Kallis Vs Sobers

[Evermind]

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

Please explain. Incidentally, I found that statistical list convincing too.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Please explain. Incidentally, I found that statistical list convincing too.

If you really need it explaining how little can be gleaned by quoting stats then you should probably take up knitting instead.

 

[Uppercut]

Please explain. Incidentally, I found that statistical list convincing too.

LT thinks it's sufficient to say something to the effect of, "stats are for nerds" and feel smugly superior for thinking the number of wickets a bowler takes or the number of runs a batsman scores is irrelevant. That's all you'll get, not a well-thought-out answer describing why exactly Kallis's bowling record is so much better despite Sobers's superiority.

EDIT: Hahahaha, soo beaten.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Has anyone else ever been the best batsman in the world, and bowled the overs of a front line bowler, for the vast majority of their career?

 

[Ikki]

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...

Dear HB, the standards in Cricket have not changed that much. Averaging in the 30s with the ball in the 60s is pretty much what averaging 30s are right now. Averaging in the 50s with the bat in the 50s is pretty much what averaging 50s now is. It's not that different.

People's perceptions are what can muddy the waters. People think because there are more batsmen with averages of 50 now that it is that much easier to attain. That's an error in perception. It's because there are more good teams and more teams overall.

There are things that have changed about the game but it's basically the same. If I had only numbers, I'd be in trouble. But I have a good idea about the rules, the way the game was played, how it was played, etc and I use these outside facts to create judgments. And when I miss out a fact like that (i.e. lots of draws in one certain era) I invite people to clarify. But when they can't and constantly attack the numbers, then there isn't much to sway me to believe what they think.

 

[Matt79]

^^ Kallis would be the only other one who comes close, since Grace probably. And he's never been clearly the world's best batsman and has bowled less than a front-line bowler for large chunks of his career.

 

[Ikki]

Has anyone else ever been the best batsman in the world, and bowled the overs of a front line bowler, for the vast majority of their career?

I don't think any team thinks letting someone bowl, averaging/SR what Sobers did, makes sense anymore. He may take his 2 wickets but you've probably lost a lot of runs and time in doing so. When you think draws are okay, that's not the worst thing. But not anymore.

Sobers is not exactly an anomaly. Going through the records you'll find a lot of all-rounders like him. Teams played more all-rounders back then. Look at Worrell, for example.

 

[Uppercut]

^^ Kallis would be the only other one who comes close, since Grace probably. And he's never been clearly the world's best batsman and has bowled less than a front-line bowler for large chunks of his career.

The funny thing about Kallis is that when not bowling as a front-liner, he's generally been used as a partnership-breaker, coming on to try to buy a wicket when two batsmen are well set.

That's a fancy way of saying he only bowls at the most difficult possible time to do so.

 

[zaremba]

Has anyone else ever been the best batsman in the world, and bowled the overs of a front line bowler, for the vast majority of their career?

Grace, as has been mentioned.

The only other contender that I can think of is Wally Hammond. He probably bowled a bit less than Kallis but from what I've read it seems he was a bowler of comparable style and ability. His reign as the world's best batsman was brief - he only made his debut a year before Bradman. But as a batting all-rounder, he's right up there.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

LT thinks it's sufficient to say something to the effect of, "stats are for nerds" and feel smugly superior for thinking the number of wickets a bowler takes or the number of runs a batsman scores is irrelevant. That's all you'll get, not a well-thought-out answer describing why exactly Kallis's bowling record is so much better despite Sobers's superiority.

EDIT: Hahahaha, soo beaten.

I said absolutely nothing that you number disciples have put together with such eloquence.

It's not the stats that are irrelevant, it's the people who believe that better stats automatically means a superior player.

 

[Ikki]

I said absolutely nothing that you number disciples have put together with such eloquence.

It's not the stats that are irrelevant, it's the people who believe that better stats automatically means a superior player.

You keep harping on about it as some of us are saying that even though we're not. When the difference in stats is one averaging 57 and one is averaging 54 it's not conclusive. But when it's like 57 against 45, then it really has little argument.

 

[Uppercut]

I said absolutely nothing that you two number disciples have put together with such eloquence.

It's not the stats that are irrelevant, it's the people who believe that better stats automatically means a superior player.

Noone thinks that. Ikki prefers Warne to Murali and Lillee to Marshall in spite of statistics. I prefer Greenidge to Hayden and Richards to all current batsmen, to name a few.

I just don't think it suffices, when comparing two players, to say "well sure, player X took far more wickets, far more quickly than player Y, but only a number disciple cares about how many wickets a bowler takes, so I'm going to go with player Y anyway." It doesn't quite work like that.

You could say, "Player Y was better at his peak" or "Player Y had a bigger workload" or "Player Y bowled to better batsmen" and make a case for why he didn't take as many wickets as player X. But you don't, you just casually and eloquently insult the people who pay attention to such things.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You keep harping on about it as some of us are saying that even though we're not. When the difference in stats is one averaging 57 and one is averaging 54 it's not conclusive. But when it's like 57 against 45, then it really has little argument.

In your case during the Sobers/Miller thread a while ago I explained that Sobers number of balls bowled to take a wicket was inflated by the long spells he spent as a stock bowler keeping it tight at one end and you claimed that such didn't happen. On that basis you can't be surprised if you give the impression that your interest in cricket doesn't go beyond number crunching.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Noone thinks that. Ikki prefers Warne to Murali and Lillee to Marshall in spite of statistics. I prefer Greenidge to Hayden and Richards to all current batsmen, to name a few.

I just don't think it suffices, when comparing two players, to say "well sure, player X took far more wickets, far more quickly than player Y, but only a number disciple cares about how many wickets a bowler takes, so I'm going to go with player Y anyway." It doesn't quite work like that.

You could say, "Player Y was better at his peak" or "Player Y had a bigger workload" or "Player Y bowled to better batsmen" and make a case for why he didn't take as many wickets as player X. But you don't, you just casually and eloquently insult the people who pay attention to such things.

In the past there have been such discussions but the replies are always a blaze of stats so I can no longer be arsed.

 

[thierry henry]

Choking on the smug in here tbh

 

[Uppercut]

In the past there have been such discussions but the replies are always a blaze of stats so I can no longer be arsed.

Probably because the stats were relevant.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Choking on the smug in here tbh

As long as you don't vomit on your spreadsheet you've got nothing to worry about.

 

[thierry henry]

As long as you don't vomit on your spreadsheet you've got nothing to worry about.

Oh I don't even use spreadsheets, I just look at the player profile on cricinfo and derive all my conclusions from there

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Oh I don't even use spreadsheets, I just look at the player profile on cricinfo and derive all my conclusions from there

Very wise, saves wasting time on actually watching a game of cricket.

 

[Ikki]

In your case during the Sobers/Miller thread a while ago I explained that Sobers number of balls bowled to take a wicket was inflated by the long spells he spent as a stock bowler keeping it tight at one end and you claimed that such didn't happen. On that basis you can't be surprised if you give the impression that your interest in cricket doesn't go beyond number crunching.

And as I told you then, it doesn't make sense for a bowler to be used for 40 something overs a match to simply tie an end. Especially, when he has more economic bowlers right next to him with the likes of Valentine and Ramadhin. Gibbs had a better ER as well, so they were already packed to the brim with economic spinners. Furthermore, if it wasn't for his 5 year spell of very good medium pace his stats would be even worse (much worse) than what they are and would be pretty bad for a spinner anyway. Even further, if for most of his career all he was doing was tying an end...that just speaks volumes about the kind of bowler he was.

As I said in that thread, Sobers was a part-time bowler for most his career bowling specialist amount of overs. The reasoning brought that he simply tied an end is simply lazy and whilst it's true that he often had to work for the team, bringing that reason and generalising across his whole career doesn't make much sense. It raises more questions than it answers.