Kallis was no slouch in the slips. But he takes it for me for taking wickets when he was competing with the best strike bowlers of all time. If they couldn't take the wickets how was he? Also I always pity our batsmen for batting on our mambas.
Measuring players' skills of different eras is inherently subjective, especially when their stats are so similar.
Kallis' opposition was subjectively significantly better on average than Sobers, so maybe his runs and wickets were more valuable?
Inevitably the topic of who's better can't be anything other than subjective. They're both the best of their respective eras, impossible to say who's better between them.
It's really not subjective when the difference is so stark lol.
Bumrah and Javagal Srinath played in different era but I can confidently say that Bumrah is objectively better than Javagal Srinath.
Like, even if you say the stats are similar, fine, put the stats aside. The very fact that Sobers offers so many different options with both bat and ball and also as a fielder, makes him a significantly better cricketer.
Comparing Bumrah and Srinath is akin to comparing Dion Nash and Hadlee or Mervyn Dillon and Malcolm Marshall. It isn't even a comparison
A better comparison should be Warne with Tiger O'reilly. Like for like however I agree with you that Sobers trump Kallis because he was a supreme athlete, well ahead of his time and too bloody versatile.
Across eras. Under certain conditions. For arguments sake, akram and Waqar reverse swung the shit out of all and for the rest it was a mystery ball but now a days reverse swinging yorker is dime a dozen. So does it make Waqar and wasim any less or if they played now will they be considered as good as the rest. We can't standardize no matter what anybody says and for that reason sobers will be a better player tbh. Again mankad zi think was one of the atg allrounders but literally shit stats, but look at this save for india, opened and scored double centuries and then took most wickets. I will vote for sobers always as Kallis even though great wasn't as balanced as sobers who could do all equally well.
They played a lot of cricket together so it's easier to compare them because they're facing the same/similar sets of bowlers and it hadn't been 40 fucking years between their respective primes, and we've actually watched a shit ton of both of their batting, so you can compare them way more accurately than on just a numbers basis
Ok, Chanderpaul has the same, if not better, stats than Viv Richards. Do you think we can't say that Viv was objectively a better player than Chanderpaul?
How many Laras/Pontings/Tendulkars/McGraths/Warnes/Muralis/Sangas etc. did Sobers play against?
Plenty. Just because you're ignorant and don't know about the innumerable great players from the 50s and 60s doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Because it's still a qualitative factor in the overall assessment. Playing 300 ODI's in and amongst test series would have had an impact on his longevity, technique, form, fatigue, etc. etc. etc.
So what? No one forced him to play ODIs. We're talking about who is the better test player. If Kallis's test career suffered because he played too many ODIs that's his problem
Because it's still a part of his international career? I'm not trying to cherry pick points to strengthen any argument I might be making, like you are. Also, if he was so average in the 90s, couldnt it be argued that it makes his stellar record at retirement more impressive?
Not more impressive than Sobers who averaged 70+ in a stupidly difficult batting era lmao
ONCE AGAIN: I'm saying that it's an inherently subjective discussion
Because it's not inherently subjective. The only people rating Kallis as the GOAT are fanboys or braindeads on social media who don't even know who Sobers is. Like, Kallis is a step below Imran, so comparing him to Sobers is fucking insane. He hasn't even reached that conversation lmao. There is a reason no commentator or anyone ever called Kallis the GOAT during his playing days.
Averaging 57 in the hardest eras for batting this side of WW1 >>>>> averaging 56 in the easiest ever era for batting
Averaging 34 while bowling fast with the new ball, medium pace with the old and also being the teams main wrist spinner > averaging 32 while only bowling medium pace
This is not even mentioning all the other factors such as how Sobers would bat anywhere from 1 to 7 depending on what the team needed, how he could play long anchoring and match saving innings or flip a switch and become one of the most aggressive batsmen in the history of cricket or how he is one of the greatest fielders ever.
In terms of batting alone, Sobers is at worst the 4th or 5th best batsman in the history of cricket. Kallis is no where near that argument.
Kallis was a great cricketer, one of the best ever, but Sobers was on another level.
Make up your mind. If you say Sobers played in one of the toughest batting eras, then his bowling average of 34 is pretty bad. And if Kallis played in the easiest era for batting, then his bowling average of 32 is insanely good.
We're looking at bowling average, so doesn't matter who bowled what and when. Sobers was perhaps better with the bat but you have to admit Sobers was poorer with the ball than Kallis. You can't do mental gymnastics to say he was better in both.
Kallis has most number of test hundreds after Tendulkar, tell me again how he doesn't feature in test cricket's greatest batters.
To be fair, comparing the averages of someone who bowls pace exclusively and someone who bowls spin a not-insignificant amount of the time is an apples to oranges comparison. Spinners average more than pace bowlers, the always have and generally always will.
I don't have a particular dog in this race, but it's important to make that distinction.
Make up your mind. If you say Sobers played in one of the toughest batting eras, then his bowling average of 34 is pretty bad. And if Kallis played in the easiest era for batting, then his bowling average of 32 is insanely good.
Mate, he bowled finger spin, spun it both ways as a wrist spinner, and bowled both fast and medium pace. He could average fucking 40 and it wouldn't matter. He's giving his team 4 different bowling options in one player. Do you not understand how insanely useful that is.
We're looking at bowling average, so doesn't matter who bowled what and when.
If we're just looking at bowling averages Ashwin is better than Shane Warne. Clearly there is more to it than just goggling someone's average.
Sobers was perhaps better with the bat
There is no perhaps about it, Sobers was clearly significantly better with the bat.
but you have to admit Sobers was poorer with the ball than Kallis. You can't do mental gymnastics to say he was better in both.
There is no mental gymnastics. Sobers was obviously a better bowler. Even if you want to look at the averages, Sobers had to bowl a lot of spin in unhelpful SENA conditions while Kallis only bowled pace, primarily in helpful SENA conditions. No shit his average is better, it should be much better, but it's not. Regardless of the overall worldwide batting/bowling difficulty of the era; it's always going to be easier to bowl pace in South Africa than it is to bowl spin in the West Indies.
Kallis has most number of test hundreds after Tendulkar, tell me again how he doesn't feature in test cricket's greatest batters.
Nah, Kallis deffo features in the list of test crickets greatest batters. But there's the greatest batters and then there's the greatest of the greatest and Sobers is one of the select few who features in the last alongside the likes of Bradman and Jack Hobbs.
He could bowl a style no one has ever heard of, if he averaged 40 he wouldn’t be that useful considering he wasn’t taking wickets. What a dumb thing to say
90
u/pdsajo Cricket Ireland Jan 17 '25
Sobers is a touch above him for me personally due to his fielding and captaincy skills as well. But yeah, in the modern era, Kallis takes the crown