Kallis Vs Sobers

[honestbharani]

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.

For every difficulty you say a modern cricketer faces, there is the counter argument of better facilities, better fitness training, better coaching tools available, better monetary rewards for players, better takign care of them through injuries, better bats, flatter wickets, smaller grounds etc. etc..


I don't think cricket is any easier now but I don't think it is that much more difficult either.. To me the only things comparable are the standard of opposition faced..

 

[honestbharani]

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.

You know, UC, if that were the only point made in this thread, there would really be no arguments.. The belittling of Sobers and his record that happens here is sometimes unbelievable..

 

[Sanz]

The belittling of Sobers and his record that happens here is sometimes unbelievable..

Actually it is more than that. It is belittling India/Pakistan as a cricketing nation by saying that they were comparable to present day Bangladesh/Zimbabwe.

Everytime someone mentions Sobers and certain individuals start crapping all over spouting the same nonsense over and over again.

Frigging Statistics Terrorists..

 

[Ikki]

You know, UC, if that were the only point made in this thread, there would really be no arguments.. The belittling of Sobers and his record that happens here is sometimes unbelievable..

Unfortunately, his fans have put him on such a pedestal that it seems every criticism or clarification of his record is deemed as belittling him. People don't like the facts sometimes, I don't get it. For example, the difference between Zimbabwe's batting and S.Africa's batting during Kallis' time is about the same as between India's and West Indies of Sobers' time - 7-8 points, this despite the many draws of the time undoubtedly helped the smaller team's batsmen. Of course, not because they were simply draws but because of the way the game was played.

So, it seems people have to go look over these facts and recalibrate what they originally thought. This is the danger in judging everything by hearsay or by "looks".

 

[Sanz]

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

And Which Stats are we talking about here ?

 

[Ikki]

And Which Stats are we talking about here ?

The stats about how they compared to the rest of the bowlers during their career. To clarify whether the standard of cricket as a whole was different or whether the bowlers themselves didn't meet the standard.

Here:

Sobers:
Average: 34.04 SR: 91.9

The rest:
Average: 31.18 SR 79.8

Kallis:
Average: 31.12 SR: 66.2

The rest:
Average: 33.07 SR 66.3

 

[Son Of Coco]

For every difficulty you say a modern cricketer faces, there is the counter argument of better facilities, better fitness training, better coaching tools available, better monetary rewards for players, better takign care of them through injuries, better bats, flatter wickets, smaller grounds etc. etc..


I don't think cricket is any easier now but I don't think it is that much more difficult either.. To me the only things comparable are the standard of opposition faced..

Yeah I'm not sure the pitches were flat as a tack as someone described them back when Sobers was playing.

 

[aussie]

Actually it is more than that. It is belittling India/Pakistan as a cricketing nation by saying that they were comparable to present day Bangladesh/Zimbabwe.

Everytime someone mentions Sobers and certain individuals start crapping all over spouting the same nonsense over and over again.

Frigging Statistics Terrorists..

. Go Sanz...

 

[honestbharani]

Unfortunately, his fans have put him on such a pedestal that it seems every criticism or clarification of his record is deemed as belittling him. People don't like the facts sometimes, I don't get it. For example, the difference between Zimbabwe's batting and S.Africa's batting during Kallis' time is about the same as between India's and West Indies of Sobers' time - 7-8 points, this despite the many draws of the time undoubtedly helped the smaller team's batsmen. Of course, not because they were simply draws but because of the way the game was played.

So, it seems people have to go look over these facts and recalibrate what they originally thought. This is the danger in judging everything by hearsay or by "looks".

jeez man.. it is just not about points.. You need to watch the game to understand.. The difference between a batting side of average 50 and a batting side of average 42 is 8 and so is the difference betwen a batting side of average 40 and a batting side of average 32.. Does this mean the latter in the first case is the equal of the latter in the second case?



I dont know enough about Pakistan in the 1950s but I have seen BD/Zim through the 90s and 2000s and there is no way that Indian side in 1950 was as bad as these teams...

 

[Harry Harrison]

Sobers is far and away the better batsman, and in bowling they're probably about equal with Sobers once again likely having the edge. This isn't a statistics thing, or records this is just purely cricketing history.

Nobody can stop you from writing anything you want.

 

[archie mac]

jeez man.. it is just not about points.. You need to watch the game to understand.. The difference between a batting side of average 50 and a batting side of average 42 is 8 and so is the difference betwen a batting side of average 40 and a batting side of average 32.. Does this mean the latter in the first case is the equal of the latter in the second case?



I dont know enough about Pakistan in the 1950s but I have seen BD/Zim through the 90s and 2000s and there is no way that Indian side in 1950 was as bad as these teams...

I have to admit I do not know as much about the Indian/Pakistan teams of that period as I do about the Aust, England, Sth Afr and WI sides for instance, but from what I have read they were a bit like the SL teams in there first period of Test cricket, pretty good batsman but only one top class bowler

 

[honestbharani]

I have to admit I do not know as much about the Indian/Pakistan teams of that period as I do about the Aust, England, Sth Afr and WI sides for instance, but from what I have read they were a bit like the SL teams in there first period of Test cricket, pretty good batsman but only one top class bowler

Still better than Zim in the 90s, right?

 

[archie mac]

Still better than Zim in the 90s, right?

Without a doubt

 

[Uppercut]

For every difficulty you say a modern cricketer faces, there is the counter argument of better facilities, better fitness training, better coaching tools available, better monetary rewards for players, better takign care of them through injuries, better bats, flatter wickets, smaller grounds etc. etc..


I don't think cricket is any easier now but I don't think it is that much more difficult either.. To me the only things comparable are the standard of opposition faced..

Yeah, it's a different game basically, making comparisons very hard.

It's the overall general standard that improves with time.

 

[Uppercut]

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...

Hmm, why do you say this? Is it because he has trouble accelarating and/or dominating an attack?

I think Kallis gets unfairly criticised for his style a touch- Dravid too. I'd tend to think of them both in the same league as the others but their biggest asset is their incredible concentration. You can't see it when you watch them bat but it's the reason they score just as many runs as the Tendulkars and Laras of the world (until Dravid's recent dip). I'm big on effectiveness, as you've probably gathered, run-scoring is what it's all about for me.

Although they're both nowhere near the class of the three mentioned in ODI cricket. So as a complete overview, there's no real comparison.

 

[Ikki]

jeez man.. it is just not about points.. You need to watch the game to understand.. The difference between a batting side of average 50 and a batting side of average 42 is 8 and so is the difference betwen a batting side of average 40 and a batting side of average 32.. Does this mean the latter in the first case is the equal of the latter in the second case?

It's basically the same difference. IIRC S.Africa/WIndies were low 30s and India/Zimbabwe were mid 20s. India are a bit better IIRC, but again, I put that down to flat pitches and a large amount of drawn matches - in fact, that could even be an argument for Zimbabwe.

Essentially, we're talking about very weak teams. So to say we should discount the likes of Zimbabwe for Kallis but keep Sobers' record against India is pretty unfair.

I dont know enough about Pakistan in the 1950s but I have seen BD/Zim through the 90s and 2000s and there is no way that Indian side in 1950 was as bad as these teams...

Pakistan actually was better than India (although by a small portion) in batting and bowling. So you can't even begin to use the question in the first part of this post. You could even question New Zealand as they had the worst batting and 2nd worst bowling of Sobers' time. Essentially Sobers played 2 strong teams and 3 very weak ones.

 

[Stapel]

The stats about how they compared to the rest of the bowlers during their career. To clarify whether the standard of cricket as a whole was different or whether the bowlers themselves didn't meet the standard.

Here:

Sobers:
Average: 34.04 SR: 91.9

The rest:
Average: 31.18 SR 79.8

Kallis:
Average: 31.12 SR: 66.2

The rest:
Average: 33.07 SR 66.3

I find this a quite convincing statistic!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I find this a quite convincing statistic!

Then go and find a mathematics forum where this sort of blind slide rule analysis has some relevance.

 

[honestbharani]

It's basically the same difference. IIRC S.Africa/WIndies were low 30s and India/Zimbabwe were mid 20s. India are a bit better IIRC, but again, I put that down to flat pitches and a large amount of drawn matches - in fact, that could even be an argument for Zimbabwe.

Essentially, we're talking about very weak teams. So to say we should discount the likes of Zimbabwe for Kallis but keep Sobers' record against India is pretty unfair.



Pakistan actually was better than India (although by a small portion) in batting and bowling. So you can't even begin to use the question in the first part of this post. You could even question New Zealand as they had the worst batting and 2nd worst bowling of Sobers' time. Essentially Sobers played 2 strong teams and 3 very weak ones.

My problem is you are defining strong and weak a good 50 years since...



I am sure there will be people saying 50 years down the line that India just bashed a minnow Aussie bowling attack last year.


It is the problem with stats... You only got the numbers, never the perspective...

 

[Uppercut]

Then go and find a mathematics forum where this sort of blind slide rule analysis has some relevance.

If you don't think HOW MANY WICKETS A BOWLER TAKES is relevant to cricket then it's you who is on the wrong forum.