Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[SJS]

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.

Oh it varries directly with batting position starting as high as opening.

I had written a long piece on this with stats on a very large number of top batsmen at differnt battingf positions. There was an almost linear relationship with the batting order and the proportion of not outs.

Maybe Richard can find that for me

The point it highlights is, that since you have a direct relationship between not outs and batting order, lower order batsmen benefit more than top order in how their averages are affected. Generally the lower order batsmen, at least from 6 downwards are not of the same caliber as the top four. Therefore you still find better career averages up the order than below.

Once in a while, a batsman will bat lower down the order than he should be and he will benefit immensely. Imran, I think, improved enough later in his career to bat at four/five for Pakistan but didnt do it on a regular basis PLUS the fact that he was a fighter meant that he would keep playing with the lower order and stay till the end/declaration.

You are right that this cant be held against him but its a valid point in the context of his 50+ average.
Its like Bevan was a fabulous one day batsman but he wasnt that great as his average makes him appear in comparison to Richards, Tendulkar, Ponting etc.

Whenever one says this about Bevan, his supporters get worked up. It sounds as if Bevan is being run down but thats really not the case. Bevan wopuld have been a great player and finisher in the one day game even if his average was in the mid 30's. But sometimes stats can be a BIT misleading particularly in comparisons.

I hope I am clear. I write too much

 

[Swervy]

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.

and this really is where looking at pure averages is misleading. Sure Imran averaged 51 in those ten years, but really, he would have come nowhere near being picked in an all time team for his batting.

Because if he could have been , then Botham could have been, as IMO he was the superior batsman, certainly from the start of his career to maybe 1985

 

[Ikki]

and this really is where looking at pure averages is misleading. Sure Imran averaged 51 in those ten years, but really, he would have come nowhere near being picked in an all time team for his batting.

Because if he could have been , then Botham could have been, as IMO he was the superior batsman, certainly from the start of his career to maybe 1985

I don't mean in the first all-time team, but really, it was good. And Sober's bowling - for the most part - was shocking. So, I can't really see how Sober's is such an automatic choice. It definitely is much closer than that and I agree with those that say Imran was more of a rounded all-rounder than Sobers, in terms of batting and bowling, and equilibrium held between both.

 

[Richard]

Oh it varries directly with batting position starting as high as opening.

I had written a long piece on this with stats on a very large number of top batsmen at differnt battingf positions. There was an almost linear relationship with the batting order and the proportion of not outs.

Maybe Richard can find that for me

The point it highlights is, that since you have a direct relationship between not outs and batting order, lower order batsmen benefit more than top order in how their averages are affected. Generally the lower order batsmen, at least from 6 downwards are not of the same caliber as the top four. Therefore you still find better career averages up the order than below.

Once in a while, a batsman will bat lower down the order than he should be and he will benefit immensely. Imran, I think, improved enough later in his career to bat at four/five for Pakistan but didnt do it on a regular basis PLUS the fact that he was a fighter meant that he would keep playing with the lower order and stay till the end/declaration.

You are right that this cant be held against him but its a valid point in the context of his 50+ average.
Its like Bevan was a fabulous one day batsman but he wasnt that great as his average makes him appear in comparison to Richards, Tendulkar, Ponting etc.

Whenever one says this about Bevan, his supporters get worked up. It sounds as if Bevan is being run down but thats really not the case. Bevan wopuld have been a great player and finisher in the one day game even if his average was in the mid 30's. But sometimes stats can be a BIT misleading particularly in comparisons.

I hope I am clear. I write too much

See, I disagree. I feel that not getting out is a rather important part of batsmanship, and that Bevan was indeed better than the Tendulkars and Pontings of this World (and he would have been better than Richards if the two of them had played the same game).

It's a bit different in the lower-order, of course, and an average including lots of not-outs has, rather than be discredited purely because of that, be taken in the context of the number of significant innings inside them. If someone gets 25* (in a decent-size innings - it's different if it's out of 170ao) regularly, for instance, they're batting decently, but hardly making a massive contribution to the cause. But a 74* is a different matter completely.

 

[marc71178]

I don't mean in the first all-time team, but really, it was good. And Sober's bowling - for the most part - was shocking. So, I can't really see how Sober's is such an automatic choice. It definitely is much closer than that and I agree with those that say Imran was more of a rounded all-rounder than Sobers, in terms of batting and bowling, and equilibrium held between both.

And how much of what you say is merely based on the numbers and nothing to do with what they actually did?

 

[Ikki]

And how much of what you say is merely based on the numbers and nothing to do with what they actually did?

'What they actually did?' It is all about what they actually did. You can't deny such glaring facts. Those numbers really speak for themself. Sober's bowling isn't even average - may have been for a time, but as a whole it certainly wasn't.

Just looked a bit more at it. Sober's bowling got worse and worse - averaging even in the 50s - until it starts getting better about his 37-38th test match in where he keeps slightly improving. In that period - which is his best - here are his figures:

At his best, he was mediocre - I am not talking about a single test or series here - but taking into account a fair amount of tests.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't know if anyone has compiled this, but I'd like to see Sobers' bowling stats broken down by type of bowling.

 

[R_D]

I don't know if anyone has compiled this, but I'd like to see Sobers' bowling stats broken down by type of bowling.

don't think its possible, they wouldn't have stats for that.

 

[roseboy64]

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

Surprised it hasn't actually.

 

[roseboy64]

'What they actually did?' It is all about what they actually did. You can't deny such glaring facts. Those numbers really speak for themself. Sober's bowling isn't even average - may have been for a time, but as a whole it certainly wasn't.

Just looked a bit more at it. Sober's bowling got worse and worse - averaging even in the 50s - until it starts getting better about his 37-38th test match in where he keeps slightly improving. In that period - which is his best - here are his figures:

At his best, he was mediocre - I am not talking about a single test or series here - but taking into account a fair amount of tests.

Looking at those stats you've posted, Sobers bowled more overs. He'd therefore go for more runs even if he kept it tight, say 4 rpo. HIs econ there compared with Imran's econ is pretty similar and with hin bowling more overs there's a greater likelihood for going for more runs. Imran may bowl 40 overs for the match and go for say 200 runs. While Sobers may bowl like 60 overs for the match and go for 500 making his average worse. Maybe someone else can sort out what I'm what I'm trying to convey or put forward a better argument if you feel it's stupid.

 

[Burgey]

But look at Sobers in say mid-60s:
Best batsman in the world, and by a fair margin.
Occasional opening bowler.
Swing bowler.
Best fieldsman in the world, and by a fair margin.
Wrist spinner
Finger spinner
Captain of the best side in the world.

Anymore all-rounded, he'd have evolved into a sphere!!

 

[honestbharani]

I just don't think that almost 98% of the cricket world can be wrong in rating this guy this high. I can understand some cricketers rating some more than others, but every contemporary player and contemporary writer puts Sobers in such a huge pedastal and I just don't see how it could be false.

 

[Ikki]

Looking at those stats you've posted, Sobers bowled more overs. He'd therefore go for more runs even if he kept it tight, say 4 rpo. HIs econ there compared with Imran's econ is pretty similar and with hin bowling more overs there's a greater likelihood for going for more runs. Imran may bowl 40 overs for the match and go for say 200 runs. While Sobers may bowl like 60 overs for the match and go for 500 making his average worse. Maybe someone else can sort out what I'm what I'm trying to convey or put forward a better argument if you feel it's stupid.

Yeah but it's not about bowling more overs. It's about averaging out those runs by taking wickets. No point bowling so many overs and being economical; yet having such a poor strike rate and average.

 

[Ikki]

I just don't think that almost 98% of the cricket world can be wrong in rating this guy this high. I can understand some cricketers rating some more than others, but every contemporary player and contemporary writer puts Sobers in such a huge pedastal and I just don't see how it could be false.

I don't know mate, but I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone could say Sobers was a good bowler. Even calling him average would be a compliment.

But look at Sobers in say mid-60s:
Best batsman in the world, and by a fair margin.
Occasional opening bowler.
Swing bowler.
Best fieldsman in the world, and by a fair margin.
Wrist spinner
Finger spinner
Captain of the best side in the world.

Anymore all-rounded, he'd have evolved into a sphere!!

Yeah, I get all that but in the list you just gave 4 of them are about his bowling - and his bowling, apart from his versatility, doesn't deserve much credit. And that's about the best compliment I think you can give him, he could bowl anything. But bowling them well?

I think a bowler who can bowl 1 way and do it well is much better than bowling 3 ways and being pretty bad (in terms of taking wickets per ball and conceding the runs for them ).

 

[honestbharani]

I don't know mate, but I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone could say Sobers was a good bowler. Even calling him average would be a compliment.



Yeah, I get all that but in the list you just gave 4 of them are about his bowling - and his bowling, apart from his versatility, doesn't deserve much credit. And that's about the best compliment I think you can give him, he could bowl anything. But bowling them well?

I think a bowler who can bowl 1 way and do it well is much better than bowling 3 ways and being pretty bad (in terms of taking wickets per ball and conceding the runs for them ).

yeah, but u are going by pure stats and by pure stats, Murali >> Warne. And even McGrath >> Warne. And in ODIs, Saqlain >> Warne. But that is not true, is it? There has always been more to cricket than just numbers,

 

[Anil]

yeah, but u are going by pure stats and by pure stats, Murali >> Warne. And even McGrath >> Warne. And in ODIs, Saqlain >> Warne. But that is not true, is it? There has always been more to cricket than just numbers,

actually it's true to all three equations(the last one is arguable but the others aren't) although i agree with the last statement...

 

[honestbharani]

actually it's true to all three equations(the last one is arguable but the others aren't) although i agree with the last statement...

well, I put two > signs there and I don't think Murali, McGrath or Saqqi ODIs are THAT much better than Warne. I can see why they can be considered better, but they are not >> Warne as I had mentioned in my post. That is why I said it is not true.


Hope it cleared it up than muddle it more.

 

[Anil]

well, I put two > signs there and I don't think Murali, McGrath or Saqqi ODIs are THAT much better than Warne. I can see why they can be considered better, but they are not >> Warne as I had mentioned in my post. That is why I said it is not true.


Hope it cleared it up than muddle it more.

gotcha...

 

[Ikki]

yeah, but u are going by pure stats and by pure stats, Murali >> Warne. And even McGrath >> Warne. And in ODIs, Saqlain >> Warne. But that is not true, is it? There has always been more to cricket than just numbers,

Yeah but we're not talking about 2-3 runs here bro. We're talking about 10 and sometimes 20 in difference in averages.

I find it ridiculous to believe that someone who averaged in the 38-52 runs per wicket for so much of his career, with a very poor strike rate, could even come close to being considered a good or even decent bowler.

But you're right, Warne is better than them so pure stats do lie.

 

[Athlai]

Whats better, 116 runs a match.
and 2-3/85

or

76 runs a match
and 4/91


Thats pretty much how these two break down against each other.
Thats how the stats read.

( Average times 2
Wickets divided by Matches
Wickets times Average Bowling )

Stop the fighting.

Best batting allrounder
and
Best bowling allrounder