At this stage in the debate I doubt very much whether any minds are likely to be changed by argument. I remain, however, astonished at the hubris displayed by those who question Sobers' credentials. I saw the man play many times, and consider him to be the greatest ever all-rounder in the history of the game. I am humble enough to admit that my judgment may be wrong. The problem, however, is that virtually all of the cricketers and journalists who saw Sobers said the same thing. Some of them were old enough to evaluate the players of one or two generations preceding Sobers, including all-rounders such as Wilfred Rhodes, Frank Woolley and Keith Miller. Others saw Imran, Botham, Kapil and Procter from the next generation, and continue to rank Sobers ahead of all other contenders.
We are not talking about one or two isolated individuals here. In my original post I listed a few of them – men such as John Arlott, Trevor Bailey, Bishan Bedi, Geoff Boycott, Don Bradman, Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Dennis Compton, Colin Cowdrey, Jack Fingleton, Wes Hall, Ray Illingworth, Alan Knott, Clive Lloyd, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Barry Richards, John Snow, E.W. Swanton, Clyde Walcott, Everton Weekes and John Woodcock. I could name many others, but this list is imposing enough as it stands.
The only people who insist that Sobers was a mediocre bowler appear not to have seen him play and have no obvious credentials for making such a judgment.
I have three questions for them:
1. Can you name a single cricketer or journalist of distinction who saw Sobers play and agrees with your view?
2. Can you tell us what special insight you possess that is denied to the rest of us – including virtually all the cricketers and journalists who saw him?
3. Are you at least prepared to consider the possibility that maybe – just maybe -your criteria rather than the unanimous view of knowledgeable observers might be wrong?
