Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Richard]

Not sure what you mean there. Are you saying that bowling spin was a disadvantage to him?

 

[shankar]

Yes. Clearly his spin bowling wasnt as good as his seamers. But he still bowled spin cause his team needed it. If WI had had a better spinner, he wouldnt have had to bowl those overs spoiling his figures. However I'm not sure of the extent of this effect i.e how often he bowled spin.

 

[Ikki]

Yes. Clearly his spin bowling wasnt as good as his seamers. But he still bowled spin cause his team needed it. If WI had had a better spinner, he wouldnt have had to bowl those overs spoiling his figures. However I'm not sure of the extent of this effect i.e how often he bowled spin.

You would bowl spin when the team needed it, which would include the pitch's receptiveness to it. You don't bowl pace when the pitch suits spin or visa-versa. So I find it hard to believe when he changed his bowling style it was always at a disadvantage to his figures. Mostly, I'd believe it was to his team's and his own benefit.

 

[Richard]

Yes. Clearly his spin bowling wasnt as good as his seamers. But he still bowled spin cause his team needed it. If WI had had a better spinner, he wouldnt have had to bowl those overs spoiling his figures. However I'm not sure of the extent of this effect i.e how often he bowled spin.

As KaZo... sort of... said, it makes no sense to bowl spin if you'd be better served bowling seam.

You'd imagine he only bowled spin if he had a better chance of being successful with it than with his seamers. And given that he's a pretty sharp tack, I'd guess he probably chose the right times to bowl the right styles.

 

[shankar]

You would bowl spin when the team needed it, which would include the pitch's receptiveness to it. You don't bowl pace when the pitch suits spin or visa-versa. So I find it hard to believe when he changed his bowling style it was always at a disadvantage to his figures. Mostly, I'd believe it was to his team's and his own benefit.

As KaZo... sort of... said, it makes no sense to bowl spin if you'd be better served bowling seam.

You'd imagine he only bowled spin if he had a better chance of being successful with it than with his seamers. And given that he's a pretty sharp tack, I'd guess he probably chose the right times to bowl the right styles.

Yes, He would've bowled spin when it would be more succesful than his seamers obviously. But if he wasn't all that good a spin bowler, his figures would've been better served if didn't bowl at all. He could've just bowled his seamers when the ball was new or when conditions were helpful. By bowling spin he quite possibly ruined his figures, but helped his team cause they didnt have any other worthy spinners.

Imagine a bowler who is a fusion of Hoggard and Giles. Now there would be situations where the Hoggard half wouldn't be effective and the Giles half would have a better chance. But the Giles half itself isnt all that great. So overall the average of this bowler would be greater than Hoggard but he would be a greater utility.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, He would've bowled spin when it would be more succesful than his seamers obviously. But if he wasn't all that good a spin bowler, his figures would've been better served if didn't bowl at all. He could've just bowled his seamers when the ball was new or when conditions were helpful. By bowling spin he quite possibly ruined his figures, but helped his team cause they didnt have any other worthy spinners.

Imagine a bowler who is a fusion of Hoggard and Giles. Now there would be situations where the Hoggard half wouldn't be effective and the Giles half would have a better chance. But the Giles half itself isnt all that great. So overall the average of this bowler would be greater than Hoggard but he would be a greater utility.

If he wasn't that good of a spinner he really shouldn't have been bowling it anyway and should have stuck to his seam bowling. But this isn't the case. I've heard he was skillful with all styles.

 

[Richard]

Yes, He would've bowled spin when it would be more succesful than his seamers obviously. But if he wasn't all that good a spin bowler, his figures would've been better served if didn't bowl at all. He could've just bowled his seamers when the ball was new or when conditions were helpful. By bowling spin he quite possibly ruined his figures, but helped his team cause they didnt have any other worthy spinners.

Imagine a bowler who is a fusion of Hoggard and Giles. Now there would be situations where the Hoggard half wouldn't be effective and the Giles half would have a better chance. But the Giles half itself isnt all that great. So overall the average of this bowler would be greater than Hoggard but he would be a greater utility.

Possibly might be better if I didn't take-up this here but IMO a bowler who could fuse Giles and Hoggard would be one hell of a prospect, because Giles is usually a handful on a turner, and Hoggard on a seamer or with a swinging ball.

 

[shankar]

If he wasn't that good of a spinner he really shouldn't have been bowling it anyway and should have stuck to his seam bowling. But this isn't the case. I've heard he was skillful with all styles.

Why? So people on a forum decades later would think he's a better all-rounder? His team needed someone to bowl spin and he did. Period. And from what I've read he was much better at bowling seam than spin.

Possibly might be better if I didn't take-up this here but IMO a bowler who could fuse Giles and Hoggard would be one hell of a prospect, because Giles is usually a handful on a turner, and Hoggard on a seamer or with a swinging ball.

And yet Giles averages 40. There are plenty of situations where the conditions favour neither greatly but yet Giles bowls. So you can see how bowling part-time finger spin could have affected his average.

Actually I don't know whether he was Giles' level as a spinner or say Sehwag/Vaughan level. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could help out there.

Another aspect is that he might've played a more defensive role as a spinner and a more aggressive role while bowling seam. It's obvious that this would have affected his figures.

 

[Ikki]

Why? So people on a forum decades later would think he's a better all-rounder? His team needed someone to bowl spin and he did. Period. And from what I've read he was much better at bowling seam than spin.

No, because you bowl the style that would suit your team's best interests and yours. Sobers wasn't one to concede a lot of runs per match, his economy is testament to that, which makes his average irrelevant to this point. He just wasn't a wicket-taking bowler, so regardless of what he bowled, I find it hard to say his strike-rate fell so dramatically because he happened to change it up often.

And - at the risk of opening another debate - comparing him with Giles does him no justice, because Giles is a pretty crappy bowler, IMO.

 

[adharcric]

And - at the risk of opening another debate - comparing him with Giles does him no justice, because Giles is a pretty crappy bowler, IMO.

Don't worry mate, you won't get much debate on that one. Crap indeed.

 

[Richard]

And yet Giles averages 40. There are plenty of situations where the conditions favour neither greatly but yet Giles bowls. So you can see how bowling part-time finger spin could have affected his average.

Don't worry mate, you won't get much debate on that one. Crap indeed.

Oh, really? I most certainly would dispute that Giles is "crappy" or anything resembling it. To dismiss him as such is exceptionally simplistic.

As shanker points-out, there are times - plenty of them - where Giles bowls when the conditions don't suit.

As to those sorts of conditions - you're almost always better-served bowling seam than fingerspin in such circumstances IMO.

 

[shankar]

No, because you bowl the style that would suit your team's best interests and yours. Sobers wasn't one to concede a lot of runs per match, his economy is testament to that, which makes his average irrelevant to this point. He just wasn't a wicket-taking bowler, so regardless of what he bowled, I find it hard to say his strike-rate fell so dramatically because he happened to change it up often.

You simply bowl the style that suits your team's interests. This does not necessarily suit your interests (wrt maintaining bowling average and strike rate). An example of this type of situation is this:

The conditions are such that Sobers' seam bowling is ineffective. They are moderately conducive to spin. But Sobers' spin bowling is mediocre. However it is better than the alternative of not bowling spin at all.

 

[shankar]

As to those sorts of conditions - you're almost always better-served bowling seam than fingerspin in such circumstances IMO.

And yet finger-spinners like Giles average 40+ despite bowling under clever captains like Hussain and Vaughan. These conditions which are suitable to them do not happen very often.

 

[Anil]

Oh, really? I most certainly would dispute that Giles is "crappy" or anything resembling it. To dismiss him as such is exceptionally simplistic.

As shanker points-out, there are times - plenty of them - where Giles bowls when the conditions don't suit.

off-topic and he has certainly been a useful bowler for spin-starved england but he is an average bowler at best, to build him up as anything else is to overrate him considerably...

 

[Ikki]

You simply bowl the style that suits your team's interests. This does not necessarily suit your interests (wrt maintaining bowling average and strike rate). An example of this type of situation is this:

The conditions are such that Sobers' seam bowling is ineffective. They are moderately conducive to spin. But Sobers' spin bowling is mediocre. However it is better than the alternative of not bowling spin at all.

My point is that Sobers' average is steady anyway you look at it because his economy is low. So it's not like his average was harmed because he was conceding runs on pitches that didn't suit his bowling - nor would it be advantageous for his team to have him bowl a style that would concede those runs.

Therefore, the only times Sobers would be bowling just to tie an end, slow the run-rate, by bowling, conceding slowly, would be occasions his average and strike-rate suffered. That's a plausible scenario, sometimes - i.e. Warne in the recent ashes - that's all the team requires of them. But I don't think that's such a regular occurrence that Sobers bowling would suffer that much from.

So really, what your describing is a plausible event, I just don't think it's one that happens that regularly, all through a player's career.

And to my readings Sobers is one of his team's best pace bowlers and opened too. So he wasn't acting like a bit-bowler all the time. Unfortunately, the different kind of balls weren't marked down when they were being bowled by Sobers. Looking at his 4-fers or 5-fers, Sobers shows he just didn't take too many wickets, when you take into account how much he bowled. That's why his average goes to unusual highs.

 

[Richard]

And yet finger-spinners like Giles average 40+ despite bowling under clever captains like Hussain and Vaughan. These conditions which are suitable to them do not happen very often.

The captaincy doesn't matter - it's selection that's been poor. Giles has been picked innumerable times due to the "you've got to have variation" nonsense, when another seamer would have been a far better pick.

 

[Richard]

off-topic and he has certainly been a useful bowler for spin-starved england but he is an average bowler at best, to build him up as anything else is to overrate him considerably...

He's been a good fingerspinner, nothing more, nothing less. Not an outstanding fingerspinner, but a good one. He's no use on a non-turning pitch, like any fingerspinner, and being English he's always going to have to bowl on a lot of them if people are stupid enough to pick him for nearly every game.

But usually, when he's got a turning pitch he's capitalised.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Yes. Clearly his spin bowling wasnt as good as his seamers. But he still bowled spin cause his team needed it. If WI had had a better spinner, he wouldnt have had to bowl those overs spoiling his figures. However I'm not sure of the extent of this effect i.e how often he bowled spin.

Lance Gibbs

 

[Richard]

^^^^Isn't it really strange that he'd have one of his accounts banned and another re-opened? Especially when that one was BS and not Shoaib.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

^^^^Isn't it really strange that he'd have one of his accounts banned and another re-opened? Especially when that one was BS and not Shoaib.

^^^^^^^ I'm neither doing a nehrafan nor do I have any intentions to do so