Jacques Kallis

[mighty_west]

Re: Jacques Kallis

You really can't say that it's very hard to compare eras on weakness or strength of the test teams of the time. The fact is Sobers has the record on the board as does Kaliis.

Well said, all I can say that he's easily the best all rounder I've seen play, and there have been some beauties, Imran, Kapil Dev, Sir Richard Hadlee, Ian Botham, Clive Rice etc.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Jacques Kallis

I always thought the test for being called a very good all rounder was having a better batting average than bowling average. Jacques smashes that theory, 55/32.

More runs and centuries, better average than Brian Lara.
Number 27 all time test wicket taker, decent S/R and average too.

[Missing Dog]

Re: Jacques Kallis

Such a talent. He had some of the most pure strokeplay of any batsmen in his era.

[hujsh]

Re: Jacques Kallis

You really can't say that it's very hard to compare eras on weakness or strength of the test teams of the time. The fact is Sobers has the record on the board as does Kaliis.

I'm disputing the idea that Sobers played in a weaker era. As I said I don't know a lot about that era but believed that the conventional wisdom is that it was harder to have a 50+ average back then.

[1eyedog]

Re: Jacques Kallis

I'm disputing the idea that Sobers played in a weaker era. As I said I don't know a lot about that era but believed that the conventional wisdom is that it was harder to have a 50+ average back then.

With what data though? FYI there are 8 batsmen from the period that Sobers played (e.g. 54-70) in the top 18 averages of all time, so no it wasn't difficult to achieve 50+ average during this era, on the contrary, it was probably easier.

If you're going to throw in bat technology you probably need to throw in things like stronger bowlers with superior strength and exercise regimes as well as more strategic field placements that are tailored to individual players rather than orthodox fields. It gets difficult to quantify and maybe it means that it wasn't a weaker era or conversely that the bowling was pretty crap / pitches were generally flat when Sobers played. I didn't live through his era though I'm just an unabashed Kallis fan - always have been.

[Topdog]

Re: Jacques Kallis

100 in his last test. Champion.

[hujsh]

Re: Jacques Kallis

With what data though? FYI there are 8 batsmen from the period that Sobers played (e.g. 54-70) in the top 18 averages of all time, so no it wasn't difficult to achieve 50+ average during this era, on the contrary, it was probably easier.

I see about 5 that you could claim played during that same period, Graeme Pollock, Ken Barrington, C.L. Walcott, C.A. Davis (with only 15 tests however) and maybe Everton Weekes and Greg Chappell, though they played that majority of their careers before and after Sobers. This doesn't say much however as they could just be great players. There's also been plenty of modern players like Ponting Kallis, Tendulkar, Hussey and Dravid who were all in this list but most of them played too long.

I could also throw this at you indicating that there are a lot more pitches now that are flatter than ever before.

If you're going to throw in bat technology you probably need to throw in things like stronger bowlers with superior strength and exercise regimes as well as more strategic field placements that are tailored to individual players rather than orthodox fields. It gets difficult to quantify and maybe it means that it wasn't a weaker era or conversely that the bowling was pretty crap / pitches were generally flat when Sobers played. I didn't live through his era though I'm just an unabashed Kallis fan - always have been.

See now you were that one that stated as fact that Sobers played in a weaker era of cricket.

He played in a weaker era of cricket.

I think that that puts the onus on you to back that up when you're dismissing what is widely considered to be the second best player in the history of the game

[1eyedog]

Re: Jacques Kallis

[QUOTE]

I see about 5 that you could claim played during that same period, Graeme Pollock, Ken Barrington, C.L. Walcott, C.A. Davis (with only 15 tests however) and maybe Everton Weekes and Greg Chappell, though they played that majority of their careers before and after Sobers. This doesn't say much however as they could just be great players. There's also been plenty of modern players like Ponting Kallis, Tendulkar, Hussey and Dravid who were all in this list but most of them played too long.

You missed Hutton too but you also missed the point. There are still 8 players in that 'era' who are listed in the top 20 averages of all time. To be less specific, there are 8 players who between 1954-1974 (e.g. Sobers' era) had bloody high averages around the same time as Sobers and he wasn't even the highest of them he was middle range.

With regard to Ponting et al. when you say played too long you mean their averages went down? Their averages are what they are? Why didn't Kallis' go down? He played for 19 years.

I could also throw this at you indicating that there are a lot more pitches now that are flatter than ever before.

Not sure what this means? There are two scores in the top 5 from the 30s and one from the 50s. Another from 15 years ago...Most of the big scores in the top 10 are sub-continent matches where pitches are dust bowls...and who knows what the game strategy was.

See now you were that one that stated as fact that Sobers played in a weaker era of cricket.

Facts are very rare - even in statistics. Unless the question is empirically tested using universally accepted scientific inquiry to me it's not a fact. I was stating my opinion that he played in a weaker era - I sourced stats that showed there are 8 batsmen in the top 20 of all time batting averages. I questioned my own opinion by considering flatter pitches during Sobers' era or there simply wasn't enough quality bowlers around at the time ( a point I raised in an earlier post). It's my opinion that Sobers played in a bat friendly environment, whether that is a product of ordinary bowling or flat pitches I'm not sure.

I think that that puts the onus on you to back that up when you're dismissing what is widely considered to be the second best player in the history of the game

But I did in my first post to you! You need to come back at me with why you think he is better than Kallis - but you haven't. Look it's a good debate to have given Kallis' recent retirement). I'm not dismissing him, he is the second greatest all-rounder to play the game and a legend. I just think Kallis' record (numbers) are superior - and that is pretty widely accepted. There were two polls I saw recently, one was during the MCG test and the other was during a big bash game which asked whether Kallis was the greatest all-rounder ever and on both approximately 55% said yes. I'm not sure who votes on these things but I'm not the only one who thinks Kallis surpasses him. The thing with past greats is the mythology that surrounds them. Sobers did everything great, he was light on his feet, silky a classic cricketer with sleeves rolled up and soft hands. He was simply so much more graceful than Kallis and he looked better playing the game and when you compare the two Kallis will always be up against this.

[hujsh]

Re: Jacques Kallis

You missed Hutton too but you also missed the point. There are still 8 players in that 'era' who are listed in the top 20 averages of all time. To be less specific, there are 8 players who between 1954-1974 (e.g. Sobers' era) had bloody high averages around the same time as Sobers and he wasn't even the highest of them he was middle range.

I didn't miss Hutton. He played more in the 30s and 40s and since there was 1-2 years where they played at the same time they are from different eras. There are 4 players who played the majority of their time at the same time as Sobers with a top 20 average and more than 20 tests. This could just mean it was a strong period for batsmen not that the bowlers were shit or the pitches were flat.

With regard to Ponting et al. when you say played too long you mean their averages went down? Their averages are what they are? Why didn't Kallis' go down? He played for 19 years.

I mean that Ponting had one of the best averages ever but played past his prime rather than retire and it fell during the latter period of his career. Just speculation but I doubt that was as common an occurrence 50 years ago (happy to be corrected on that though)

Not sure what this means? There are two scores in the top 5 from the 30s and one from the 50s. Another from 15 years ago...Most of the big scores in the top 10 are sub-continent matches where pitches are dust bowls...and who knows what the game strategy was.

Over half of the top 20 innings ever have come in the last 20 years. It proves as much as the list of top averages does (not that much)

Facts are very rare - even in statistics. Unless the question is empirically tested using universally accepted scientific inquiry to me it's not a fact. I was stating my opinion that he played in a weaker era - I sourced stats that showed there are 8 batsmen in the top 20 of all time batting averages. I questioned my own opinion by considering flatter pitches during Sobers' era or there simply wasn't enough quality bowlers around at the time ( a point I raised in an earlier post). It's my opinion that Sobers played in a bat friendly environment, whether that is a product of ordinary bowling or flat pitches I'm not sure.

If it's your opinion that's fine but you phased it as a fact which I didn't think was fair.

But I did in my first post to you! You need to come back at me with why you think he is better than Kallis - but you haven't. Look it's a good debate to have given Kallis' recent retirement). I'm not dismissing him, he is the second greatest all-rounder to play the game and a legend. I just think Kallis' record (numbers) are superior - and that is pretty widely accepted. There were two polls I saw recently, one was during the MCG test and the other was during a big bash game which asked whether Kallis was the greatest all-rounder ever and on both approximately 55% said yes. I'm not sure who votes on these things but I'm not the only one who thinks Kallis surpasses him. The thing with past greats is the mythology that surrounds them. Sobers did everything great, he was light on his feet, silky a classic cricketer with sleeves rolled up and soft hands. He was simply so much more graceful than Kallis and he looked better playing the game and when you compare the two Kallis will always be up against this.

First off I have no idea who was better as I never saw Sobers. I just thing that dismissing 20 years of cricket as being batsmen friendly with only a list of the top averages as evidence is rather unfair.

[Topdog]

Re: Jacques Kallis

Bowling is pretty terrible now. If you compare batsmen averages from the 90's, early 00's to now it is a stark difference. Thats why I'll always rate Sachin so much higher than the rest from his era.

[lemmon]

Re: Jacques Kallis

Bowling is pretty terrible now. If you compare batsmen averages from the 90's, early 00's to now it is a stark difference. Thats why I'll always rate Sachin so much higher than the rest from his era.

Agree with that Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath are all in a bracket you can probably only place Steyn in contemporarily

[Bornadog]

Re: Jacques Kallis

Agree with that Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath are all in a bracket you can probably only place Steyn in contemporarily

Some great bowling by Steyn to take his 350th and help SA win and retain their number one Test ranking.

[1eyedog]

Re: Jacques Kallis

He played for 20 years. My knowledge of that time is not great but was test cricket notoriously weak from 1954-1974?

Wouldn't averaging 57 in tests have been harder back then too? Less roads for pitches and no scientific bats for example.

In the end I was just following up on your first post to my weaker era post as above. I answered it by providing a list of averages from the period. So in short no it wasn't difficult to average 50+ back then.

Test cricket was not necessarily 'weak' back then either, but there was a dearth of high-quality bowlers and there was a healthy list of batsmen with averages over 50 at the time. Did Sobers play in a less demanding era than Kallis who faced a host of high quality bowlers? It's my opinion that he did and I'm sorry that you took "he played in a weaker era of cricket" as the truth. In future I will always begin with IMO. Cheers.