Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Ikki]

I am just wondering about one point here.


The main contention of guys like Kazo here is that Sobers averaged 27 with the ball at his peak and that it is not good enough. Warney averages around 25 while Murali averages around 22 or 21. The difference there is greater than between Sobers at his peak and Warney's normal stats. Given the fact that almost everyone of that era have mentioned that pitches were easier for batting back then than in the late 70s and the whole 80s and also given that Sobers usually bowled fast on turners and spin on seaming wickets to give his side balance, I think 27 is a very very good bowling average for even a specialist bowler in that era. Dunno why everyone is acting as though it is a bad average for a strike bowler.

Because his average isn't the only disconcerting thing. His figures show he was a bowler who filled in the overs. He wasn't a wicket-taking bowler like a Warne or Murali (not even close). For a lot of his career Sober's bowlng is poor. Taking into account his actual career average is 34, and reaches heights of 40-50 you can see why that may be. And not having a strike rate better than 76 or having a career strike-rate in the 90s makes him a not-so-great-a bowler.

(just deleted a long post)...yeah, been saying the same thing for ages now. LOL, let's move on.

 

[Burgey]

Doesn't make it any easier to play in those conditions though. I mean, one might be more mentally prepared and know what to expect, but the pitch will remain as flat as ever. On the same token, I wouldn't knock a New Zealand batsman for having a relatively lower average at home than away.

No, but surely it makes it easier to cope with them than someone who has had less exposure to them.

 

[Fusion]

Great debate on this thread! Everyone has kept it about cricket and presented their arguments well. I specially want to commend Kazo/Shortpitched/JJBLewis/Richard for standing their ground in the face of overwhelming opposition. I am even tempted to side with them and say Imran was a better all-rounder than Sobers. But…I just can't. I grew up as a kid hero-worshiping Imran. In fact, Imran is the reason I started following cricket. He's my all-time favorite player. However, as much as I love Imran, I just can't convince myself that he was better than Sobers (as an all-rounder). I know the stats that the pro-Imran group have presented seem to show that indeed he was better. But I've never been one to judge purely on stats. There are simply too many variables that can not be measured by stats. The stats may not show it, but I think Sobers > Imran. Consider that most people rate the great Viv Richards to be one of the top 10 batsman of all time. Wisden even had him as one the 5 players of the century. But if I was a newbie to cricket and just going by stats alone, I wouldn't see why Richards was rated THAT highly. One had to watch him play to truly understand how devastating and awe-inspiring he was. If you couldn't watch him (or any other player), then I feel one must go by the opinion of respected individuals that did watch them play. That is why IMO, Richards is greater than Lara or Tendulkar. And for that matter, Lara/Tendulkar > Pointing/Dravid/Yousaf, Wasim > McGrath, Marshal > any fast bowler. In each of the comparisons I listed, stats may show that my preference is wrong, but they don't tell the full story so my opinion does not change.

 

[Richard]

BTW... I'm certainly not arguing that Imran was a better all-rounder than Sobers. Just a more... well... rounded one.

 

[Richard]

My main point of contention, btw, is that over the last 53 tests of his career (we're talking 53 in a row, not just the good ones) Imran averaged 53 with the bat and 19 with the ball.

I've just been having a ball on statsguru (as one does when one has no life) and I can guarantee you that it's not possible to do anything similar with Sobers.

Imran, for approx the final 60% of his career, was overall a freakishly good bowler and a BATSMAN WHO AVERAGED 53 OVER A 53 TEST PERIOD.

Sobers batting from 365* onwards was always outstanding, but he never came close to achieving the equivalent with the ball, at any time, of what Imran did with the bat over those last 53 tests/10 or so years.

When talking "top all-rounders" I firmly believe that Imran is clearly the only player who can say that for a truly sustained period of time he was able to, assessing that time as a whole, safely be able to say that he was OUTSTANDING in both batting and bowling.

Whilst not a definitive argument, I certainly think it's a very strong one and places him at least in a position where it can be argued that Imran is #1.

The thing is, Imran's batting-average isn't the sole thing of import. If you just look at the average, it can make him look a better batsman than he was. As a lower-order batsman who managed a decent amount of not-outs, he has managed a good average. Not through playing large numbers of innings which had real input on the match.

 

[silentstriker]

Wasim > McGrath,

Heretic!

 

[Richard]

It's hardly something that's unquestionable.

Wasim could do things McGrath couldn't, and vice-versa. IMO there wasn't a heck of a lot between the two.

 

[silentstriker]

It's hardly something that's unquestionable.

Wasim could do things McGrath couldn't, and vice-versa. IMO there wasn't a heck of a lot between the two.

Heretic!

 

[Fusion]

Heretic!

 

[thierry henry]

The thing is, Imran's batting-average isn't the sole thing of import. If you just look at the average, it can make him look a better batsman than he was. As a lower-order batsman who managed a decent amount of not-outs, he has managed a good average. Not through playing large numbers of innings which had real input on the match.

I'm aware of the argument, but I think you overstate the point.

Imran scored a substantial number of runs in this time, including 5 centuries.

I think (with my liberal use of CAPS and bold ) I've made my stance on this pretty clear- if you maintain an average over 50, for over 50 consecutive tests, than no "he had a lot of not-outs/he just batted for his stats/he did nothing for his team" type argument is ever going to convince me that the player in question wasn't at the very least a damn fine batsman over that period.

I'm actually simultaneously having a similar debate on another forum, and someone pulled up a 53 test sample of Herschelle Gibbs' stats, as a token example of a decent top order batsman. Over this 53 test period, Gibbs had pretty much the same aggregate total of runs as Imran, but at an average of 42.

I take the point, but I don't feel it's devastating to my case. Even if Imran did have a number of not-outs, the fact that he scored the same number of runs as a top order player averaging 42 does shows that his performances were certainly pretty significant.

I certainly think this extended period of batting is superior to any period of bowling in Sobers' career. No matter how you break down Sobers' career, the bowling is pretty consistent, and gives the distinct impression of him toiling away with an average in the low to mid 30. No matter how many emotive narratives I hear about Sobers being able to bowl 3647 different styles and carrying an entire bowling attack of Robert Kennedy's and Saj Mahmood's on his back, the stats are pretty comprehensive- regardless of circumstances, Sobers was always just an ok bowler.

 

[marc71178]

I'm aware of the argument, but I think you overstate the point.

Imran scored a substantial number of runs in this time, including 5 centuries.

5 centuries in 10 years - that's like amazing.

 

[Richard]

I'm aware of the argument, but I think you overstate the point.

Imran scored a substantial number of runs in this time, including 5 centuries.

I think (with my liberal use of CAPS and bold ) I've made my stance on this pretty clear- if you maintain an average over 50, for over 50 consecutive tests, than no "he had a lot of not-outs/he just batted for his stats/he did nothing for his team" type argument is ever going to convince me that the player in question wasn't at the very least a damn fine batsman over that period.

I'm actually simultaneously having a similar debate on another forum, and someone pulled up a 53 test sample of Herschelle Gibbs' stats, as a token example of a decent top order batsman. Over this 53 test period, Gibbs had pretty much the same aggregate total of runs as Imran, but at an average of 42.

I take the point, but I don't feel it's devastating to my case. Even if Imran did have a number of not-outs, the fact that he scored the same number of runs as a top order player averaging 42 does shows that his performances were certainly pretty significant.

I certainly think this extended period of batting is superior to any period of bowling in Sobers' career. No matter how you break down Sobers' career, the bowling is pretty consistent, and gives the distinct impression of him toiling away with an average in the low to mid 30. No matter how many emotive narratives I hear about Sobers being able to bowl 3647 different styles and carrying an entire bowling attack of Robert Kennedy's and Saj Mahmood's on his back, the stats are pretty comprehensive- regardless of circumstances, Sobers was always just an ok bowler.

And I honestly believe Imran was just an OK batsman. Yes, an average of 47 over 59 Tests is good. But look at the innings. Look at the 50-plus scores. Imran's record as a lower-order batsman is good, but it's just that - the record of a lower-order batsman.

 

[thierry henry]

5 centuries in 10 years - that's like amazing.

Marc, why do you still bother posting? Your opinion doesn't matter to anyone.

 

[thierry henry]

And I honestly believe Imran was just an OK batsman. Yes, an average of 47 over 59 Tests is good. But look at the innings. Look at the 50-plus scores. Imran's record as a lower-order batsman is good, but it's just that - the record of a lower-order batsman.

Even if you take all of the not-outs out, Imran still averages over 30 for each time he came out to bat. Ian Botham (often quoted as a better batsman with a lesser average due to less not-outs) averages about 32.5 for every innings, whether out or not.

If you look at the period when Imran averaged 53, his "per innings" average was 39. Lower order players do not average 39 each time they come out to bat. As mentioned, even if he'd had only a small number of not outs, Imran would have averaged low-mid 40s. Now, how many lower order players in cricket history have done this well???? I can hardly think of any- so you would either have to say that he was as good as a top order player, or he was an almost unique lower order player given the number of runs he was scoring.

Getting back to the Botham comparison, all it really shows is Botham (and other players who have more big scores to show off relative to Imran) scored a lot more big scores, and also failed a lot more. I don't think big scores + failures makes a batsman better than someone who averages the same via a number of middling scores, but I know there are those who disagree with me on that point.

 

[thierry henry]

You can also compare Imran to Flintoff and Cairns, who have both scored 5 centuries from 60-something tests- a similar rate to Imran.

Like Botham, Flintoff and Cairns have only a few not-outs, and there "every innings counts" average is also low 30s.

As far as I'm aware, Flintoff and Cairns have not been regarded as "lower order players", but as dangerous middle order batsmen. Yet in terms of run scoring and century-making they are almost exactly the same as Imran.

If you compare these three to Botham, the only real difference is Botham's propensity to score centuries. But as I've said, his very similar "every innings counts" average can hence only be explained by his penchant for failing with the bat- and then we get back to the moot point I mentioned in my last post.

So in conclusion, Imran (regardless of the position that he actually batted in) was approximately in the same class as Botham/Cairns/Flintoff in terms of run production, albeit possibly less explosive, but also less likely to lose his wicket, and for the final 53 tests of his career he was a damn sight better batsman than the overall evaluation would have it.

 

[Dasa]

About not-outs, some interesting stuff here.

 

[thierry henry]

I actually agree, but I've just about given up arguing the point

Surely it's more difficult to get 20*, 20*, 20*, 20*, 20, all in different conditions and having to get set again each time, then it is just to make 100 in one innings! Yet NO-ONE sees it this way- people tend to think that the first player's average exaggerates his performances and is somehow improperly obtained, for reasons I absolutely do not get.

 

[Swervy]

I actually agree, but I've just about given up arguing the point

Surely it's more difficult to get 20*, 20*, 20*, 20*, 20, all in different conditions and having to get set again each time, then it is just to make 100 in one innings! Yet NO-ONE sees it this way- people tend to think that the first player's average exaggerates his performances and is somehow improperly obtained, for reasons I absolutely do not get.

no its not easier to get a string of 20* 's rather than a hundred

edit: sorry got that wrong way round, no its not harder to get the 20 not outs than a hundred

 

[Ikki]

A question:

Hadlee had 19 not outs and averaged 27 in his career. Does he have any peak similar to Imran? Imran has 25 not outs, by the way.

 

[marc71178]

Marc, why do you still bother posting? Your opinion doesn't matter to anyone.

So you think 5 centuries in 10 years is great then do you?