Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Ikki]

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

I'm waiting for that tidbit of logic. Or do you only specialise in one-liners? 50k one-liners, now that's a sad stat.

 

[J.J.B.Lewis]

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.

The problem is that in different phases of his career,Botham was either too good or too worst at both batting & bowling while Imran remained consistent in one discipline atleast(not to mention in last 10 years of his careers,he was excellent at both batting & bowling).Anway,5 greatest allrounder ever for me are:

1.Imran Khan
2.Ian Botham
3.Shaun Pollock
4.Keith Miller
5.Gary Sobers

 

[Richard]

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

And just think what might have been in those first 42 Tests (that's what it was IIRR) had he not been given the captaincy.

 

[PhoenixFire]

1.Imran Khan
2.Ian Botham
3.Shaun Pollock
4.Keith Miller
5.Gary Sobers

Pollock ahead of Miller and Sobers?

Anyway, I'd say Miller is the best ever.

 

[Richard]

Indeed, Miller > Imran for me.

 

[silentstriker]

I think that Imran was the superior bowler but Miller the better batsman. Not sure if I can split the two.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I think that Imran was the superior bowler but Miller the better batsman. Not sure if I can split the two.

Miller was a better batsman imo, he averaged 50 odd in his FC career, better than a fair few specialist batsmen.

 

[Richard]

Miller was undoubtedly the better batsman, Imran the better bowler, yes. But the difference was probably greater in Miller's batting.

 

[Swervy]

And just think what might have been in those first 42 Tests (that's what it was IIRR) had he not been given the captaincy.

Whether it was the captaincy that really did it no-one will be ever sure. People have slumps of form, it MIGHT be Botham was due a slump

 

[Richard]

It's just a shame that there was ever the chance of the captaincy having any effect, TBH. If it was just-a-slump, then we'd know it for sure. As it was, he never faced West Indies on his own terms, he was either post-1983\84 (and yes, he played some good innings in 1984) or he was captain.

Of course, options in 1980 were thin on the ground.

 

[J.J.B.Lewis]

I think that Imran was the superior bowler but Miller the better batsman. Not sure if I can split the two.

Despite playing a lot of tests as a specialist batsman,Imran has a wkts/match ratio of 4.1 while that of Miller is only 3.0 which shows that Imran was a many times better bowler than Miller.But yes,Miller was the better batsman but the difference between their batting is very minute.

 

[J.J.B.Lewis]

Miller was a better batsman imo, he averaged 50 odd in his FC career, better than a fair few specialist batsmen.

Graeme Hick also averages 50 in FC Cricket but was crap in tests,so does it make him a better batsman than like Graham Thorpe,Saurav Ganguly ec who don't average 50 in FC cricket?

 

[silentstriker]

I for one don't give a crap what they averaged in FC cricket, I only look at Test cricket. Miller was still the better batsman though. The difference in their bowling IMO is more than some people let on. Miller has a strike rate of 61, well past most all time greats, whereas Imran's is at 53, which is competitive with the best. Miller also has fewer wickets per test, even though Imran did not bowl as much in the latter part of his career. Imran's highest career bowling rating is something like 40-50 points higher than Miller, so he had a higher peak, more wickets per test, and a lot better S/R.

Their bowling wasn't as close as some thing, but their batting wasn't as close as their stats indicate either IMO. Miller had 7 centuries in only 55 games, compared with six of Imran's in more matches. Plus, I think Imran's batting stats deceive a little bit. So like I said, it's tough for me to split them.

 

[Richard]

I for one don't give a crap what they averaged in FC cricket, I only look at Test cricket.

That's very, very simplistic. While Test-cricket is clearly more important, to completely discount First-Class stuff is crazy. It's the same game under the same rules, just one step down.

 

[Richard]

Despite playing a lot of tests as a specialist batsman,Imran has a wkts/match ratio of 4.1 while that of Miller is only 3.0 which shows that Imran was a many times better bowler than Miller.But yes,Miller was the better batsman but the difference between their batting is very minute.

How many Tests exactly did Imran play as a specialist-bat? 10 or so at the end of his career (if even that)?

 

[SJS]

Here are players who played/are playing purely as bowlers, have taken over a hundred test wickets and have averages higher than Sobers.

Giles, A F*.......... 40.6
Wright, D V P.......... 39.11
Emburey, J E..........38.41
Tufnell, P C R.......... 37.69
Malcolm, D E ..........37.09
Venkataraghavan, S.......... 36.12
Bracewell, J G.......... 35.81
Zaheer Khan*.......... 35.77
Yadav, N S.......... 35.1
Morrison, D K.......... 34.68
Collins, P T.......... 34.63
Martin, C S*.......... 34.3
Vettori, D L*.......... 34.27
Edmonds, P H.......... 34.18
​

Here are players who also played/are playing as pure bowlers, have taken more than a hundred test wickets and have averages lower than Sobers (34.04) but above 32.

De Freitas, P A J.......... 33.57
Dillon, M V*.......... 33.57
Ghavri, K D.......... 33.54
Kasprowicz, M S.......... 32.88
Adams, P R*.......... 32.87
Sarfraz Nawaz.......... 32.76
Kaneria, D*.......... 32.36
Titmus, F J ..........32.23
Chatfield, E J.......... 32.18​

Kind of interesting.

 

[Anil]

That's very, very simplistic. While Test-cricket is clearly more important, to completely discount First-Class stuff is crazy. It's the same game under the same rules, just one step down.

it is a significant step down as players like hick and ramprakash demonstrated...

 

[honestbharani]

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.

But how can u be sure that it is only because the bowlers were "poor"? Maybe the batting was better at that time, maybe the pitches helped batters.... There are just way too many factors involved here.... I don't think ANYONE can make a correct call on how good/bad Sobers was without having seen him play and without having a fair idea of how good/bad the contemporary players were at that time. I would much rather rely on the rating of him by blokes who played against him at that time and by blokes who were covering cricket at that time than listen to ppl here who have nothing better to go by than just pure stats. And also, everytime one considers using stats, you have to be sure to do a relative analysis of that as well, in the sense that you have to weigh up how player X has done vis-a-vis his contemporaries. Otherwise, there is a great case for Hayden > Vishy and so on.........


I have always maintained that one simply CANNOT rate a player correctly without having seen him play in his era and see how he did vis-a-vis the best players of that era. That is whyI have always abstained from taking part in all these all time XI thingys and stuff....

 

[Ikki]

HB, what you say may explain an inflated average, but not a very high average coupled with a very poor strike-rate. Few 4-fers and few 5-fers. I concede that not everything said will be right and definitive of Sobers or the era, but just saying it doesn't mean it's not close. The "maybe" should be considered when you can exemplify otherwise. You ask valid questions, but you're argument against it is more 'theory' than mine.

IMO, there are just too many variables going against Sobers being even an average bowler, let alone a good one.

 

[Richard]

it is a significant step down as players like hick and ramprakash demonstrated...

But for every Hick there are loads of people who performed well at both.

For more people than not it's a relatively small step down - for some it's a big one.