Kallis Vs Sobers

[Precambrian]

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.

[Athlai]

Sobers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kallis

[Prince EWS]

I've backflipped on this a fair few times. I just don't really know anymore. I'm going to vote for Kallis though because I'm biased.

[Precambrian]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Sobers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kallis

And why?

They have comparable bowling records without minnows, 34 each.

And if you remove India out of Sober's record, since India of the 1950s were like Zimbabwe of the pre 2003, the bowling average becomes even worse.

Not to mention that Sober's batting record too is inflated heavily by India figures again.

EDIT : Thanks Mr. Mystic Z for the vote. With your immense predictive skills of late, who knows I might not be another Diamanti??

[thierry henry]

hahaha

Am not even going to go there again

Precam, I'm with you buddy, but you are going to cop a flaming

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by Precambrian

And why?

They have comparable bowling records without minnows, 34 each.

And if you remove India out of Sober's record, since India of the 1950s were like Zimbabwe of the pre 2003, the bowling average becomes even worse.

Not to mention that Sober's batting record too is inflated heavily by India figures again.

EDIT : Thanks Mr. Mystic Z for the vote. With your immense predictive skills of late, who knows I might not be another Diamanti??

Sobers is far and away the better batsman, and in bowling they're probably about equal with Sobers once again likely having the edge. This isn't a statistics thing, or records this is just purely cricketing history.

[zaremba]

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.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Precambrian

EDIT : Thanks Mr. Mystic Z for the vote. With your immense predictive skills of late, who knows I might not be another Diamanti??

You are more than welcome. Richly deserved.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Sobers is far and away the better batsman, and in bowling they're probably about equal with Sobers once again likely having the edge. This isn't a statistics thing, or records this is just purely cricketing history.

Is it? or is it legend built up over the years and established wisdom (which is often lazy).

FTR, I go with Sobers purely based on comparison with their peers. He would have been a concensus number 1 batsman in the World for much of his career. Something it is hard to say of Kallis.

Im not too bothered about the actual stats but more about how they rated amongst their peers.

I find it very possible that Kallis maybe a better allrounder in real terms than Sobers, but judged amongst those they played with, and relative to their era, I think Sobers clearly tops Kallis.

[Ikki]

Precam, I admire that you put your cajones on the line. I've already argued a lot against this idol that has been made of Garry Sobers. A great cricketer indeed. But anyone saying the distance between him and Kallis is large...simply hasn't checked their records properly.

I'll weigh in if I see you're not mentioning something.

[pskov]

Sobers the better batsman (especially considering their respective eras), Kallis the better bowler, Sobers the better fielder, so I'd go with Sobers.

[Precambrian]

Originally Posted by zaremba

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.

Agree wholly to the bowling and fielding aspects.

But don't you think Sober's average of 57 is a tad over-rated? Considering his averages are boosted heavily by performances against India, who were minnows as far as bowling was concerned during that period??

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?

[Matt79]

Sobers for the reasons mentioned already - he has a better batting record in relative terms in my opinion, and any slight edge Kallis has in career bowling record is negated by the fact that Sobers offered not only seam bowling that ranged from near-express to medium paced swing, but bowled wrist and finger spin. Also, it seems to be the consensus that his seam bowling was better than his spin, and yet he bowled spin when it suited his team for him to do so - if he had only bowled his most effective style, his bowling record would probably be better.

That's enough, but I think there's also enough stylistic points re: their batting to weigh the scales slightly further to Sobers. If a criticism can fairly be made of Kallis' batting, its that he's sometimes a bit too one-paced. Sobers was, by all accounts, more flexible in this regard, and was able to up the tempo more effectively than Kallis. Wouldn't make a decision solely on this point, but it adds to the trend.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Is it? or is it legend built up over the years and established wisdom (which is often lazy).

I guess I just have faith in those older than me with cricketing knowledge.

[Precambrian]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Sobers is far and away the better batsman, and in bowling they're probably about equal with Sobers once again likely having the edge. This isn't a statistics thing, or records this is just purely cricketing history.

And exactly what do you mean by their cricketing histories? If anything was to be said, batting was easier during Sober's period. Demonstrated by pretty lack of standard oppositions barring Australia (average record) and England (against whom Sobers prospered tbf). Sobers scored heavily against India and Pakistan, and both teams at that point in time hardly could boast of superlative bowlers. Not to mention his surprisingly terrible record against NZ (23 in 12 matches) which due to ignorance of NZ's bowling during that period, I cannot elaborate on.