Kallis Vs Sobers

[zaremba]

I don't know when Sobers first put the view forward, but he still held it at the time of his autobiography coming out, which was either 2004 or 2005.

Well he's talking a big pile of nonsense then. We all know that the deadliest leg spinner in the history of the game, by that stage, was Ian Salisbury

 

[Uppercut]

you write pretty well yourself.



And as for the actual points, yes, if more than 80% of Gandhi's contemporaries considered him a prick, it probably would be true... But that is not the case. And anyways, there is obvious reason why Churchill would consider Gandhi a prick.. It makes as much sense as listening to how good Andrew Symonds is from Harbhajan Singh...


You are certainly going on a huge tangent comparing Sobers' contemporary opinions and Churchill's opinions on Gandhi. But I know you are better than that. And actually, I can see where you were going with that example.


As I said, it is one thing when few people say that Sobers was that good but that is not the case. The respect and admiration for him and his rating as the greatest are almost universal. The best players, journalists and commentators of his era, and the next and the next to the next all think the same thing. I am sorry, but that kind of consensus simply cannot exist if he was not that good. I hate to rate players I have never seen but I am more than willing to buy this many people's views than statsguru.


The first thing that one should know about cricket is that matches can be won by scores of 30s and lost by 100s, when talking about batsmen. Stats are important but if you don't have the proper perspective of it, it can only help to conceal rather than reveal the truth.

You're absolutely right of course, and you haven't said a thing I disagree with. Sobers was, without a doubt, a terrific player and any number of sources- including his stats, particularly if well analysed- can be used as evidence for that.

I only have a problem when comparing him to Jacques Kallis- in fact, I wouldn't even venture to say that Kallis is better. I'm only, as I say, asking the question- Kallis is every inch a match-winner, an incredible sportsman who has continually scored runs, taken wickets and held catches for fourteen years and counting. You can say that Sobers scored important runs when the team needed them- so did Kallis. That he took vital wickets that broke partnerships- so did Kallis. That he took fantastic catches or had extremely safe hands- so did Kallis. They've both scored and taken wickets at fairly similar averages for long periods of time. So why does the comparison cause so many people to choke on their cereal?

 

[ret]

They've both scored and taken wickets at fairly similar averages for long periods of time. So why does the comparison cause so many people to choke on their cereal?

that's a good point. most comparisons should not annoy ppl and in many cases they help us know more abt the cricketers and from different perspectives

but in the end, when you see that the poll result are heavily tilted in one man's favor, you know this was probably a one way street

to me this thread is more like comparing Viv Richards [Sobers] with Steve Waugh [Kallis] and i guess in the end Viv would clean out Waugh despite Waugh having an excellent record just like Sobers cleaned out Kallis which makes some question such comparisons

 

[steve132]

I'm generally in the camp that says contemporary opinion is of equal worth to statistical record in comparing across eras, but with the important qualification that as much as possible you need to look at the opinions of people who played against both, or played against neither, or if that's not possible, compare the opinions of their peers rather than only the opinions of past players who played against say, Sobers, and only watched Kallis from the stands.

It's a consistent trend of almost all ex-players to rate those that they themselves played against that little bit higher than those who follow. It's not even really vanity, its just I'd suspect that while the mastery of a spell from Dennis Lillee, or the sublimity of a Garry Sobers innings, might be engravened on the mind of the poor bugger trying to keep Dennis out, or trying to work out where to bowl to Sobers, that same person watching from the stands isn't going to appreciate a Dale Steyn or Ricky Ponting innings in the same vivid manner. And thus, when asked who was the best bowler you've seen, they'll automatically say "Lillee".

You are correct in stating that former players are often biased in favor of their own era. Fred Trueman was a notorious example of this phenomenon. He had nothing but contempt for players of later generations (including even the very best, such as Botham and Viv Richards) - so much so that it was practically impossible to listen to him. Nevertheless, there are three points to be made about these comparisons. Honestbarani has already made two of them.

yeah.. but what about those who have ONLY watched both of them play from close quarters, like the journos and commentators?

Surely they can't be biased about how Sobers thrashed them or their team, because the chances are they felt the same way about Kallis.

The bias in favor of one's own generation is far less pronounced among journalists than it is among players. Journalists have as high an opinion of Sobers as do his player contemporaries.

tbh, I always feel it is the other extreme.. People are so taken in by the current players/superstars that they often oh-so-easily forget how good their predecessors were... And the arguments against Sobers here are some of the best examples of that particular genre...

Precisely. I can quote another example. It's striking to me how rarely Ray Lindwall is recognized on this forum as one of the greatest of all fast bowlers. The discussion always starts with Lillee - yet Lindwall's contemporaries admired him as much as Lillee's did. You need only to read what Denis Compton, Neil Harvey and Clyde Walcott have to say about Lindwall to know that he must have been a very great bowler.

My final observation about Sobers is that he was not just the idol of his own age group. Three separate generations of cricket lovers saw Sobers play - his own (born between 1920 and 1950), the preceding cohort (generally born from 1900 to 1920) and the next group, my own, born after 1950. Virtually all observers in all three groups claimed Sobers as the greatest all-rounder they ever saw. You would expect men born before 1920, who saw all the great interwar players, to opt for Rhodes or Woolley or Hammond. Very few of them do so - John Arlott, Don Bradman, Learie Constantine, Jack Fingleton, C.L.R. James and E.W. Swanton all said that Sobers was the best. They did not change their minds when Imran and Botham came along.

My group is contemporary with Imran, Botham and Kapil Dev, and many of us also saw Mike Procter (strangely ignored in many of the all rounder posts on these boards, although he was fully comparable to Miller, Imran and Botham). Again, almost all informed observers of this age group regard Sobers as the greatest.

In view of this unanimity it would be difficult to maintain that the esteem in which Sobers is held is simply a reflection of a generational prejudice. To date I have not seen any argument that would persuade me that a better all-rounder has emerged since his retirement, and I believe that most cricket lovers share my view.

 

[steve132]

I think the above post is a classical example of the demonstration of:

I myself have no doubt Gupte was a terrific wristspinner, and I've had cogent, very sensible explanations of why his Test bowling figures do not accurately reflect the calibre of his bowling and thus am more than happy to accept accounts of how good he was.

However, I'll never believe he was better than Warne or Muralitharan. Or probably O'Reilly or Grimmett either, though I know this particular comparison doesn't involve the two and nor, indeed, does any other I've ever seen.

Neither Sobers nor Weekes saw Grimmett or O'Reilly, and as such they did not compare Gupte to them. When discussing Gupte Sobers was careful to say that watching a bowler and playing him are two different things. I haven't seen any recent interviews in which Weekes addresses this issue, so it's not clear if Warne is included in his comparative assessment.

 

[steve132]

Oh it's fair enough for you to judge Sobers as better if you watched him play many, many times. My comment was aimed solely at the two posts ikki quoted.

You write very well but you rather offend the historian in me. Why shouldn't we question perceived wisdom? The general consensus is that Sobers is better than Kallis, but why can't I look at the facts and ask whether it's entirely true or not? Should we all look at Churchill's comments on Gandhi and say, "hey, none of the facts support the theory that Gandhi's a prick, but Churchill was actually there so he must have been right"? In truth plenty of people are massively overappreciated or underappreciated by contemporaries, and hindsight is a fantastic tool with which to judge players. So why is it so morally offensive for me to look at Jacques Kallis- IMO one of the most underrated players in the world, if not ever- and Garry Sobers and ask questions like: if Sobers was SO much better, why did they score such similar amounts of runs and take such similar amounts of wickets?

I can see where this is going- I'll roll out numbers, and you'll label me a number-cruncher and I'll happily agree but point out that they're the numbers that win cricket matches. And you'll roll out contemporary opinions, and I'll label you a bookworm and you'll happily agree but point out that those who were there probably have a better idea of how good a cricketer he was than we do. And all it comes down to is that we have two sources and I consider one to be the more important and you consider the other to be the more important, and we'll agree to disagree.

But please don't patronise or criticise people just for asking the question.

Nothing that I wrote could or should be construed as saying that we can never question received wisdom. In fact, I've done so myself on several occasions. For example, I have always believed that Harold Larwood's reputation is inflated. The Bodyline series was the only one in which he had any conspicuous success, and in that series he benefited from tactics that were (rightly) not permitted to subsequent bowlers.

However, you attempt to make a contrast between what "the facts" show and what conventional wisdom says. This comparison assumes that Kallis' record is statistically superior to Sobers'. It is not. Sobers is ahead in all standard categories except for strike rate and bowling average. The statistical differences are not great, but at most you can say that Kallis has as good a record as Sobers. If two players have roughly similar statistics but virtually everyone who has seen them both believes that one was superior, that opinion is very unlikely to be mistaken.

Moreover, the posts on this board in support of Kallis are not devoted simply to asking a question. In this and other threads they state particular conclusions and make some dubious statements in support of their views. Included among these are claims that Test cricket was easier in the 1960's than it is today, that India's famed spin bowlers of the 1950'ss and 60's were mediocre and overrated, and that all the former players and journalists who have praised Sobers are incompetent in terms of evaluating players. My comment was posted in response to statements of that nature.

 

[Uppercut]

Was test cricket not "easier" in the 1960s?

For the purposes of comparison i don't think it's relevant- you can't hold it against someone that they played in a less professional era anyway, or that certain innovations had not yet been seen.

But cricket, like all sport, moves forward, and the literal standard of play today- with all the improved fitness, more cricket played and new ideas that have developed over the years- is surely better than it was in the 1960s. Nevertheless, it's a horrid point to make in criticism of someone who played in an earlier era, and if that's what you're saying i completely agree.

 

[Uppercut]

However, you attempt to make a contrast between what "the facts" show and what conventional wisdom says. This comparison assumes that Kallis' record is statistically superior to Sobers'. It is not. Sobers is ahead in all standard categories except for strike rate and bowling average. The statistical differences are not great, but at most you can say that Kallis has as good a record as Sobers. If two players have roughly similar statistics but virtually everyone who has seen them both believes that one was superior, that opinion is very unlikely to be mistaken.

Indeed, but I'm like a broken record with regards to Kallis- i think he's one of the most widely underrated, underappreciated players in the world, and say so repeatedly. I can't watch Sobers, but i can and do watch a lot of Kallis, and IMO as a player he's considerably better than the general consensus of today seems to think- largely as a result of his style of playing, which is less inspiring than a lot of others.

Given that, it seems reasonable to me that he's similar to Sobers- a legendary figure who is generally thought of at a small step up from Kallis by the journalists who I feel don't rate him highly enough. I wouldn't unequivocally say he's better, never have done, but I think he belongs in the comparison. Put another way, it's the widely-held opinion of Kallis- not Sobers- that I'm challenging.

 

[Ikki]

However, you attempt to make a contrast between what "the facts" show and what conventional wisdom says. This comparison assumes that Kallis' record is statistically superior to Sobers'. It is not. Sobers is ahead in all standard categories except for strike rate and bowling average. The statistical differences are not great, but at most you can say that Kallis has as good a record as Sobers. If two players have roughly similar statistics but virtually everyone who has seen them both believes that one was superior, that opinion is very unlikely to be mistaken.

That pretty much means he was the better bowler.

 

[steve132]

Indeed, but I'm like a broken record with regards to Kallis- i think he's one of the most widely underrated, underappreciated players in the world, and say so repeatedly. I can't watch Sobers, but i can and do watch a lot of Kallis, and IMO as a player he's considerably better than the general consensus of today seems to think- largely as a result of his style of playing, which is less inspiring than a lot of others.

Given that, it seems reasonable to me that he's similar to Sobers- a legendary figure who is generally thought of at a small step up from Kallis by the journalists who I feel don't rate him highly enough. I wouldn't unequivocally say he's better, never have done, but I think he belongs in the comparison. Put another way, it's the widely-held opinion of Kallis- not Sobers- that I'm challenging.

Well, if that's all that you are claiming I doubt whether there would be much of a debate. At any rate, there is still a big difference between saying that Kallis has stats that are comparable to Sobers' and claiming that he was as great a player as Sobers.

Moreover, as I indicated in my previous post, a number of the other people who voted for Kallis in this poll have made far stronger and more controversial claims, to which a number of us have responded.

 

[steve132]

That pretty much means he was the better bowler.

Let's see. Malcolm Marshall bowled fewer balls in Test cricket than did Dennis Lillee, and he took more wickets at a lower average. His bowling was more economical than Lillee's, and he had a higher strike rate. In fact, he was the superior bowler by all statistical criteria, yet you continue to prefer Lillee. I wonder why.

Murali took more wickets at a lower average than did Shane Warne, His strike rate was higher than Warne's, his bowling was more economical, and he obtained twice as many five wickets per innings and 10 wickets per match hauls, despite the fact that to date he has appeared in 20 fewer Tests. He was the superior bowler by all statistical criteria, yet you continue to insist that Warne is the greater of the two. I wonder why.

Note that in the Sobers-Kallis comparison Sobers has better batting statistics than Kallis.

 

[Ikki]

Let's see. Malcolm Marshall bowled fewer balls in Test cricket than did Dennis Lillee, and he took more wickets at a lower average. His bowling was more economical than Lillee's, and he had a higher strike rate. In fact, he was the superior bowler by all statistical criteria, yet you continue to prefer Lillee. I wonder why.

Murali took more wickets at a lower average than did Shane Warne, His strike rate was higher than Warne's, his bowling was more economical, and he obtained twice as many five wickets per innings and 10 wickets per match hauls, despite the fact that to date he has appeared in 20 fewer Tests. He was the superior bowler by all statistical criteria, yet you continue to insist that Warne is the greater of the two. I wonder why.

Note that in the Sobers-Kallis comparison Sobers has better batting statistics than Kallis.

I've already gone through that question, as I looked at the conditions they bowled in (pitches/Windies) their role in the team and relearning Lillee had to do after he was crippled. Granted Marshall comes out better still, I think it's a tad different to arguing this But then again, I also think Lillee is better than McGrath.

Murali without minnows (because remember, that's what inflates his stats a great deal) is basically similar to Warne in average and SR. But Murali played half his tests at home, on pitches suited for his bowling whereas Warne bowled in unfriendly conditions at home. So it more than makes up the 1-2 points in average and SR.

Now Sobers not only averages worse than Kallis...but his SR is some 25 points weaker. That's not explainable in any other way than his bowling being inferior. Notice how the 2 comparisons you bring up are close? This one isn't really that close. I agree that Sobers has better batting statistics and also is the better batsman, but not as much as it's being propagated here. So that's why I think they're close, and that's why I can't agree with anyone making it sound as if it's a one-sided argument.

 

[Uppercut]

Now Sobers not only averages worse than Kallis...but his SR is some 25 points weaker. That's not explainable in any other way than his bowling being inferior. Notice how the 2 comparisons you bring up are close? This one isn't really that close. I agree that Sobers has better batting statistics and also is the better batsman, but not as much as it's being propagated here. So that's why I think they're close, and that's why I can't agree with anyone making it sound as if it's a one-sided argument.

That's not a remotely valid comparison given respective scoring rates. Comparative average is much more solid statistically, and without minnows they're very similar. But the era Kallis has played in means he takes that anyway.

 

[Ikki]

That's not a remotely valid comparison given respective scoring rates. Comparative average is much more solid statistically, and without minnows they're very similar. But the era Kallis has played in means he takes that anyway.

I've done the comparative analysis. Sobers was not only more expensive but also still took about 10-12 points higher than the SR of his time. Kallis is 3 points cheaper than the average now and is right on the SR average.

Without minnows they're not similar, becaue if you think Pakistan/India of Sobers' time were that much better, if better at all, you're giving him an advantage. I think I had argued this one before you joined the site mate. Even went to look how India/Pakistan rated against the best of their time and how Zim/Bang did against the best of their time and they were pretty much the same.

 

[Uppercut]

I've done the comparative analysis. Sobers was not only more expensive but also still took about 10-12 points higher than the SR of his time. Kallis is 3 points cheaper than the average now and is right on the SR average.

Without minnows they're not similar, becaue if you think Pakistan/India of Sobers' time were that much better, if better at all, you're giving him an advantage. I think I had argued this one before you joined the site mate. Even went to look how India/Pakistan rated against the best of their time and how Zim/Bang did against the best of their time and they were pretty much the same.

Fair call, yeah. Statistically, Kallis is fairly comfortably the better bowler I guess.

 

[Ikki]

Fair call, yeah. Statistically, Kallis is fairly comfortably the better bowler I guess.

Yes, when you look at it overall he is. But the best of Sobers is better than the best of Kallis. For 5 years Sobers was a very good pace bowler and won matches on his bowling alone. That's why people rate him so high (probably too high) as a bowler. But then he has 15 years of crud. Whereas with Kallis it's much more consistent throughout his whole career - usually at the same level, a bit higher or less.+

P.S. actually looking over the batting stats I wouldn't say "they were pretty much the same", I retract that. India/Pakistan were better than Zimbabwe/Bangladesh. Zimbabwe is probably the equivalent to India/Pakistan though, Bangladesh is not close at all actually. But then there are things which inflate the batting records around Sobers' time with a lot of drawn matches (as well as flat pitches) and probably even worse bowling which may help the weaker sides' record. Actually, even without them Kallis is still comparatively better.

 

[Top_Cat]

Whatever their respective merits in Test cricket, we can be sure Sobers is a better beach cricketer than Kallis.

 

[Top_Cat]

Neither Sobers nor Weekes saw Grimmett or O'Reilly, and as such they did not compare Gupte to them. When discussing Gupte Sobers was careful to say that watching a bowler and playing him are two different things. I haven't seen any recent interviews in which Weekes addresses this issue, so it's not clear if Warne is included in his comparative assessment.

Yeah exactly. Not to mention, players are (understandably) pre-disposed towards rating players that they like highly. Warne, for example, rates Jamie Siddons at 50 in his top 50 cricketers. Now, I grew up watching Siddons captain SA and as much as I love the guy (and he's considered by many to be the best batsman never to play Tests), that's rating him a bit highly. It becomes more clear why, though, when you see that Siddons was one of Victoria's best players when Warne started playing FC cricket.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah exactly. Not to mention, players are (understandably) pre-disposed towards rating players that they like highly. Warne, for example, rates Jamie Siddons at 50 in his top 50 cricketers. Now, I grew up watching Siddons captain SA and as much as I love the guy (and he's considered by many to be the best batsman never to play Tests), that's rating him a bit highly. It becomes more clear why, though, when you see that Siddons was one of Victoria's best players when Warne started playing FC cricket.

Warne only included cricketers he'd played with or against though. So some degree of the inevitable bias was stamped out.

Generally i find it almost impossible to compare across eras, so that was probably a good idea.

 

[honestbharani]

You're absolutely right of course, and you haven't said a thing I disagree with. Sobers was, without a doubt, a terrific player and any number of sources- including his stats, particularly if well analysed- can be used as evidence for that.

I only have a problem when comparing him to Jacques Kallis- in fact, I wouldn't even venture to say that Kallis is better. I'm only, as I say, asking the question- Kallis is every inch a match-winner, an incredible sportsman who has continually scored runs, taken wickets and held catches for fourteen years and counting. You can say that Sobers scored important runs when the team needed them- so did Kallis. That he took vital wickets that broke partnerships- so did Kallis. That he took fantastic catches or had extremely safe hands- so did Kallis. They've both scored and taken wickets at fairly similar averages for long periods of time. So why does the comparison cause so many people to choke on their cereal?

It is not the comparison mate... It is the pooh-poohing of Sobers and the regard that he is held in by others just based on numbers that gets a little irritating at times.


And as for the actual comparison, I don't think Kallis is in the same league as Lara, Tendulkar or Ponting and from all accounts, Sobers was better than even these guys as a batsman... Their bowling I would rate to be equal.. Perhaps Kallis being slightly better but Sobers offered more variety and in my all time XI with 4 great bowlers already there, I would rather go for the variety. And Kallis' style of batting is not what I would want at no.6 in my team anyways... All in all, I would rate Sobers the better batsman and fielder (if pushed, that is.. I generally prefer NOT to rate players I never saw play) and also the bowler who offers more variety and for these reasons I rate him to be the better all rounder...