of Kallis ever been in the top 4 for a stretch of about 8 years?

No. However, Sobers' record during that period, at face value, is good but not outstandingly so.

If it really is that good then that would mean that batting was particularly easy at that time and that would need to be considered when analyzing his batting.

 

[thierry henry]

If anything that analysis indicates that Sobers was a good bowler (better than Kallis, and used more regularly) during the peak of his career, and a relatively ineffective bowler, used less frequently (worse than Kallis) at the start and end of his career.