Kallis Vs Sobers

[Precambrian]

Agree entirely.

This versatility also has very substantial knock-on effects on selection.

Look at the South African teams in which Kallis has played. If it looks as though the pitch might take turn, there is always a temptation - which often proves overwhelming - to pick a spinner just in case it turns. This means sacrificing a front-line batsman or a front-line seamer which weakens the team. If you have a Sobers you can pick your full hand of seamers in the knowledge that you also have a perfectly capable spinner should you need one.

Equally, on a turning pitch, you might choose to pick one specialist spinner in addition to Sobers, rather than two. Again allowing your seam attack and batting line-up not to be unnecessarily depleted.

If England had Sobers today we wouldn't be forced to have Monty Panesar who (bowling aside, perhaps) is a horrible hindrance to England's success both in the field and with the bat.

Kindly see my reply to the same post you quoted above. I don't think flexibility is anything without performances.

 

[Richard]

I hate to repeat myself. But Sobers was average against Australia, very good against England, poor against NZ and excellent against India and Pakistan, the latter two, or atleast India were minnows during his era. So how can you possibly say Kallis alone made his dough on flat pitches against weak oppositions??

India weren't, to my mind, a substandard team. Ever. They might be comparable to West Indies of recent times in the 1950s (that's very debateable BTW) but no more. And Kallis has absolutely gorged himself on them.

Sorry again I disagree. How do you support your theory that pitches that Kallis played on were far "flatter" than those played on by Sobers? And that Sobers faced tougher opponents as compared to Kallis?

I don't perport such a theory. Sobers' home pitches for much of his career might well have been every bit as flat as those Kallis has mostly played on since 2001/02. But he faced tough conditions away from home; since 2001/02, pitches just about everywhere (Sri Lanka excepted to a slight degree) have been roundly flat. So Sobers faced challenging conditions much more often than Kallis has since 2001/02.

Hardly a mark of greatness once you consider Sobers also averaged around 30 for a longish period of time as well. And also Sobers played against the minnow nations of his time well.

Sorry, Sobers averaged 30 (with the bat) for a time? When and for how long?

Lol, So Warne was a better spinner than McGrath, so Warne is better? Your argument is at best laughable.

Uh? No, nothing to do. McGrath was a better seamer than Warne. Warne and McGrath were both specialists at one type of bowling, and didn't bowl another. Kallis likewise. Sobers, however, was different.

You state the case of flat pitches for batting, but you never give it equal credit when it comes to bowling. Sobers and Kallis excluding Zimbabwe and Bangladesh average almost equal. But I'd suggest once you include Kallis' figures against Zimbabwe of the old, or discount India figures altogether from Sobers' record, add the pitch factor, Kallis would certainly emerge as the much better bowler. For starters, please see their SRs. 70 is to 90.

Kallis' bowling hasn't actually been affected a great deal by the pitches. Kallis is a swing bowler, rather than a seam bowler, after all, so it's not that surprising. Kallis simply declined as a bowler from 2003/04 to about 2006/07 and has been better again since then. I'm not really interested in going through periods and oppositions - I'm currently watching a Test - but I might be at some other time.

Blistering barnacles. I've never seen Kallis field at anywhere other than slips in test matches for a long time. And I;ve never seen him drop many if not any, and also have witnessed him taking some exuberant ones. Sobers' excellence as a fielder is by relative measure of that time, and also tends to be exaggerated over a period of time. I for not once do not buy the argument that Sobers was a superior fieldsman than Kallis.

I've seen Kallis miss a good few, myself. Sobers would, I've absolutely no question, have been regarded as one of the best had he played in the 1990s as well. Kallis has had at least two superior slippers in his own time in his own team - Graeme Smith and Brian McMillan. Kallis, as I say, is no more than a pretty good slip fielder.

 

[pasag]

Armstrong's better than both of them.

 

[Matt79]

Armstrong's better than both of them.

Yeah, ol' Duncan was a kickass freestyler alright...





Or were you talking about Lance?

 

[Precambrian]

You can say that India were minnows with a weaker bowling attack when Sobers played them, and its true that Gupte played something of a lone hand through the 58/59 series (although Mankad helped in the last test). But Gupte, Bedi, Chandresekhar, and Prasanna were quality bowlers, and guys like Desai and Venkat weren't the worst bowlers going around.

With all due respect, this spin trio (or quartet) of Bedi Prasanna Chandra Venkat is a tad overrated. In fact they are living proof of mediocre to good spinners being touted as gods just because there were hardly any better Indian bowlers for a long time till Kapil Dev came around. None of them averaged below 30, and at least three of them playing in a test match, particularly in overseas conditions, meant that there were effectively 3 mediocre bowlers, and 2 poor bowlers (the new ball options) for batsmen to deal with.

 

[pskov]

The same can be said about Sober's record as well.

Which is exactly my point! I am beginning to think that you are just being deliberately obtuse over this.

 

[Matt79]

Still don't think an attack of three or four of those spinners, especially at home, is comparable to Bangladesh's attack over the years, or Zimbabwe's attack outside of their all too brief peak of near-competance.

 

[Prince EWS]

The same can be said about Sober's record as well.

To be fair though, you removed India from Sobers's record but not West Indies from Kallis's record, despite the fact that India during Sobers's career had a harder bowling attack to make runs against.

During Sobers's career, India's bowlers managed a collective average of 34.63.
During Kallis's career, WI's bowlers have so far managed a collective average of 37.30.

If India during Sobers's career were a 'minnow' as far as their bowling went, then the same must be said for the modern day West Indies bowling unit.

 

[Richard]

With all due respect, this spin trio (or quartet) of Bedi Prasanna Chandra Venkat is a tad overrated. In fact they are living proof of mediocre to good spinners being touted as gods just because there were hardly any better Indian bowlers for a long time till Kapil Dev came around. None of them averaged below 30, and at least three of them playing in a test match, particularly in overseas conditions, meant that there were effectively 3 mediocre bowlers, and 2 poor bowlers (the new ball options) for batsmen to deal with.

Bedi and Prasanna were both highly effective in India, especially in the second-innings, and Chandra is after Kapil Dev India's second-greatest matchwinner overseas.

 

[pskov]

With all due respect, this spin trio (or quartet) of Bedi Prasanna Chandra Venkat is a tad overrated. In fact they are living proof of mediocre to good spinners being touted as gods just because there were hardly any better Indian bowlers for a long time till Kapil Dev came around. None of them averaged below 30, and at least three of them playing in a test match, particularly in overseas conditions, meant that there were effectively 3 mediocre bowlers, and 2 poor bowlers (the new ball options) for batsmen to deal with.

Bedi and Chandra both averages under 30. To compare the Indian attack of he 60s with the Bangladeshi attack of the 00s is ridiculous.

 

[Precambrian]

Actually, if you read Richard's post properly, you see that he's saying that given the batting and seam bowling of Sobers and Kallis is pretty close, Sobers' spin makes him better. No-one would say that Warne's seam bowling is equal to McGraths, otherwise, yes advantage as a spinner compared to McGrath would indeed make Warne much better cricketer than Glenn.

Sorry, but just the ability to bowl spin and swing at will doesnt make you a better bowler. Please see Tendulkar example.

Amazed that you're equating the Indian team of the 60s to modern day Bangladesh. I'd never compare the two tbh.

No. Perhaps yes, if they were playing overseas, but overall India of the 50s 60s etc were comparable to Zimbabwe prior to the bust up.

Sorry? We've never had more batsmen averaging in the 50s. In recent years there have been probably literally a dozen batsmen regularly averaging 50+. That argument doesn't really fly I'm afraid.

However, how many are there who average in the mid 50s batting as well as in the low 30s with the ball nowadays? Heck, how many who average in the mid 30s with the bat and low 30s with the ball???? That is precisely why I rate Kallis so highly. Modern cricket has evolved so much that no player can concentrate on both batting and bowling disciplines and yet end up with a fantastic record in both. Please tell me how many bowlers in today;s test cricket with 50+ tests average below 30? A handful perhaps.

Sobers vs Imran or Sobers vs Miller would have made a more fruitful discussion

Noway. Sobers' is not even in the remote vicinity of them as a bowler to be compared.

 

[Ikki]

Amazed that you're equating the Indian team of the 60s to modern day Bangladesh. I'd never compare the two tbh.

I recall doing the stats on this. The difference between India/Pakistan and the rest was pretty much the difference between Zimbabwe/Bangladesh and the rest.

 

[The Sean]

Armstrong's better than both of them.

Yeah, ol' Duncan was a kickass freestyler alright...





Or were you talking about Lance?

Neil, TBH.

How many lunar bodies have Sobers OR Kallis walked on? **** all, that's how many.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry? We've never had more batsmen averaging in the 50s. In recent years there have been probably literally a dozen batsmen regularly averaging 50+. That argument doesn't really fly I'm afraid.

That probably has to do more with the fact that there are more superior batsmen in more teams. The three good sides of that time were pretty much Australia, England and West Indies. Nowadays it's Australia, S.Africa, India, Sri Lanka and England.

 

[Ikki]

To be fair though, you removed India from Sobers's record but not West Indies from Kallis's record, despite the fact that India during Sobers's career had a harder bowling attack to make runs against.

During Sobers's career, India's bowlers managed a collective average of 34.63.
During Kallis's career, WI's bowlers have so far managed a collective average of 37.30.

If India during Sobers's career were a 'minnow' as far as their bowling went, then the same must be said for the modern day West Indies bowling unit.

That difference probably has to do with the flat pitches.

 

[The Sean]

Sobers vs Imran or Sobers vs Miller would have made a more fruitful discussion

Noway. Sobers' is not even in the remote vicinity of them as a bowler to be compared.

The same could be said of Imran or Miller's batting compared to Sobers.

 

[Precambrian]

India weren't, to my mind, a substandard team. Ever. They might be comparable to West Indies of recent times in the 1950s (that's very debateable BTW) but no more. And Kallis has absolutely gorged himself on them.

No way. India of the 50s and 60s were mediocre side at best, and perhaps even comparable to Bangladesh of today, with better batsmen, at worst, ie, away.

I don't perport such a theory. Sobers' home pitches for much of his career might well have been every bit as flat as those Kallis has mostly played on since 2001/02. But he faced tough conditions away from home; since 2001/02, pitches just about everywhere (Sri Lanka excepted to a slight degree) have been roundly flat. So Sobers faced challenging conditions much more often than Kallis has since 2001/02.

Again, I have no idea how you manage to get that idea that pitches since 2001 have been universally flatter than ever before. If anything, perhaps England and Australia have got flat. South Africa is very much in the middle. West Indies also same, but looks flatter owing to them not having superlative bowlers till hopefully now. India has seen more results than ever before, Pakistan, well, same as before. Sri Lanka, has become reasonably tough, mainly considering MM's effect.

And no, I don;t agree that Sobers faced much tougher conditions than Kallis as there is no reliable data available about the state of pitches during his time, And if anything, the bowling records of gun bowlers during that time is roughly comparable to that of the modern times' gun bowlers. Which means nothing has really changed.

And if at all we agree that Sobers played on tougher conditions, should not that be reflected and hence discounted for while comparing their bowling?

Sorry, Sobers averaged 30 (with the bat) for a time? When and for how long?

For his first 4 years in Test cricket.

Uh? No, nothing to do. McGrath was a better seamer than Warne. Warne and McGrath were both specialists at one type of bowling, and didn't bowl another. Kallis likewise. Sobers, however, was different.

Sobers was different. Like Tendulkar was different. But no way better.

Kallis' bowling hasn't actually been affected a great deal by the pitches. Kallis is a swing bowler, rather than a seam bowler, after all, so it's not that surprising. Kallis simply declined as a bowler from 2003/04 to about 2006/07 and has been better again since then. I'm not really interested in going through periods and oppositions - I'm currently watching a Test - but I might be at some other time.

Lol, and you think Sobers was an out and out fast bowler??

Sorry but that paragraph hardly makes sense to the discussion.

I've seen Kallis miss a good few, myself. Sobers would, I've absolutely no question, have been regarded as one of the best had he played in the 1990s as well. Kallis has had at least two superior slippers in his own time in his own team - Graeme Smith and Brian McMillan. Kallis, as I say, is no more than a pretty good slip fielder.

So Sobers is better considering just because the relative fieldsmen of his era were no better than him? Again makes no sense.

 

[Prince EWS]

That difference probably has to do with the flat pitches.

Yeah, but it was still easier to score runs. If you're going to point out flat pitches then Kallis's batting achievements still look lesser.

I actually voted for Kallis, but I fail to see how scoring runs against India during Sobers's career was easier than scoring runs against the West Indies during Kallis's. No matter what the reasons for this were, it just wasn't the case.

 

[Matt79]

That probably has to do more with the fact that there are more superior batsmen in more teams. The three good sides of that time were pretty much Australia, England and West Indies. Nowadays it's Australia, S.Africa, India, Sri Lanka and England.

That difference probably has to do with the flat pitches.

Don't these two comments somewhat contradict each other?

EDIT: Slight less so after your edit...

 

[Ikki]

Don't these two comments somewhat contradict each other?

EDIT: Slight less so after your edit...

Not really, they can coincide. There can be flat pitches and there can also be a greater number in good batsmen. Averaging 49 and 50 is 1 point. In cricket, we just make a distinction as some sort of arbitrary cut-off. But the reason why more batsmen score more runs has more to do with there being many more good batsmen than simply because the pitches are flatter.

Whereas with bowling, the quality and number of them have probably risen in comparison of these eras. The difference in that case has more to do with pitches. Of course, something not mentioned, it could also have to do with their being more good batsmen taking more runs off of them.