• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
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...
Where is this period? Between which years?

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

That is his cumulative career average. From what I see, the periods where his average goes low enough is from when he averaged in the 50s to the end of his career where it got to around 33-34. The average then is 29, at a SR in the 70s.

I hold no fixated view and take this for just as it is - a generalisation. So, after several useless comments, it would be great to hear something from you that actually contributes to the debate.

Also, though, as SS said, when taking in periods, Imran clearly has the better performances. Overall, he's more balanced too.
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
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.
Ah what? His career figures can compete with the Donalds and McGraths. That's a great record. It is in that 51 test period though where he manages to make it a phenomenal record. Bowling for 19 at a SR of 48.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Ah what? His career figures can compete with the Donalds and McGraths. That's a great record. It is in that 51 test period though where he manages to make it a phenomenal record. Bowling for 19 at a SR of 48.
His overall career figures are not really important to me. His first 4 and last 13 Tests aren't really relevant given that in the main part (71 games) he averaged 21.44 (SR 50.3).

As a batsman the periods in question are different.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Where is this period? Between which years?
1961-1968 - 8 years.



That is his cumulative career average. From what I see, the periods where his average goes low enough is from when he averaged in the 50s to the end of his career where it got to around 33-34. The average then is 29, at a SR in the 70s.
How come you're so keen to use cumulative for one, but for the other you can cut a period out then?


Also, though, as SS said, when taking in periods, Imran clearly has the better performances. Overall, he's more balanced too.
I faile to see either point - Sobers managed to both at the same time (as shown by the number of series where he scored runs AND took wickets, something Imran never managed to do even once)

How exactly is a not out and flat wicket-aided 50 with the bat when his bowling took a back seat better than 63 whilst also taking just under 4 wickets a game?
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
1961-1968 - 8 years.
Ah, I should have started counting earlier. But bowling at an average of 27, with a strike rate of 76, isn't great. It is average.


How come you're so keen to use cumulative for one, but for the other you can cut a period out then?
Because if you look at their average in a cumulative fashion, you can see where they start peaking and declining. BTW, I didn't cut anything out. When you talk of Imran's great period it is his last 51 test matches that he gets so good - all one after the other.

I faile to see either point - Sobers managed to both at the same time (as shown by the number of series where he scored runs AND took wickets, something Imran never managed to do even once)
Because Sobers did so, so few times and cost so much (balls bowled and runs conceded) that it hardly mattered. As a trend, it doesn't say much about Sobers, only in few instances. Just like Imran with the bat. But where Imran batted late, Sobers bowled throughout. Also, Imran has more 50s and 100s than Sobers has matches with 4 or 5 wickets.

How exactly is a not out and flat wicket-aided 50 with the bat when his bowling took a back seat better than 63 whilst also taking just under 4 wickets a game?
Hmm, because his bowling didn't take a back-seat. Imran got better and better.

Sobers would do well with the bat, but would concede (at best) 27 for every wicket and (at best) he wouldn't get more than 2 wickets an inning whilst bowling for about 26 overs in that inning.

4 for 112 runs, 51 overs in a match.

Whilst Imran with his 51 would then get with the ball, in the same amount of overs, 6 wickets (at best) conceding about 19 (at best) per wicket.

6 for 119 runs, 51 overs in a match.

So is that 12 runs more valuable than 2 wickets? I think not.

The real difference being Imran is more likely to score 50 runs than Sobers is to take 4 wickets and I'm pretty sure doesn't have as poor batting strike rate as Sobers has a poor bowling strike rate.
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
His overall career figures are not really important to me. His first 4 and last 13 Tests aren't really relevant given that in the main part (71 games) he averaged 21.44 (SR 50.3).

As a batsman the periods in question are different.
Even if you discount his career record (which is preposterous)... a bowler who averages 21.44 with a (SR of 50.3) isn't good? :laugh:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Even if you discount his career record (which is preposterous)... a bowler who averages 21.44 with a (SR of 50.3) isn't good? :laugh:
Uh... where on Earth did I say it wasn't good? :mellow:

It's superb. I've always said Imran was as good as any seamer of the modern era apart from Malcolm Marshall.

Discounting his career record isn't preposterous - I happen to think the fact that he was poor in 4 Tests (at the ages of 18 and 21) isn't really important at all and the fact that he had a bit of a tail-off at the end of his career (had he not been a batsman of any note he might well have retired after not many of those games) doesn't matter much either.

If someone has an extremely lengthy peak and some small bad periods at the start and end (Michael Atherton was another) the bad bits don't really matter much to me.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Ah, I should have started counting earlier. But bowling at an average of 27, with a strike rate of 76, isn't great. It is average.
It's not great, but it's certainly not average either. Especially for a batting-all-rounder.

It's pretty reasonable, in fact.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Uh... where on Earth did I say it wasn't good? :mellow:

It's superb. I've always said Imran was as good as any seamer of the modern era apart from Malcolm Marshall.

Discounting his career record isn't preposterous - I happen to think the fact that he was poor in 4 Tests (at the ages of 18 and 21) isn't really important at all and the fact that he had a bit of a tail-off at the end of his career (had he not been a batsman of any note he might well have retired after not many of those games) doesn't matter much either.

If someone has an extremely lengthy peak and some small bad periods at the start and end (Michael Atherton was another) the bad bits don't really matter much to me.
So why would you say this:

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.
That would mean he is even greater considering for most of his career he averaged 19 with the ball and 51 with the bat.

It's not great, but it's certainly not average either. Especially for a batting-all-rounder.

It's pretty reasonable, in fact.
That's Sober's peak...

Imran Khan's peak is 51 with the bat and 19 with the ball and lasted 51 tests. That's not just good for a bowling all-rounder it is phenomenal (if you consider 27 @ a SR of 76 reasonable).

Overall, Khan is a ahead. Peak-wise, Khan is ahead. By 'ahead', I mean more balanced.
 
How many Tests exactly did Imran play as a specialist-bat? 10 or so at the end of his career (if even that)?
What about those 3 years (1982-1984 probably) in which doctors had advised him not to bowl(because of back injury most probably)?Have a look at his bowling at his bowling record by excluding those tests (which would be more than 200 I think) & he beats everyone as a bowler alone including Malcolm Marshall.Marshall would've never been so successful if he didn't have bowlers like Roberts,Holding,Garner & Croft with him.Same is the reason for which Colin Croft didn't include him in his Alltime XI.IMO,Marshall was great but he was not as good as Imran Khan or Richard Hadlee(Hadlee was better than Marshall but Imran IMO).
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
What about those 3 years (1982-1984 probably) in which doctors had advised him not to bowl(because of back injury most probably)?Have a look at his bowling at his bowling record by excluding those tests (which would be more than 200 I think) & he beats everyone as a bowler alone including Malcolm Marshall.Marshall would've never been so successful if he didn't have bowlers like Roberts,Holding,Garner & Croft with him.Same is the reason for which Colin Croft didn't include him in his Alltime XI.IMO,Marshall was great but he was not as good as Imran Khan or Richard Hadlee(Hadlee was better than Marshall but Imran IMO).
To suggest that Imran Khan was a better Test bowler than Malcolm Marshall is pretty silly IMO. Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath are the top two fast bowlers of the modern area and it is very hard to compare them to the older greats like Lohmann, Spofforth and the rest. Imran would be on the next tier I think, alongside guys like Dennis Lillee.
 
To suggest that Imran Khan was a better Test bowler than Malcolm Marshall is pretty silly IMO. Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath are the top two fast bowlers of the modern area and it is very hard to compare them to the older greats like Lohmann, Spofforth and the rest. Imran would be on the next tier I think, alongside guys like Dennis Lillee.
Please tell me how were McGrath & Hadlee better than Imran Khan?Imran unlike Hadlee played for most of his career on flat tracks of Pakistan & not on greentops of New Zealand(New Zealand strategy in 1970s & 1980s almost always used to be "prepare as green wicket as possible & let Hadlee do the job).I think Hadlee was one of the greatest ever bowlers(he succeeded in subcontinent even but that was only for small number of games that he played there) but not as good as Imran.
McGrath was also great but look he always had bowlers like Warne,Flemming,Gillespie,MacGill etc to support him who all average in 20s while for most of his career Imran alone had to carry the load of his teams bowling was the first truly successful genuine fast bowler that subcoontinent produced.Till the age of 38,he was as effective as he was at 25(didn't bowl much for last one & a half year).And when made catain of the side,he just got,better,better & better.

I think he could be compared to Hadlee & Marshall(or one could say he was close to Marshall) but to compare him with Dennis"greentop bully"Lillee is insult of the legend.Lillee enjoyed tremendous success on bowling friendly wickets & home conditions Australia but failed miserably in subcontinent especially Pakistan.Personally,I don't think he was better than Jason Gillespie & Damien Flemming.The gap between Imran Khan & Dennis Lillee is huge.Its just like comparing Steve Waugh to Don Bradman IMO.
 
Last edited:

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Please tell me how were McGrath & Hadlee better than Imran Khan?Imran unlike Hadlee played for most of his career on flat tracks of Pakistan & not on greentops of New Zealand(New Zealand strategy in 1970s & 1980s almost always used to be "prepare as green wicket as possible & let Hadlee do the job).I think Hadlee was one of the greatest ever bowlers(he succeeded in subcontinent even but that was only for small number of games that he played there) but not as good as Imran.
McGrath was also great but look he always had bowlers like Warne,Flemming,Gillespie,MacGill etc to support him who all average in 20s while for most of his career Imran alone had to carry the load of his teams bowling was the first truly successful genuine fast bowler that subcoontinent produced.Till the age of 38,he was as effective as he was at 25(didn't bowl much for last one & a half year).And when made catain of the side,he just got,better,better & better.

I think he could be compared to Hadlee & Marshall(or one could say he was close to Marshall) but to compare him with Dennis"greentop bully"Lillee is insult of the legend.Lillee enjoyed tremendous success on bowling friendly wickets & home conditions Australia but failed miserably in subcontinent especially Pakistan.Personally,I don't think he was better than Jason Gillespie & Damien Flemming.The gap between Imran Khan is huge.Its just like comparing Steve Waugh to Don Bradman IMO.
The fact that you rate Jason Gillespie and Damien Fleming above Dennis Lillee has made me decide not to try and debate the point with you. I'm sure others can see why.
 
The fact that you rate Jason Gillespie and Damien Fleming above Dennis Lillee has made me decide not to try and debate the point with you. I'm sure others can see why.
Whoever has no points to support his opinion does that,so no surprise for me:) .
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Fleming and Gillespie are good and easily underestimated, but to say they were as good as Lillee is taking it too far.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
So why would you say this: Uuuh huuh That would mean he is even greater considering for most of his career he averaged 19 with the ball and 51 with the bat.
That was indeed the point I was making - that the meaningful part of Imran's bowling record is better than the overall career average, as in the cases of most players.

He didn't average 19 for most of his career, though, he average 21-and-a-half.
That's Sober's peak...

Imran Khan's peak is 51 with the bat and 19 with the ball and lasted 51 tests. That's not just good for a bowling all-rounder it is phenomenal (if you consider 27 @ a SR of 76 reasonable).

Overall, Khan is a ahead. Peak-wise, Khan is ahead. By 'ahead', I mean more balanced.
I'm well aware that Imran Khan is a more balanced all-rounder, I've argued that all the way through this thread, but to suggest that Sobers' bowling record in that period was not pretty impressive would be wrong.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
That was indeed the point I was making - that the meaningful part of Imran's bowling record is better than the overall career average, as in the cases of most players.

He didn't average 19 for most of his career, though, he average 21-and-a-half.

I'm well aware that Imran Khan is a more balanced all-rounder, I've argued that all the way through this thread, but to suggest that Sobers' bowling record in that period was not pretty impressive would be wrong.
Sorry, I find the best I can say about Sober's bowling is that it was average - and that was his peak.

As for Imran, he averaged 19 for 51/88 tests, that's what I meant.

You said Imran wasn't good outside that time, now you're saying he was? Nevermind.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Please tell me how were McGrath & Hadlee better than Imran Khan?Imran unlike Hadlee played for most of his career on flat tracks of Pakistan & not on greentops of New Zealand(New Zealand strategy in 1970s & 1980s almost always used to be "prepare as green wicket as possible & let Hadlee do the job).I think Hadlee was one of the greatest ever bowlers(he succeeded in subcontinent even but that was only for small number of games that he played there) but not as good as Imran.
McGrath was also great but look he always had bowlers like Warne,Flemming,Gillespie,MacGill etc to support him who all average in 20s while for most of his career Imran alone had to carry the load of his teams bowling was the first truly successful genuine fast bowler that subcoontinent produced.Till the age of 38,he was as effective as he was at 25(didn't bowl much for last one & a half year).And when made catain of the side,he just got,better,better & better.

I think he could be compared to Hadlee & Marshall(or one could say he was close to Marshall) but to compare him with Dennis"greentop bully"Lillee is insult of the legend.Lillee enjoyed tremendous success on bowling friendly wickets & home conditions Australia but failed miserably in subcontinent especially Pakistan.Personally,I don't think he was better than Jason Gillespie & Damien Flemming.The gap between Imran Khan & Dennis Lillee is huge.Its just like comparing Steve Waugh to Don Bradman IMO.
Saw a lot of Lillee bowl, did you? Plainly not. In Australia at the time he went around, the WACA was fast, the Gabba was green, Adelaide was a road, Sydney spun and Melbourne was so low and slow that he bowled off three steps in a test there in the late 70s/ early 80s because there was zero bounce and pace in it. Still got wickets too.

Most of us have been through this a thousand times, but here goes.

He played 4 tests on the subcontinent and performed poorly. Hadlee, whom you cite as another example, played a small number as well, and performed well. Imran played 13 in Australia and averaged a respectable but hardly outstanding 28, presumably on the "green tops" you assert Lillee revelled in. So, was Imran nothing more than a respectable bowler here? I'd say not, because he's a fine player, rated very highly by people who saw him play, played against him and officiated him. Just as Lillee is rated very highly by those who had the misfortune to play against him, those who watched him or officiated him. See, they were both excpetional bowlers.

Imran had one golden tour with the ball here, averaging 19.00 in the three test series in 81/82. That was against a pretty good Australian line up. Aside from that he averaged 28, 40 & 41 with the ball in his other 3 bowling tours (in 83/84 he didn't bowl). If we accept your logic that Lillee was a green top bully who performed well at home on fast pitches, where was Imran on those other tours? Who knows? He may have been injured, he may have been at a stage in his career where he was not bowling well, he may have been just plain unlucky. I'm not prepared to undersell him as a bowler though, just because he didn't do as well here on those tours. Yet on a representative sample far smaller for Lillee on the subcontinent, you're prepared to pigeon-hole him someone not fit to carry Imran's jock strap.

Now I know it might burn your cheese, but their careers overlapped to some extent, and many more players who played vs both rated Lillee higher than they rated Imran. Whether that's justified in the stats, with the wisdom of hindsight or whether the stats undersell one over the other, who knows?

But to simply denigrate Lillee as a green top bully is facile. Especailly when guys like Richards, Lloyd, Boycott, Chappell, Dickie Bird - guys who've watched 100s if not 1000s of fast bowlers ply their trade over a span of decades - rate him as among the greatest ever, if not the greatest. Or that when things got tough for him in the middle of a spell, Hadlee would say to himself "What would Lillee do here, to get someone out?" It doesn't follow that these people are right, but in the face of such consistent opinion, to rate Lillee as a green top bully is just meh.

Likewise, you say McGrath had the help of other fine bowlers and use that as a point to detract from his efforts, yet blatantly ignore in your musings that Marshall was part of what's regarded as the best pace attack of all time. Consistency? I'd say that Marshall's support cast of Holding Garner & Walsh/ Clarke, etc was every bit as good as a support cast of Warne, Gillespie & say, Kaspa or Lee or Fleming (though perhaps not as versatile, I grant you). Both were certainly better than Lillee's support casts, which is often overlooked because of the great partnership he formed with Thommo, but which only lasted two or three years at the most. Thommo aside, Lillee bowled with Walker, Pascoe, Lawson (later years) and the mighty spin of Skull, TJ or Ashley Mallett. Hardly inspirational stuff there.

Look, they are both great players, and who is best is open to opinion. But when you take a pot shot at a bloke like Lillee, you really need something to back it up.
 
Last edited:

Top