I'm late to this thread, but it's more or less a continuation of a previous one. So here's my two cents....
None of the posters who have criticized Sobers' bowling appear to have ever seen him bowl, and their judgment is based exclusively on statistics. As I pointed out in the previous thread, while statistics are illuminating they do not by any means tell the whole story. If they did you would conclude that Ken Barrington was a better batsman than Peter May, since he averaged 58 in a longer Test career than May, who averaged 46. No one who saw them both believes that. You need to understand the context of the game in order to evaluate players - which means reading match reports, player biographies and the like as well as statistics.
As someone who actually saw Sobers play many times I am amazed at some of the statements that I see here. Sobers could and did hold his place exclusively as a bowler in a strong West Indies team that was considered the best in the world. In the mid-1960's the bowling lineup consisted of Hall, Griffith, Sobers and Gibbs. Players like the Jamaican fast bowler Lester King and the Guyanese slow left arm bowler Edwin Mohammed played little or no Test cricket because Sobers was around. His cousin, the keg-spinner David Holford, who joined the team in 1966 was the fifth bowler, not Sobers.
At his peak (1966-67) in the series against England and India Sobers not only averaged over 100 with the bat but also finished second in terms of wickets taken and bowling average to Gibbs. He repeated this performance in the Rest of the World series against England. Despite the claims made for some other all rounders, I can identify several teams (West Indies in the 1960's, 70's and 80's, England in the mid 50's) that Miller, Imran or Botham would not have made with the bat alone.
Ultimately, however, the sheer hubris of some of the comments made here is quite breathtaking. After all, I am not the only person who believes that Sobers is the greatest all rounder in history (or at least since W.G. Grace). So do the three generations of players and fans who saw him play - those born between 1900 and 1920, his contemporaries, born between 1920 and 1950, and those like me born after 1950. Without undue effort I can identify the following players, journalists and officials who share my view:
John Arlott, Trevor Bailey, Bishan Bedi, Dickie Bird, Don Bradman, Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Denis Compton, Colin Cowdrey, Ted Dexter, Jack Fingleton, Tom Graveney, Charlie Griffith, Wes Hall, Ray Illingworth, Brian Johnston, Alan Knott, Jim Laker, Dennis Lillee, Clive Lloyd, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Hanif Mohammed, Barry Richards, John Snow, E.W.Swanton, Derek Underwood, Clyde Walcott, Peter Walker, Everton Weekes, Ian Wooldridge.
Does anyone know any other candidate for the title of greatest all rounder who could draw this type of support from first class cricketers? Is there any reason to believe that any of the posters on this forum is a better judge of cricketing talent than the collective wisdom of this group?
There is a reason that Sobers obtained 90 votes out of 100 in the poll for Wisden cricketer of the century - more than Miller, Imran, Botham, Kapil Dev combined. Hint: it wasn't solely because of his batting, great though that was. Hobbs, who was an even greater batsman, won only 30 votes.
So now you're making more judgements on things you don't have a clue on. You have no power to assess my intelligence - not that there's any direct correlation between that any cricket analytical ability, Beevers with his high IQ is proof enough of that. Yes, Australia have had some of the best players, but there's no way as many Australians as you think are as good as you think.
