Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[J.J.B.Lewis]

Read the article

Is it the affect of some of his black magic spells or what that he is considered to the greatest allrounder ever despite having an extremly poor record as a bowler?

Why take the opinion of more than 10000 cricket fans worldwide when you have to make your own decision wit the courtesy of a few biased wirters & so called 'experts'?

Chosing Sobers as the greatest allrounder when Imran Khan won the poll by a convincing margin shows how biased a website Cricinfo is.

"Ok, so his bowling average is only 34, but you must remember that he was bowling both left-arm medium pace and finger spin and was consistently a class act with the ball throughout his career as well as averaging 57 with the bat.

Being able to bowl wrist spin,finger spin & medium pace is hardly an achievment when you are averaging around 35 & have a wickets/match ratio of 2.56(yes even poor than Mohammad Sami who is the the most worst bowler in the world today).

"If he had decided to focus only on bowling, there is no telling what he could have achieved. The word genius is sometimes used casually in cricket. With Sobers, it fit naturally."

Imran Khan could have been a much much better batsman if had decided to focus only on his batting.Garry Sobers batting equals Imran Khan's bowling but Imran Khan maintained an average of 50 with the bat for a period of over 10 years(1981-1992),if u guys think Sobers was better,point a 10 year period during his career over which he was averaging 25 or under with the ball.

Imran Khan's over 10 years(1982-1992) peak as an allrounder is the greatest peak of an allrounder ever during which he averaged 50 wth the bat & 20 with the ball.Whereas Sobers peak period was merely 5 years(1962-1966/67) during which he averaged around 60 with the bat & 27 with the ball.But overall, Sobers was very mediocre at bowling & doesn't deserve the title of greatest allrounder ever.

Biased writers & experts did try to hide the achievments of Imran Khan as an allrounder from common cricket fans for around 2 decades by portraying Sobers as the greatest allrounder ever because he is a ****** & a ********* but its not possible anymore in this global village& age of internet & technology and this poll of Cricinfo is merely a small example of it.

 

[Fiery]

There's no question in my mind that Sobers was the best ever

 

[Burgey]

Read the article
Biased writers & experts did try to hide the achievments of Imran Khan as an allrounder from common cricket fans for around 2 decades by portraying Sobers as the greatest allrounder ever because he is a ****** & a ********* but its not possible anymore in this global village& age of internet & technology and this poll of Cricinfo is merely a small example of it.

Well, if they were trying, they didn't do a real good job hiding Imran's record, did they? It's there for all to see.
They're both great players. I don't have any problem with them naming Sobers as the greatest player of all time - he was, as Bradman said, a "4 in 1" player. Imran also a great, but they had to choose and I don't really see ther being too big a probem in the choice they made.

 

[pasag]

Read the article

Is it the affect of some of his black magic spells or what that he is considered to the greatest allrounder ever despite having an extremly poor record as a bowler?

Why take the opinion of more than 10000 cricket fans worldwide when you have to make your own decision wit the courtesy of a few biased wirters & so called 'experts'?

Chosing Sobers as the greatest allrounder when Imran Khan won the poll by a convincing margin shows how biased a website Cricinfo is.

That Imran was voted as the number one all-rounder and by such a margin reflects on the demographics of the website more than anything. It's something you see quite often with these polls and its to be expected really. If there were a billion Australians, Miller would come first and if there where a billion Poms Botham would come first as well. Also to call the decision biased on the part of cricinfo when he is commonly called the greatest all-rounder ever is stupid and idiotic. It's one thing to not agree with it, that's fine, but to call them bias for holding a view that is as common as this? Dire.

 

[Perm]

Sobers is #1

 

[Dasa]

Biased writers & experts did try to hide the achievments of Imran Khan as an allrounder from common cricket fans for around 2 decades by portraying Sobers as the greatest allrounder ever because he is a ****** & a ********* but its not possible anymore in this global village& age of internet & technology and this poll of Cricinfo is merely a small example of it.

I'd like to know what's been filtered out there...anyway, pretty poor thread. Wasim Akram came third in a poll of the greatest all-rounders...I wouldn't trust a poll with that sort of result.

 

[andyc]

There's no question in my mind that Sobers was the best ever

Completely agreed.

 

[Fiery]

Completely agreed.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, Sobers, then daylight, then the likes of Imran, Miller and Botham. The guy was arguably the second best batsman in history along with one of the best bowlers in his team in multiple styles, one of the most consistent wicket takers in world cricket throughout his peak, and a revolutionary fielder. I've said this many times on these forums before, but Sobers was behind only McKenzie and Hall (IIRC) in terms of wicket taking in the 1960s. That is to say, irrespective of his average, he bowled a hell of a lot and got a lot of batsmen out, so it's laughable when people suggest he was only equivalent to a part-timer. His average isn't the greatest, but then Imran Khan doesn't exactly average close to 60 with the bat, does he? Sobers wasn't the bowler those other all-rounders mentioned were, but he was certainly good enough.

 

[Fiery]

Yeah, Sobers, then daylight, then the likes of Imran, Miller and Botham. The guy was arguably the second best batsman in history along with one of the best bowlers in his team in multiple styles, one of the most consistent wicket takers in world cricket throughout his peak, and a revolutionary fielder. I've said this many times on these forums before, but Sobers was behind only McKenzie and Hall (IIRC) in terms of wicket taking in the 1960s. That is to say, irrespective of his average, he bowled a hell of a lot and got a lot of batsmen out, so it's laughable when people suggest he was only equivalent to a part-timer. His average isn't the greatest, but then Imran Khan doesn't exactly average close to 60 with the bat, does he? Sobers wasn't the bowler those other all-rounders mentioned were, but he was certainly good enough.

Yep, the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts with Sobers

 

[Jono]

Haha, I love Akram, but 3rd best allrounder ever? Ridiculous poll.

 

[archie mac]

I would have Sobes 1 and Miller 2 and then Rhodes 3 then Giffen 4 and maybe a few more before Imran, although I still though him a great AR

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd like to know what's been filtered out there...anyway, pretty poor thread. Wasim Akram came third in a poll of the greatest all-rounders...I wouldn't trust a poll with that sort of result.

Everything he said.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, Sobers #1, Imran/Miller distant #2 IMO.

 

[Goughy]

Ive long said I dont consider Sobers as the top allrounder due to his poor record with the ball.

He was an average seamer (yes, there are quotes that say he swung it around and had decent pace but everyone that has played Terst has had people say good things about them at some time or other), and his spin was ordinary. Sobers was not a bowler of any particular merit.

To be the best allrounder, I think its pretty fair to say you had better be pretty good at both. Sobers wasn't. Average/poor bowler and great batsman does not equal greatest ever all rounder.

May as well make the Don the greatest as his batting average surely makes up for any flaws in his bowling.

 

[Slifer]

So please name us a player who was great at both. Look lets use stats for once. The difference between Imran's bowling and batting average is +15 (37-22) for Sobers, the corresponding figure is +23 (57-34). 23>15. Therefore, hypothetically if u had a team of 11 Sobers and 11 Imrans the Sobers theoretically would have +230 runs and Imrans +150 runs. Ok my reasoning might be a bit flawed but i dont think its any less whack than those who suggest that Sobers wasnt a true all rounder, let alone the greatest of all time.

 

[Goughy]

So please name us a player who was great at both. Look lets use stats for once. The difference between Imran's bowling and batting average is +15 (37-22) for Sobers, the corresponding figure is +23 (57-34). 23>15. Therefore, hypothetically if u had a team of 11 Sobers and 11 Imrans the Sobers theoretically would have +230 runs and Imrans +150 runs. Ok my reasoning might be a bit flawed but i dont think its any less whack than those who suggest that Sobers wasnt a true all rounder, let alone the greatest of all time.

By that logic Bradman could have a bowling average of 70 and still be +30 and therefore be the greatest allrounder ever, yet noone that had a bowling average that high could seriously be considered as an allrounder.

The simple adding and taking away doesnt work. Its a lazy formula and inaccurate.

Kallis is also +23. As great as Sobers and far better than Imran, Botham, Miller etc by your methodology.

 

[Slifer]

Bredren i did say that my logic was flawed. Jeez come with something out of left field and u people get all bent out of shape.

 

[marc71178]

He was an average seamer (yes, there are quotes that say he swung it around and had decent pace but everyone that has played Terst has had people say good things about them at some time or other), and his spin was ordinary. Sobers was not a bowler of any particular merit.

So average/ordinary that he got up to number 4 in the world with the ball?

 

[Goughy]

So average/ordinary that he got up to number 4 in the world with the ball?

Means nothing a couple of decent series when there were a number of less cricketers around could see that happen.

Lest we forget that Steve Harmison was #1 in the World which is a damn sight higher than 4 and few would consider him an alltime great.