Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Shaggy Alfresco]

After all, Stephen Harmison once managed it and however bad Sobers might have been, he can't possibly ever have been that bad...

Harmison > Sobers, tbh

 

[Ikki]

So yes, you're relying 100% on numbers and ignoring what produced those numbers.

Thought as much.

Do you ever not talk crap?

Explain to me, from what I said, which part is flawed relying on those stats.

Marc could average 60 runs per wicket at a strike rate of 120, and if I said he sucked, he could come and say this.

Make a statement, rack that brain of yours buddy. Which part of averaging 34+ being poor, don't you get?

What 'produced' those numbers can't be considered 'good' - because they are poor career stats.

 

[Fiery]

Harmison > Sobers, tbh

I hope that's a joke

 

[Ikki]

So explain please how he got up to number 4 in the world with the ball, and tell us where any other player has done the same (since at the time he was number 1 with the bat)

If that's average, I doubt there's been to manby above-average bowlers in your history...

Um, yeah, there ARE many above average bowlers. Being number 4 doesn't mean anything if the rest are just as poor as you. Very poor strike-rate, very poor average. The only only two factors Sobers has on his side is that he was economical and he was versatile.

Disprove anything I've said with some logic. Not "well I can say X is poor with stats too". Don't worry about X and Y, worry about Sobers. You simply cannot make an argument to exonerate his bowling, when you compare him to others, not on any level.

 

[Ikki]

For all thoe people who rate Imran over Sobers please tell me y u all r castigating Sobers the bowler when Imran the bastman was mediocre as well? I just dont get that logic

Because Imran wasn't a mediocre batsmen for the last 10 years of his life - averaging 51. Even, his career average is actually good for a lower-middle order batsmen. Whereas Sober's bowling is not even average. In an other era, in most other teams, he simply wouldn't get to bowl the way he did for WI.

As aforesaid, Sobers was a part-time calibre bowler who bowled full-time calibre overs.

His record is similar to Steve Waugh's as a bowler. Kallis' is even better, and when you consider the certain era we're talking about, it counts even more for him.

The reality is, Khan makes up more for his deficiencies - in terms of bowling and batting - more than Sobers does. But when you play in a team with 4 proper bowlers, they make up for his bowling even more. But then again, if you actually look at his bowling properly, you'd realise it wouldn't be feasible to give him a bowl. But that is why you would pick Sobers in an all-time XI side, because his batting is more valuable to the team and his bowling doesn't matter - although it can be used.

Anyway, unless something new is said I'm done with the debate. Anyone can like who they want. I was just interested in some explanation as to why Sober's bowling is ranked the way it is, but those who know more haven't commented. And those that don't know as much keep repeating "those are just stats" - not making an argument against them, just an observation of what was brought.

 

[Richard]

I hope that's a joke

It clearly is.

 

[Richard]

For all thoe people who rate Imran over Sobers please tell me y u all r castigating Sobers the bowler when Imran the bastman was mediocre as well? I just dont get that logic

Imran the batsman wasn't mediocre at all, he was a very fine player. An average of 50 could give the wrong impression if you don't take it in the context of being pretty well exclusively lower-order knocks, but it's still a good record, and that of a good batsman.

 

[pup11]

Its really dire to call Imran's batting mediocre, he wasn't a superb batsman but he was a very good batsman in his own right.

 

[Slifer]

Based on what exactly? An average of 37 and 6 centuries in 80 odd tests? IMO thats not ne more impressive than Sobers 235 wkts at 34 in 93 tests. Oh and if we r goin to single out a portion of Imrans career (when he supposedly averaged over 50) I think we can very much do the same for ne other cricketer just to prove a point. Bottom line is Imran was no better with the bat than Sobers was with the ball, plus Sobers was a superior fielder at ne position, hence cricket's greatest allrounder.

 

[Ikki]

Based on what exactly? An average of 37 and 6 centuries in 80 odd tests? IMO thats not ne more impressive than Sobers 235 wkts at 34 in 93 tests. Oh and if we r goin to single out a portion of Imrans career (when he supposedly averaged over 50) I think we can very much do the same for ne other cricketer just to prove a point. Bottom line is Imran was no better with the bat than Sobers was with the ball, plus Sobers was a superior fielder at ne position, hence cricket's greatest allrounder.

Ok, pick out a portion of Sober's best bowling form?

At best Sobers:
Batting: 60
Bowling: 34

At best Imran:
Batting: 51
Bowling: 19

The difference being that Imran had those figures, his best, for 10 years, in his last 51 tests.

And even if you take their overall average. Imran's 37 with the bat is quite better than Sober's 34 with the ball.

 

[PhoenixFire]

An average of 37 is excellent for a bowling all-rounder, which in Imran was in esscence.

 

[Ikki]

An average of 37 is excellent for a bowling all-rounder, which in Imran was in esscence.

Yeah he definitely is. Sobers is a batting all-rounder, it just happens that Imran had a better balance.

But the player with the best all-round ability, in terms of batting and bowling, is Botham. You gotta look beyond averages and strike-rates. You gotta look at 100s, 50s, 4-fers and 5-fers. Whilst Khan has little in way of batting and a lot in bowling, Sobers has a lot in batting and little in bowling. But Botham has a very healthy amount in both fields.

 

[Slifer]

I totally agree with that assesment of Botham. I think he was the closest to what a true allrounder wood be . However, his stats overall do leave a lot to be desired and unfortunately itll be hard for him (based soely on stats) to make it into ne all time xi on either his bowlin or batting. As purely and all rounder maybe.

 

[Slifer]

Ok, pick out a portion of Sober's best bowling form?

At best Sobers:
Batting: 60
Bowling: 34

At best Imran:
Batting: 51
Bowling: 19

The difference being that Imran had those figures, his best, for 10 years, in his last 51 tests.

And even if you take their overall average. Imran's 37 with the bat is quite better than Sober's 34 with the ball.

No no no at his best Sobers was averaging something like 27

 

[Slifer]

An average of 37 is excellent for a bowling all-rounder, which in Imran was in esscence.

In the same way that a bowling average of 34 is excellent for a batting all rounder which Sobers more or less is.

 

[Ikki]

No no no at his best Sobers was averaging something like 27

If you're talking about his first 9 tests? From the start of his career he continues badly - even in the 50s - till about his 38th test, where he starts continually improving and finishes on 34. It just so happens in his first 9 tests they weren't that bad, yet.

And if you wish to still stick to that 9 tests, the difference between Sobers at his best and Imran at his best is that Imran kept it for 10 years (51 tests), Sobers only for almost 2 (9 tests).

In the same way that a bowling average of 34 is excellent for a batting all rounder which Sobers more or less is.

But it ISN'T in the same way or the same. It is worse. If it were, then Steve Waugh also has a case for being one of the greatest all-rounders in the game - pretty similar figures all-round.

 

[Richard]

Yeah he definitely is. Sobers is a batting all-rounder, it just happens that Imran had a better balance.

But the player with the best all-round ability, in terms of batting and bowling, is Botham. You gotta look beyond averages and strike-rates. You gotta look at 100s, 50s, 4-fers and 5-fers. Whilst Khan has little in way of batting and a lot in bowling, Sobers has a lot in batting and little in bowling. But Botham has a very healthy amount in both fields.

I totally agree with that assesment of Botham. I think he was the closest to what a true allrounder wood be . However, his stats overall do leave a lot to be desired and unfortunately itll be hard for him (based soely on stats) to make it into ne all time xi on either his bowlin or batting. As purely and all rounder maybe.

Good job C_C's not here...

I agree that Botham was very much a true all-rounder of the highest class... but only between 1977 and 1981. Thereafter, he was first for 3 years a good batsman who also bowled, then a wholly mediocre all-rounder.

 

[Richard]

But it ISN'T in the same way or the same. It is worse. If it were, then Steve Waugh also has a case for being one of the greatest all-rounders in the game - pretty similar figures all-round.

Hahahahaha. Brilliant a batsman as Stephen Waugh was, he wasn't in Sobers' class and he'd pretty well stopped bowling by, what, the final 1\3rd of his career?

Nor was he ever as good a bowler as Sobers - regardless of whether he was as effective, Sobers was infinately more versatile.

 

[Swervy]

Yeah he definitely is. Sobers is a batting all-rounder, it just happens that Imran had a better balance.

But the player with the best all-round ability, in terms of batting and bowling, is Botham. You gotta look beyond averages and strike-rates. You gotta look at 100s, 50s, 4-fers and 5-fers. Whilst Khan has little in way of batting and a lot in bowling, Sobers has a lot in batting and little in bowling. But Botham has a very healthy amount in both fields.

what Botham really was, more than probably any all rounder maybe since the war, and that includes Sobers, a genuine match winner with both bat and ball.

When he turned it on, he really turned it on .

If you take say the first 50ish tests of his career, when he was at his best (just starting to dip a little with the ball, but still consistantly Englands best wicket taking option), it is mind boggling what he acheived, average basically 39, with 11 100's, including a double hundred (and thats with a dozen tests where he actually didnt do that much with the bat), 230 odd wickets at 23 with 19 five wicket hauls and 4 ten wickets in a match at a strike rate over just over 50 balls per wicket, and lets not forget the 60 catches, many of them top notch spectacular stuff....the acheivements go on really, too many to list.

And again, that is what no-one else has had ceratinly in the last 30 years, probably not since WW2, and probably not ever.

That is why really for the 'all round' all rounder, Botham in those first 5 years is unchallengable

 

[marc71178]

But the player with the best all-round ability, in terms of batting and bowling, is Botham. You gotta look beyond averages and strike-rates.

So how come you seem incapable of doing such a thing then?