Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[weldone]

This is what i don't understand, how can people come to the conclusion that Sobers at his peak wasn't a genuine all-rounder?. Although i am not a stats man that is something that the stats would should you fairly clearly.

I see richard has pointed this out..

Who said Sobers was not a genuine alrounder? I said Miller was a more genuine alrounder than Sobers, and Sobers was a better cricketer overall...How does that statement imply Sobers wasn't a genuine alrounder?

 

[Sanz]

Until you get over your doing down of every cricketer in the world in an attempt to prove that Imran Khan is the greatest living Human Being ever there's no point in any of this.

That's exactly the reason I stopped arguing with him. His admiration for Imran Khan is blinded that he will post crap after crap about other great cricketers. When forum members confront him he will change his stance and then only to do it again in another discussion.

It is so boring.

 

[Sanz]

Who said Sobers was not a genuine alrounder? I said Miller was a more genuine alrounder than Sobers, and Sobers was a better cricketer overall...How does that statement imply Sobers wasn't a genuine alrounder?

Hey someone just said that "Sobers was an overrated allrounder".

 

[fredfertang]

Most people here consider only batting & bowling when talking of allrounder.Even if you want to include other disciplines then Imran's captaincy equals Sobers fielding.

Seems somewhat perverse not to even consider fielding when dealing with all round ability but I will, of course , have to defer to your much greater experience of this Forum than I

Assuming you are correct, and I have no reason to argue otherwise, then the reason is no doubt that statistics are pretty much useless in that comparison - an average fielder who spends most of his time in the slips will certainly pouch more catches than the most brilliant cover fielder will

Captaincy, being a cerebral talent rather than a physical one, could also be argued to be of no relevance when considering ability as an allrounder but if you do bring it in certainly I agree Imran was the better skipper and indeed given Pakistan's performances against the (otherwise) all conquering West Indians of the 80's I think there is a perfectly respectable basis for suggesting he is the finest captain ever - bar none.

 

[Ikki]

Just because a finger spinner comes on to bowl it doesn't automatically mean he bowls well and helps the side and automatically improves his record.

If a spinner is not effective, then he is not effective. I agree. And that's what Sobers mostly was - not effective. As I said before, he was capable of unbelievable spells as well, and coupled with his consistency at bat it marks great as an all-round feat. But on the whole, I do not regard Sobers' bowling greatly. I've tossed and turned on this very point but I think in the end it's really a case where he had some unbelievable performances and more ordinary-to-bad ones.

The majority of even specialist spinners will bowl more balls to take a wicket than seamers over a course of time and this has had an effect on Sobers over all record.

I am not sure I understand your point. If Sobers is bowling one kind of style to stop the team bleeding runs, for example, then that is better than him bowling the other style. So he has a benefit here. If Sobers is bowling one kind of style to take wickets, for example, then that is better than him bowling another style.

So in essence, Sobers bowled what he had to when it advantaged him and his team. How does him bowling spin actually disadvantage him?

 

[Ikki]

I wouldn't really pick Miller as the all-rounder in this XI as he wouldn't be considered be close to all-time great status as either a bowler or batsman, and would end up playing only supporting roles in both disciplines.

Miller, Botham and to a lesser extent Imran Khan I believe are the only real all-rounders who can take that spot.

Sobers in an all-time XI will not get a bowl. Why would you use him at all? That's the difference between bowling and batting all-rounders. Everyone HAS to bat but everyone does not HAVE to bowl.

Of the 3 I mentioned, Miller is the better batsman - Botham very very close when you look at the possibilities in his peak. He was #5 for the Invincibles for god's sake. He was actually brought in as a batsman and told to concentrate on bowling as they needed him to do that more.

After the war, he was a changed man. He didn't appear outwardly concerned with his career record. He'd give his wicket away and generally play the game for no more than what it actually was...a game. I believe had he cared more there would no doubt that he's the best all-rounder. As it is, he is already up there.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

.
I am not sure I understand your point. If Sobers is bowling one kind of style to stop the team bleeding runs, for example, then that is better than him bowling the other style. So he has a benefit here. If Sobers is bowling one kind of style to take wickets, for example, then that is better than him bowling another style.

So in essence, Sobers bowled what he had to when it advantaged him and his team. How does him bowling spin actually disadvantage him?

When I could still actually be bothered refuting the nonsensical idea that Sobers couldn't bowl someone said something about the number of balls he bowled to take a wicket. The long spells he bowled as a spinner - which wasn't his main forte - inevitably meant the average number of balls he bowled between wickets was inflated as he could obviously bowl longer spells than he could as a strike bowler. He was perfectly capable of bowling with the new ball or first change but of course the statsguru knows best.

 

[archie mac]

When I could still actually be bothered refuting the nonsensical idea that Sobers couldn't bowl someone said something about the number of balls he bowled to take a wicket. The long spells he bowled as a spinner - which wasn't his main forte - inevitably meant the average number of balls he bowled between wickets was inflated as he could obviously bowl longer spells than he could as a strike bowler. He was perfectly capable of bowling with the new ball or first change but of course the statsguru knows best.

Everyone who watched or played against him has no doubt he was the best batsman and fine bowler and a great fielder, so I take little notice of this crap that he could not bowl or would not bowl in a better team

It is the same people who say Richards is over rated because he does not average enough, and Lillee can't bowl because he did not destroy them in India

 

[Ikki]

When I could still actually be bothered refuting the nonsensical idea that Sobers couldn't bowl someone said something about the number of balls he bowled to take a wicket. The long spells he bowled as a spinner - which wasn't his main forte - inevitably meant the average number of balls he bowled between wickets was inflated as he could obviously bowl longer spells than he could as a strike bowler. He was perfectly capable of bowling with the new ball or first change but of course the statsguru knows best.

So if he bowled long spells yet took so little wickets, wouldn't that make him an ineffective bowler? No one bowls balls JUST to lessen the run-rate. Especially long spells.

We are not talking about an average of 25 here or of even 30 but 34 for crying out loud. His SR is also very very ordinary - if not bad in a lot of occasions.

You seriously cannot tell me you would rate someone a fine bowler just because they happen to have a good ER.

I really don't care if he was able to bowl new ball or first change. I care if he takes wickets and how few runs he goes by doing that. That's the job of a bowler. Really, for me his stats don't really say much because, as Richard showed, he's had very big ups and very low downs. Just a lot more downs than ups. That is why as an all-rounder he just doesn't place ahead of Miller for me. I'd rather the one who is not only very good at both disciplines, but was consistent.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So if he bowled long spells yet took so little wickets, wouldn't that make him an ineffective bowler? No one bowls balls JUST to lessen the run-rate. Especially long spells.

Fascinating insight there.

You seriously cannot tell me you would rate someone a fine bowler just because they happen to have a good ER.

No, and I didn't.

 

[Ikki]

Fascinating insight there.

No, and I didn't.

Then what's his saving grace as a bowler? You dislike people bringing up his career record but it kinda does reflect how ineffective he was on the whole. I'm not an advocate of people just sticking to stats and there are just some things you can say that "stats are not showing a clear picture" but I don't really believe this is one of them.

If those who admire Sobers want to convert others, it'd be nice to hear more about him that we don't know in order to reconsider. Because for those that were born after his career, there is really not a whole lot to talk about with his bowling.

 

[Richard]

Everyone who watched or played against him has no doubt he was the best batsman and fine bowler and a great fielder, so I take little notice of this crap that he could not bowl or would not bowl in a better team

It is the same people who say Richards is over rated because he does not average enough, and Lillee can't bowl because he did not destroy them in India

No, it isn't. There is absolutely zero correlation whatsoever in these three things you try to draw a line between. To take three examples who "converse" regularly on these three players: myself, KaZoH0lic and BhupinderSingh.

Myself:
Sobers - I say he's the greatest all-rounder there's been, but not a genuinely rounded all-rounder. Even at his best, batting was undeniably stronger than bowling.
Lillee - I say he's one of the best seamers ever, but not the greatest and there's a perfectly acceptable case for him not being in the top four seamers, and I'd not have him in a post-1900 XI. But I don't have any real truck with someone considering him the second-greatest after Marshall.
Richards - I say he's a very fine batsman who could easily have done more, but as he didn't do as much as so many say he could have, he's not someone I'd consider a top-ten batsman and to consider him the second-greatest batsman ever is ludicrous. However, I have no truck with anyone saying he's top-ten material or even including him in all-time (or post-1900) XIs.

KaZoH0lic:
Sobers - says he's not the greatest all-rounder ever and that he wouldn't have bowled much in stronger teams.
Lillee - says he's the greatest bowler ever............... apart from Shane Warne.
Richards - says he's the second-greatest batsman ever.

BhupinderSingh
Sobers - pretty much the same as KaZoH0lic.
Lillee - pretty much the same as me.
Richards - same as KaZoH0lic.

As you see - no-one routinely trashes all three.

 

[Richard]

Presumably if we are taking the term allrounder literally then fielding becomes relevant - Sobers 109 catches in 93 tests and Imran 26 in 88 .....................................

Most people here consider only batting & bowling when talking of allrounder.Even if you want to include other disciplines then Imran's captaincy equals Sobers fielding.

Seems somewhat perverse not to even consider fielding when dealing with all round ability but I will, of course , have to defer to your much greater experience of this Forum than I

Regarding this - I've always tended to consider an all-rounder someone roughly equal in batting and bowling ability. And obviously you then have batting-all-rounders, bowling-all-rounders, batsmen who bowl a bit, bowlers who bat a bit, etc. etc. To give an example of each: Miller, Kallis, Shaun Pollock,

Fielding is notably separate from this, in that everyone has to do it and should do it well, and to not do so is to badly let the team down. You get batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders who are brilliant and average fielders, but I tend to try to avoid fielding impacting upon batting and bowling.

Captaincy is obviously separate again in that only one person at a time will ever do this.

Then you have wicketkeeper-batsmen (or batsman-wicketkeepers), who are again different for mine. Yet some call a wicketkeeper-batsman an all-rounder.

 

[Richard]

Imran at his peak>>Sobers at his peak because Imran performed as an allrounder for much longer.The only guy who comes close to Imran in terms of peak period is Ian Botham but then Imran had a better peak than him also.

Sobers reemained a worst bowler roughly for 2/5th of his career,not half.

It's a good question. What do you prefer? Batting-average of 70, bowling-average of 28? Or batting-average of 35, bowling-average of 21.5? (Or you could say batting-average of 42, bowling-average of 18)

Personally I'd prefer the former, ie Sobers. But it's a decent question.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Then what's his saving grace as a bowler? You dislike people bringing up his career record but it kinda does reflect how ineffective he was on the whole. I'm not an advocate of people just sticking to stats and there are just some things you can say that "stats are not showing a clear picture" but I don't really believe this is one of them.

If those who admire Sobers want to convert others, it'd be nice to hear more about him that we don't know in order to reconsider. Because for those that were born after his career, there is really not a whole lot to talk about with his bowling.

From the moment you said "So if he bowled long spells yet took so little wickets, wouldn't that make him an ineffective bowler? No one bowls balls JUST to lessen the run-rate. Especially long spells.", you disqualified yourself from any plausible discussion on the subject. It was common place for spinners - including Sobers - to ball whole sessions firing the ball in flat with no variation or without giving the ball the air for the sole purpose of tying an end up. This is not a myth passed down through the ages, I sat through hours of it. The one and only reason I brought this up was because someone said Sobers on average took more deliveries to take wickets and these long spells of negative bowling was damaging to that overall average.

 

[weldone]

Myself:
Sobers - I say he's the greatest all-rounder there's been, but not a genuinely rounded all-rounder. Even at his best, batting was undeniably stronger than bowling.
Lillee - I say he's one of the best seamers ever, but not the greatest and there's a perfectly acceptable case for him not being in the top four seamers, and I'd not have him in a post-1900 XI. But I don't have any real truck with someone considering him the second-greatest after Marshall.
Richards - I say he's a very fine batsman who could easily have done more, but as he didn't do as much as so many say he could have, he's not someone I'd consider a top-ten batsman and to consider him the second-greatest batsman ever is ludicrous. However, I have no truck with anyone saying he's top-ten material or even including him in all-time (or post-1900) XIs.

Didn't know there is someone on this forum who thinks exactly like me on all these 3 issues...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Didn't know there is someone on this forum who thinks exactly like me on all these 3 issues...

I'd keep that to yourself if I you were.

 

[Ikki]

From the moment you said "So if he bowled long spells yet took so little wickets, wouldn't that make him an ineffective bowler? No one bowls balls JUST to lessen the run-rate. Especially long spells.", you disqualified yourself from any plausible discussion on the subject. It was common place for spinners - including Sobers - to ball whole sessions firing the ball in flat with no variation or without giving the ball the air for the sole purpose of tying an end up. This is not a myth passed down through the ages, I sat through hours of it. The one and only reason I brought this up was because someone said Sobers on average took more deliveries to take wickets and these long spells of negative bowling was damaging to that overall average.

But Sobers doesn't even have a great ER for his era?! This I thought would be a given point. Whole sessions, that's one thing. 40 overs a match, that is another. Was he mainly a finger spinner or a fast bowler for heaven's sake? How many overs did he bowl during those sessions? Come on, look at the record; we're not exactly haggling over 2-3 runs average or 10 balls on SR.

Sorry, but the people arguing for Sobers are making flimsy arguments that they can neither prove and is impossible to disprove. "He bowled finger spin a lot". And, so? Could you please find out his career record when bowling pace and spin only? Let's say he was a finger spinner as good as Alf Valentine. Does that make him a good all-rounder? No it doesn't. Why didn't Ramadhin bowl almost 40 overs a match? He has an even better ER. The thing with Sobers is that the played in such an era that these kinds of things can be said and taken at face value. If more can be proven, it would help. But being the greatest all-rounder because you can dry up an end for a session? If anything you're putting me off Sir Garry more and more. What's the end result?

That instead of 34 he would average 30 and instead of striking at 92 balls he'd strike at 80. Even handing over this kind of leniency still doesn't improve his record much.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

But Sobers doesn't even have a great ER for his era?! This I thought would be a given point. Whole sessions, that's one thing. 40 overs a match, that is another. Was he mainly a finger spinner or a fast bowler for heaven's sake? How many overs did he bowl during those sessions? Come on, look at the record; we're not exactly haggling over 2-3 runs average or 10 balls on SR.

Sorry, but the people arguing for Sobers are making flimsy arguments that they can neither prove and is impossible to disprove. "He bowled finger spin a lot". And, so? Could you please find out his career record when bowling pace and spin only? Let's say he was a finger spinner as good as Alf Valentine. Does that make him a good all-rounder? No it doesn't. Why didn't Ramadhin bowl almost 40 overs a match? He has an even better ER. The thing with Sobers is that the played in such an era that these kinds of things can be said and taken at face value. If more can be proven, it would help. But being the greatest all-rounder because you can dry up an end for a session? If anything you're putting me off Sir Garry more and more. What's the end result?

That instead of 34 he would average 30 and instead of striking at 92 balls he'd strike at 80. Even handing over this kind of leniency still doesn't improve his record much.

He was not a great all-rounder because he could dry up an end. The ONE and ONLY point in mentioning him doing this was - as I've said it four times already - was that someone said that he on average bowled a lot of ball between wickets. This figure is inflated because of the spells when he bowled a lot of balls as a spinner keeping it tight at one end. No one is glorifying him for doing it, it's just a fact that he did.

 

[Ikki]

Overall Bowling figures for Sobers' era:

Overall Batting figures for Miller's era: