Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Richard]

Runs rates have increased because of guys like Hayden in the Aussie team

No, they've increased because the Donalds, Ambroses, etc. have been replaced by very poor bowlers.

The bowler, not the batsman, decides the pace of scoring, especially in the limitless-over game.

 

[Richard]

its about 10%..obviously run rates have increased,but the regularity of taking wickets is probably about the same as it has been for the past 40 years. I dont know whether there is any absolute proof that pitches have got flatter or whther bowling has got worse, or batsmen have got better to be honest.

You say there has been a massive change which can be seen easily by pure observation. I put it to you that the jump hasnt been as large as you perceive. Your perception may be skewed, the figures tell the real story, that there has been a rise of 10% in average scores , with ups and downs in that time frame. Its not conclusive IMO that batting has got easier.

It'd take a complete dunce IMO to suggest that batting has got better. It's so, so obvious that bowling has got worse, pitches flatter and in some cases outfields faster and smaller.

The fact that batsmen as poor as Hayden can do so astonishingly well is testament to that.

 

[SJS]

Thought this was about Sobers and allrounders. Not how dire Hussain and/or Hayden is/are. Another thread created though.

Thank your stars it hasnt YET become about Sachin versus Lara or Warne versus Murali ?

 

[silentstriker]

Sachin and Warne for me tbh.

 

[Swervy]

It'd take a complete dunce IMO to suggest that batting has got better. It's so, so obvious that bowling has got worse, pitches flatter and in some cases outfields faster and smaller.

The fact that batsmen as poor as Hayden can do so astonishingly well is testament to that.

Do you have any proof to back that one up?

(You may well be right, but from experience, whenever you state something is your opinion, I have to take it with a pinch of salt!!!!)

 

[Richard]

Better than "putting it across as fact".

 

[Swervy]

Better than "putting it across as fact".

well it is something you have taken on board, and for that I am appreciative

 

[J.J.B.Lewis]

Some people say that Sobers used to play as a spinner on green wickets to allow his team play an extra fast bowler & and as a fast bowler on spin friendly wickets to allow his team play an extra spinner.Thats hardly an achievment unless you are effective and no one does it long as they are sure that they are so good that wold succeed by doing such a thing.Personally,I can'tbelieve these self-assumptions of Sobers' fan unless a player who played with Sobers for few years or some unbiased person who watched Sobers playing match after match confirms it.But even if its true,it doesn't change the fact that Sobers was a mediocre bowler.

 

[Fiery]

The bowler, not the batsman, decides the pace of scoring, especially in the limitless-over game.

Right, so batsmen have no say in the matter. Thanks for clearing that up

 

[Fiery]

No, they've increased because the Donalds, Ambroses, etc. have been replaced by very poor bowlers.

The bowler, not the batsman, decides the pace of scoring, especially in the limitless-over game.

Donald was replaced by bowlers like Pollock and Ntini. Poor bowlers?

 

[Ikki]

Fair enough. And Sobers as a bowler is certainly not in Imran's league but i wood consider him as the better all round player based on this:

Batting= Sobers>Imran
Bowling= Imran>Sobers
Fielding= Sobers>Imran

Therefore edge goes to Sobers. Plus he could bat pretty much anywhere, field anywhere ad he bowled everything (though not top notch by most people's standards).

Well, to each their own but that is a pretty simplistic and heavily flawed way of looking at it. By that criteria:

Batting: Michael Clarke > Murali
Bowling: Murali > Michael Clarke
Fielding: Michael Clarke > Murali

 

[Athlai]

Well, to each their own but that is a pretty simplistic and heavily flawed way of looking at it. By that criteria:

Batting: Michael Clarke > Murali
Bowling: Murali > Michael Clarke
Fielding: Michael Clarke > Murali

In all rounding ability Michael Clarke probably does just edge out Murali, but Murali is a fine fielder. Underrated really.

 

[Ikki]

Imran Khan averaged, in his last 51 tests (10 years) 51 with the bat and 19 with the ball:

And he bowled almost 10k - almost half his career balls - in that time, so I don't see where people are saying he wasn't really a bowler at the end of his career, or didn't bowl much. In fact, his bowling figures in that time are better than his bowling figures prior. He improved in both disciplines as his career progressed and didn't falter in one for the other, as some keep repeating.

Having read and researched quite a bit, I have to say that the distance is much much closer.

People say that Imran's innings weren't as effective with the bat - despite his high average in his last 10 years - and the same can be said about Sober's bowling. I could be wrong, but I don't recall Sobers winning WI matches with his bowling.

It is said that Sober's feats in batting make up for his bowling, but it simply isn't true. A career average with 37 with the bat, in that discipline, is much better than a career average of 34 with the ball, in consideration to it's own discipline.

When you factor in that Khan averaged 51 for 10 years, most of his career, then that absolutely trumps it. And it doesn't matter if Sobers peaked/averaged 27 at one point, because that 27 equates more with Khan's career average of 37. And if we take Khan's peak average, 51, then it's more in favour of Khan than you may think.

 

[Ikki]

Think about it like this: in that last 10 years, Khan could be considered into an all-time side for either disciplines - Sobers only for his batting.

Looking at it further, Sober's career average of 34 with the ball was pretty much his best. For a great portion of it he averaged from 38+. 28 tests he averaged in the high 40s and even in the 50s. That's disgraceful for a bowler.

 

[Richard]

Right, so batsmen have no say in the matter. Thanks for clearing that up

Where did I say that? Of course batsmen's style of play comes into it, but the accuracy or inaccuracy of the bowlers is far, far more significant.

Once the bowling is good enough, not even the most strokeplaying of batsmen can score quickly. Kevin Pietersen in The Ashes is one example of such a thing.

 

[Richard]

Donald was replaced by bowlers like Pollock and Ntini. Poor bowlers?

Donald certainly wasn't replaced by Pollock, the two of them played together for a good 4 years. And if you really think Ntini's a patch on him, well... I honestly don't know what you've been watching.

 

[SJS]

Imran Khan averaged, in his last 51 tests (10 years) 51 with the bat and 19 with the ball:

And he bowled almost 10k - almost half his career balls - in that time, so I don't see where people are saying he wasn't really a bowler at the end of his career, or didn't bowl much. In fact, his bowling figures in that time are better than his bowling figures prior. He improved in both disciplines as his career progressed and didn't falter in one for the other, as some keep repeating.

Having read and researched quite a bit, I have to say that the distance is much much closer.

People say that Imran's innings weren't as effective with the bat - despite his high average in his last 10 years - and the same can be said about Sober's bowling. I could be wrong, but I don't recall Sobers winning WI matches with his bowling.

It is said that Sober's feats in batting make up for his bowling, but it simply isn't true. A career average with 37 with the bat, in that discipline, is much better than a career average of 34 with the ball, in consideration to it's own discipline.

When you factor in that Khan averaged 51 for 10 years, most of his career, then that absolutely trumps it. And it doesn't matter if Sobers peaked/averaged 27 at one point, because that 27 equates more with Khan's career average of 37. And if we take Khan's peak average, 51, then it's more in favour of Khan than you may think.

One can keep arguing about this without it getting anywhere.

Just one point, Imran, in those ten years you refer to had 18 not outs in 66 innings. That is by any yardstick a HUGE proportion. That is what makes his performance with the bat (if assessed purely by batting average) appear so fantastic.

 

[R_D]

Think about it like this: in that last 10 years, Khan could be considered into an all-time side for either disciplines - Sobers only for his batting.

Looking at it further, Sober's career average of 34 with the ball was pretty much his best. For a great portion of it he averaged from 38+. 28 tests he averaged in the high 40s and even in the 50s. That's disgraceful for a bowler.

You might've missed a post earlier in this thread... where it sawed players with 250 plus runs and 15 wickets in a series. Sobers had like 3 or 4 entries compared to non for imran.... even Kapil Dev had one entry in that list, who's supposed to be least talented all-rounder of them all.

 

[Ikki]

You might've missed a post earlier in this thread... where it sawed players with 250 plus runs and 15 wickets in a series. Sobers had like 3 or 4 entries compared to non for imran.... even Kapil Dev had one entry in that list, who's supposed to be least talented all-rounder of them all.

I did miss that, but at what price (runs) did those wickets come at?

 

[Ikki]

One can keep arguing about this without it getting anywhere.

Just one point, Imran, in those ten years you refer to had 18 not outs in 66 innings. That is by any yardstick a HUGE proportion. That is what makes his performance with the bat (if assessed purely by batting average) appear so fantastic.

Thanks, that's a point I did not know. And I am not really decided either way but I thought less people were giving Imran a fair shake so I decided to post an argument for him.

In regards to that stat, well, you can't hold it against him that he didn't get out. He batted at 7 and at the end of his career at 6. It's not like he was batting at 10 - so it can also be credited.