Cricket
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 93 comments are related to the topic:
*** All time best Xl ***
*** All time best Xl ***
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 93
|
By:
If anyone suggests to me Kallis is anywhere near Sobers and proves their case, I will quit the forum for that reason
Ok, that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. So do one, and save us all your hectoring. |
|
By:
Sorry Jed but I honestly think Deadly can off the naughty step,
Sobers was the best batsman of his generation. Most Test runs and highest score at the time. Kallis has Lara, Ponting and Tendulkar ahead of him from his time and plenty of others like Dravid around him. Sobers was a new ball bowler and won a test match with his spin bowling. We are reaching an " Eddie Booth " moment. Instead of saying " black people are better then white" you may have to say Garfield Sobers was better than Jaques Kallis ( I figure most of you youngsters don't know who Eddie Booth was, don't worry  ! ).I for the life of me can't see where anyone is coming from in saying Kallis was better than Sobers. Great stats, great cricketer but nah. I am not getting into a stats war either, they don't tell the whole story. n.b. I like Kallis, fantastic cricketer but he won't stop me getting a beer! |
|
By:
I will quit the forum forever jed, probably several more times, but not due to anyone establishing Kallis is as good or better than Sobers.
Takers will likely still be my favourite reason to quit. Terrible things takers. |
|
By:
Ok deadly, you did not ask for anyone to prove that Kallis was better than Sobers, and personally I didn't claim that anyway, I was quite clear that having never seen Sobers play I was in no position to judge him.
You said that if Kallis could be proved to be anywhere near Sobers you would quite the forum. Whatever you may think of their approaches to the game, I'm afraid the proof you asked for has been provided given the similarities between their records, and thus you are honour-bound to find a new group of people to bore to death. Obviously I don't expect this to happen, since an Australian and honour are hardly historical bedfellows. |
|
By:
...
http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/668351.html some interesting batting figures one of my favourite cricketers was zaheer abbas, perhaps not good enough to make the final 11 of an all time world 11, but surely deserving mention on the thread, maybe his test record would have been better had packer not come along ? |
|
By:
Amazing that even by that stat, Sobers and Kallis can barely be separated, unless of course Deadly Earnest would make that 49 run gap a gulf in class.
|
|
By:
Feck me Donny!,
We are trying to put this one to bed! Interesting article...Sobers 3 and Kallis 4 ffs !You can see from those statistics the weight of runs of modern players. You can't see uncovered / turning pitches, teams with two spinners in the side to take advantage of it and therby versatility of the earlier batsmen. I think the table provided in the article very interesting reading. I saw Zaheer make that 274 against England ( on TV ). I am surprised his average is on the low side , 44, and he only made 12 hundreds in 78 tests. It was against a backdrop of some of the most fearsome bowlers cricket has ever seen though! |
|
By:
Everybody has their own criteria when judging greatness. Who am I to tell a man that he is mad choosing to use a players ability to get him out of a beer tent but who mocks others who make use of stats?
Stats indeed don't tell us everything. Equally you can't say they tell us nothing especially when a player is streets ahead of others. For instance take players like Kallis and Botham. I don't think anybody would argue that Kallis was a better bowler than Botham and the stats back this up. There isn't a gulf between them but there is a gap. However, there is an absolute chasm between their respective batting averages and no amount of excuses because of who they may have played against can hide that fact. Ergo, to me it would be illogical to suggest that Botham should be in an all time 11 but Kallis left out. You can make an argument for saying that Kallis' batting was so strong and his ability to be used as back up may warrant selection. You can't make the same case based on Botham's bowling. The argument between Sobers and Kallis is less clear cut. For me I'd have Sobers as the best all rounder of all time but I'd have Kallis second and the rest not even close. So good was their batting and fielding ability that a definite case can be made to include both with either being a more than useful change bowler. |
|
By:
Without going through all the stats (yes they are very important) it appears that Sobers was above the rest while Kallis is just a brick.
Kallis for example, when everybody is scoring at a SR of 50+, has his big innings ( at least a few) batting at around 33. So while he is scoring, and holding up an end, he is scoring so slowly that it is detrimental to the team. On the other hand, Sobers, while everybody else is scoring at 50 SR, he is having huge innings scoring at 65+. Not only scoring more runs, but scoring them much quicker. In the case of long term stats that are comparable, match winners win the battle every time when comparing. Disappointing we can't get a view on Sobers SR but it is a very important stat that people seem to overlook. Something else for people to consider in regards to knocking the stats, is that there is more arguments than you are bringing up. Uncovered pitches? All well and good, but how was the technology and the sports science back in those days? How was the ability to work out peoples weaknesses in batting? How good was the fielding? To play cricket now, you need to be outstanding in the field, or that far ahead of your competition that it makes up for it. Fielding wasn't looked at so closely back then. If you could bat, you were in the team. If you could bowl you were in the team. So what proportion of uncovered pitches is countered by fielding standards, sports science, fitness, professionalism? You can't answer that, but certainly goes much deeper. The other thing the stats don't tell us, is who the wickets were. In the stats book, getting Cook out weighs up the same as getting Anderson out. A wicket is a wicket, and it simply counts as one. Who has Kallis got out? Who did Sobers get out? Sure you can say stats aren't everything, but the reality is, any description of why a stat doesn't hold up, is a stat in itself.... |
|
By:
I think stats are the central tools we are all using to make comparisons on players who died before we were born! On top of that we are using eye witness accounts and commentaries from contemporaries, which, are opinions, generally not factual.
Just for the record Eeternal, I am just stating my case using what factors I consider relavent. It is up to others to state theirs. I would assure you that I am not looking to mock others ( except BJ, I have been waiting for you! ) just engaging in healthy debate and also looking for people to throw up information or stories I have never heard, that for me is part of cricket, the stories and the fokelore are almost important ( Percy fender the best Captain England never had? ). BJ, I have been waiting! Good point about the technology and uncovered pitches. Plenty of swings and roundabouts there hence stats remain the central go to argument. With regard to techno I think it easier to point out a batsman's weakness with the eye. Those old guys figured it out themselves and passed the word around! I think it a lot harder to analyse a bowler particularly spinner if you are not facing, which, they can now do with TV. To play spinners on helpful pitches must have been extremely difficult and my point over time is the older batsmen were probably more versatile. Nowadays with heavy bats we see a lot of guys with heavy bats and planted feet swinging through the line and clearing fielders and fields in ways they could not before. I still can't get over this Kallis thing. A fine batsman no doubt and more than capable bowler but averaging one wicket an innings. His bowling is not needed in an all time X1 and there are better batsmen to pick. I don't even see where there is an argument save to say many people like me no doubt, are not giving Kallis the cudos he deserves? Guilty m'lud! ok now?. As for Kallis and Botham. I think I would take Botham over Kallis all day long. Botham's real career was 1977-86 not 86-92. He was a phenomenon as far as I am concerned. A real match winner, all time great but perhaps not good enough to get in to my All Time list. Botham won matches with bat, ball and in the field. Both was a bowling all rounder, Kallis a batting all rounder. I would suggest that Botham's batting won and saved more games than Kallis bowling. I would also suggest that Botham's bowling won more games than Kallis batting. |
|
By:
re Sobers - Kallis
http://www.reddit.com/r/Gunners/comments/1lphbc/ This might explain my feeling about it. Arsenal is Sobers and Tottenham is Kallis! |
|
By:
So many formidable lineups. Tough to judge which one will win though
 |
|
By:
Whisperingdeath
Fair enough if you want to cherry pick Botham's career but it begs the question what was his batting average in your chosen period? I don't see how you can get his average up too much even if you pick his best years. |
|
By:
Yeah WD, the bats is something I didn't mention (didn't even cross my mind) that certainly adds to the variables of trying to compare through time. Would suggest the outfield is most likely much better now too.
|
|
By:
Eternal,
BJ is the stats man not me! however from memory I would just take you back to 1981. 2 quickfire hundreds and a 5 wickets for one run spell basically changed the course of 3 Test matches. His bowling record speaks for itself 27 odd 5 fors and 4 I think 10w matches. I saw him get a hundred or almost a hundred before lunch against India once. Again Eternal, I am not trying to cherry pick it is just his pie eating and drinking took it's toll ! If he trained as hard and was as dedicated to Kallis he could have been a world class batsman for the second half of his career. He could just make things happen. I mean he got banned for admitting he took a couple of puffs on a spliff years previously then on his comeback took a wicket with his second and 12th ball to break Dennis Lillee's world record! Go figure.We are going back to the averages again to compare as everything else is arbitary. While this may be the easiest way to compare there are other factors to consider. I don't hold Kallis slow scoring rate against him incidentally. Whilst he was a blunter of the hard ball plenty of others scored quickly at the other end off a much softer non swinging ball to the credit of Kallis. BJ, this heavy bat thing is getting my goat. I think a lot of the younger players can make up for technical deficiency with a heavy bat but are being exposed at the highest level. There are so many swings and roundabouts though but I think this is a good exercise as it gives us a chance to find out about so many players. I also think the long term weather would be a factor and note there are periods like now when the bat is stronger than the ball but when I fist started watching games it was the other way round. I remember many a 190-5 at the end of the first day! Frankel, some great great players are being mentioned. There is no point in arguing which is actually the best line up but it is good to hear some people's passionate defence of their favourite players! |
|
By:
sobers
sobers sobers sobers sobers sobers sobers sobers sobers sobers me? |
|
By:
Nothing to do with my SERIOUS reply cloaked as joking about Mr. Sobers.
I actually met him in person once - not so remarkable you may say! But one evening in Manchester, this "ordinary" person, (I can't believe I've used the word ordinary), had just got off a bus following some pond-life directions. Looking very hot and bothered he asked me if I knew the way to Belle Vue. Apparently,(my guess) he was making an after dinner speech. Some facts:- He had a long walk. I was so star struck that I got no autograph, didn't buy him a pint or bored him to death with his exploits. The girlfriend who was with me gave me a hard time for not looking at her as lovingly as I looked a him! Seriously, I do not believe we will see his like again. I think you may have guessed by now that I thought that he was quite good. |
|
By:
Lest we forget Shanks!
Statistics sometimes just don't do justice! Not that his were bad or skewed. Botham was my particular hero but I couldn't fit him into my side because of Sobers. |
|
By:
Sunil Gavaskar
Barry Richards Vic Richards Brian Lara Graeme Pollock Jacques Kallis Kumar Sangakkara Waquar Younis Shane Warne Muttiah Muralitharan Joel Garner |
|
By:
sorry joci, leaving soebers aside, i don't see tendulkar in there.
Great innit these opinions, (for that's what they are,) I bet geoff boycott has his batting gloves on and can't press the right keys. |
|
By:
Ah yes, Tendulkar should have been in there, but a bit young to have seen Sobers.
|
|
By:
joci
and who is your captain? it's more important than most people realise. After a load of motivation, i hit a four once! |
|
By:
signing off now but sir gary was something else. as the ball made its way to him it screamed nooooo..........
I know it's difficult comparing generation to generation, ali v forman or frazier,bob beaman, usain bolt, maradonna v anybody really, i reckon he was the best, blah blah,blah etc. But i'm confident of this 'un. age sometimes has an advantage. |
|
By:
Interesting picks by Joci,
All modern day players. He must be the first person to put down what he saw not what he thought he saw! Did you see Mike Procter Joci? and who would you have taken out for Tendulkar? ( don't say Kallis ! ) |
|
By:
Priceless!
Took a little Dallas -3.5 to see them stuff it up and shazam good old Giants bail me out again !This is shocking! on over 38.5 too! Comedy Gold! |
|
By:
oops wrong thread!
|
|
By:
Whisperingdeath
I shared your wonder at Botham's Ashes. He could be astonishingly good on his day. Unfortunately I slightly hold that against him as I do his lack of application. I don't give marks for coulda's. I take them away. His occasional brilliance highlights his inconsistency particularly with the bat. I don't recall what his average with the bat was but I shouldn't imagine it was much above 30. As I say take out the odd brilliant innings and it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans. |
|
By:
Armitage Shanks : if he was asking for directions to Belle Vue it's a pound to a penny he was going to the dogs !
|
|
By:
Eternal,
I think his average was around 33, which, at the time was pretty decent. Top batsmen were averaging in the 40's. As for lack of application...off the field...I am not going to argue that one .On the field though he was as fierce as a competitor as they come. He scored 5200 Test Runs at a time when the record was 8000 odd for Sobers. His batting record stands up to scrutiny as a genuine Test quality batsman. I think his greatness is underestimated. England were looking for him till Flintoff turned up 20 years later! |
|
By:
There's no doubt that Botham was a great player. Unfortunately he failed to get anywhere selection for my team because he was, and remains, an utterly charmless boorish oik.
|
|
By:
That is as good selection criteria as I have heard! I won't knock you for that! It is your team! I was most fortunate that early in life I found out that many hero's have feet of clay and whilst I put many of these people on a pedestal I never worshipped them. I am with the Mafia on that! I only consider Ian Botham on the pitch, his charity walks and of course chasing Ian Chappell out of a bar. I don't think much of his TV, politics or opinion of himself although I am prepared to put up with with boorish behaviour on occasion. |
|
By:
Not surprisingly I don't hold that against Botham professionally. Most of his team mates seemed able to cope with his off field antics and he was as you say very competitive on the field.
However, I have to take issue with your 33 is pretty decent. 33 is pretty decent for a bit part batter but it ain't going to get you within hailing distance of an all time team as an all rounder. Batting averages of the time stack up okay compared to today with people like Richards, Gavaskar, Chappell and several others averaging well over 50 and not too many all timers have been able to do that with any longevity to their careers. The obvious point is that it is a heck of a jump to go from there to then miss out the 40's where you find a lot of very good test batsmen and then end up in the low 30's with the also rans. In short I don't think his record stands up as a batsman. He had some days in the sun but given his batting position he generally came in to an old ball not doing as much whereas someone like Kallis could be in second ball fending off a hard brand new ball. I don't for one minute question his ability but his temperament meant he tended to either come off spectacularly or often failed miserably and rarely had the application to temper his innings according to circumstance. |
|
By:
I don't know if this has been mentioned before but I'd argue that the best 11 may not make the best team. I'd say you need to have the balance right and as someone else said a captain who might not be amongst the very best of all time but who could get the best out of the various strong willed characters within the group.
|
|
By:
A true great has to have flair, entertainment value and sublime ability and be capable of extraordinary displays in my opinion. Difficult to include people who score slowly when a declaration is imminent (Kallis) or give the strike to the tailenders (S.Waugh). I think even Sachin has been a bit selfish. Give me a Sobers, Botham, Viv, Barry Richards, G Pollock any day. They're the real legends!
|
|
By:
Greatness comes in many forms. For example, who would argue that Atherton's stoicism in the face of one of the great spells of pace bowling from Donald to save the test wasn't a great example of test batting?
|
|
By:
builders,
Not legends! Achilles, Ajax and Hector are legends, like King Arthur and Robin Hood! The cricketers you have mentioned are real and Gods of the arena! |
|
By:
Hayden
Langer Bradman Pointing S Waugh Gilchrist Warne Lillee McGrath Alderman 12th man Botham |
|
By:
Been a lover of cricket since 1960 and from what I have seen and heard I would have 4 spare spaces in my side.
1/ 2/ 3/ Bradman 4/ Richards 5/ Lara 6/ Sobers 7/ Gilchrest 8/ Warne 9/ Marshall 10/ 11/ My reasoning for these 7 selections are Don Bradman (never saw him play, didn't need to) an average of over 99 and on uncovered wickets tells you everything you need to know. No Contest Vivian Richards - Just a fantastic batsman to watch and could just blitz the bowlers, whoever they were Brian Lara - Broke all the modern records 501 for Warwickshire and 400 for the West Indies, a Wonderful player to watch batting. Sir Garfield Sobers - Surely the greatest all rounder ever seen, held the record for the highest score in Test Matches for a long time 365. Bowled left arm seam and spin em wouldn't mind having him in my team. No Contest Adam Gilchrest - Destructive batsman and an excellent wicketkeeper, yes Alan Knott was a better keeper, but he couldn't bat a team out of the game in 2 hours. Shane Warne - Bowled the greatest ever ball in Test Cricket to take his 1st Ashes wicket and was a legend of the game with leg spin bowling. Malcolm Marshall - The quickest bowler I have ever seen, maybe because he was short he skidded the ball, but saw many a county batsman still playing his shot when the ball hit the keepers gloves. I never saw players such as Sutcliffe, Jack Hobbs, Len Hutton, Harold Larwood and many other great opening and mid order batsmen/opening bowlers. Oh my batting line up isn't that strong after 7. It wouldn't need to be, they wouldn't bat. However from what I have heard Jack Hobbs and Len Hutton may well have filled the 1st two place and the last two would have been filled, with Dennis Lillee and Harold Larwood. |
|
By:
Boycott MUST open
|
|
By:
And Holding must lead the pace attack
|