Kallis vs Sobers, Donald vs Steyn, Trott vs Pollock

[rza]

I want to understand the logic as to why people rate Sobers way higher than Kallis as an all-rounder, and Donald way higher than Steyn, and why Graeme Pollock is rated so high when he didn't achieve anything Jonathan Trott or Michael Hussey didn't achieve at more or less the same number of tests.

I think stats-wise we know that Kallis is the equal of Sobers, but why do we rate Sobers higher? Is it because his team was the best in the world, or is it because none of us has seen him play, hence we rate him higher? We seem to rate oldies higher than we rate current players, except for Tendulkar and Warne, even though their stats don't back them up so maybe that's why we rate Sobers higher.

As for Steyn and Donald, since we watched them both, can anyone really say Donald was way better than Steyn? Or do we rate Donald higher because Steyn is still playing?

Graeme Pollock had an average of around 60 against mainly Australia, England and possible West Indies, big deal. Would we have rated Hussey higher had he retired at the same number of tests, which by then his stats were above 60 (stand for correction)? Jonathan Trott had probably the exact average at the same number of tests, so doesn't this show us that Pollock was not extraordinary?

I understand that we probably use each one's viewpoint to determine who was better, but can't we at least align our viewpoints to stats?

[Spark]

I don't see why we have to align our viewpoints to stats. Certainly they're important, but raw stats like averages tend to flatten and iron out all the intricacies and subtleties which are so important to cricket and what a keen eye actually watching the game can immediately discern. They are called averages after all.

Certainly for one thing Pollock's average of 60 means a completely different thing to Hussey's average of 60 after a similar number of Tests.

[Howe_zat]

Quite.

That, and there's the absurdity of suggesting anyone rates Pollock solely on his brief Test career.

[rza]

Originally Posted by Spark

I don't see why we have to align our viewpoints to stats. Certainly they're important, but raw stats like averages tend to flatten and iron out all the intricacies and subtleties which are so important to cricket and what a keen eye actually watching the game can immediately discern. They are called averages after all.

Certainly for one thing Pollock's average of 60 means a completely different thing to Hussey's average of 60 after a similar number of Tests.

You mind explaining the difference between Hussey and Pollock's 60?

Of course there has to be personal opinion, but stats tell a lot of truth. We know Pattinson and Philander are good prospects and their stats confirm it, so it wouldn't be logical for someone to say Yadav is a better prospect even when stats disagree.

[rza]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Quite.

That, and there's the absurdity of suggesting anyone rates Pollock solely on his brief Test career.

I didn't watch Pollock, and you probably didn't as well, then how can we know that he was better than Hussey at a similar stage?

[Prince EWS]

If only Trott was good enough to consistently score enough runs in county cricket to be selected in Tests and fail as a younger man, he'd be a much worse batsman.

Somehow.

[Spark]

The quality of the attacks, the nature of the pitches, the timeframe across which the runs were scored (and hence how many "form windows" the sample size actually captures).

I mean otherwise if you're silly you end up with statements such as Samaraweera > Ponting, and, well...

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Spark

The quality of the attacks, the nature of the pitches, the timeframe across which the runs were scored (and hence how many "form windows" the sample size actually captures).

I mean otherwise if you're silly you end up with statements such as Samaraweera > Ponting, and, well...

If we were judging them on say... who had suffered from the greatest level of black magic... then I would say that's a fair call.

[Burgey]

I think Sobers is rated higher than Kallis pretty much because he isn't a **** tbh.

[rza]

Originally Posted by Spark

The quality of the attacks, the nature of the pitches, the timeframe across which the runs were scored (and hence how many "form windows" the sample size actually captures).

I mean otherwise if you're silly you end up with statements such as Samaraweera > Ponting, and, well...

We know Samaraweera is not better than Ponting and stats confirm it. Samaraweera stats outside subcontinent are horrible, and only slightly improving after the SA series. So once again stats confirm that point.

If nature of pitches counts, then can we safely Kallis should be rated way higher than most batsmen since he played 50% of his matches in South Africa - statistically the best bowling conditions in the world?

Does anybody have a view on why Donald is rated higher than Steyn?

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Spark

The quality of the attacks, the nature of the pitches, the timeframe across which the runs were scored (and hence how many "form windows" the sample size actually captures).

I mean otherwise if you're silly you end up with statements such as Samaraweera > Ponting, and, well...

Yeah. I think people confusing rating players on stats/records with just looking at their overall career average and making a call on that. You can still analysing someone on purely a performance-based level and come up with a different conclusion to the Tests column in his cricinfo stats bio.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by rza

We know Samaraweera is not better than Ponting and stats confirm it. Samaraweera stats outside subcontinent are horrible, and only slightly improving after the SA series. So once again stats confirm that point.

If nature of pitches counts, then can we safely Kallis should be rated way higher than most batsmen since he played 50% of his matches in South Africa - statistically the best bowling conditions in the world?

Does anybody have a view on why Donald is rated higher than Steyn?

See but what you've done there is come to a conclusion based on what you see with your own eyes then find stats to back it up. Which is fine, but that's my point - you're not relying on stats to come up with the conclusion, you're actually relying on people watching cricket.

Don't get me wrong, stats are amazingly useful and I'll happily pull up statsguru filters to make a specific point, but you have to be very aware of the limitations of what you're trying to say and more importantly what your stat doesn't say.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by rza

We know Samaraweera is not better than Ponting and stats confirm it. Samaraweera stats outside subcontinent are horrible, and only slightly improving after the SA series. So once again stats confirm that point.

If nature of pitches counts, then can we safely Kallis should be rated way higher than most batsmen since he played 50% of his matches in South Africa - statistically the best bowling conditions in the world?

Does anybody have a view on why Donald is rated higher than Steyn?

Donald is rated higher than Steyn because he maintained an extremely similar standard of performance over a longer period. Rightly so too; ten years of Donald is worth more than six years or Steyn. I reckon Steyn will be rated the better bowler by the time he retires.

[Mike5181]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

Quite.

That, and there's the absurdity of suggesting anyone rates Pollock solely on his brief Test career.

Well, to be fair to Michael Hussey. There is absolutely nothing wrong with his first class career in what was arguably one of the strongest periods of Australian cricket.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by Mike5181

Well, to be fair to Michael Hussey. There is absolutely nothing wrong with his first class career in what was arguably one of the strongest periods of Australian cricket.

A lot of it is bashing weak county attacks tbf. How much I'm not sure.