• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Kallis vs Sobers, Donald vs Steyn, Trott vs Pollock

Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
rza said:
This is my main issue. Did you see Sobers? If not, then what is it that makes you rate him higher than Kallis since all you have is stats, and video clips with a camera 50 meters away from the wicket?
Click to expand...
Well, that's when you go and start reading books and doing research.
 
R

rza

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Prince EWS said:
Donald is rated higher than Steyn because he maintained an extremely similar standard of performance over a longer period. Rightly so too; ten years of Donald is worth more than six years or Steyn. I reckon Steyn will be rated the better bowler by the time he retires.
Click to expand...
That's a good point, and I accept that. But if we compare where Steyn is now, and where Donald was at the same stage, then shouldn't that tell us that Steyn is up there with Donald, therefore should be ranked as high?

Is longevity the reason why Tendulkar is rated so high by almost everybody?
 
R

rza

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Spark said:
A lot of it is bashing weak county attacks tbf. How much I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
To be fair, there are weak attacks in every era, and Pollock certainly had weak attacks as well. The point is that had Hussey retired at the same point then he would have achieved similar stats, if not better. So what is it that separates Pollock from Hussey?
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
rza said:
That's a good point, and I accept that. But if we compare where Steyn is now, and where Donald was at the same stage, then shouldn't that tell us that Steyn is up there with Donald, therefore should be ranked as high?
Click to expand...
Nah, because that's just assuming that their careers have the same rate of progression, and players develop at all sorts of weird and wonderful rates. When comparing Donald to Steyn you pretty much have to pretend that Steyn retired yesterday ... which is why it's a fairly pointless exercise until he actually calls it a day.

rza said:
Is longevity the reason why Tendulkar is rated so high by almost everybody?
Click to expand...
Certainly is by me. To have such an awesome batsman play for so long is invaluable to a team. I don't think actually think the quality of his batsmanship in mean terms is much if at all better than the likes of Ponting or Kallis but that he's been able to give his team that sort of high quality for longer than the others is what puts him ahead in my books.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Prince EWS said:
Certainly is by me. To have such an awesome batsman play for so long is invaluable to a team. I don't think actually think the quality of his batsmanship in mean terms is much if at all better than the likes of Ponting or Kallis but that he's been able to give his team that sort of high quality for longer than the others is what puts him ahead in my books.
Click to expand...
Yeah agreed with this.
 
R

rza

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Spark said:
Well, that's when you go and start reading books and doing research.
Click to expand...
Books written by whom? If you ask a person who played in the 70s what their best bowler/batsman is they will give you a person they played in the same era with, the same with guys who played in other eras. For instances, Lara, Kallis, Ponting and possibly Tendulkar will tell you that Wasim was the best bowler of all time in their minds. And that's because they played in the same era as him. Guys like Gavaskar, Border, Boycott, etc will tell you of the West Indian bowlers or Lille/Hadlee, because that's what they played against. So we are still not moving forward. So do you now choose to believe a group of Gavaskar/Border/Boycott or Kallis/Lara/Ponting/Tendulkar? Today's batsmen are probably gonna choose Steyn/Anderson, etc as their best bowler of all time, so we are not winning?
 
NUFAN

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Prince EWS said:
Certainly is by me. To have such an awesome batsman play for so long is invaluable to a team. I don't think actually think the quality of his batsmanship in mean terms is much if at all better than the likes of Ponting or Kallis but that he's been able to give his team that sort of high quality for longer than the others is what puts him ahead in my books.
Click to expand...
How highly do you rate Courtney Walsh? 519 wickets in a career spanning 18 years for a quick, is amazing. He doesn't get all the credit that he deserves.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
It's more nuanced than that. You read about when they scored their runs, the kind of pitches they batted on and so on.
 
Mike5181

Mike5181

International Captain
I do remember Benaud's all time eleven or something didn't have Marshall, Murali, Knott etc short listed in their respective categories which was a bit far fetched. It's like validating your own era and your own record by rating players you played against higher.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Either way it's definitely a lot more complicated that Kallis's average > Sobers => Kallis > Sobers.
 
benchmark00

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Mike5181 said:
I do remember Benaud's all time eleven or something didn't have Marshall, Murali, Knott etc short listed in their respective categories which was a bit far fetched. It's like validating your own era and your own record by rating players you played against higher.
Click to expand...
How many of his XI were from his playing era??
 
R

rza

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Prince EWS said:
Nah, because that's just assuming that their careers have the same rate of progression, and players develop at all sorts of weird and wonderful rates. When comparing Donald to Steyn you pretty much have to pretend that Steyn retired yesterday ... which is why it's a fairly pointless exercise until he actually calls it a day.

Certainly is by me. To have such an awesome batsman play for so long is invaluable to a team. I don't think actually think the quality of his batsmanship in mean terms is much if at all better than the likes of Ponting or Kallis but that he's been able to give his team that sort of high quality for longer than the others is what puts him ahead in my books.
Click to expand...
You make two good points. Correct me if I'm wrong. If Steyn passes Donald wickets at more or less the same average and strike-rate as he has now, do we then conclude he was better or equal? If Kallis plays for three more years after Tendulkar retires, and he passes his runs at more or less the same average, do we then rate Kallis in the same level as Tendulkar?

Let me use your analogy against you. Kallis played 50 tests (I think Sobers played 93 tests) more than Sobers, so why doesn't his longevity elevate him above Sobers, if Tendulkar's longevity elevates him above most?
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
I definitely wouldn't, because of the way he scored his runs for a large part of his career.
 
R

rza

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Mike5181 said:
I do remember Benaud's all time eleven or something didn't have Marshall, Murali, Knott etc short listed in their respective categories which was a bit far fetched. It's like validating your own era and your own record by rating players you played against higher.
Click to expand...
During the Sri Lanka series in SA, pundits did the same thing, and all of them chose the best bowlers as those who played in their era. It's a fuss really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top