Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[thierry henry]

37 a decent battin average? Since when? Last I checked averaging over 40 with the bat was considered decent and averagin under 30 as a seamer was decent and under 35 as a spinner decent.

LMAO, may I ask where you "checked" this exactly? Generally I would expect a guy averaging 37 in that era (70s/80s) to be batting somewhere in the top 6 and to be regarded as pretty good at it.

 

[thierry henry]

And of course I'm ignoring the fact that he actually averaged well over 40 for most of his career....

 

[shortpitched713]

Haha, love how Richard says an average of 37 is "sustained excellence" from Nasser Hussain but just not good enough from Imran Khan.

 

[Matt79]

I'll repeat, I'm sure for 99% of people who say they think Sobers is #1, its not that they think Imran wasn't an exceptional player who was a brillant bowler and a very good batsman. Its just that he's being compared to the one cricketer in history who can legitimately challenge Bradman as the greatest cricketer of all time...

 

[Richard]

Since when does batting in the top versus middle order have anything to do with being a world class batsman?

A World-class top-order batsman clearly > a World-class lower-order one.

 

[Richard]

Haha, love how Richard says an average of 37 is "sustained excellence" from Nasser Hussain but just not good enough from Imran Khan.

As I say - completely to do with the context of those averages. In any case, 37 is not an accurate reflection of Hussain - it's more accurate to break his career down, and see that he averaged 42.28 between the start in earnest of his career in 1996 and the end of 1999, 17.09 from the start of 2000 to early 2001, and 41.57 (Zimbabwe and Bangladesh excluded) for the rest of his career.

In other words, he was utterly awful in 2000 (for any multitude of reasons) and excellent for the rest of the time. And his awfulness in 2000 doesn't really reflect at all on his performance at other times.

 

[Richard]

37 a decent battin average? Since when? Last I checked averaging over 40 with the bat was considered decent and averagin under 30 as a seamer was decent and under 35 as a spinner decent.

No one number can be unequivocally stated to be a benchmark. The simple fact is that all overall career averages need to be analysed and taken in context.

 

[SJS]

Comapring any two great cricketers is difficult. Comparing great all rounders is doubly so. Invariably one would be stronger as a batsman and the other as a bowler. This is what makes it so tough.

Somehow there is a feeling amongst some people that the more the balance between the two aspects of the cricketer, the more-of-an-allrounder he somehow becomes. This is a very strange logic. What kind of an all rounder would Bradman have been if besides having a batting averrage of 99.9 he also had Sobers tally of test wickets and bowling average ? Is balance between the two aspects so important?

When comparing all rounders lets also not ignore the fielding aspect.

Sobers was one of the greatest batsmen in the history of the game and believe me the greates left handed batsman ever. I have seen enough of both him and Lara to say that with confidence. Imran's batting is considered 'good' only when we talk of him as an allrounder. As a pure batsman he would have been called modest.

He was also the greatest all round fielder in the history of the game. At slips, in the gully, at short leg, at leg slip, and anywhere in the outfield, he was electrifying and his throwing from anywhere was superb. Imran varied from being ordinary to safe throughout his career.

Now add to THIS the number of wickets he took at whatever average bowling with the new ball, at times at real PACE, orthodox spin, Chinaman and googly. Imran blossomed late but went on to become one of the greatest bowlers of all time.

Now you can compare them and even try to rate them at your own peril.

 

[shortpitched713]

A World-class top-order batsman clearly > a World-class lower-order one.

Since when has batting at a position like 6 been considered lower order? Lower middle order maybe, but still easily amongst the established batsmen IMO.

 

[Slifer]

Comapring any two great cricketers is difficult. Comparing great all rounders is doubly so. Invariably one would be stronger as a batsman and the other as a bowler. This is what makes it so tough.

Somehow there is a feeling amongst some people that the more the balance between the two aspects of the cricketer, the more-of-an-allrounder he somehow becomes. This is a very strange logic. What kind of an all rounder would Bradman have been if besides having a batting averrage of 99.9 he also had Sobers tally of test wickets and bowling average ? Is balance between the two aspects so important?

When comparing all rounders lets also not ignore the fielding aspect.

Sobers was one of the greatest batsmen in the history of the game and believe me the greates left handed batsman ever. I have seen enough of both him and Lara to say that with confidence. Imran's batting is considered 'good' only when we talk of him as an allrounder. As a pure batsman he would have been called modest.

He was also the greatest all round fielder in the history of the game. At slips, in the gully, at short leg, at leg slip, and anywhere in the outfield, he was electrifying and his throwing from anywhere was superb. Imran varied from being ordinary to safe throughout his career.

Now add to THIS the number of wickets he took at whatever average bowling with the new ball, at times at real PACE, orthodox spin, Chinaman and googly. Imran blossomed late but went on to become one of the greatest bowlers of all time.

Now you can compare them and even try to rate them at your own peril.

Excellent post. Also add to this that Sobers is the cricketer with the most centuries in the most number of batting positions and u have imo easily the most complete cricketer period (with all due respect to the great imran and miller)

 

[Slifer]

No one number can be unequivocally stated to be a benchmark. The simple fact is that all overall career averages need to be analysed and taken in context.

Yes then y cant the same be done with Sober's bowling average. It seems as if a lot of the anti Sobers clan are goin out of their way to show how mediocre his bowling was, while at the same time trying to prove how good a batter imran actually was. in terms of overall career Sobers had more instances (IMO) where his all round skills were more on show than were imran's.

 

[shortpitched713]

As I say - completely to do with the context of those averages. In any case, 37 is not an accurate reflection of Hussain - it's more accurate to break his career down, and see that he averaged 42.28 between the start in earnest of his career in 1996 and the end of 1999, 17.09 from the start of 2000 to early 2001, and 41.57 (Zimbabwe and Bangladesh excluded) for the rest of his career.

In other words, he was utterly awful in 2000 (for any multitude of reasons) and excellent for the rest of the time. And his awfulness in 2000 doesn't really reflect at all on his performance at other times.

By the same token you can remove the first quarter of Imran's career as a batsman as being irrelevant since he was being picked really as a bowler at that time. With this Imran's average becomes 44.15, much higher than anything that Hussain has been able to maintain for a significant portion of his career. And yet you rate Hussain as a quality batsman and not Imran.

 

[Swervy]

By the same token you can remove the first quarter of Imran's career as a batsman as being irrelevant since he was being picked really as a bowler at that time. With this Imran's average becomes 44.15, much higher than anything that Hussain has been able to maintain for a significant portion of his career. And yet you rate Hussain as a quality batsman and not Imran.

well the truth is Hussain wasnt as good as Richard seems to be making out, but Imran wasnt as good as maybe you are making out.

Imran tended to do well in great batting conditions. He rarely won a game in tests with his batting (unlike someone like Botham). Imran's average did get bumped a bit by having very little batting under him and being not out a hell of a lot (I know not his fault, but still something to consider)

Heres your Imran scores over 50 in tests:

59 (out of 565/9dec, include one double hundred and two hundreds)
56 (out of 420/9 dec, including one hundred)
123 (out of 369 vs WI, Imran easily highest score of game)
70* (out of 500/8 dec, on flattest Melbourne pitch for years)
65 (out of 199 in second innings, chasing 313 to win, in low scoring affair)
67* (out of 275, match lost)
117 (out of 652)
83 and 72* (out of 470 and 238/7, in game where Mohsin Khan got 152 and Yallop got 268, and Imran didnt bowl in the match)
63 (out of 295 vs 1985 Sri Lankan bowling attack)
61 (out of 159 vs WI, Imran had innings highest score, and a match changing innings)
135* (out of 487/9 dec, in match where two other Pakistan batsman got 90s in first inn, and top four Indians got 90s)
66 (out of 341against as weak an Indian bowling line up as you will ever see )
72 (out of 395)
118 (out of 708, one other hundred and a 260 in that innings)
71 (out of 438, where NZ also scored 447 in first inn)
69* (out of 616/5 dec)
109* (out of 409)
66 (out of 699/5 dec)
136 (out of 387/9 dec in second innings, Imrans inning went a long way to saving the match, along with Wasim Akrams hundred)
82* (out of 199, in a complete dead game due to the weather)
73 (out of 345)
58* (out of 242/6 chasing 346 to win)
93* (423/5 dec)

So really no more than 5 innings where Imran genuinely changed a game, or heavily contributed with the bat in trying circumstances. He so much was in the slip stream of some real great batsmen in those pakistan teams, and his average benefited from it.

And that is where someone like a Botham will always score over Imran.

 

[Richard]

Since when has batting at a position like 6 been considered lower order? Lower middle order maybe, but still easily amongst the established batsmen IMO.

Lower-middle-order, if you prefer.

And in any case, Imran was a seven, not a six. He only moved up to six right at the very end of his career.

 

[Richard]

Yes then y cant the same be done with Sober's bowling average. It seems as if a lot of the anti Sobers clan are goin out of their way to show how mediocre his bowling was, while at the same time trying to prove how good a batter imran actually was. in terms of overall career Sobers had more instances (IMO) where his all round skills were more on show than were imran's.

I honestly don't believe anyone can possibly claim Sobers' bowling was as good as Imran's. I'm most certainly not "anti-Sobers" nor am I in the "clan" suggesting Imran was a better all-rounder than Sobers. All I've ever been saying is that Sobers' bowling was slightly overrated.

 

[Richard]

By the same token you can remove the first quarter of Imran's career as a batsman as being irrelevant since he was being picked really as a bowler at that time. With this Imran's average becomes 44.15, much higher than anything that Hussain has been able to maintain for a significant portion of his career. And yet you rate Hussain as a quality batsman and not Imran.

As I say - Imran's significant batting average is considerably higher than Hussain's. That's certainly never something I'd dispute - I always say Imran the batsman should be judged from 1980\81 onwards.

But Hussain was a top-order batsman, Imran a lower-middle-order one.

I'm amazed anyone would seriously contend that Imran Khan was a better batsman than Nasser Hussain. Absolutely amazed. The roles the two played were completely and totally different, and Hussain's far, far more important (and difficult to play) in the grand scheme.

 

[Fiery]

I honestly don't believe anyone can possibly claim Sobers' bowling was as good as Imran's. I'm most certainly not "anti-Sobers" nor am I in the "clan" suggesting Imran was a better all-rounder than Sobers. All I've ever been saying is that Sobers' bowling was slightly overrated.

But no one ever claims Sobers was a great bowler. We all know his batting was his greatest strength....this doesn't mean he wasn't a great all-rounder....the greatest imo by some margin

 

[Richard]

well the truth is Hussain wasnt as good as Richard seems to be making out

Just how good am I making-out? I've always said Hussain as a batsman is very often underrated, especially with hindsight given the bat-friendly era we've had for the last 6 years. It'd be easy just to assume that the likes of Hayden are massively superior to Hussain, but nothing could be further from the truth as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Richard]

But ho one ever claims Sobers was a great bowler. We all know his batting was his greatest strength....this doesn't mean he wasn't a great all-rounder....the greatest imo by some margin

Of course he is. I've never said he wasn't a great all-rounder - and that's before you even take his fielding (which was, as SJS mentions, better than anyone in history) into consideration.

People do, however, claim that Sobers was a great bowler, and it's that that I dispute. He was very much a batting-all-rounder, whereas someone like Keith Miller was a much more rounded all-rounder.

 

[Fiery]

As I say - Imran's significant batting average is considerably higher than Hussain's. That's certainly never something I'd dispute - I always say Imran the batsman should be judged from 1980\81 onwards.

But Hussain was a top-order batsman, Imran a lower-middle-order one.

I'm amazed anyone would seriously contend that Imran Khan was a better batsman than Nasser Hussain. Absolutely amazed. The roles the two played were completely and totally different, and Hussain's far, far more important (and difficult to play) in the grand scheme.

I've always considered Imran to be a better batsman than Hussain but then I always hated the way Hussain played everything with a straight front leg