Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Richard]

Afridi.

Nah, I liked Manan's better.

Up to Akhil, though.

 

[vic_orthdox]

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.

What about a guy who has to bowl into a howling breeze all match while all the wickets came from other quick bowlers down the other end. What about the guy who helped execute plans, and its the others whom have benefited from it. What about the guy who provided pressure from one end the whole time, while other bowlers took wickets. All can make important contributions to a win, despite their performance not necessarily helping their career stats.

And you know who'll appreciate those efforts the most? Team-mates and opponents, funnily enough those whom always talked of Sobers being the best. Because in general, the journalists, media and "armchair experts" don't.

Glenn McGrath, throughout the last quarter of his career when people realised exactly how good he was, went through trots where he wouldn't be wrecking sides. He actually wasn't bowling badly, Australia was still winning, but he wasn't taking wickets. The papers would cry out that he'd lost it, only to find that a game or two later he's just helped roll a side for bugger all. He was the master of doing the sort of thing above.

 

[pasag]

Nah, I liked Manan's better.

Up to Akhil, though.

Don't want to stand in the way of SS getting an award though, especially with his extensive rifle collection

 

[Richard]

What about a guy who has to bowl into a howling breeze all match while all the wickets came from other quick bowlers down the other end.

Howling breezes are fairly rare. Of course, someone who has to bowl into one throughout a game is a) very poorly treated by those responsible for giving him the job and b) doing a good job, but not the sort of job you'd expect from a top-class bowler.

What about the guy who helped execute plans, and its the others whom have benefited from it.

You know my feelings on that - I don't believe in "taking wickets at the other end". If bowlers are good enough to earn wickets, they will. If they aren't, they won't.

Except, of course, when they're gifted them.

What about the guy who provided pressure from one end the whole time, while other bowlers took wickets.

You know my feelings on that, too - I don't feel that a bowler keeping down the run-rate is doing the job of a Test bowler. If you want to be described as good, you have to take wickets yourself, through your own skill. I don't feel that a bowler deserves to be described as top-class for keeping a run-rate down while others take wickets. I also feel people often simplistically dumb-down the "he takes wickets, he keeps it tight at the other end". And almost every time I've seen that sort of stuff described it's been nonsense. Doesn't mean it didn't happen a bit more in days gone by, though.

And you know who'll appreciate those efforts the most? Team-mates and opponents, funnily enough those whom always talked of Sobers being the best. Because in general, the journalists, media and "armchair experts" don't.

So they might be keen to talk-up their team-mate who's helped them out beyond his worth.

 

[Swervy]

Howling breezes are fairly rare. Of course, someone who has to bowl into one throughout a game is a) very poorly treated by those responsible for giving him the job and b) doing a good job, but not the sort of job you'd expect from a top-class bowler.

You know my feelings on that - I don't believe in "taking wickets at the other end". If bowlers are good enough to earn wickets, they will. If they aren't, they won't.

Except, of course, when they're gifted them.

You know my feelings on that, too - I don't feel that a bowler keeping down the run-rate is doing the job of a Test bowler. If you want to be described as good, you have to take wickets yourself, through your own skill. I don't feel that a bowler deserves to be described as top-class for keeping a run-rate down while others take wickets. I also feel people often simplistically dumb-down the "he takes wickets, he keeps it tight at the other end". And almost every time I've seen that sort of stuff described it's been nonsense. Doesn't mean it didn't happen a bit more in days gone by, though.

So they might be keen to talk-up their team-mate who's helped them out beyond his worth.

I think this dispays a lack of understanding of how top flight cricket actually works

 

[Ikki]

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.

Yes, hearsay evidence does concur but that isn't the point. That anecdotal evidence would really be of value if the numbers were actually inclined with that perception? Otherwise it could just be bias? You can see how that may happen right?

So what you're concerned with as a bowler is really his wicket-taking ability leveling out with his leaking of runs to get those wickets. And the one thing that is clearly evident is that Sobers didn't take as many wickets as he should of in regards to the mass amount of overs he bowled and from wicket to wicket he gave up more runs than you'd want from your bowler. The only thing that stands him in good stead is that he didn't give those runs away at a high rate, but was economical.

I mean, I don't care if a lot of people said he was a really good bowler, his career stats say otherwise. His career stats also don't know what era it is, don't know how cool West Indies are or don't care about what Bradman said.

 

[Ikki]

Glenn McGrath, throughout the last quarter of his career when people realised exactly how good he was, went through trots where he wouldn't be wrecking sides. He actually wasn't bowling badly, Australia was still winning, but he wasn't taking wickets. The papers would cry out that he'd lost it, only to find that a game or two later he's just helped roll a side for bugger all. He was the master of doing the sort of thing above.

And that's the precise problem with hearsay. It really means nothing if the stats/facts behind them aren't backing up their argument. You want to know if McGrath is a good bowler? Just analyse his stats properly and you'll come to the conclusion that he is one of the best ever. You flip, switch and screw Sobers stats and you come up with an average bowler with Kallis-like figures. You take his career figures and not even that.

That's kind of the difference between his bowling and Imran's batting. Imran's batting as it is on face value is decent, but when you take into account how much it improved and his average of the last 10 years then you start appreciating that at the end he was more of a #5 than a #7. Whereas with Sobers on face value it is poor and when you look at it closer it just becomes average.

Imran - decent to great. Sobers - poor to decent.

 

[steve132]

1.The problems is that most of people who saw Sobers play didn't watch Imran play at his peak.People consider those to be best whom they saw them play.An X person would say that X bowler than all others (based on he watched him play throught his career).After 30 or 40 years another person Y can make the same statement about another person.For this reason,as I've said many times before,I prefer to judge quality of players through properly analyzed stats rather than the opinion of different person(whoever they might be).People can be biased ,stats can't.So, properly analyzed stats are more reliable than opinion of different persons.

2.The point of viewof most people is based on the opinion of different people while mine is based purely on stats.

3.Of course, I'm a human & no authority in this matter,so I might be wrong & they all might be right.

1. Most of the people who believe Sobers to be the greatest also saw Imran at his peak. I know that there is a tendency for cricketers (indeed, all sports people) to favor players of their own generation, but this does not apply in this instance. Men such as John Arlott, Don Bradman and E.W. Swanton saw Rhodes and Woolley, and then Miller of the next generation. When Sobers came along they proclaimed him to be the greatest ever. They did not change their minds when Imran or Botham appeared.

The inability of Sobers' critics to identify any cricketer of note who shares their view is, in my view, the clearest indication that their thesis lacks merit.

2. A wise man once said that statistics are like bikinis - what they reveal is interesting but what they conceal is critical. The issue is not whether statistics matter but whether the inferences drawn from them are correct. In my first post I provided the example of Peter May and Ken Barrington. Barrington averaged 58 over a longer Test career to May's 46, yet everyone who saw both of them consider May to be the greater player. I have even seen people question whether W.G. Grace was a great player because he averaged "only" 32 as a Test batsman.

We need to understand statistics in their context. In his prime Sobers was recognized as one of the most effective bowlers on a West Indian team that was the best in the world. If a statistical analysis does not show this the problem is with the analysis, not with the judgment of all informed observers.

 

[Richard]

I think this dispays a lack of understanding of how top flight cricket actually works

You've thought that a fair few times before, TBH.

 

[Swervy]

You've thought that a fair few times before, TBH.

Which doesn't add anything to what you have said, and doesn't detract from what I have said

 

[Ikki]

1. Most of the people who believe Sobers to be the greatest also saw Imran at his peak. I know that there is a tendency for cricketers (indeed, all sports people) to favor players of their own generation, but this does not apply in this instance. Men such as John Arlott, Don Bradman and E.W. Swanton saw Rhodes and Woolley, and then Miller of the next generation. When Sobers came along they proclaimed him to be the greatest ever. They did not change their minds when Imran or Botham appeared.

The inability of Sobers' critics to identify any cricketer of note who shares their view is, in my view, the clearest indication that their thesis lacks merit.

2. A wise man once said that statistics are like bikinis - what they reveal is interesting but what they conceal is critical. The issue is not whether statistics matter but whether the inferences drawn from them are correct. In my first post I provided the example of Peter May and Ken Barrington. Barrington averaged 58 over a longer Test career to May's 46, yet everyone who saw both of them consider May to be the greater player. I have even seen people question whether W.G. Grace was a great player because he averaged "only" 32 as a Test batsman.

We need to understand statistics in their context. In his prime Sobers was recognized as one of the most effective bowlers on a West Indian team that was the best in the world. If a statistical analysis does not show this the problem is with the analysis, not with the judgment of all informed observers.

With all due respect mate, yourself and some others keep coming in with "stats hide things", "stats don't always tell the true story"...well, I've been inviting yourself and some others to reveal what it is we're missing.

The fact that you're wanting hearsay evidence as a point of fact is quite worrying. Wasim said he was the best, Sachin said he was the best, Chappelli says he was the greatest. Read all this everywhere. What does it matter?

You say Sobers was touted as one of the most effective bowlers? What is effective? Is it taking wickets, because he isn't an effective wicket taker? Is it his average per wicket figures, that too is nothing to write home about? Was it because he was economical and could bowl many types, perhaps?

But it is not a single stat that refutes Sobers fame in bowling, it is pretty much them all. So I find it hard to believe the problem is with the analysis and it is definitely with the observers. As a lot of them have even admitted in this thread, "from what I heard, from what I read...". That doesn't seem to be a cogent argument to me especially in consideration to how his stats really are.

I conceded that I understand what you're saying which is why I rate Lillee ahead of Marshall and Warne clearly ahead of Murali, but in this case the anecdotal evidence just can't make up that much ground.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think this dispays a lack of understanding of how top flight cricket actually works

Yeah, pretty spot on TBH.

Yes, hearsay evidence does concur but that isn't the point. That anecdotal evidence would really be of value if the numbers were actually inclined with that perception? Otherwise it could just be bias? You can see how that may happen right?

When it's such a wide range of nationalities, ages, personalities, etc. whom say that Sobers was the best, how does bias come into it?

So what you're concerned with as a bowler is really his wicket-taking ability leveling out with his leaking of runs to get those wickets.

No, that's you putting words in my mouth.

And the one thing that is clearly evident is that Sobers didn't take as many wickets as he should of in regards to the mass amount of overs he bowled and from wicket to wicket he gave up more runs than you'd want from your bowler. The only thing that stands him in good stead is that he didn't give those runs away at a high rate, but was economical.

The point that I continue to emphasize is that looking at career statistics does not reflect on how he influenced matches with the ball. That is how a player builds a legacy and a reputation, and it is clear that he has built a reputation for having an effect on matches that far exceeds what pure numbers say.

I mean, I don't care if a lot of people said he was a really good bowler, his career stats say otherwise. His career stats also don't know what era it is, don't know how cool West Indies are or don't care about what Bradman said.

Nor do stats care about who won or lost, or why. Good players care only about contributing towards winning, and what they can do towards achieving that goal. As I've alluded to, it's not always being the star.

 

[vic_orthdox]

With all due respect mate, yourself and some others keep coming in with "stats hide things", "stats don't always tell the true story"...well, I've been inviting yourself and some others to reveal what it is we're missing.

Funnily enough, what we've missed is watching him play cricket, playing against him, viewing him in action, seeing the effect he had on matches. Once again, funnily enough, those who did seem to be in agreeance that he was the best, including those whom played against and saw the other candidates.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, pretty spot on TBH.
When it's such a wide range of nationalities, ages, personalities, etc. whom say that Sobers was the best, how does bias come into it?

Because bias can be anything. It doesn't have to based on any of the above. Heck, you could like someone just because you like their hair. You could like someone because everyone else likes them. What does it matter? The point is that there can be bias, not what the bias is. And people are susceptible to that, stats aren't.

So what you're concerned with as a bowler is really his wicket-taking ability leveling out with his leaking of runs to get those wickets.
No, that's you putting words in my mouth. The point that I continue to emphasize is that looking at career statistics does not reflect on how he influenced matches with the ball. That is how a player builds a legacy and a reputation, and it is clear that he has built a reputation for having an effect on matches that far exceeds what pure numbers say.

I don't mean YOU as in 'you', I mean in general. You don't consider a bowler who doesn't take many wickets and concedes more than desired runs per wicket as a good bowler. Which is exactly what Sobers was. Unless, I'm sure, you're of the minority that would consider a bowler's economy as his main goal?

Nor do stats care about who won or lost, or why. Good players care only about contributing towards winning, and what they can do towards achieving that goal. As I've alluded to, it's not always being the star.

Mate, that's a cop out. A bowler contributes to winning by taking wickets and by doing it as cheap as possible. The more consistent a bowler is at doing this the better a bowler he is. Not only is Sobers not really a wicket-taking bowler, he didn't do it consistently.

So what IS it that Sobers could do, that isn't already quantified, in a test match that justifies this hyperbole?

 

[Ikki]

Funnily enough, what we've missed is watching him play cricket, playing against him, viewing him in action, seeing the effect he had on matches. Once again, funnily enough, those who did seem to be in agreeance that he was the best, including those whom played against and saw the other candidates.

So, with the reasoning above, we shouldn't consider Bradman the best ever? Because we hadn't watched him? Sorry, there seems to be promotion of a large game of chinese whispers here.

If Sobers was a good bowler it would reflect in the quantified stats. It's that simple. Unless there is some secret cricket measure here we don't know about, in regards to bowling, then the above really doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Meh, I've had enough of chatting to a scarecrow. I've already made my point numerous times, and see no further point in doing so.

I do want to clarify that I'm not saying that Sobers was nearly as good as Imran with the ball, or an all-time great bowler. In fact, I'm not really wanting to post about Sobers at all. I'm more talking about statistics, and their relative worth, which funnily enough tends to only matter to those behind computers and buried in books. The only thing that matters is a player's ability to change the direction of a match, and make it more likely that their side will win. This outstrips the importance of any statistics, and is something that statistics will never ever be able to fully show in its importance.

 

[silentstriker]

Meh, I've had enough of chatting to a scarecrow. I've already made my point numerous times, and see no further point in doing so.

I do want to clarify that I'm not saying that Sobers was nearly as good as Imran with the ball, or an all-time great bowler. In fact, I'm not really wanting to post about Sobers at all. I'm more talking about statistics, and their relative worth, which funnily enough tends to only matter to those behind computers and buried in books. The only thing that matters is a player's ability to change the direction of a match, and make it more likely that their side will win. This outstrips the importance of any statistics, and is something that statistics will never ever be able to fully show in its importance.

But then you are not really judging players, are you? If your team is good, then you alone would need to contribute only a little bit to 'steer' the team to victory. If it sucks, you have to do a lot more to even come close. Basically you are advocating team win/loss records as the ultimate judge of an individual player, which is massively unfair to the vast majority of non-Australian and non-West Indian greats (and even a lot of Australian and West Indian greats).

No one will convince me that statistics, properly taken and interpreted are not massively massively important to the game of cricket.

 

[vic_orthdox]

But then you are not really judging players, are you?

You judge players by what you see, hear, read of them. Stats are just a substitute for making your own opinion, and are the only thing that many of us people have to judge by, and it's a sad thing. It's sad on two counts:

• that we weren't able to see most of the great players in their pomp.
• that past players' legacies are determined by people running a ruler over a bunch of numbers, as more and more people who saw these players pass on.
  
  Think of a scorecard. When you read it, you still don't fully understand how the game panned out, and what were the critical points, and who turned the game. Stats are a collation of scorecards. That's all.

 

[adharcric]

But then you are not really judging players, are you? If your team is good, then you alone would need to contribute only a little bit to 'steer' the team to victory. If it sucks, you have to do a lot more to even come close. Basically you are advocating team win/loss records as the ultimate judge of an individual player, which is massively unfair to the vast majority of non-Australian and non-West Indian greats (and even a lot of Australian and West Indian greats).

No one will convince me that statistics, properly taken and interpreted are not massively massively important to the game of cricket.

Statistics are not the essence of sport. Statistics are a limited means to interpret performance in sport. They are certainly important but they are not the ultimate judge of a player's performance. To be honest, an overreliance on and obsession with statistics indicates a lack of experience with (and a limited understanding of) the game.

 

[Ikki]

Meh, I've had enough of chatting to a scarecrow. I've already made my point numerous times, and see no further point in doing so.

I do want to clarify that I'm not saying that Sobers was nearly as good as Imran with the ball, or an all-time great bowler. In fact, I'm not really wanting to post about Sobers at all. I'm more talking about statistics, and their relative worth, which funnily enough tends to only matter to those behind computers and buried in books. The only thing that matters is a player's ability to change the direction of a match, and make it more likely that their side will win. This outstrips the importance of any statistics, and is something that statistics will never ever be able to fully show in its importance.

You judge players by what you see, hear, read of them. Stats are just a substitute for making your own opinion, and are the only thing that many of us people have to judge by, and it's a sad thing. It's sad on two counts:

• that we weren't able to see most of the great players in their pomp.
• that past players' legacies are determined by people running a ruler over a bunch of numbers, as more and more people who saw these players pass on.
  
  Think of a scorecard. When you read it, you still don't fully understand how the game panned out, and what were the critical points, and who turned the game. Stats are a collation of scorecards. That's all.

• 
  
  
  Vic mate, I understand what you're saying with stats but in this comparison it just isn't apt.
  
  All the important variables of what makes a good bowler are quantified. So, what you're saying in that there are things stats don't tell the story don't mean much. Because the most important things ARE quantified.
  
  And still, I've asked you, not being crass or anything, what is it that we're missing from Sobers that could possibly/reasonably make up for the lack of reflection in those stats?
  
  I understand, sometimes a bowler can bowl wickedly well and go for 0/34 and end up with bad stats, but to imply that a certain bowler had a career full of that is beyond exaggerated, to be honest.
  
  So I ask you and others that stick to the 'anecdotal evidence', what is it that isn't already quantified by clear stats that isn't being taken into account for Sobers? There is no point to saying "stats don't tell the whole story". How about telling us how in Sobers' case it doesn't tell the whole story?