Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Ikki]

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

Along with 15 50s, yeah. For 10 years (51 tests) primarily as a #7.

 

[Richard]

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.

I actually see both sides of that argument. Consistency is very much the mark of a good player, and obviously I'd prefer someone who made 70, 60, 20, 9, 80, 63 than someone who made 210, 4, 9, 18, 21, 13. But equally, no-one will ever convince me that this Imran was better than this Botham. And the Imran pre-this-period and the Botham post-that-period don't matter - at all - to me.

This is not to say I feel Botham was a better all-rounder than Imran, not at all. Imran was the better bowler and was also the better bowler for longer (30 games for Botham, 71 for Imran). But as batsmen, Botham of the prime was better. Even though Imran's average is 4 points higher.

 

[Richard]

About not-outs, some interesting stuff here.

That's fascinating.

 

[Richard]

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.

Hadlee had no real peak and as I've said several times, calling him an "all-rounder" is a bit rich IMO. He was a top-class bowler who could bat... but not as well as Kapil, Imran (of his prime) or Botham (of his prime).

 

[Anil]

Hadlee had no real peak and as I've said several times, calling him an "all-rounder" is a bit rich IMO. He was a top-class bowler who could bat... but not as well as Kapil, Imran (of his prime) or Botham (of his prime).

yes hadlee was not a real allrounder..at least not in the league of the great allrounders like the others mentioned...he was a late order batsman and not very dependable at that, he was just a fantastic bowler who could bat decently...

 

[roseboy64]

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

Well that's a mature statement.

 

[vic_orthdox]

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.

Which one is more likely to have won your side a game of cricket?

 

[Richard]

Well that's a mature statement.

I'm presuming Martin wasn't being entirely serious there.

 

[J.J.B.Lewis]

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.

I have no problems with anyone who believes that Sobers is the greatest allrounder ever(even though he is the 4th best of alltime for me) but I really hate bull**** like Sobers first,daylight second........................,thats pure rubbish.

 

[Perm]

I have no problems with anyone who believes that Sobers is the greatest allrounder ever(even though he is the 4th best of alltime for me) but I really hate bull**** like Sobers first,daylight second........................,thats pure rubbish.

No it's not rubbish, just because you disagree with it does not make it rubbish.

 

[roseboy64]

I'm presuming Martin wasn't being entirely serious there.

Didn't seem to be so IMO.

 

[SJS]

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.

BRILLIANT !!!
​

 

[Richard]

Didn't seem to be so IMO.

He's not the sort to make that sort of comment in seriousness. And I know him faaaaaiiiirly well.

 

[SJS]

"There are so many batsmen who are close to being the same mark. If you asked me who is the best, I'd start off by saying, well, there's George Headley, Everton Weekes, Barry Richards, Graham Pollock, Wally Hammond, Sir Jack Hobbs, Sir Len Hutton, Denis Compton ... you could go on with a list of them. They're all roughly the same skill, same ability. You wouldn't like to pick the best of them. But I could certainly say who was the best cricketer I saw, the best all rounder, and that was Gary Sobers. I think he was unquestionably the best cricketer I set eyes on."

That quote is from someone who played against Jack Hobbs (presumably he watched cricketers even before that), watched cricketers and appreciated them for as recently as with Lara and Tendulkar, played a bit of international cricket himself - enough to be knighted for his game. Maybe we should asuume he knew a bit about cricket and cricketers and knew what he was talking about.

PS: and he wasn't West Indian to be speaking highly of Sir Garfield.

 

[thierry henry]

Well that's a mature statement.

Indeed it is, like a fine wine, pondered and mulled over for the 4+ years that I've been here.

 

[thierry henry]

Which one is more likely to have won your side a game of cricket?

In the case of the not-outs, that player never had a chance to win a game. When analyzing individual performances you cannot put a black mark against someone's name for not being given the opportunity to win a game.

 

[thierry henry]

I have no problems with anyone who believes that Sobers is the greatest allrounder ever... but I really hate bull**** like Sobers first,daylight second........................,thats pure rubbish.

AGREE 100%

This is really all I ask

 

[J.J.B.Lewis]

"There are so many batsmen who are close to being the same mark. If you asked me who is the best, I'd start off by saying, well, there's George Headley, Everton Weekes, Barry Richards, Graham Pollock, Wally Hammond, Sir Jack Hobbs, Sir Len Hutton, Denis Compton ... you could go on with a list of them. They're all roughly the same skill, same ability. You wouldn't like to pick the best of them. But I could certainly say who was the best cricketer I saw, the best all rounder, and that was Gary Sobers. I think he was unquestionably the best cricketer I set eyes on."

That quote is from someone who played against Jack Hobbs (presumably he watched cricketers even before that), watched cricketers and appreciated them for as recently as with Lara and Tendulkar, played a bit of international cricket himself - enough to be knighted for his game. Maybe we should asuume he knew a bit about cricket and cricketers and knew what he was talking about.

PS: and he wasn't West Indian to be speaking highly of Sir Garfield.

I don't care what an X person says about an X player whom he likes.You are a good player if u perform,otherwise u r not(good performance is what Gary Sobers lacked).Stats(when analyzes properly) are the best possible way(not the ideal though) of judging how good an X/Y/Z player is/was especialy when u were not present to watch him play.People can be biased,stats can't.

 

[SJS]

I don't care what an X person says about an X player whom he likes.You are a good player if u perform,otherwise u r not(good performance is what Gary Sobers lacked).Stats(when analyzes properly) are the best possible way(not the ideal though) of judging how good an X/Y/Z player is/was especialy when u were not present to watch him play.People can be biased,stats can't.

The 'X' person WAS 'present' throughout Sobers career and himself made his debut half a century before Sobers (as I have stated but obviously missed) and lived for almost a quarter of a century after Sobers retired.

He also is wrote probably the finest book on cricket coaching (inspite of his own mildly unorthodox style by those standards) and is the undisputed greatest cricketer of all time.

Sir Donald Bradman knew a bit more than us about cricket.... or did he ??

 

[J.J.B.Lewis]

The 'X' person WAS 'present' throughout Sobers career and himself made his debut half a century before Sobers (as I have stated but obviously missed) and lived for almost a quarter of a century after Sobers retired.

He also is wrote probably the finest book on cricket coaching (inspite of his own mildly unorthodox style by those standards) and is the undisputed greatest cricketer of all time.

Sir Donald Bradman knew a bit more than us about cricket.... or did he ??

Don Bradman is definitely undisputed greatest cricketer ever(although there are some idiots like Sambit Pal & others who say Gary"I could bowl every style capily" is the greatest cricketer of alltime which is highly laughable because Sobers doesn't even come close to The Don) but being a great player of a particular sport neither makes u an "expert" nor any authority to decide who is good & who's bad.If u think good or great players are better judges & know more about the sport ten what would u say about Inzamam & some of the other players(the names of whom I don't want to mension) who hardly know anything even about some chief rules of cricket & rate crap players very highly & consider them "trump cards" despite having proven better players in the team.

Anyway, I would prefer to judge players on properly analyzed stats rather than on the opinion of X person(whoever he or she might be) about an X player.

I've always said that Sobers is one of the greatest batsmen ever(would easily make top 10 abtsmen of alltime,if not 5) & might make alltime XIs of many people on his batting alone but I just don't think He was a better allrounder than Imran Khan,Ian Botham & Keith Miller.