Kallis Vs Sobers

[archie mac]

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.

You seemed to have missed the point, you can try and bowl to win the game as much as you like, but a lot has to do with the batsman, and I have no doubt that the batsman's mind set in Sobers time was 'don't lose first, and then if you can go for the win'

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.



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

See this is where your theories are so silly, Sobers imo would be considered the greatest batsman of this generation if he was around now, or very close to it. Where Kallis would have been just another Barrington type of player in Sobers time, effective but never considered as a great

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.



.

The Banga thing is silly as well, if he was the best bowler for them he would not be in this discussion because they are not Test class or FC for that matter.

But sides like the current SA team and the WI side that Sobers played for, that would be a great achievment.

Anyway as per usual with arguments with you; I give ground, but you never do

So I will stop this debate life is too short, but just to finish

Check out the poll

 

[morgieb]

Sobers batting & fielding was better, but Kallis bowling was better, abliet not by a large margin.
So yeah, Sobers > Kallis.

 

[Ikki]

You seemed to have missed the point, you can try and bowl to win the game as much as you like, but a lot has to do with the batsman, and I have no doubt that the batsman's mind set in Sobers time was 'don't lose first, and then if you can go for the win'

Yes, but as I showed you, even the average SR for Sobers' time was 12 points lower than Sobers' own SR. So he was much higher than the standard of his own day.

See this is where your theories are so silly, Sobers imo would be considered the greatest batsman of this generation if he was around now, or very close to it. Where Kallis would have been just another Barrington type of player in Sobers time, effective but never considered as a great

That's entirely an opinion that has some merit but also has a lot of argument against it.

The Banga thing is silly as well, if he was the best bowler for them he would not be in this discussion because they are not Test class or FC for that matter.

Exactly, the point is silly. That's why neither of them being the best bowler in their team doesn't matter. They were batting all-rounders.

Anyway as per usual with arguments with you; I give ground, but you never do

So I will stop this debate life is too short, but just to finish

Check out the poll

Unfortunately, I can't give you much leverage. As I said to others, in debates of Warne/Lillee et al, the difference is small. Here, I'm yet to hear a cogent argument explain away the massive difference in Sobers' bowling record.

For me, they're close and to hear that one is undeniably better, that one is BY FAR better or something akin to that is just untenable. We're keeping a lazy myth going. Actually, it's been much better recently. I remember as far back as a year ago where the "ridiculousness" of this question was even more pronounced.

 

[zaremba]

Sobers wasn't a very good spinner, even though his contemporaries thought he was.

You don't think his contemporaries' opinions carry weight?

They played against him, they saw him bowl, and yet they all had it wrong, and you know better?

Perhaps - just perhaps - they were in a slightly better position to judge his ability than you are?

p.s. I don't disagree with your basic thesis that Sobers and Kallis are closer to each other than is sometimes lazily assumed. For me, Sobers does edge it though, for the reasons I've given in my earlier post.

 

[ret]

Sobers and Kallis are/were both batting all-rounders. Therefore I'd judge their respective merits, first and foremost, by the quality of their batting.

Sobers seems to have been the better batsman. We don't even need to rely on matters of debatable relevance, such as flair or aggressiveness, in order to demonstrate this. The stats do the talking. Quite simply, to average 57.78 in his day was a greater achievement than to average 54.57 (51.38 against non-minnows) in the modern game.

As for their bowling, their records are comparable and it's hard to choose between them. Kallis' record is better in some respects (both average 34 against non-minnows, but Kallis did so on better batting pitches) but you cannot discount the fact that Sobers offered other options to his captain by being able to bowl spin. So this is a very hard one to call. Moreover, as I said at the outset, bowling is both players' second string and therefore even if there were a measurable difference between them in bowling, this would be outweighed by the difference in batting.

As for fielding, Kallis is an excellent slip catcher, while Sobers was pretty much the best fielder in the world (perhaps excepting Colin Bland) during his day. So I don't think there's much between them there.

Overall, then, Sobers wins for me. However I still believe that Kallis is a magnificent player, and a great of the game.

what he^ said .... would like to add that Sobers, if he had the opportunity to play, would have been more useful in ODIs and T20s too

 

[Ikki]

You don't think his contemporaries' opinions carry weight?

His contemporaries also thought Ramadhin and Valentine were good spinners.

They played against him, they saw him bowl, and yet they all had it wrong, and you know better?

Perhaps - just perhaps - they were in a slightly better position to judge his ability than you are?

That's precisely the point. They saw him bowl, what else? What were his figures? He obviously didn't do some kind of magic that wasn't counted in the scorecard, did he?

If there were things not quantifiable, what were they? Unfortunately, I don't get many replies to these points.

 

[archie mac]

His contemporaries also thought Ramadhin and Valentine were good spinners.



That's precisely the point. They saw him bowl, what else? What were his figures? He obviously didn't do some kind of magic that wasn't counted in the scorecard, did he?

If there were things not quantifiable, what were they? Unfortunately, I don't get many replies to these points.

Now you are going to tell us that 'Those little pals of mine' are overrated as well???

 

[Slifer]

In seems as if ne one who is highly rated who is not Australian is overated according to Ikki.

 

[Burgey]

In seems as if ne one who is highly rated who is not Australian is overated according to Ikki.

Odd then that he's defending Kallis in this thread...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Odd then that he's defending Kallis in this thread...

He's not though. He's belittling Sobers, as he does in every allrounder thread whether it be against Miller, Imran or Simon O'Donnell.

 

[Slifer]

Odd indeed. But im guessing that pretty soon he'll work some Australian angle into this thread ex: Miller > >Sobers.

 

[Burgey]

He's not though. He's belittling Sobers, as he does in every allrounder thread whether it be against Miller, Imran or Simon O'Donnell.

It seems a consistent theme

Odd indeed. But im guessing that pretty soon he'll work some Australian angle into this thread ex: Miller > >Sobers.

Quite possibly.

 

[Slifer]

So on that note im leaving this thread. As far as im concerned Sobers> all other all rounders (but not by much esp imran, kallis, miller.

 

[zaremba]

They saw him bowl, what else? What were his figures?

I think this is a pretty damning indictment of your outlook. If you don't think that watching a player bowl (or facing his bowling) is an important part of judging his ability, then you may be beyond redemption. Enjoy your time on statsguru!

 

[thierry henry]

I think this is a pretty damning indictment of your outlook. If you don't think that watching a player bowl (or facing his bowling) is an important part of judging his ability, then you may be beyond redemption. Enjoy your time on statsguru!

Taking wickets whilst conceding relatively few runs>convincing cricketers and journos that you're good

 

[zaremba]

Taking wickets whilst conceding relatively few runs>convincing cricketers and journos that you're good

All part of the tapestry mate

 

[thierry henry]

All part of the tapestry mate

Professional sportsmen tend to be pretty dumb. A sweeping and deliberately offensive generalisation but ffs don't pretend you don't get my point. They are also constantly involved in heated athletic contests with and against their fellow sportsmen which makes them horribly biased and in a terrible position to give a fair and reasoned opinion

I have never, in my life, come across a sports writer whose opinion would somehow influence mine. tbh I read a lot about cricket and it ranges from "complete nonsense" to "almost as good as the general tone of discussion on cricketweb".

I have nfi why, when it comes to "old players", these two sources of essentially useless information become more important then set in stone factual records of a player's achievements.

 

[zaremba]

Professional sportsmen tend to be pretty dumb. A sweeping and deliberately offensive generalisation but ffs don't pretend you don't get my point. They are also constantly involved in heated athletic contests with and against their fellow sportsmen which makes them horribly biased and in a terrible position to give a fair and reasoned opinion

I have never, in my life, come across a sports writer whose opinion would somehow influence mine. tbh I read a lot about cricket and it ranges from "complete nonsense" to "almost as good as the general tone of discussion on cricketweb".

I have nfi why, when it comes to "old players", these two sources of essentially useless information become more important then set in stone factual records of a player's achievements.

Of course I get your point. I don't particularly agree with it, but I accept that there's an element of truth in it. When estimating a player's ability and worth the views of those who played with and against him can't just be wished away. They are not definitive and not always reliable but there is much there that's worthy of great respect. The difficult part is to try to separate wheat from chaff.

Besides, in the case of Sobers what you're dealing with is not just the say-so of his contemporary players but also writers and commentators whose opinions in my view carry a lot of weight.

As for the role of statistics, well we could debate this endlessly, and as often as not I'd take a similar position to yours on this. However right now my outlook is that there are lies, damn lies, and "set in stone factual records".

 

[archie mac]

Professional sportsmen tend to be pretty dumb. A sweeping and deliberately offensive generalisation but ffs don't pretend you don't get my point. They are also constantly involved in heated athletic contests with and against their fellow sportsmen which makes them horribly biased and in a terrible position to give a fair and reasoned opinion

I have never, in my life, come across a sports writer whose opinion would somehow influence mine. tbh I read a lot about cricket and it ranges from "complete nonsense" to "almost as good as the general tone of discussion on cricketweb".

I have nfi why, when it comes to "old players", these two sources of essentially useless information become more important then set in stone factual records of a player's achievements.

Because they are just that figures set in stone, and the don't play cricket on stone, they don't tell you the state of the game or series, they don't tell you the implied pressure that A put on the batsman and in desperation they hit out at the other end.

I once watch Carl Rackermann take a 5 for, and I can tell you he was easily the worst bowler on the Aust team in that Test, but you are also one who will listen to nothing else but stats and as such I am wasting my time

 

[thierry henry]

Besides, in the case of Sobers what you're dealing with is not just the say-so of his contemporary players but also writers and commentators whose opinions in my view carry a lot of weight.

Really?

I find that remarkable

Do you ever change your own opinion on current players who you have watched because a writer/commentator watched the same thing and had a different opinion?