Kallis Vs Sobers

[Matt79]

How do you think Sobers offered extra options? Surely finally it comes down to their performances does it not? Sachin Tendulkar too in his prime could offer his captain a variety of bowling options. Not that I am anyway comparing their bowling skills. But just because Sobers could offer variety of options should not be the judging criteria imho.

Also the strike rate of Kallis is 72 against Sober's 91 which clinches it in Kallis' favor for me.

Um, because he was a decent spinner if his team needed a spinner. Other things being equal my batting allrounder is more valuable to me if he can bowl seam and spin, than one who can only offer seam (assuming their seam bowling and their batting are roughly equal, which I am).

Am confused as to why their flexibility as allrounders is not a criteria to judge them.

 

[Prince EWS]

Um, because he was a decent spinner if his team needed a spinner. Other things being equal my batting allrounder is more valuable to me if he can bowl seam and spin, than one who can only offer seam (assuming their seam bowling and their batting are roughly equal, which I am).

Am confused as to why their flexibility as allrounders is not a criteria to judge them.

You'd think, though, that being able to bowl spin when conditions suited and seam with conditions would help his overall average.

If his seam bowling truly was better than spin bowling even when he was bowling spin, then why on earth would he actually be bowling spin? It makes no sense.

 

[pskov]

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.

Kallis has piled on the runs against the West Indies (ave 74 in 21 matches) who have had mediocre at best bowling stock since he first met them in 1998 and also cashed in against New Zealand (ave 67 in 14 matches) who have only really had one or two consistently test class bowlers in that time. Conversely against the top team in his time, Australia, he averages just 38 in 21 matches and only 33 against Sri Lanka in 12 games.

Is it really all that surprising that the best batsman score the most runs against the weaker bowling attacks?

 

[Athlai]

NZ is pretty consistently a team that keeps the opposing team to a respectable total and our direness with the bat should in no way infer any questions to how well Kallis has batted against us.

 

[zaremba]

Um, because he was a decent spinner if his team needed a spinner. Other things being equal my batting allrounder is more valuable to me if he can bowl seam and spin, than one who can only offer seam (assuming their seam bowling and their batting are roughly equal, which I am).

Am confused as to why their flexibility as allrounders is not a criteria to judge them.

Agree entirely.

This versatility also has very substantial knock-on effects on selection.

Look at the South African teams in which Kallis has played. If it looks as though the pitch might take turn, there is always a temptation - which often proves overwhelming - to pick a spinner just in case it turns. This means sacrificing a front-line batsman or a front-line seamer which weakens the team. If you have a Sobers you can pick your full hand of seamers in the knowledge that you also have a perfectly capable spinner should you need one.

Equally, on a turning pitch, you might choose to pick one specialist spinner in addition to Sobers, rather than two. Again allowing your seam attack and batting line-up not to be unnecessarily depleted.

If England had Sobers today we wouldn't be forced to have Monty Panesar who (bowling aside, perhaps) is a horrible hindrance to England's success both in the field and with the bat.

 

[Prince EWS]

NZ is pretty consistently a team that keeps the opposing team to a respectable total and our direness with the bat should in no way infer any questions to how well Kallis has batted against us.

Indeed. This is really one of my pet hates these days TBH and it just seems to be getting more and more common. "New Zealand are crap in Tests so it's easy to score runs against them" is one of the biggest myths in cricket. Their bowling attack is good.

 

[Matt79]

You can say that India were minnows with a weaker bowling attack when Sobers played them, and its true that Gupte played something of a lone hand through the 58/59 series (although Mankad helped in the last test). But Gupte, Bedi, Chandresekhar, and Prasanna were quality bowlers, and guys like Desai and Venkat weren't the worst bowlers going around.

 

[Richard]

I've not the slightest doubt that Sobers was a better batsman than Kallis. Run-scoring was fairly easy for much of Sobers' day - at home if not away - and likewise Kallis has cashed-in massively against weak bowling on flat pitches of the post-2001/02 era.

Both are clearly excellent batsmen, but Kallis for me would have averaged 50 or so had pitches not flattened-out when they did. Sobers, had West Indian pitches been more "normal" in his day, who knows what his home record would've been like.

As I've said though, Sobers averaged mid-60s for the important part of his career, home and away, (remember he debuted at 17 as a bowler) and Kallis has averaged mid-60s and sometimes early-70s in the post-2001/02 period.

As a seam-bowler, I think Kallis is probably better than Sobers was, but not by a great deal. Not as versatile, though. Obviously Sobers is a far better spinner than Kallis has or will ever be. So therefore, Sobers is probably a better bowler.

Sobers is also one of the greatest close fielders. EVER. Kallis is merely an excellent one.

So Sobers in all departments. Perhaps not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>, but >>>> for me.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah I'll agree I exaggerated the difference a bit but Sobers is better.

 

[Precambrian]

And yet it should be noted that the Australians he played against - virtually to a man - rated him as or more highly than anyone.



Cricket was more defensive in the 50s and 60s than it is today - runs were scored slower, and wickets taken less often as a rule. Thus Sobers economy rate is better than Kallis, but his strike rate is worse. His average is similar.

How does that matter? I don;t think the Australians who played against Kallis rated him poorly.

Sorry, but defensive cricket hardly can account for 20 points difference in their strike rates. Had Kallis been in any other team, save perhaps Australia, he'd definitely bowled more deliveries which would have accounted for much more wickets in his favor.

 

[Matt79]

lbw laws were different back then as well IIRC. Almost all bowlers from the 50s and 60s have significantly worse strike rates than their equivalents from the 1970s onwards. Its why the 50s and 60s, odd bright spots like the Worrell-Benaud Windies tour of Australia, is one of the least fondly remembered period of cricket - the number of snore-draws was huge compared to today.

 

[Precambrian]

I've not the slightest doubt that Sobers was a better batsman than Kallis. Run-scoring was fairly easy for much of Sobers' day - at home if not away - and likewise Kallis has cashed-in massively against weak bowling on flat pitches of the post-2001/02 era.

I hate to repeat myself. But Sobers was average against Australia, very good against England, poor against NZ and excellent against India and Pakistan, the latter two, or atleast India were minnows during his era. So how can you possibly say Kallis alone made his dough on flat pitches against weak oppositions??

Both are clearly excellent batsmen, but Kallis for me would have averaged 50 or so had pitches not flattened-out when they did. Sobers, had West Indian pitches been more "normal" in his day, who knows what his home record would've been like.

Sorry again I disagree. How do you support your theory that pitches that Kallis played on were far "flatter" than those played on by Sobers? And that Sobers faced tougher opponents as compared to Kallis?

As I've said though, Sobers averaged mid-60s for the important part of his career, home and away, (remember he debuted at 17 as a bowler) and Kallis has averaged mid-60s and sometimes early-70s in the post-2001/02 period.

Hardly a mark of greatness once you consider Sobers also averaged around 30 for a longish period of time as well. And also Sobers played against the minnow nations of his time well.

As a seam-bowler, I think Kallis is probably better than Sobers was, but not by a great deal. Not as versatile, though. Obviously Sobers is a far better spinner than Kallis has or will ever be. So therefore, Sobers is probably a better bowler.

Lol, So Warne was a better spinner than McGrath, so Warne is better? Your argument is at best laughable. You state the case of flat pitches for batting, but you never give it equal credit when it comes to bowling. Sobers and Kallis excluding Zimbabwe and Bangladesh average almost equal. But I'd suggest once you include Kallis' figures against Zimbabwe of the old, or discount India figures altogether from Sobers' record, add the pitch factor, Kallis would certainly emerge as the much better bowler. For starters, please see their SRs. 70 is to 90.

Sobers is also one of the greatest close fielders. EVER. Kallis is merely an excellent one.

Blistering barnacles. I've never seen Kallis field at anywhere other than slips in test matches for a long time. And I;ve never seen him drop many if not any, and also have witnessed him taking some exuberant ones. Sobers' excellence as a fielder is by relative measure of that time, and also tends to be exaggerated over a period of time. I for not once do not buy the argument that Sobers was a superior fieldsman than Kallis.

So Sobers in all departments. Perhaps not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>, but >>>> for me.

No, I might as well suggest Kallis = Sobers in batting and fielding. and Kallis >>>> Sobers in bowling. So overall Kallis > Sobers.

 

[Matt79]

Lol, So Warne was a better spinner than McGrath, so Warne is better?

Actually, if you read Richard's post properly, you see that he's saying that given the batting and seam bowling of Sobers and Kallis is pretty close, Sobers' spin makes him better. No-one would say that Warne's seam bowling is equal to McGraths, otherwise, yes advantage as a spinner compared to McGrath would indeed make Warne much better cricketer than Glenn.

 

[Matt79]

Amazed that you're equating the Indian team of the 60s to modern day Bangladesh. I'd never compare the two tbh.

 

[Precambrian]

Think its unfair to dismiss his batting record as being inflated by playing the "minnow" India, when he played 18 matches against them, but 36 matches against the very strong English team for an average of 60+ (vs his 57 overall average) and another 8 matches against Pakistan for an average of 89. If anything, his ability to succeed both in England, the West Indies, India, and Pakistan, and to a lesser extent Australia underlines his quality.

Australia and NZ were the only two teams he performed below his career average, and agaisnt Australia he still averaged a credible 40. NZ were the only team that really appeared to have troubled him.

Compare that to Kallis: career average of 54.54. The teams against which he has bettered that overall average are, by order of excess: Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, West Indies, New Zealand, Pakistan and only just India. He's averaged 38 against Australia, 40 versus England, and 33 against SL.

Ascribing either Sobers' or Kallis' success to being a minnow-basher is wrong, but if it is to be suggested, it fits equally well against Kallis as it does Sobers.

Fair points. Exactly why I discourage omission of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from the stats of Kallis when comparing to Sobers. Because, with all due respect, I don;t think for a second that India (and perhaps, only perhaps) Pakistan were not the best bowling teams during those times. I agree and have acknowledged the superlative record of Sobers against England, but I think Kallis having played under very different circumstances, and in an era where genuine batsmen alone struggles to average in the 50s consistently due to the vast amount of cricket, he has done an astounding job with both the bat and the ball.

 

[Matt79]

You can say that India were minnows with a weaker bowling attack when Sobers played them, and its true that Gupte played something of a lone hand through the 58/59 series (although Mankad helped in the last test). But Gupte, Bedi, Chandresekhar, and Prasanna were quality bowlers, and guys like Desai and Venkat weren't the worst bowlers going around.

RE: the comparison of India to Bangladesh, you're ignoring this then are you?

 

[Matt79]

Fair points. Exactly why I discourage omission of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from the stats of Kallis when comparing to Sobers. Because, with all due respect, I don;t think for a second that India (and perhaps, only perhaps) Pakistan were not the best bowling teams during those times. I agree and have acknowledged the superlative record of Sobers against England, but I think Kallis having played under very different circumstances, and in an era where genuine batsmen alone struggles to average in the 50s consistently due to the vast amount of cricket, he has done an astounding job with both the bat and the ball.

Sorry? We've never had more batsmen averaging in the 50s. In recent years there have been probably literally a dozen batsmen regularly averaging 50+. That argument doesn't really fly I'm afraid.

 

[Migara]

Sobers vs Imran or Sobers vs Miller would have made a more fruitful discussion

 

[Precambrian]

Um, because he was a decent spinner if his team needed a spinner. Other things being equal my batting allrounder is more valuable to me if he can bowl seam and spin, than one who can only offer seam (assuming their seam bowling and their batting are roughly equal, which I am).

Am confused as to why their flexibility as allrounders is not a criteria to judge them.

What good is flexibility if there are not tangible results to show for their effectiveness just because they were flexible? Please go back and see my example about Sachin Tendulkar. He should be the best overall bowler modern cricket has seen as he can bowl from outswing, inswing, to off-spin, leg break, googly, top spin, and much in between. But in sheer terms of effectiveness, he was nowhere near Venkatesh Prasad, who at best, bowled leg spinners barely passable as a slower ball.

Sorry had there been stats to prove that Sobers was much pronounced in his effectiveness due to his variety, I;d have gone for him.

And with an amount of pride, I can say I am backing Kallis just because I feel him vastly underrated. So my analysis is without any bias whatsover, since I love, admire and identify better with Sobers than Kallis.

 

[Precambrian]

Kallis has piled on the runs against the West Indies (ave 74 in 21 matches) who have had mediocre at best bowling stock since he first met them in 1998 and also cashed in against New Zealand (ave 67 in 14 matches) who have only really had one or two consistently test class bowlers in that time. Conversely against the top team in his time, Australia, he averages just 38 in 21 matches and only 33 against Sri Lanka in 12 games.

Is it really all that surprising that the best batsman score the most runs against the weaker bowling attacks?

The same can be said about Sober's record as well.