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?