Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[marc71178]

But no one is claiming that Imran was a great batsman.

They're claiming his batting to be far better than Sobers' bowling though.

 

[roseboy64]

In 20 matches at #6, he averages 61.86, and in 4 matches at #5, he averages 54.66. So he certainly was, once in a while, a very good #3-#6 batsman for Pakistan. No one is claiming he'd be #3-#6 in an all time side. Just like Sobers was a very good opening bowler for WI for a while, but no one is claiming he'd open the bowling in an all time side.

Fair enough.

 

[silentstriker]

They're claiming his batting to be far better than Sobers' bowling though.

Which is a ridiculous comparison, as those two are completely not comparable, and comparing them across eras is even more pointless. In any case, I'll do it too: Sobers' bowling was better than Imran's batting. Imran's bowling was as good as Sobers' batting (purely due to the fact that I rate bowling > batting in terms of importance).

 

[Richard]

But we aren't judging 'everyone'. Generally speaking, we talk about players who are Test players or in contention for a Test spot. We are not having a debate on whether Neil Pickup would be a good wicketkeeper for England, or whether silentstriker can bounce out Sehwag. So when judging Test players, or those in contention for those spots, Test standard should be the only standard used.

Of course. But as I say - that is not what happens in many cases of many posters.

 

[Richard]

don't quibble about the choice of words, there are enough for it not to be an exception...

I haven't got any exact numbers to hand, so I can't say for certain either way.

don't know what you mean with this, the gap is the same for everyone, it's the ease with which they move across the gap that's different, maybe you don't get that concept...

It's different for different people. The gap is what you make it. Both domestic and international levels vary in quality. Some people have game setups that make the gap a small one, some that make it a large one.

of course, that's obvious...

Well, not neccessarily. Plenty of people argue simply that if you can't make the step up it's usually a case of temperament. I'd say such cases are very rare.

 

[silentstriker]

Of course. But as I say - that is not what happens in many cases of many posters.

I only mentioned because someone mentioned Miller's FC record with the bat, which to me is irrelevent when judging him as a Test player.

 

[Richard]

But it's not. If, say, Imran and he were equal in their deeds as Test batsmen (which they categorically are not, whatever their averages are Miller was the better batsman IMO) then their First-Class averages would come into things. Imran played most of his non-Test FC cricket for Sussex, Miller for NSW, Victoria and Australian Services. But those things are not so different as to be incomparable.

 

[silentstriker]

But it's not. If, say, Imran and he were equal in their deeds as Test batsmen (which they categorically are not, whatever their averages are Miller was the better batsman IMO)

Agreed. I completely agree that Miller was the superior batsman (by a decent margin) in Test cricket (I also believe that Imran was a better bowler by a decent margin), but it has nothing to do with their respective FC record.

then their First-Class averages would come into things. Imran played most of his non-Test FC cricket for Sussex, Miller for NSW, Victoria and Australian Services. But those things are not so different as to be incomparable.

Disagree. Using those figures, you can say that Miller was a better batsman in FC cricket, but you can't say he was the better batsman, as without a qualifier, it assumes batting at the highest level that this person has played.

 

[Richard]

Given that First-Class and Test cricket are the same game (just played at different levels) I'd say you can make a judgement on their ability in that game based on the two. Their First-Class averages don't change their effectiveness in Tests, but both things together say a lot about their ability in long-form (limitless-over) cricket.

If Imran played regularly for Pakistan International Airlines on the usual flat Pakistani pitches and scored 25* near enough every single time for a First-Class average of 60 you'd have a point, I should add.

 

[silentstriker]

Given that First-Class and Test cricket are the same game (just played at different levels) I'd say you can make a judgement on their ability in that game based on the two.

.

Nope, backyard soccer and professional soccer are the same game played at different levels, so I can make a judgement on my ability based on that?

Their First-Class averages don't change their effectiveness in Tests, but both things together say a lot about their ability in long-form (limitless-over) cricket

Wait what? Your ability at the Test level is how you did in Test cricket, and your ability at FC level is how you did in FC cricket. They don't say anything less or more. I am perfecly willing to accept that a certain player is a better than another when faced with substandard competition when looking at FC cricket, nothing more.

 

[Richard]

.

Nope, backyard soccer and professional soccer are the same game played at different levels, so I can make a judgement on my ability based on that?

Backyard stuff is never the same as anything, because it's rarely organised.

League Two football, however, is indeed the same as Premiership stuff, just a different standard.

Wait what? Your ability at the Test level is how you did in Test cricket, and your ability at FC level is how you did in FC cricket. They don't say anything less or more. I am perfecly willing to accept that a certain player is a better than another when faced with substandard competition when looking at FC cricket, nothing more.

And I'm not willing to accept that FC cricket is "substandard", because it's a standard that most will never reach.

For more players than not, there'll be a direct correlation between Test and domestic-First-Class performance. Not surprising, given that the two games are the same one.

 

[silentstriker]

And I'm not willing to accept that FC cricket is "substandard", because it's a standard that most will never reach.

When comparing Test players, FC cricket is substandard.

 

[steve132]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic
Except that no one has made an argument based on a single statistic. They're based on ALL the available bowling statistics. Only his economy is worthy of note, otherwise all else - average, strike-rate, 4-fer/5-fer - point to him being average at best.

To paraphrase a former U.S. President, this depends on what "average" means. Sobers was not as great a seam bowler as Wasim Akram or Alan Davidson (in my opinion, the two best left arm seamers of all time). He would not have displaced Roberts, Holding, Garner or Marshall in Clive Lloyd's team. On the other hand, he was a MUCH better fast bowler than any produced by the West Indies for the first 10-12 years after the war (until Roy Gilchrist and Wes Hall emerged), and also superior to Holder, Julien et al. who represented West Indies between the Hall-Griffith and the Lloyd eras. In his prime he was considered to be as dangerous with the new ball as Hall, Snow or Mc.Kenzie.

Similarly, while Sobers was not in the same class as Bedi or Underwood as a left arm spinner, he was more talented than any West Indian spinner who has emerged since his heyday. The bottom line is that most contemporaries would have been happy to include Sobers in a strong Test side as either a seam bowler or a spinner. To me that indicates that they considered his bowling ability to be significantly above "average" as the word is conventionally understood.

At his peak (c.1966-67) Sobers was the best batsman in the world, averaging 103 in the 1966 series against England and 114 in the 1967 series against India. He was also the second best bowler in the world's best team (finishing second to Lance Gibbs in both average and wickets taken in both series), as well as one of the best, if not the best, close to the wicket fielders. These achievements explain his status among cricketers far more easily than any purported "black magic spells."

Moreover, if Sobers' bowling is rated as "average" I see no reason to rate Imran's batting any higher. The standard cutoff in terms of batting average for a quality player is about 40. Imran, Miller, Botham and Kapil did not achieve that. I believe that they would all have made more runs if they had concentrated on their batting alone, but the same principle applies to Sobers the bowler, who would have been far more successful if he had not been expected to perform as his team's (and the world's) best batsman.

 

[Ikki]

You're confusing yourself my friend.

Average means: Average test bowler.

As in, he's not even an 'average' test bowler.

The bottom line isn't how much talent he had or how much he was rated - it was what he did with the ball which, considering how many he bowled, isn't much.

The difference with Imran is that he is a lower-middle order batsman. 37 is, at the very least, average for a largely #7 batter. And then you factor that for 10 years he actually averaged 51 with the bat, he's not just average.

Sobers has a poor record throughout his career until the end where he has his best figures at 34 - notwithstanding his first few tests. Whilst Sobers may have had a series here or there that was good with the ball, by and large he was ineffective and just held up an end for low runs. He wasn't a wicket-taking bowler, he wasn't a dangerous bowler - of course, in consideration to how many overs he bowled.

I don't get your argument in terms of him being better if he didn't have to concentrate on his batting so much. Sobers bowled A LOT. He may have not been that impressive - as I said, part-time calibre bowler - but he bowled plenty and so he definitely had to train on his art.

 

[marc71178]

Funny how you ignore an 8 year period of Sobers with 125 wickets @ 27.93 isn't it?

At the same time he scored 3106 runs @ 63.38...

 

[silentstriker]

But if you only want to look at time periods then what about:

204 wickets @ 19.90
2477 runs @ 51.60

(I don't know why I am arguing for Imran, as I think Sobers was clearly better, but Imran clearly matches up with anyone if you only look at batting and bowling between a period).

 

[Richard]

I honestly don't know why anyone bothers arguing about anything other than said time periods. Imran wasn't that good a bowler or batsman outside said times.

 

[J.J.B.Lewis]

Funny how you ignore an 8 year period of Sobers with 125 wickets @ 27.93 isn't it?

At the same time he scored 3106 runs @ 63.38...

1963-1967 makes 5 years,not 8 years.

 

[J.J.B.Lewis]

I honestly don't know why anyone bothers arguing about anything other than said time periods. Imran wasn't that good a bowler or batsman outside said times.

 

[marc71178]

1963-1967 makes 5 years,not 8 years.

But Bhupinder, I wasn't looking at 1963 to 1967.