Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Richard]

A genuine Afridi there, and I'll actually be pushing hard for it this time.

 

[marc71178]

But 27 is his peak mate and it didn't last near as long as Imran's batting peak of 51-53.

2 years or something difference.

And at the same time you ignore the much vaster gap between their batting abilities (relative to the gap between bowling)

 

[silentstriker]

2 years or something difference.

And at the same time you ignore the much vaster gap between their batting abilities (relative to the gap between bowling)

Well bowling is widely seen as more important to batting in terms of match winning ability, so they should be weighed slightly differently. But I agree that the difference in bowling ability, though large, was not as large as their batting ability.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The best players win you games of cricket. End of story.

For all this talk of Sobers' bowling vs Imran's batting, I'd dare guess that Sobers bowling was a main reason for a West Indies victory many more times than:

a) you guys give him credit for.
b) such broad statistics can show.
c) than Imran contributed to victory for Pakistan with the bat.

 

[Swervy]

The best players win you games of cricket. End of story.

For all this talk of Sobers' bowling vs Imran's batting, I'd dare guess that Sobers bowling was a main reason for a West Indies victory many more times than:

a) you guys give him credit for.
b) such broad statistics can show.
c) than Imran contributed to victory for Pakistan with the bat.

bob on!!!

That is exactly what the game is about..winning.

 

[Richard]

How many d'you reckon?

The most interesting thing about that early part is the number of zero-wicket games... and the number of times there are not-many-overs-bowled in that time.

 

[silentstriker]

The best players win you games of cricket. End of story.

For all this talk of Sobers' bowling vs Imran's batting, I'd dare guess that Sobers bowling was a main reason for a West Indies victory many more times than:

a) you guys give him credit for.
b) such broad statistics can show.
c) than Imran contributed to victory for Pakistan with the bat.

THat works in some sports, not in cricket. You can look at performances in games won, but you can't really do 'Did he win us the game singlehandedly?' I mean even Laxman's 281 wouldn't have been enough to win a game if it hadn't been for Harbhajan's performances. It is almost impossible to win a cricket game singlehandedly without at least someone else helping you out.

 

[vic_orthdox]

How many d'you reckon?

The most interesting thing about that early part is the number of zero-wicket games... and the number of times there are not-many-overs-bowled in that time.

There are a million more things that those "stats" don't say than what they do.

 

[Richard]

There are a million more things that those "stats" don't say than what they do.

Sorry, no-one will ever convince me that a bowler who took none-for (especially if it's in 6 overs) played any significant part in a Test-match victory.

I've actually just taken a slightly deeper look at Sobers' bowling stats, and the results are interesting. It's very much a four-part career.

 

[Richard]

THat works in some sports, not in cricket. You can look at performances in games won, but you can't really do 'Did he win us the game singlehandedly?' I mean even Laxman's 281 wouldn't have been enough to win a game if it hadn't been for Harbhajan's performances. It is almost impossible to win a cricket game singlehandedly without at least someone else helping you out.

Scratch the almost. Unless you take 20 wickets, all 20 bowled, for not-many and somehow manage to monoplise the strike for every ball of your team's only innings, you can't win a match singlehandedly.

And I've mentioned that Laxman-Harbhajan game many times in said context. Laxman put India in a position to win it, Harbhajan won it. Only bowlers can win games.

 

[Ikki]

2 years or something difference.

And at the same time you ignore the much vaster gap between their batting abilities (relative to the gap between bowling)

53 test matches, 10 years. What was Sobers'?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Sorry, no-one will ever convince me that a bowler who took none-for (especially if it's in 6 overs) played any significant part in a Test-match victory.

I've actually just taken a slightly deeper look at Sobers' bowling stats, and the results are interesting. It's very much a four-part career.

Yes, the whole 8 or whatever times that happened is completely relevant over a whole career.

A list of match by match statistics don't tell the importance of any of those 235 wickets in determining the outcome of a game of cricket. The only thing that can is seeing the performance.

 

[Ikki]

The best players win you games of cricket. End of story.

For all this talk of Sobers' bowling vs Imran's batting, I'd dare guess that Sobers bowling was a main reason for a West Indies victory many more times than:

a) you guys give him credit for.
b) such broad statistics can show.
c) than Imran contributed to victory for Pakistan with the bat.

But the best thing you can say about Sobers' bowling was that it was economical. He had a poor test average because of his poor strike rate. How is he going to sway any matches when it takes him almost 92 balls to take a wicket and gives away 34 runs whilst doing so? Most times he was keeping the run rate down.

 

[vic_orthdox]

THat works in some sports, not in cricket. You can look at performances in games won, but you can't really do 'Did he win us the game singlehandedly?' I mean even Laxman's 281 wouldn't have been enough to win a game if it hadn't been for Harbhajan's performances. It is almost impossible to win a cricket game singlehandedly without at least someone else helping you out.

Here's a better term for you then: game determining, or game changing.

 

[vic_orthdox]

But the best thing you can say about Sobers' bowling was that it was economical. He had a poor test average because of his poor strike rate. How is he going to sway any matches when it takes him almost 34 balls to take a wicket and gives away 34 runs whilst doing so? Most times he was keeping the run rate down.

The best thing that you can say about anybody's bowling is specific references to their effect on a game, not taking 17 years worth and terming it "economical".

 

[Richard]

Yes, the whole 8 or whatever times that happened is completely relevant over a whole career.

A list of match by match statistics don't tell the importance of any of those 235 wickets in determining the outcome of a game of cricket. The only thing that can is seeing the performance.

That's simply not true. Someone could tell me that someone who'd taken 1-113 in a game had played a massive part in winning it - I'd not believe them for a second (not that many if any would be crackpot enough to suggest such a thing).

Determining the outcome of a Test-match as a bowler is about one thing - taking wickets while not conceding runs. How you do that is just that - how. Unless you do do that, you're not making a contribution.

 

[Ikki]

The best thing that you can say about anybody's bowling is specific references to their effect on a game, not taking 17 years worth and terming it "economical".

I don't understand what you mean. If a bowler takes even 500 wickets but it takes him 500 test matches to do so, then it doesn't say much about his wicket taking ability. If a bowler takes 500 wickets but leaks 17,000 test runs, then it doesn't say much about the value of his wickets in terms of the runs he leaks. But if he gives away about 2.2 runs an over, over the span of a long career, than you can say he was economical.

 

[pasag]

The best players win you games of cricket. End of story.

For all this talk of Sobers' bowling vs Imran's batting, I'd dare guess that Sobers bowling was a main reason for a West Indies victory many more times than:

a) you guys give him credit for.
b) such broad statistics can show.
c) than Imran contributed to victory for Pakistan with the bat.

Afridi.

 

[Ikki]

Actually, toward the end of Imran's career his batting contributed to many of Pakistan's wins - I haven't looked as much elsewhere in his career though.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I don't understand what you mean. If a bowler takes even 500 wickets but it takes him 500 test matches to do so, then it doesn't say much about his wicket taking ability. If a bowler takes 500 wickets but leaks 17,000 test runs, then it doesn't say much about the value of his wickets in terms of the runs he leaks. But if he gives away about 2.2 runs an over, over the span of a long career, than you can say he was economical.

You bowl to help win your side a game of cricket. All anecdotal evidence points towards Sobers doing that more often than a bunch of numbers suggest.