Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[Red]

Kallis isn't a selfish batsman. He just isn't as dynamic as Sobers was. Not many have been really. It all comes down to the fact that the quicker you score runs, and the quicker you dismiss the opposition twice, the more chance you have of winning a test match.

 

[watson]

Or to put it another way - very few batsman have the ability to throttle the bowling attack while at the same time look aesthetically pleasing and relaxed at the same time.

Sobers was one of those few batsman, as was Woolley, Harvey, and Gower. That's why we revere them so much, or at least forgive their multitude of sins.

 

[Coronis]

Or to put it another way - very few batsman have the ability to throttle the bowling attack while at the same time look aesthetically pleasing and relaxed at the same time.

Sobers was one of those few batsman, as was Woolley, Harvey, and Gower. That's why we revere them so much, or at least forgive their multitude of sins.

I'd much rather a Kallis or a Chanders over Woolley or Gower.

 

[kyear2]

Personally not a fan of the Kallis's, Chanderpauls's or the Sutcliffe's, they do have a role in a team, it's just normally the wingman, not the main attraction. The support guy, not the match winner. But that may just be me.

 

[Coronis]

For me, the first and foremost concern is having batsmen who consistently score runs. All that grace and style crap is a secondary or tertiary concern.

 

[watson]

But if the batsman can 'consistently score runs' with 'All that grace and style crap' at the same time then the team has a match winning batsman - like Sobers. That's the point.

I would also argue that 50-75 runs made by a batsman like Woolley or Gower is worth more to a team than a century scored by a batsman like Boycott or Barrington because they take the initiative away from the opposing bowlers. And therefore make life easier for their partners who in turn score more runs because they are under less pressure.

 

[the big bambino]

Such economy rates are hardly an achievement considering the era Sobers played in.

Well you're a beaut aren't you? You're the one who tried to make a specious comparison based on Strike rates and wickets per match with bowlers from a modern era (Sami and Salisbury). Well on your insistence someone can raise economy rates as a valid and obvious counter. So you'll have to accept the cross era comparison I'm afraid, bcos you introduced it.

Not that is the extent of your selectivity. You compare Sobers with players picked for their bowling only. Not with those picked to play a similar role as Sobers. Such as Kallis. Whom, btw, has an inferior wkts/match record, inferior ER but superior SR and average.

Thats 2 each yet fails to explain the talent of and subsequent role each man played. Kallis isnot capable of bowling the long no. of stock overs that Sobers was capable. Bcos he wasn't as talented or as versatile. Sobers could attack with the new ball like Kallis but then hold with the old like Underwood. The latter facet then shows up in a higher SR to be readily misinterpreted by the disingenuous to make a misleading point.

Sobers' ability to keep things quiet would be valued by his captain and acknowledged by fans who understand that a high SR is a consequence of him doing the job he was asked to do.

 

[akilana]

Personally not a fan of the Kallis's, Chanderpauls's or the Sutcliffe's, they do have a role in a team, it's just normally the wingman, not the main attraction. The support guy, not the match winner. But that may just be me.

Lol. Nice try lumping kallis with chanders. Kallis is in the mould of dravid and cook. They have identical strike rates yet you try to frame kallis as another chander and boycott. I don't think you would say cook was playing for himself and doesn't win matches because his fans would be all over you.
All the BS about match winner blah blah blah. I know dravid, cook and kallis have won plenty of matches for their teams. Cook just recently won a series by himself in india and australia.

There's more to cricket than just playing like sehwag. Would waqar be rated higher than ambrose because the former strikes quicker and the later tries to bowl line and length without taking too much risks?

 

[akilana]

Kallis and Sobers are not equals as batsmen, no where close. Kallis batted for Kallis and his average (evidenced in his 46 career strike rate). Kallis is rated by most to be the 4th best batsman of his own era behind Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting far less a serious contender for the second best bat ever.
As bowlers it is closer with Kallis statistically ahead, but they played different roles in different eras and Sobers with his variety and stop or stike bowler capabilities brought more to the table as a 5th bowler, but is can be seen as equal.
As good a slipper as Kallis is, he doesn't quite compare to the slip or overall fielding ability of Sobers who is seen as being among if not the greatest ever.

All this is not to say that Kallis wasn't arguably the second best All Rounder to play the game and whose aptitude in all three aspects of the game can only be equalled by Miller, Botham and probably Hammond (Chappell comes close) and is indeed an ATG.
For me though the second best All Rounder has to be Gilchrist who was not only a match winner with bat and gloves, but changed the game in the process.

More bull**** from you. Who did Sobers play for? I dare you to say Dravid and Cook play for themselves but I know you won't do that as they have plenty of fans here who would laugh at your stupid ****s. You try really hard but keep failing.
He's behind sachin and lara as a batsman for many.

Kallis was the better bowler. He bowl on flatter wickets and had competition from the likes of steyn, donald and pollock. Sobers had no competition.

In fielding, Sobers stood out in his generation because the fielding in general wasn't what it is today.

Kallis by a country mile and more.

 

[Mike5181]

But if the batsman can 'consistently score runs' with 'All that grace and style crap' at the same time then the team has a match winning batsman - like Sobers. That's the point.

I would also argue that 50-75 runs made by a batsman like Woolley or Gower is worth more to a team than a century scored by a batsman like Boycott or Barrington because they take the initiative away from the opposing bowlers. And therefore make life easier for their partners who in turn score more runs because they are under less pressure.

Just because they score runs with "all that grace and style crap" doesn't necessarily mean they operate at a high strike rate. And that's completely ignoring the other ways in which defensive-moderate players like Chanderpaul, Kallis etc can take control of the game. Batting time, testing the bowlers patience, fitness etc can just as easily provide opportunities for the guy batting at the other end. The argument that Kallis can't take the initiative away from the opposing bowlers through strike rate alone is overstated these days anyway. He's been a mid-50s SR player for the last few years.

 

[akilana]

But if the batsman can 'consistently score runs' with 'All that grace and style crap' at the same time then the team has a match winning batsman - like Sobers. That's the point.

I would also argue that 50-75 runs made by a batsman like Woolley or Gower is worth more to a team than a century scored by a batsman like Boycott or Barrington because they take the initiative away from the opposing bowlers. And therefore make life easier for their partners who in turn score more runs because they are under less pressure.

Don't you think Cook is as valuable as KP?

 

[Flem274*]

Don't you think Cook is as valuable as KP?

Easily.

 

[kyear2]

Lol. Nice try lumping kallis with chanders. Kallis is in the mould of dravid and cook. They have identical strike rates yet you try to frame kallis as another chander and boycott. I don't think you would say cook was playing for himself and doesn't win matches because his fans would be all over you.
All the BS about match winner blah blah blah. I know dravid, cook and kallis have won plenty of matches for their teams. Cook just recently won a series by himself in india and australia.

There's more to cricket than just playing like sehwag. Would waqar be rated higher than ambrose because the former strikes quicker and the later tries to bowl line and length without taking too much risks?

If you read what was posted earlier by Coronis, you would see that those are the players that he mentioned and wasn't lumping anyone together. Just responding to a post.
But then again to read what was peeviously posted would have robbed you of an opportunity of another baseless attack.

 

[kyear2]

More bull**** from you. Who did Sobers play for? I dare you to say Dravid and Cook play for themselves but I know you won't do that as they have plenty of fans here who would laugh at your stupid ****s. You try really hard but keep failing.
He's behind sachin and lara as a batsman for many.

Kallis was the better bowler. He bowl on flatter wickets and had competition from the likes of steyn, donald and pollock. Sobers had no competition.

In fielding, Sobers stood out in his generation because the fielding in general wasn't what it is today.

Kallis by a country mile and more.

I wouldn't bother to respond, except to say it pointless to compare an opening batsman to a number four batsman in a strong line up. Another thing, nit so much a fan of Dravid either, greatly admire him for being able to consistently score runs abroad, but he was also able to play the anchor because they were players willing to take the risks at the other end and he was seen as complimenting them, but it is easier for a batsman to pad his stats when he bats that slowly because he takes less risk, and for a much more aggresive batsman to have a similar average it shows their superior talent and ability.
Yes Kallis plays in an era of slow wickets, but so were the 60's and the nature of many of the batsmen batted slowly, additionally Sobers very often had to play the role of stock bowler to limit team damage. And while Kallis played in a slower pitch era, the ones in S.A certainly are not.
Regarding the fielding of the '60's there was Simpson, Engineer, Knott, Lloyd, Nurse, Cowdrey ect, hardly an era of weak fielding so to say he stood out because the standard was low is borderline ignorant. Sobers is probably the best close in and overall fielder in the history of the game, period.

To say Kallis is the better player by a country mile is unfortunate, because obviously you spend more time on stat guru than actually watching the game. But obviously you are a better judge that all of the 12 gentlemen who voted for Sobers into the Cricinfo All Time XI or the 90 persons who voted for the Wisden greatest ever players. Sobers and Bradman are in a league of their own challenged only by Grace as the Greatest players to play the game, but that obviously just my opnion, right?

 

[Fusion]

H4G please don't make **** arguments mate. Imran khan was an okayish bat when he wasn't being a **** but he was far from what you are making him out to be. He was easily the worst out of the great all rounders despite what numbers say. Only Hadlee was worse with the bat.

Please post in English and don't avoid the swear filter.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sobers and Bradman are in a league of their own challenged only by Grace as the Greatest players to play the game, but that obviously just my opinion, right?

As much as I agree with you, but that still is just your opinion, unfortunately.

Imran khan was an okayish bat when he wasn't being a **** but he was far from what you are making him out to be. He was easily the worst out of the great all rounders despite what numbers say. Only Hadlee was worse with the bat.

Imran was a better bat than Kapil for sure. Only Botham better among the four of that era. If you include Rice and Procter, then I would have Imran as a batsman at fourth.

As an aside, it would be a wonderfully pleasant surprise if all parties concerned dropped the Sobers-Kallis debate.

 

[Coronis]

Of the great allrounders, I rate their batting in this order: Sobers, Kallis, Miller, Botham, Kapil, Imran, Hadlee. Procter and Rice would slot in above Botham.

 

[watson]

Rating Kapil and Imran is difficult when it comes to batting. On the surface it seems that Kapil is the better batsman because of his 3 centuries against the might of the West Indies, and other 'high impact' innings;

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

However, Imran does average 6 runs an innings more than Kapil for good reason - he was more consistent. He didn't get the same quantity of big scores, but Imran appeared to have contributed more often.

At least that's my impression after looking at their respective lists of innings. It would be interesting to work-out the Standard Deviations;

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Red]

Kapil was a slightly superior batsman I think. A guy like Kapil makes the perfect test number 7 or 8 batsman

 

[Red]

Of the great allrounders, I rate their batting in this order: Sobers, Kallis, Miller, Botham, Kapil, Imran, Hadlee. Procter and Rice would slot in above Botham.

Agreed, although I'm not sure about Procter and Rice.