Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[honestbharani]

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

And age, of course, had nothing to do with Sobers' bowling????



Look, it is his fault if he played till 40 when he was not good enough. He still bowled, didn't he? Those games will be taken into account. If you are taking peak periods alone into account, how does the word "consistency" get in there? And if u are taking peak periods alone, Sobers had a golden run which someone pointed out (prob. Swervy) in this Sobers black magic thread that you started... Can't be bothered seeing it again, but it shows that he was very much great as an allrounder in his peak period too and there is no way to conclusively say that Imran was better.

And as I keep saying, all this misses the one main point that Sobers did bowl most of the time the very sort that won't help you get too many wickets. He did it for variety, for giving his fast bowlers a break and also because it is a team game and it is as much about you setting batsmen up for the other guy to get him out as it is about you yourself getting someone out....

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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....

Thats what ICC ratings based on peaks say about Imran Khan & Gary Sobers:

LEADING BATSMEN

1 D Bradman (Aus) 961 pts
2 L Hutton (Eng) 945
3 J Hobbs (Eng) 942
4 P May (Eng) 941
5 V Richards (WI) 938
5= C Walcott (WI) 938
5= G Sobers (WI) 938
8 R Ponting (Aus) 937
9 M Hayden (Aus) 935
10 Z Abbas (Pkn) 930

LEADING BOWLERS

1 J Garner (WI) 940 pts
2 S Barnes (Eng) 932
3 G Lohmann (Eng) 931
4 R Hadlee (NZ) 923
5 Imran Khan (Pkn) 922
6 M Muralitharan (SL) 915
7 G McGrath (Aus) 914
8 T Lock (Eng) 912
8= C Ambrose (WI) 912
10 I Botham (Eng) 911

Which shows that there have been only 4 bowlers better at their peaks than Imran Khan while 5 batsmen have been better than Garry Sobers.So,there was hardly any difference between their main disciplines at their peaks.And Imran at his peak was a more consistent batsman than Sobers was a bowler.Thats one of the other so many reasons that I rate Imran Khan a better allrounder than Garry Sobers.

 

[The Sean]

Is it just me, or have you combined Test and ODI ratings there? Garner's 940 is definitely an ODI rating, as is Zaheer's 930.

And to be pedantic, Ponting's peak last year topped 940 (it was either 941 or 942).

 

[Richard]

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....

TBH, hbh, I think you're being a bit harsh there. There are 7 games at least in there where I'd say he had pretty much the ultimate all-rounder's game. Obviously the true standouts are the games at The MCG (81\82) when he made 70* and took 5-62, at Headingley in 82 when he made 67*, 46 and took 8-115, and at Faisalabad against India when he made 117 and took 11-180. But there are several others.

Obviously he's not going to come close to doing it every game, but he still had more than can be counted where he either batted well or bowled well. That's more than enough for me.

 

[Richard]

Sobers had a golden run which someone pointed out (prob. Swervy) in the Sobers black magic thread that you started... Can't be bothered seeing it again

You're posting in it now pal...

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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....

Thats what ICC ratings based on peaks say about Imran Khan & Gary Sobers:

LEADING BATSMEN

1 D Bradman (Aus) 961 pts
2 L Hutton (Eng) 945
3 J Hobbs (Eng) 942
4 P May (Eng) 941
5 V Richards (WI) 938
5= C Walcott (WI) 938
5= G Sobers (WI) 938
8 R Ponting (Aus) 937
9 M Hayden (Aus) 935
10 Z Abbas (Pkn) 930

LEADING BOWLERS

1 J Garner (WI) 940 pts
2 S Barnes (Eng) 932
3 G Lohmann (Eng) 931
4 R Hadlee (NZ) 923
5 Imran Khan (Pkn) 922
6 M Muralitharan (SL) 915
7 G McGrath (Aus) 914
8 T Lock (Eng) 912
8= C Ambrose (WI) 912
10 I Botham (Eng) 911

Which shows that there have been only 4 bowlers better at their peaks than Imran Khan while 5 batsmen have been better than Garry Sobers.So,there was hardly any difference between their main disciplines at their peaks.And Imran at his peak was a more consistent batsman than Sobers was a bowler.Thats one of the other so many reasons that I rate Imran Khan a better allrounder than Garry Sobers.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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.

Making 100 runs & taking 5 wickets only 6 times is no consistency IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

TBH, hbh, I think you're being a bit harsh there. There are 7 games at least in there where I'd say he had pretty much the ultimate all-rounder's game. Obviously the true standouts are the games at The MCG (81\82) when he made 70* and took 5-62, at Headingley in 82 when he made 67*, 46 and took 8-115, and at Faisalabad against India when he made 117 and took 11-180. But there are several others.

Obviously he's not going to come close to doing it every game, but he still had more than can be counted where he either batted well or bowled well. That's more than enough for me.

No, I am not saying he didn't have great matches, but I am just saying it is NOT as great as it is made out to be...

And for the record, the same can be said about Sobers. He also had countless hundreds of matches where he either batted well or bowled well. And the thing about Sobers is, as a batting all rounder, he will only get to bowl when things are not going well... Perhaps when a partnership is going, they will get Sobers on for a few overs to give the main guys a breather and then get them back again. It is almost a given that as a batting all rounder in a rather strong bowling side, you will mostly get to bowl when things aren't going that well, esp. because Sobers was capable of bowling either spin or medium pace.


But the same cannot be said about a bowling all rounder, simply because, as the saying goes, you will always GET a bat. Maybe batting lower down, he would not have gotten the same opportunities to score big runs as the guys above him, but he still gets to bat. Therefore, while he may not rack up the runs, he still has a good chance to rack up the averages by finishing not out, which may not be necessarily true for the batting all rounder, who perhaps will have to bat for a long time.... (NOT saying it is the case with Imran and Sobers, but generally)


And just looking at the record of Imran again, I keep saying this but there a lot of 20, 30 and 40 not outs which may have boosted up his average and MAY not have perhaps been the sort of impact innings which one associates with an allrounder. The thing is, generally, a bowling all rounder gets more of a chance to boost up his batting average with cheap runs but a batting all rounder doesn't get any chance of cheap wickets to boost his bowling average..... As I said, there are a lot of intangibles involved where Sobers comes out on top which is why he is regarded by so many of the cricket experts and most importantly, so many of his contemporaries and cricket lovers as the greatest all rounder of all time... He may not be so statistically (and that is still highly doubtful as we have seen through so many counter arguments thrown at the stats thrown out by BS) but as always, stats don't tell the whole story.

 

[honestbharani]

You're posting in it now pal...

gets confusing, with so many threads started by BP...


edited now.

 

[honestbharani]

Making 100 runs & taking 5 wickets only 6 times is no consistency IMO.

Imran didn't even achieve that feat that many times... HOw did he suddenly become more consistent?

 

[honestbharani]

Thats what ICC ratings based on peaks say about Imran Khan & Gary Sobers:

LEADING BATSMEN

1 D Bradman (Aus) 961 pts
2 L Hutton (Eng) 945
3 J Hobbs (Eng) 942
4 P May (Eng) 941
5 V Richards (WI) 938
5= C Walcott (WI) 938
5= G Sobers (WI) 938
8 R Ponting (Aus) 937
9 M Hayden (Aus) 935
10 Z Abbas (Pkn) 930

LEADING BOWLERS

1 J Garner (WI) 940 pts
2 S Barnes (Eng) 932
3 G Lohmann (Eng) 931
4 R Hadlee (NZ) 923
5 Imran Khan (Pkn) 922
6 M Muralitharan (SL) 915
7 G McGrath (Aus) 914
8 T Lock (Eng) 912
8= C Ambrose (WI) 912
10 I Botham (Eng) 911

Which shows that there have been only 4 bowlers better at their peaks than Imran Khan while 5 batsmen have been better than Garry Sobers.So,there was hardly any difference between their main disciplines at their peaks.And Imran at his peak was a more consistent batsman than Sobers was a bowler.Thats one of the other so many reasons that I rate Imran Khan a better allrounder than Garry Sobers.

You do realize that there are more batsmen in cricket than bowlers, right?


Also, link me to the site from where you are getting all this stuff. Let us see what Imran and Sobers' peak batting and bowling ratings were, respectively.

And yes, they (Wisden) did do an allrounder list and Sobers came out well on top, didn't he? They used their own batting and bowling ratings for that, the very ones you are using now...

 

[Ikki]

No, I am not saying he didn't have great matches, but I am just saying it is NOT as great as it is made out to be...

And for the record, the same can be said about Sobers. He also had countless hundreds of matches where he either batted well or bowled well. And the thing about Sobers is, as a batting all rounder, he will only get to bowl when things are not going well... Perhaps when a partnership is going, they will get Sobers on for a few overs to give the main guys a breather and then get them back again. It is almost a given that as a batting all rounder in a rather strong bowling side, you will mostly get to bowl when things aren't going that well, esp. because Sobers was capable of bowling either spin or medium pace.


But the same cannot be said about a bowling all rounder, simply because, as the saying goes, you will always GET a bat. Maybe batting lower down, he would not have gotten the same opportunities to score big runs as the guys above him, but he still gets to bat. Therefore, while he may not rack up the runs, he still has a good chance to rack up the averages by finishing not out, which may not be necessarily true for the batting all rounder, who perhaps will have to bat for a long time.... (NOT saying it is the case with Imran and Sobers, but generally)


And just looking at the record of Imran again, I keep saying this but there a lot of 20, 30 and 40 not outs which may have boosted up his average and MAY not have perhaps been the sort of impact innings which one associates with an allrounder. The thing is, generally, a bowling all rounder gets more of a chance to boost up his batting average with cheap runs but a batting all rounder doesn't get any chance of cheap wickets to boost his bowling average..... As I said, there are a lot of intangibles involved where Sobers comes out on top which is why he is regarded by so many of the cricket experts and most importantly, so many of his contemporaries and cricket lovers as the greatest all rounder of all time... He may not be so statistically (and that is still highly doubtful as we have seen through so many counter arguments thrown at the stats thrown out by BS) but as always, stats don't tell the whole story.

One thing HB, you're wrong about Sobers' opportunity to bowl. Sobers bowled a lot, and regularly. He was not treated as a bit-part bowler. He bowls as many overs as McGrath per match.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

And age, of course, had nothing to do with Sobers' bowling????

Sobers was a medium fast bowler while Imran was a genuine fast bowler which is more difficult,tiring & expected to injure much more than medium fast bowling does.

Look, it is his fault if he played till 40 when he was not good enough. He still bowled, didn't he? Those games will be taken into account. If you are taking peak periods alone into account, how does the word "consistency" get in there? And if u are taking peak periods alone, Sobers had a golden run which someone pointed out (prob. Swervy) in this Sobers black magic thread that you started... Can't be bothered seeing it again, but it shows that he was very much great as an allrounder in his peak period too and there is no way to conclusively say that Imran was better

He played in last few games as a batsman who bowled little,not as a bowler.And regarding peak,I'm just saying that Imran was as good a bowler at his peak as Sobers was batsman,nothing else.Imran as a batsman was more consistent than Sobers was a bowler.

And as I keep saying, all this misses the one main point that Sobers did bowl most of the time the very sort that won't help you get too many wickets. He did it for variety, for giving his fast bowlers a break and also because it is a team game and it is as much about you setting batsmen up for the other guy to get him out as it is about you yourself getting someone out....

Its Sobers fault then & he should not get any credit for it as Imran doesn't get any credit for batting in the lower order & not outs.

 

[honestbharani]

One thing HB, you're wrong about Sobers' opportunity to bowl. Sobers bowled a lot, and regularly. He was not treated as a bit-part bowler. He bowls as many overs as McGrath per match.

It is not about overs... I mean, the overs will reflect in the average, won't it? I meant about WHEN you get to bowl...... And I juz checked his stats guru and he did have a lot of DNBs there, did Sobers... And a lot of 0/20 or 0/30 like spells, which shows that he either didn't have to bowl or bowl very little quite often in his career. I am not sure about the exact games, but I think it is a reasonable guess that those were perhaps pitches which aided bowling and as such, the main bowlers were able to do most/all of the wicket taking themselves.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

You do realize that there are more batsmen in cricket than bowlers, right?

Yes but being a fast bowler especially a genuine fast bowler is much much more difficult, tiring & demanding job than being a batsman.

Also, link me to the site from where you are getting all this stuff. Let us see what Imran and Sobers' peak batting and bowling ratings were, respectively.

I don't remember that on which site the details of those ratings are but to save time,I've taken them from here:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/5034782.stm

The only have them for top 10 only on that page.

 

[honestbharani]

Sobers was a medium fast bowler while Imran was a genuine fast bowler which is more difficult,tiring & expected to injure much more than medium fast bowling does.



.He played in last few games as a batsman who bowled little,not as a bowler.And regarding peak,I'm just saying that Imran was as good a bowler at his peak as Sobers was batsman,nothing else.Imran as a batsman was more consistent than Sobers was a bowler.


Its Sobers fault then & he should not get any credit for it as Imran doesn't get any credit for batting in the lower order & not outs.

No, it is not Sobers' fault and neither is it Imran's fault. It simply means that he was doing the thing for the team and sometimes contributions towards the team cause cannot be measured in simple stats. You just need to have a basic idea of the game to understand that. I have always maintained that Gillespie was worth a few more wickets than whatever he took, simply because of the way he set up batsmen for Warney or Mcgrath... Just look at Warne's stats with and without McGrath. McGrath is worth his weight in gold for that reason alone, he took wickets yes, but he also set them up for Warney to take them. He contained the batsmen, they tried to break free against Warne quite a bit and he did get them out. Of course, this is not a general rule and there may be other reasons why Warney does better when McGrath is there, but this is one of the main reasons, without a doubt. Sobers could have played a similar role there, tying up one end and allowing the other bowlers get the wickets.

And yes, Imran's bowling could be claimed to be as good as Sobers' batting but then again so many claim so many other bowlers to be better than Imran but not that many seem to be around to be claimed to be better than Sobers????

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Imran didn't even achieve that feat that many times... HOw did he suddenly become more consistent?

Because doing 55,3/44,30,4/52,50,5/42,30,2/42 much more times than Sobers did 75,2/53,15,3/71,60,2/34,35,1/28.

 

[Ikki]

It is not about overs... I mean, the overs will reflect in the average, won't it? I meant about WHEN you get to bowl...... And I juz checked his stats guru and he did have a lot of DNBs there, did Sobers... And a lot of 0/20 or 0/30 like spells, which shows that he either didn't have to bowl or bowl very little quite often in his career. I am not sure about the exact games, but I think it is a reasonable guess that those were perhaps pitches which aided bowling and as such, the main bowlers were able to do most/all of the wicket taking themselves.

No, the overs will reflect the SR. You're trying to say that Sobers got a bowl to help out the other bowlers when in fact he was one of the main bowlers himself. If Sobers has a lot of DNBs it would actually mean he bowled MORE overs per match than originally calculated.

 

[Ikki]

No, it is not Sobers' fault and neither is it Imran's fault. It simply means that he was doing the thing for the team and sometimes contributions towards the team cause cannot be measured in simple stats. You just need to have a basic idea of the game to understand that. I have always maintained that Gillespie was worth a few more wickets than whatever he took, simply because of the way he set up batsmen for Warney or Mcgrath... Just look at Warne's stats with and without McGrath. McGrath is worth his weight in gold for that reason alone, he took wickets yes, but he also set them up for Warney to take them. He contained the batsmen, they tried to break free against Warne quite a bit and he did get them out. Of course, this is not a general rule and there may be other reasons why Warney does better when McGrath is there, but this is one of the main reasons, without a doubt. Sobers could have played a similar role there, tying up one end and allowing the other bowlers get the wickets.

And yes, Imran's bowling could be claimed to be as good as Sobers' batting but then again so many claim so many other bowlers to be better than Imran but not that many seem to be around to be claimed to be better than Sobers????

Warne's stats without McGrath are actually better than McGrath's stats without Warne. In fact, both have their averages fall by 2 runs whilst Warne takes more wickets when McGrath is not there and McGrath takes a bit less when Warne isn't.

 

[Richard]

No, I am not saying he didn't have great matches, but I am just saying it is NOT as great as it is made out to be...

And for the record, the same can be said about Sobers. He also had countless hundreds of matches where he either batted well or bowled well.

Oh, beyond a doubt - I for one am not arguing that Imran > Sobers as an all-rounder, merely arguing the case for Imran being brilliant. Very brilliant, in fact.

And just looking at the record of Imran again, I keep saying this but there a lot of 20, 30 and 40 not outs which may have boosted up his average and MAY not have perhaps been the sort of impact innings which one associates with an allrounder.

It depends. A 43* followed by 6-82 (hypothetical) is, to me, a pretty damn good all-rounder's game. Obviously, 14* followed by 2-45 (again, hypothetical) isn't anywhere near so much. But you have to be careful about what you dismiss as "it was only a not-out".