Kallis Vs Sobers

[archie mac]

My problem is the myth that's built around "Sobers the all-rounder". It's reflected in this poll. Most people vote without really knowing their records that well. TBF, it could really go either way.

You could have this poll on any cricket forum on the net, you could have it based on opinion from experts and you could have with just stats nuts voting and it would end the same way, maybe it is you that does not understand?

SR is over rated when comparing eras as far as I am concerned, bowling to Barrington and Boycott on a regular basis not to mention the corpse with pads would make a mess of anyones strike rate, then if you go back earlier they played timeless Tests.

The mind set of players in the 60s was very different compared to now, the Test that Gilly and Langer won in Tasi against Pakistan is a good example, all most certainly back in the 60s they would have played for a draw and may very well have managed it, but the mind set was very different

 

[Ikki]

So is Sobers my friend

Sobers may be in the ball-park, but he hardly owns it - this being my point.

When you bring up Warne or Lillee it's irrelevant because they are not considered hugely superior to their competition. Sobers, unfortunately, is.

You could have this poll on any cricket forum on the net, you could have it based on opinion from experts and you could have with just stats nuts voting and it would end the same way, maybe it is you that does not understand?

SR is over rated when comparing eras as far as I am concerned, bowling to Barrington and Boycott on a regular basis not to mention the corpse with pads would make a mess of anyones strike rate, then if you go back earlier they played timeless Tests.

The mind set of players in the 60s was very different compared to now, the Test that Gilly and Langer won in Tasi against Pakistan is a good example, all most certainly back in the 60s they would have played for a draw and may very well have managed it, but the mind set was very different

I agree with the fact that bowling to defensive batsmen will mess with your strike rate...but the amount that Sobers' SR is, really leaves little to defend it by. Even the average SR of his time was some 10-15 points lower. Simply put, for most of his career he was a poor wicket-taker. The reason he has a good aggregate amount of wickets/wickets-per-match is because he bowled about the same amount of overs per match as a specialist like Glenn McGrath.

It's really not about interpretation. The difference is simply too large to explain away. If you're going to demean the stats or call them worthless, show why. If you can't, then please don't misinform others.

 

[archie mac]

I agree with the fact that bowling to defensive batsmen will mess with your strike rate...but the amount that Sobers' SR is really leaves little to defend it by. Even the average SR of his time was some 10-15 points lower.

It's really not about interpretation. The difference is simply too large to explain away. If you're going to demean the stats as worthless, show why. If you can't, then please don't misinform others.

Well it should always be considered when I post that it is my opinion, unless I am quoting someone else

I think the fact that Sobers bowled three ways and the way he was used helps explain it

As I have not checked it up this is just my impression from reading but it could be wrong.

Sobers was often used as a stock bowler to keep an end tight with either his swing bowling or later with his spin, which he could bowl very tighly (not sure if we know his ER), then if they had no opening bowlers he would then get the new ball. Like Miller he would sometimes have to be aroused to his best.

And his performance in the SS should not be under-rated, this was before the days when the Test players were rested, his performance of 50 wickets in a season on the best of pitches is a great effort. Certainly much better then a 5 for against Bangladesh

 

[Slifer]

Well it should always be considered when I post that it is my opinion, unless I am quoting someone else

I think the fact that Sobers bowled three ways and the way he was used helps explain it

As I have not checked it up this is just my impression from reading but it could be wrong.

Sobers was often used as a stock bowler to keep an end tight with either his swing bowling or later with his spin, which he could bowl very tighly (not sure if we know his ER), then if they had no opening bowlers he would then get the new ball. Like Miller he would sometimes have to be aroused to his best.

And his performance in the SS should not be under-rated, this was before the days when the Test players were rested, his performance of 50 wickets in a season on the best of pitches is a great effort. Certainly much better then a 5 for against Bangladesh[/QUOTE]

LOL

 

[Ikki]

Well it should always be considered when I post that it is my opinion, unless I am quoting someone else

I think the fact that Sobers bowled three ways and the way he was used helps explain it

As I have not checked it up this is just my impression from reading but it could be wrong.

Sobers was often used as a stock bowler to keep an end tight with either his swing bowling or later with his spin, which he could bowl very tighly (not sure if we know his ER), then if they had no opening bowlers he would then get the new ball. Like Miller he would sometimes have to be aroused to his best.

And his performance in the SS should not be under-rated, this was before the days when the Test players were rested, his performance of 50 wickets in a season on the best of pitches is a great effort. Certainly much better then a 5 for against Bangladesh

The argument has already been done to death. If his bowling was more useful he'd bowl pace when it suits and spin when it didn't. The WIndies weren't short of spinners (Ramadhin/Valentine/Gibbs).

Whilst I agree that SS performance means something in some arguments, it doesn't mean much here. For example, people often talk about Hayden and his supposed inability to play high quality bowlers - or that if he had met more of them he would have failed, or that he never faced his own attack - whereas his SS records show he faced and conquered better bowlers there than at Test level and he did meet his bowling teammates and had his way with them.

That's arguing ability. Here we are arguing achievement. We are talking about the greatest TEST all-rounder. Not whether he was a successful SS bowler - which I also remember going through the records showing he was good but even the praise there was often exaggerated. In tests he had a very good 5 or so years and was pretty poor in the rest. You just can't argue away averaging in the 40s and SR in the 100s as Sobers did for extended periods of time.

 

[Slifer]

Sobers may be in the ball-park, but he hardly owns it - this being my point.

When you bring up Warne or Lillee it's irrelevant because they are not considered hugely superior to their competition. Sobers, unfortunately, is.



I agree with the fact that bowling to defensive batsmen will mess with your strike rate...but the amount that Sobers' SR is, really leaves little to defend it by. Even the average SR of his time was some 10-15 points lower. Simply put, for most of his career he was a poor wicket-taker. The reason he has a good aggregate amount of wickets/wickets-per-match is because he bowled about the same amount of overs per match as a specialist like Glenn McGrath.

It's really not about interpretation. The difference is simply too large to explain away. If you're going to demean the stats or call them worthless, show why. If you can't, then please don't misinform others.

I never said Sobers is hugely superior nor do i think so but the majority of the cricket loving world thinks he is for whatever reason. And I can see y from his exploits in England as mentioned earlier, his exploits in Australia, his exploits for a world XI playing against England (which were originally given test status but later taken away.) Plus many of Sobers' all round feats came at the same time in the same series. That can hardly be said of for example Jacques Kallis. But again please bear in mind i dont consider Sobers to be largely greater than Imran, Miller or Kallis, in fact I consider him to be on par with Imran (if not slightly greater) but > than both Miller and Kallis.

 

[archie mac]

The argument has already been done to death. If his bowling was more useful he'd bowl pace when it suits and spin when it didn't. The WIndies weren't short of spinners (Ramadhin/Valentine/Gibbs).

Whilst I agree that SS performance means something in some arguments, it doesn't mean much here. For example, people often talk about Hayden and his supposed inability to play high quality bowlers - or that if he had met more of them he would have failed, or that he never faced his own attack - whereas his SS records show he faced and conquered better bowlers there than at Test level and he did meet his bowling teammates and had his way with them.

That's arguing ability. Here we are arguing achievement. We are talking about the greatest TEST all-rounder. Not whether he was a successful SS bowler - which I also remember going through the records showing he was good but even the praise there was often exaggerated. In tests he had a very good 5 or so years and was pretty poor in the rest. You just can't argue away averaging in the 40s and SR in the 100s.

Hayden would have played his SS matches when the best in Aust were often rested, so it is not comparing the two, if Sobers was playing against the best in the country

Well I always rate Ave compared to SR, but that is just me, and every argument that is given you just dismiss and keep going back to SR I am happy to admit that Kallis has a better SR, but that it is not as significant as you suggest.

Just out of interest you tell us how much lower Sobers was then the Ave SR for his time but how much lower is Kallis as compared to the Ave of his time?

Sobers was the best batsman of his generation Kallis has never been rated thus

Neither have ever been rated as the best bowler even in their own team

Kallis is a fine fielder but during his time Sobers was considered the best 'close' fieldsman of his generation

That is 2 nil to Sobers in my book, and imo there is stuff all between them as bowlers, but I would rate Kallis a little higher but it is clearly in my mind two-one to Sobers, and this poll seems to suggest that

 

[Anil]

sobers so clearly the better player, not going to bother trying to prove something so blatantly obvious...again...besides the argument has been done to death lots of times...

 

[Jakester1288]

Comparing Sobers to Kallis is like comparing me to Ricky Ponting. Completely pointless.

Sobers wins by a country mile.

 

[thierry henry]

wow, look at this thread go

Sobers couldn't bowl to save himself just quietly, to have such a poor average in that era when you were always able to bowl the style that suited the conditions is pretty poor

*leaves thread*

 

[Perm]

And Kallis had much more pressure coping with a hectic International schedule, more nations to tour, ODI matches to play, etc? So should we not make some allowance in that regard?

Which means, to an extent, that it's easier to cash in when you're in form nowadays than it was back then. If Sobers was in good nick, he may well only have a series or two before a long break, whereas Kallis could quite conceivably have three or more Test series in reasonably quick succession.

 

[Perm]

Sobers did more and he did it better.

Yeah, pretty much what it boils down too. Considering he was picked as a bowler early in his career, and still ended with an average of 57, I think it's fair to say Sobers was one of the greatest batsmen the world of cricket has seen. Not to mention the way that his peers talked about him during and after his playing days.

 

[Burgey]

Who was the better allrounder?

For me it is Kallis considering he has a better bowling record overall, and a batting record comparable to Sobers at the time both played equal number of matches (ie 93)

Anyway I am prepared to argue further, but let me see the response to this thread here.

You've got your head up your arse.

Kallis is a really, really fine player, but Sobers is much better as an all rounder.

Given their respective eras I'd allow you Kallis is as good, if not a better pace bowler, given the flat wickets he bowls on, but that's compensated for by an allowance the other way which must then be given to Sobers' batting.

Sobers >> Kallis as a batsman; Kallis > Sobers as a quick; Sobers >>>>>>>> Kallis for versatility; Sobers >> Kallis as a fielder.

 

[Ikki]

I never said Sobers is hugely superior nor do i think so but the majority of the cricket loving world thinks he is for whatever reason. And I can see y from his exploits in England as mentioned earlier, his exploits in Australia, his exploits for a world XI playing against England (which were originally given test status but later taken away.) Plus many of Sobers' all round feats came at the same time in the same series. That can hardly be said of for example Jacques Kallis. But again please bear in mind i dont consider Sobers to be largely greater than Imran, Miller or Kallis, in fact I consider him to be on par with Imran (if not slightly greater) but > than both Miller and Kallis.

Well, dear Slifer, when I post here I am not specifically talking about you and your own ideas. I made a comment, you replied questioning it and I kept explaining it. All through that time I was talking about the general majority. With which you acknowledge holds the opinion that they think he is hugely superior. So where did you disagree with me?

The sad fact is that his exploits were far and few in between. And that's how the cookie crumbles.

 

[Ikki]

Hayden would have played his SS matches when the best in Aust were often rested, so it is not comparing the two, if Sobers was playing against the best in the country

Except that I already looked at the games where McGrath/Warne et al played against Hayden in their respective states and most of the time he did very well and at others he gave them a spanking.

Well I always rate Ave compared to SR, but that is just me, and every argument that is given you just dismiss and keep going back to SR I am happy to admit that Kallis has a better SR, but that it is not as significant as you suggest.

The difference was back in Sobers day draws were more prevalent because SRs weren't as valued. It takes more skill to have a lower SR and try to win the game than to bowl tight and draw it.

Just out of interest you tell us how much lower Sobers was then the Ave SR for his time but how much lower is Kallis as compared to the Ave of his time?

Sobers is 12 points higher than the average SR of his time, Kallis is right on the average.

Also Kallis is about 2-3 lower than the average average of his time whereas Sobers is 3 points higher than the average of his time.

Sobers was the best batsman of his generation Kallis has never been rated thus

So? There have been more great batsmen in Kallis' time. Difference between Sobers and Kallis' batting is not large.

Neither have ever been rated as the best bowler even in their own team

None of these points matter by themselves. It only matters how good they are once we consider all aspects. If Sobers bowled for Bangladesh he'd be the best bowler in his team. If Kallis bowled for Windies in the 80s he'd never be near the first. It doesn't really give us much detail about how good they were.

Kallis is a fine fielder but during his time Sobers was considered the best 'close' fieldsman of his generation

That's great, which means they weren't far apart, even if one was better.

That is 2 nil to Sobers in my book, and imo there is stuff all between them as bowlers, but I would rate Kallis a little higher but it is clearly in my mind two-one to Sobers, and this poll seems to suggest that

Why am I not surprised your book counts the way it does.

 

[Ikki]

You've got your head up your arse.

Kallis is a really, really fine player, but Sobers is much better as an all rounder.

Given their respective eras I'd allow you Kallis is as good, if not a better pace bowler, given the flat wickets he bowls on, but that's compensated for by an allowance the other way which must then be given to Sobers' batting.

Sobers >> Kallis as a batsman; Kallis > Sobers as a quick; Sobers >>>>>>>> Kallis for versatility; Sobers >> Kallis as a fielder.

Versatility for versatility's sake is meaningless. Sobers wasn't a very good spinner, even though his contemporaries thought he was. The irony is when we go through his record and talk about how poor his bowling stats are people go "oh well, because he had to bowl spin".

Which means, to an extent, that it's easier to cash in when you're in form nowadays than it was back then. If Sobers was in good nick, he may well only have a series or two before a long break, whereas Kallis could quite conceivably have three or more Test series in reasonably quick succession.

Or the other way round. When you're in poor nick you're going to fall head first into the ground. Hence you have to be consistent a lot of the time and not merely for 1-2 series in a year. It also means bowlers are less likely to figure you out - or it'll take more time, more bowling to you.

 

[Ikki]

sobers so clearly the better player, not going to bother trying to prove something so blatantly obvious...again...besides the argument has been done to death lots of times...

Comparing Sobers to Kallis is like comparing me to Ricky Ponting. Completely pointless.

Sobers wins by a country mile.

Exhibit A and B, dear Slifer.

 

[Uppercut]

Haven't a clue, but voted for Kallis because he's so perennially underrated and unlike a lot of others, i believe he belongs in the debate.

 

[Uppercut]

Exhibit A and B, dear Slifer.

Haha, that's a shocker. They've never even seen the man play and they imply that anyone who compares him to the current greatest all-rounder in the world is stupid. It's so fallacious i don't even know where to begin. Poor form, guys.

 

[silentstriker]

Sobers, quite easily. Much better batsman, perhaps not as good but more versatile bowler.