Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[pasag]

That's it, You got enough attention from me, Go rot in my ignore hell. I have no respect for people who are so ignorant about the legends of the game.

Settle down Sanz, please.

 

[Perm]

Leaving Imran out of top 10 bowlers would be just like leaving Hobbs,V.Richards,Lara etc out of top 10 batsmen.V.Richards,Hobbs,Hutton,Lara were all better batsmen than Sobers so Sobers might be one of the greatest batsmen ever but he's not a clear number 2.

Except there are strong cases for Brian Lara and Sir Vivian Richards to not be included in the top 10 batsman of all time, just like there is for Imran Khan to be exluced from the top 10 seam bowlers of all time.

Also, to say that Brian Lara and Sir Vivan Richards were both better batsman than Sir Garfield Sobers is almost laughable.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I know a lot of people who don't think Kallis is a genuine allrounder yet it's laughable that same people are saying Sobers was who actually had a higher bowling ave and worse strike rate.

Funnily enough, it's because people watch how he was used, rather than what some numbers say at the end of his career.

EDIT: should add, I do think Kallis is an all-rounder.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

How is it a fair point ? If Afridi came into the team as a bowler how come he was opening in his 2nd ODI and scoring the fastest century in ODI. Please get your facts right before making ridiculous claims.

Sir,Afridi was selected in the side as a legspinner & his the place in batting order which he got in his first ODI was similar to that of a tailender.Pakistan's second game was against Sri Lanka & in those days there was no more dangerous ODI batysman than Jayasuriya.Pakistan having been thrashed by Jaya few says before(where Jaysuriya scored the fastest 100) knew that they would need someone in the top order who can score quickly.Afridi himself told the captain that he's capable of hitting big sixes especially on that small Nairobi ground & wants to play in the top order.Thats how Afridi got the chance to make the world record with a bat that had been gifted to Waqar Younis by Sachin Tendulkar.And If I remember correctly,Afridi played at # 3 in his 2nd ODI,not as an opening batsman.I've watched an interview of Pakistan U19 coach at that time & he said thathe was asked to provide a spinner & there seemed to him no yougster better than Afridi at that time sohesent him.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Also, to say that Brian Lara and Sir Vivan Richards were both better batsman than Sir Garfield Sobers is almost laughable.

I rate V.Richards as the 2nd greatest batsman ever,thats why imo V.Richards>G.Sobers
In case of Lara,its debatable.

 

[Perm]

I rate V.Richards as the 2nd greatest batsman ever,thats why imo V.Richards>G.Sobers
In case of Lara,its debatable.

How on earth could you rate Sir Vivian Richards above the likes of Sir Jack Hobbs, Sir Garfield Sobers, George Headley, Graeme Pollock and a whole host of other batsman?

Lara doesn't come close to Sobers as a batsman, and the only West Indian who could is George Headley.

 

[Richard]

AWTA. Though Sir Everton Weekes is right up there too IMO.

And If I remember correctly,Afridi played at # 3 in his 2nd ODI,not as an opening batsman.

You remember that correctly though.

 

[Richard]

Still ave is too high to be labeled as a genuine allrounder.

It depends at what point in his career. There were stages of his career - such as the opening - when his bowling was ineffective; there were also stages when it was pretty damn effective. Overall averages rarely tell you much; you need to look deeper.

I know a lot of people who don't think Kallis is a genuine allrounder yet it's laughable that same people are saying Sobers was who actually had a higher bowling ave and worse strike rate.

Kallis hasn't been a genuine all-rounder for about 4 years now. Just a batsman who bowls. Even for most of the time previously he'd always been a batting-all-rounder, very much so.

 

[The Sean]

How on earth could you rate Sir Vivian Richards above the likes of Sir Jack Hobbs, Sir Garfield Sobers, George Headley, Graeme Pollock and a whole host of other batsman?

TBF, there are quite a few of us who do. I personally have Viv below Sobers and Hobbs, but ahead of Headley and Pollock.

Not that there is a great deal between any of them really.

 

[Richard]

Sean, have you read extensively of George Headley?

 

[The Sean]

Sean, have you read extensively of George Headley?

Very. The man was quite clearly an absolute master. But then so were the others in that list - and as I say, there's very little between them.

 

[Richard]

Personally I cannot conceive that there has been a better West Indian batsman than Sir George. Certainly not Sir Vivian.

It's difficult to put into words, really, the esteem I've always tended to hold him in. Even Sobers, purely with bat, does not come into that league.

 

[The Sean]

That's fair enough mate - I remember you saying once that, at a push, you'd consider George Headley second only to The Don as a batsman. You'd certainly not be the only one of that opinion.

 

[Richard]

Have almost certainly said it rather more than once TBH.

 

[Sanz]

Settle down Sanz, please.

Sorry. But people consistently calling Sobers a mediocre bowler or saying that he wasn't a good enough allrounder has been quite annoying.

 

[honestbharani]

Still ave is too high to be labeled as a genuine allrounder.

I know a lot of people who don't think Kallis is a genuine allrounder yet it's laughable that same people are saying Sobers was who actually had a higher bowling ave and worse strike rate.

averages aren't everything...... Imran averages high with the bat but how many really meaningful innings has he played?


Just getting 30s and 40s won't cut it at test level too often. A real all rounder is one who can score 100s and take 5 wickets in the same match. Only then can he be considered to have had an impact on the game. As such, it is possible to have an impact by scoring 30s and 40s just as it is possible to change the game with a wicket or two. But overall, a quality all rounder is one who can change the course of the game with the ball AND bat... And barring Sobers at his peak and perhaps Botham at his peak period, I haven't read of anyone having that kind of effect.

Have to make it clear that I haven't read up or followed much about Keith Miller and other all rounders... And wasn't there a time when Imran was a much better bowler than batsman and wasn't there also a time when he played as a specialist batsman when he was not fit enough to bowl and made a lot of runs that way?

Then how can he be classified as better than Sobers who was able to churn in match winning displays with both bat and ball in the same period and a few times, in the same match?????

 

[Richard]

Just getting 30s and 40s won't cut it at test level too often. A real all rounder is one who can score 100s and take 5 wickets in the same match. Only then can he be considered to have had an impact on the game. As such, it is possible to have an impact by scoring 30s and 40s just as it is possible to change the game with a wicket or two. But overall, a quality all rounder is one who can change the course of the game with the ball AND bat... And barring Sobers at his peak and perhaps Botham at his peak period, I haven't read of anyone having that kind of effect.

Have to make it clear that I haven't read up or followed much about Keith Miller and other all rounders... And wasn't there a time when Imran was a much better bowler than batsman and wasn't there also a time when he played as a specialist batsman when he was not fit enough to bowl and made a lot of runs that way?

Then how can he be classified as better than Sobers who was able to churn in match winning displays with both bat and ball in the same period and a few times, in the same match?????

Imran beyond question could and did influence countless matches with the ball, and more than his share with the bat.

There were indeed times when Imran was many different things, certainly. I've done this before, but I'll happily do it again:
His first 4 Tests he was no real use with either discipline and shouldn't have been playing. Forget these.
His next 25 was when he was beginning to establish himself as a bowler, but was yet to make any real impact with the bat.
However, his next 46 saw him become a quite sensational bowler (average of 17.86 ) and also a very, very fine lower-order batsman (average 42.10).
His final 13 games saw him lose his effectiveness as a bowler (average 35.28) and eventually pretty much give-up bowling completely (did not bowl in 3 out of 5), but bat better than ever (averaging 67.25).

Those 46 games in the middle, to me, demonstrate that Imran was every bit as good at combining the two disciplines as anyone could really wish to be.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

averages aren't everything...... Imran averages high with the bat but how many really meaningful innings has he played?


Just getting 30s and 40s won't cut it at test level too often. A real all rounder is one who can score 100s and take 5 wickets in the same match. Only then can he be considered to have had an impact on the game. As such, it is possible to have an impact by scoring 30s and 40s just as it is possible to change the game with a wicket or two. But overall, a quality all rounder is one who can change the course of the game with the ball AND bat... And barring Sobers at his peak and perhaps Botham at his peak period, I haven't read of anyone having that kind of effect.

Have to make it clear that I haven't read up or followed much about Keith Miller and other all rounders... And wasn't there a time when Imran was a much better bowler than batsman and wasn't there also a time when he played as a specialist batsman when he was not fit enough to bowl and made a lot of runs that way?

Then how can he be classified as better than Sobers who was able to churn in match winning displays with both bat and ball in the same period and a few times, in the same match?????

Ok,Sobers scored 100 runs & took 5 wickets 3 or 4 times more than Sobers but Imran was more consistent with the bat than Sobers with the ball.Making 100 runs + 5 wickets 6 times in a 93 match career means very very liltte consistency wise.Sobers was rubbish with the ball for half of his career while Imran was poor with the bat for only one third of his career.You can average 50 as batsman in 10 innings in either of these 2 ways:

1) 20*,0,30*,110,30,40,30*,55,45,50
OR
2) 80,110,7,13,40,40,10,10,10,180

In the first case,you are consistent but scoreless less hundreds & fifties while in the second you score more of them but are not consistent.Imran at his batting peak was similar to the first example.While Sobers at his bowling peak was simila to how Harmison has been i.e completely rolling over batting lineups sometimes but most of the times not being good at all.

Imran was as good a bowler as Sobers was batsman.There have only been two bowlers in history of cricket in terms of peak e.g Sidney Barnes & George Lohmann(a fact based on ratings,not a self-assumption!) but there have been many more dangerous batsmen at their peaks than Sobers.Consistency wise,only Marshall,Barnes & Spofforth were the ones more consistent than Imran.Sobers was also mightily consistent as a batsman though.What Sobers did 6 times(100 runs + wickets) means he was destructive those 6 times,not consistent.At his peak,Imran was much more consistent allrounder than Sobers was.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Imran beyond question could and did influence countless matches with the ball, and more than his share with the bat.

There were indeed times when Imran was many different things, certainly. I've done this before, but I'll happily do it again:
His first 4 Tests he was no real use with either discipline and shouldn't have been playing. Forget these.
His next 25 was when he was beginning to establish himself as a bowler, but was yet to make any real impact with the bat.
However, his next 46 saw him become a quite sensational bowler (average of 17.86 ) and also a very, very fine lower-order batsman (average 42.10).
His final 13 games saw him lose his effectiveness as a bowler (average 35.28) and eventually pretty much give-up bowling completely (did not bowl in 3 out of 5), but bat better than ever (averaging 67.25).

Those 46 games in the middle, to me, demonstrate that Imran was every bit as good at combining the two disciplines as anyone could really wish to be.

Imran became ordinary bowler in his last 10 tests or so only because of his age which was almost 40 then.

 

[honestbharani]

Ok,Sobers scored 100 runs & took 5 wickets 3 or 4 times more than Sobers but Imran was more consistent with the bat than Sobers with the ball.Making 100 runs + 5 wickets 6 times in a 93 match career means very very liltte consistency wise.Sobers was rubbish with the ball for half of his career while Imran was poor with the bat for only one third of his career.You can average 50 as batsman in 10 innings in either of these 2 ways:

1) 20*,0,30*,110,30,40,30*,55,45,50
OR
2) 80,110,7,13,40,40,10,10,10,180

In the first case,you are consistent but scoreless less hundreds & fifties while in the second you score more of them but are not consistent.Imran at his batting peak was similar to the first example.While Sobers at his bowling peak was simila to how Harmison has been i.e completely rolling over batting lineups sometimes but most of the times not being good at all.

Imran was as good a bowler as Sobers was batsman.There have only been two bowlers in history of cricket in terms of peak e.g Sidney Barnes & George Lohmann(a fact based on ratings,not a self-assumption!) but there have been many more dangerous batsmen at their peaks than Sobers.Consistency wise,only Marshall,Barnes & Spofforth were the ones more consistent than Imran.Sobers was also mightily consistent as a batsman though.What Sobers did 6 times(100 runs + wickets) means he was destructive those 6 times,not consistent.At his peak,Imran was much more consistent allrounder than Sobers was.

Not really. I can easily argue so many bowlers like McGrath, Ambrose, Wasim, Marshall, Holding, Waqar, Hadlee, Warne, Murali etc. have been better than Imran as well at their peaks..... Comparing people at their peaks makes no sense simply because it will ultimately boil down to personal preference, and there is no real way to say x was better than y at their peak...... And Sobers at his peak was as good a batsman as anyone who has ever played....


And yes, consistency is important for a specialist, but for an all rounder, who, by definition should be able to make an impact in both departments in a meaningful way, it is not so important. AS long as you do well enough in one department and hold your own in the other, it is good enough for most teams..... And all these are without taking into account that Sobers often bowled the style least likely to get wickets on a particular track, to provide variety to the bowling attack. He was the workhorse bowler and as such, his average is supposed to be pretty high.


And I haven't yet looked at Imran's stats yet... Will get onto it and then get back here.. But as I keep saying, stats don't prove everything... You HAVE to have seen them live to realize how good they were as bowlers...


Edit: I juz looked at his stats, esp. in his peak period which Richard pointed to and it is obvious that while there are a few fifties and 100s there, it is also obvious he had trouble being effective in both disciplines in the same game and also, there are quite a few 30 and 40 odds there, which to me, are the same as a bowler picking up just one wicket and perhaps none, if the said batter made those runs on a flat track....