Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[honestbharani]

But by that accord, Sobers was not only a great batsmen but a great bowler - which I find really hard to believe. Sobers was a batting all-rounder who was handy with the ball. That's about as much as I can believe right now.

A bowler, who bowled as much as Sobers shouldn't be regarded as anything more than a handy bowler because of his economy and his versatility. I mean so few 4-fers or 5-fers? Could you imagine someone who has only 9 50s and 3 100s as one of the best batsmen of the era? And if you take into account the strike-rate, then it clears in more. If ALL those bowlers were of similar low merit, then maybe we should be reconsidering Sobers' batting prowess?

lol, he was a handy and versatile bowler because he took that role by choice. Just by looking at how he bowled and his repertoire and so on, so many ppl across so many nationalities have said that he COULD have been a great bowler had he so wanted and had he taken the lead bowler's role. Now how are you guys going to prove that it is all wrong? THAT is the reason why he is always the #1 all rounder pencilled into most all time sides.

 

[Ikki]

nope, for all rounders, esp one who always bowled the type that the pitch gave least help to, I think it is a fair enough figure, esp. if the best bowlers of that era were averaging mid 20s. Combining that with his enormous batting potential (people only say that he didn't do justice to his talent, in terms of batting average) and the fact that he performed against the best almost all the time (the World XI test match stats don't get counted but take a look at his performances then). I think his average is decent enough for him to be regarded as a good enough bowler at the international level.

But you're giving him leeway at both ends. If Sobers was good enough to be versatile and bowl where conditions served him, then that should mean he would end up with a BETTER average, not a worse one.

And Imran played well against the best too. Against the best-side of the era (The Windies), his Pakistan were it's realistic rivals - and that was due to his bowling and even his batting.

 

[honestbharani]

But by that accord, Sobers was not only a great batsmen but a great bowler - which I find really hard to believe. Sobers was a batting all-rounder who was handy with the ball. That's about as much as I can believe right now.

A bowler, who bowled as much as Sobers shouldn't be regarded as anything more than a handy bowler because of his economy and his versatility. I mean so few 4-fers or 5-fers? Could you imagine someone who has only 9 50s and 3 100s as one of the best batsmen of the era? And if you take into account the strike-rate, then it clears in more. If ALL those bowlers were of similar low merit, then maybe we should be reconsidering Sobers' batting prowess?

we could, but Windies were a rather weak bowling side at his time (certainly not as good as when the fearsome foursome got together). So maybe he played against better attacks and made more runs? Also, yes, we could reconsider his batting stats by also adding up the scores he made against the World XI. And the Packer series was a lot more serious and competitive thing than this super series bs.

 

[Ikki]

lol, he was a handy and versatile bowler because he took that role by choice. Just by looking at how he bowled and his repertoire and so on, so many ppl across so many nationalities have said that he COULD have been a great bowler had he so wanted and had he taken the lead bowler's role. Now how are you guys going to prove that it is all wrong? THAT is the reason why he is always the #1 all rounder pencilled into most all time sides.

LOL so we've jumped from hearsay into speculation. Okay, he COULD have been a great bowler. Sure. But I'm not interested in getting into a debate about that. For all good intentions, a lot of people thought Warne could have been a much better batsman if he cared. I don't see why that matters?

If Sobers could have helped his side by staying to one bowling type then he should have done it. Obviously it would/did benefit his side for him to bowl different types. But that doesn't mean he's going to be worse off for it. Because if he really couldn't bowl them effectively he shouldn't have had any business bowling them in the first place.

So what can be concluded is that he had limited progress in bowling 1 type, but could bowl them all relatively well. Well, that is great, but it still doesn't make him anything near what seems to be suggested - him being one of the best bowlers.

 

[Perm]

LOL so we've jumped from hearsay into speculation. Okay, he COULD have been a great bowler. Sure. But I'm not interested in getting into a debate about that. For all good intentions, a lot of people thought Warne could have been a much better batter if he cared. I don't see why that matters?

If Sobers could have helped his side by staying to one bowling type then he should have done it. Obviously it would did benefit his side for him to bowl different types. But that doesn't mean he's going to be worse off for it. Because if he really couldn't bowl them effectively he shouldn't have had any business bowling them in the first place.

So what can be concluded is that he limited talent in bowling 1 type, but could bowl them all relatively well. Well, that is great, but it still doesn't make him anything near what seems to be suggested - him being one of the best bowlers.

Batsman

 

[Ikki]

Batsman

*whistles like nothing happened and walks away*

 

[Perm]

*whistles like nothing happened and walks away*

Thanks for changing it. One of the things that annoys me the most.

 

[honestbharani]

LOL so we've jumped from hearsay into speculation. Okay, he COULD have been a great bowler. Sure. But I'm not interested in getting into a debate about that. For all good intentions, a lot of people thought Warne could have been a much better batsman if he cared. I don't see why that matters?

If Sobers could have helped his side by staying to one bowling type then he should have done it. Obviously it would/did benefit his side for him to bowl different types. But that doesn't mean he's going to be worse off for it. Because if he really couldn't bowl them effectively he shouldn't have had any business bowling them in the first place.

So what can be concluded is that he had limited progress in bowling 1 type, but could bowl them all relatively well. Well, that is great, but it still doesn't make him anything near what seems to be suggested - him being one of the best bowlers.

Nope, I am not saying he is one of the best bowlers at all. I am just saying he was a good bowler, who could have been great had he bowled the variety that was aided by the pitch and stuff. Maybe if his team didn't have many strike bowlers, he would stuck to bowling left arm fast medium and done really well and so on. Imran is easily the better bowler but then again, for my money, Sobers is easily the better all rounder because he gives the side so much more options than Imran does. And I am not sure if Imran is good enough to bat in the top 6 anyway. Sobers is more than good as the 5th bowler though.

 

[honestbharani]

LOL so we've jumped from hearsay into speculation. Okay, he COULD have been a great bowler. Sure. But I'm not interested in getting into a debate about that. For all good intentions, a lot of people thought Warne could have been a much better batsman if he cared. I don't see why that matters?

If Sobers could have helped his side by staying to one bowling type then he should have done it. Obviously it would/did benefit his side for him to bowl different types. But that doesn't mean he's going to be worse off for it. Because if he really couldn't bowl them effectively he shouldn't have had any business bowling them in the first place.

So what can be concluded is that he had limited progress in bowling 1 type, but could bowl them all relatively well. Well, that is great, but it still doesn't make him anything near what seems to be suggested - him being one of the best bowlers.

it matters because unlike with Warney, it is not like Sobers didn't care abt his bowling. It is just that he became the workhorse so that this team could get the best benefit. I mean, if u pick an all time XI on a dustbowl and u want a trio of Warne, Murali AND Reilly to play, then it is obvious that u will ask Sobers to bowl with the new ball alongside whoever is ur #1 pacer so that ur team has the best chance of winning. Just as obviously, he won't get great figures but still, u would rather have him than another all rounder because of THIS quality that he brings to the side. Theoretically, u can just replace Reilly and Murali/Warne with another two all time great seamers if the next game is at Perth and ask Sobers to partner Warney in that track and help out the team's balance that way. These are the reasons why he is regarded as the greatest all rounder of all time.


And for the last time, it has never been my opinion that Sobers was better than Imran as a bowler.

 

[Ikki]

I am not comparing Sobers' bowling to Imran's. That wouldn't make sense as Imran is one of the all-time best bowlers. Just as it wouldn't make sense to compare the players' batting abilities.

But the point is that Sobers didn't average 27, he averaged 34. This isn't about one instance where it could have been to his benefit or his disadvantage to be able to bowl a certain variety and be a workhorse, this is his whole career here. Otherwise some may as well tout Imran's batting average of 53 and regale him as one of the better batsmen of the era. He wasn't, he filled in very well though.

I've been of the understanding that a good bowler is one that will take as many wickets as he can and be as miserly as possible, in the process. But you can't compare his peak to other bowler's average career stats. I mean Benaud averages 27 and at some point in Sobers' career he averaged that too - but that was his best point. I'm sure if we take out Benaud's fruitless first six years then maybe we can see how great he "could have been" too. I find those comparisons the unrealistic ones.

I also find it hard to believe that someone who takes 1 wicket per every 16 overs to have that kind of potential. I believe he was solid enough to hold his end, but just not a wicket-taking bowler for mine. And I think that's where it lies. He'd not be knocked over the park, even if he took few wickets, and he wouldn't look so bad for an all-rounder. But whew - I'm running out of what to say here - there is just too much talk rather than action for mine.

 

[Richard]

Uhh yeah, that explains why Hadlee rated Lillee as the best bowler of his generation despite having superior stats himself.

That's easily explained by hero-worship. Hadlee modelled himself on Lillee, so would naturally think Lillee was better than him.

 

[Richard]

Anyone thought of comparing Sobers' bowling average with other bowlers of the period?

Though, iirc, Sobers was quite a long lived cricketer compared to many of that era.

Just from recollection alone, quick bowlers like Snow (perhaps England's best ever quick) averaged around the mid 20 mark and Garth McKenzie, who carried the Aussie bowling for years after Davidson retired, averaged just under 30 - yet Lillee credits him as one of the greatest Aussie quicks and cites him (and Lindwall) as two bowlers who inspired him. Gibbs averaged a shade under 30 and I think Wes Hall also averaged around the mid 20 mark and I dont know what Peter Pollocks average was.

If the averages of the best bowlers of the era were in the higher range then it could be said that Sobers' 27 is a good average and his career 34 is a competent one.

Just worth a look, I think.

Snow, England's best seamer ever? Bedser, Statham, Trueman... just a few. Heck, Willis, who succeeded him, was probably superior.

Thing about all those bowlers you mentioned is that their overall career averages (like Sobers') don't really tell the full story. McKenzie, an excellent bowler, averaged 27 for most of his career but had an absolutely awful end which took his average up close to 30. That was not a true reflection of his ability.

Gibbs and Hall, meanwhile, both had excellent records (averaged under 24) for much of their careers, and also both declined, meaning they ended-up with overall career averages that did not tell the story of the larger part of their careers.

Peter Pollock, on the other hand, averaged 24.18 and that average did accurately reflect his performance across the career.

 

[silentstriker]

That works too.

Um, the question isn't whether those who look at stats are selfish...it is your assertion that those who think stats are very important have little knowledge of the game. And considering how many ex players value the integrity of Test cricket stats and how much importance they place on them, I would say you are definitely incorrect there anyway.

Uhh yeah, that explains why Hadlee rated Lillee as the best bowler of his generation despite having superior stats himself.

Also, that is a misrepresentation of my argument. I already said it is futile to compare stats directly like that, as you can see here:

I hate all the rubbishing that stats get. Stats are an important part of the game, probably the most important part. Just because people can't analyze them properly, and in the right context, doesn't mean they are worthless.

If you say X averaged 20 in 1970, and Y averaged 22 in 1990, therefore X is a superior bowler...then it's not the stats that are misleading...it's you who is too lazy to go deeper. Same as Warne vs. Murali. You can't just assume that stats are comparable that way, even though both played in the same era. The only way you can compare stats directly like that is if they played the same number of matches at the same venues at the same time. Look deeper and don't just quote (he averaged 22, so there!). I must admit, I am guilty of this too sometimes, but its still a futile way of looking at things.

So just because Hadlee's stats look better, does not necessarily mean much considering the different wickets and the different eras when both were at their primes. Even looking at stats, Lillee might well come out ahead of Hadlee, and I have no problem with that.

 

[JBH001]

Snow, England's best seamer ever? Bedser, Statham, Trueman... just a few. Heck, Willis, who succeeded him, was probably superior

.

Disagree with that sweeping assessment Richard.
As I said, Snow was perhaps Englands best ever quick, and I would certainly rate him as equal to the names you mentioned.

The only player I might hold superior is Willis due to the number of matches he played and the fact that he went on a number of tours. Bedser, Trueman, and Statham though fantastic bowlers have their averages skewed due to great performances at home and average performances away from home. Snow, iirc, was the opposite which is why I rate him quite high (even though he only went on 4 tours). I suggest you look at the (lol) stats though, like you said regarding the bowlers below, even his figures dropped drastically in the last 2 - 3 years of his career (as it did also for Statham and Trueman).

Thing about all those bowlers you mentioned is that their overall career averages (like Sobers') don't really tell the full story. McKenzie, an excellent bowler, averaged 27 for most of his career but had an absolutely awful end which took his average up close to 30. That was not a true reflection of his ability.

Gibbs and Hall, meanwhile, both had excellent records (averaged under 24) for much of their careers, and also both declined, meaning they ended-up with overall career averages that did not tell the story of the larger part of their careers.

Peter Pollock, on the other hand, averaged 24.18 and that average did accurately reflect his performance across the career.

I agree, that was the point. The best genuine and full time bowlers had higher historical averages, strike rates and lower wkts/test during this time than say the 1980s when Imran was bowling. I am not going to speculate at this time as to why (gotta go to the gym) but it seems unfair to judge Sobers avg of 34 as poor (especially with a marked decline as you say) when in the context of his career it might actually have been a reasonable and competent one.

 

[Richard]

Disagree with that sweeping assessment Richard.
As I said, Snow was perhaps Englands best ever quick, and I would certainly rate him as equal to the names you mentioned.

The only player I might hold superior is Willis due to the number of matches he played and the fact that he went on a number of tours. Bedser, Trueman, and Statham though fantastic bowlers have their averages skewed due to great performances at home and average performances away from home. Snow, iirc, was the opposite which is why I rate him quite high (even though he only went on 4 tours). I suggest you look at the (lol) stats though, like you said regarding the bowlers below, even his figures dropped drastically in the last 2 - 3 years of his career (as it did also for Statham and Trueman).

Snow barely toured, though, as you say. Statham and Trueman's away records aren't as good as their home ones, but neither's are exactly shabby, either.

You can go further back, too, and look at the Tates, Allens, Voces and Larwoods, too, but that's a bit more difficult.

Snow's record was round about the same throughout his career, his average usually hovered around the 26-27 mark. And you could say the fact that his performances in England weren't sensational is as much of a mar on his record as Statham, Trueman and Bedser's away ones.

I agree, that was the point. The best genuine and full time bowlers had higher historical averages, strike rates and lower wkts/test during this time than say the 1980s when Imran was bowling. I am not going to speculate at this time as to why (gotta go to the gym) but it seems unfair to judge Sobers avg of 34 as poor (especially with a marked decline as you say) when in the context of his career it might actually have been a reasonable and competent one.

I certainly don't feel the simple "34" sums-up Sobers' bowling worth well, at all. But there were undoubtedly plenty of better bowlers around - Pollock, Hall, McKenzie, Snow and Gibbs being a few.

 

[roseboy64]

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

Okay.

 

[roseboy64]

The argument about how he bowled compared to the best bowlers during his era seems a pretty good indication that his stats weren't poor but rather good for that time.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't understand this argument at all -- Sobers was clearly a handy bowler & nothing more, just as Imran was clearly a handy batsman and nothing more... How exactly was Imran's batting stronger than Sobers' bowling? Imran's batting was hardly a factor in Pakistan winning Tests, though perhaps in drawing them & I already noted that Sobers bowled well in Test match victories.

 

[shortpitched713]

I don't understand this argument at all -- Sobers was clearly a handy bowler & nothing more, just as Imran was clearly a handy batsman and nothing more... How exactly was Imran's batting stronger than Sobers' bowling? Imran's batting was hardly a factor in Pakistan winning Tests, though perhaps in drawing them & I already noted that Sobers bowled well in Test match victories.

Well thats just the nature of Test match bowling and batting. The former wins matches and the latter saves them. Rarely is a knock played, aside from in the last innings, that really guarantees a win for that batsman's side.

And I don't think that Imran's Test batting average in the later part of his career overstates his ability. His highest Test score is 136, so its not like his average is inflated with 200*s in draws on featherbeds.

 

[shankar]

So how do we gauge the effect of the overs of spin bowled by Sobers on his bowling figures?