*SHRUG*, call it what you will. I am not sure what 'over reliance' would mean, but I certainly think they are a big part of cricket and yes, a large part of the overall judge of a player. Not the sole obviously, but a big part.
That's an interesting take on things - in effect you're equating a 37 batting average with a 27 bowling average - based on what exactly?
OK then here goes - using stats:
Imran - decent(37) to great(51). Sobers poor (34) to decent (27). (I'm talking about Imran's batting and Sobers' bowling).
That's over-simplifying things, though. No, you can't realise every twist and turn of a game just on the scorecard, but you can make a pretty accurate summary of each individual's contribution. Not neccessarily the little nitty-gritty parts, but the important stuff (ie, who scored runs, who didn't concede runs, who conceded runs, who didn't score runs, who took wickets, who got out, who didn't get out, who didn't take wickets). Of course, one thing scorecards, sadly, don't show is dropped catches and bad Umpiring decisions, and that's one thing which could do with being recorded, which would make a whole extra set of stats.
Adharcric: Excellent post.
Also, I want to add: regardless of my understanding of the game, a lot of players also place huge emphasis on stats. Look at Hadlee...I would claim that he had more than a passing knowledge of the game, and he was known for that kind of that.
Uhh yeah, that explains why Hadlee rated Lillee as the best bowler of his generation despite having superior stats himself.
That works too.
If Imran was an infinitely better bowler than Sobers, what does that prove on the all-rounder point when Sobers was an infintiely bettre batsman? He batted higher than Imran for the most part, scored more runs at a better rate, more tons and dominated bowling in a way Imran didn't.
Interestingly, he had a reputation as a selfish cricketer. Go figure.
Yeah totally agree as well. Good debate though and has been a top thread for over 30 pages.
He was misunderstood TBH. Went about playing cricket in a very professional and clinical manner, which some people didn't like. He knew what he was doing though, and every time he picked up a 5'fer or scored a half century it was helping the team he played in, whether it was Canterbury, Notts or New Zealand.
No, my whole point is that whether discussing peak or career average, Imran's weaker discipline is stronger than Sobers' weaker discipline and hence a more rounded all-rounder. And when we're taking peaks, it is something like a 10 year sample, rather than just 7 test matches (which would equate to 1 year now). The thing that lingers with Khan is that once he improved his batting, it didn't drop, he just retired. Which is different with Sobers who we're taking a peak in the middle of his careeer. As he aged, Imran actually batted better and was regarded an easy #5 batsmen.