Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[Perm]

That was not the way he was used, IIRC

I've no idea, I'm just throwing it out there as another possibility, one which would also make sense.

 

[Ikki]

Whether it be 1-7 or 1-11 it's still hundred's of players and a completely nonsensical comparison which proves nothing.

Why is it nonsensical? To acquire a standard of the best batsmen, you do analysis like this.

How do you judge how good you are against your contemporaries if you are hand-picking who you judge them against?

Did you also know, in terms of batting average, Sobers' era was only slightly worse than what is now?

 

[Ikki]

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.

Yes, I surrrrrrrrre do.

Australia have lots of the best players and I've argued for them. Never for those that did not deserve it. Never for anyone that was not lauded already.

When you name Warne and Lillee as those who I give too much leniency to you are in effect showing your own ignorance and bias, not mine. If I were so biased, why do I use the same criteria even when it's McGrath v Lillee? I say Lillee is better, even if he is statistically slightly worse. Either I have a bias for the player or not at all because when there is no opportunity for nationalistic bias I still side with my own feelings. I also witnessed McGrath's career in it's entirety.

I do not have one argument along the lines of "Nasser Hussain is better than Matthew Hayden" or "Lillee should not be mentioned in the same breath as Ambrose". Yet you have the gall to accuse me. This is just funny.

 

[Ikki]

Small point.

Sobers bowled spin, when the pitch helped pace bowlers, helping to add another paceman. And when it spun, he bowled fast medium, allowing another spinner to be added. So he has bowled in the most unfriendly conditions a bowler could think of. Not one or two test, but majority of his tests. If analogy is taken (if any, and Miller played only a handful of games in the sub-continent, where he have been most disadvatageous), Miller averages 29 in Pakistan. If he played in India, who knows what will be his stats? Most probably it will be worse. Remember Lillee never played in India, and when he played in Pakistan, he was not the therat he used to be on bouncy pitches.

Sobers' average of 34 is much better than any bowlers average of 34. Because he got the worst conditions to bowl.

Why would he do such a thing? Windies always had someone better to call on to spin. Early on Valentine, Ramadhin and bit later Gibbs to call on for spin. Unless it suited spin bowling, there would be no need for him to bowl it.

If anything, they were less certain with pacers. However, even in that, they had Hall, Griffith, Gilchrist and Boyce throughout his career.

Why would his figures be worse if he played in India? Lindwall didn't have any trouble there and it's not like India were endowed with great batsmen. Even Sobers did well there, and they are his best figures.

And when you say his 34 is better than another player's 34, I agree. But just not that much better to make him that much better.

 

[Migara]

Why would he do such a thing? Windies always had someone better to call on to spin. Early on Valentine, Ramadhin and bit later Gibbs to call on for spin. Unless it suited spin bowling, there would be no need for him to bowl it.

I am going to quote your source.

Gibbs 28.95, Ramdin 30.12, Valentine 38.12 - the spinners available. Sobers' 34 matches well with them.

And except for Lance Gibbs, Sobers has bowled the largest amount of deliveries in that time period.

Sobers was a stock bowlers,let it be spin or pace. As a stock bowler he averages 34. Whereas his illustrous attacking spin mates average 29-38. Damn impressive IMO.
And he had only four impressive pace bowlers in his career. All four plaing in his team was a rarity. Three bowlers averaging 22-27, with attacking spinner averaging 29 (Gibbs) or 30/39 (Ramdhin/Valentine), Sobers would have been the best 5th bowling option ever available. In that role, he's probaly the best bowler.

 

[Sanz]

I see the pointless attempts to belittle Sober's bowling are continuing. On that basis it would be interesting to see why Miller is supposedly the "more rounded" all-rounder when his batting record is just as mediocre as Sober's bowling if stats are all that matter.

So true.

 

[Ikki]

I am going to quote your source.

Gibbs 28.95, Ramdin 30.12, Valentine 38.12 - the spinners available. Sobers' 34 matches well with them.

And except for Lance Gibbs, Sobers has bowled the largest amount of deliveries in that time period.

Sobers was a stock bowlers,let it be spin or pace. As a stock bowler he averages 34. Whereas his illustrous attacking spin mates average 29-38. Damn impressive IMO.
And he had only four impressive pace bowlers in his career. All four plaing in his team was a rarity. Three bowlers averaging 22-27, with attacking spinner averaging 29 (Gibbs) or 30/39 (Ramdhin/Valentine), Sobers would have been the best 5th bowling option ever available. In that role, he's probaly the best bowler.

That's not the right way to see it IMO. If you are judging him against Spinners, then that is not close. If anything, the fact that he also bowled pace should put him much more ahead of them since it would be a more wicket-taking endeavour. Since he bowled pace and spin whereas they only did spin. And still, apart from Valentine (who was also good on his day), he was not only more expensive but took fewer wickets. Why would they resort to giving him the ball when you have all-time greats like Gibbs - who was better in every facet? How many spinners do you need? Two were more than enough. As for drying up an end for a session, then even Valentine was better at that then Sobers. So all 3 were better at doing that job, so why Sobers? Really doesn't begin to make sense.

If you were judging him against the pacers and he was close, then that'd be something.

Sobers, funny enough, was not the 5th option. This is the whole point. Sobers bowled almost 40 overs a test match. About as much as a McGrath. He should have been used more sparingly. That enabled him to take 2.5 wickets a match, and people remember that. Yet they fail to remember how expensive he was most of the time.

The WIndies in Sobers' time, in general, from what I see from the scorecard, bowled many bowlers instead of a stock few.

 

[steve132]

Kenny Barrington was a better Test batsman than Peter May. There is no two ways about that. While there may be a decent amount of truth in the suggestion that May was superior against the seamers to Barrington and Barrington was much superior against spin than seam, the suggestion that Barrington was essentially incapable against top-quality seam is utter nonsense. And he'd have to be for May to have been a better batsman.

The place the May > Barrington claims come from is because they were both Surrey players, and as many of the assessments in those days came from those who watched domestic cricket as international. May was easily the better batsman of the two for Surrey, but he certainly wasn't for England.

This is indeed very odd, but it's the way it is. There's several reasons why it could have been, none of which completely explain such vast disparities.

Denis Compton regarded May as the best English batsman of his time, ranking him ahead of Hammond and Hutton. Tom Graveney considers May to be the best post war English batsman, ahead of Hutton and Compton. As far as I know, all of May's and Barrington's contemporaries who expressed an opinion (Trevor Bailey, John Edrich, Brian Johnston, etc.) considered May to be the best of all purely postwar English batsmen.

There is no reason to assume that these cricketers based their judgments exclusively or even primarily on performance in county cricket as opposed to Test cricket. In any case, this view is not held only by English players and journalists. All the West Indians that I know who have rated postwar English batsmen (including Frank Worrell and Gary Sobers) regard Hutton and May as the best.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Why is it nonsensical? To acquire a standard of the best batsmen, you do analysis like this.

How do you judge how good you are against your contemporaries if you are hand-picking who you judge them against?

Did you also know, in terms of batting average, Sobers' era was only slightly worse than what is now?

If you really think spreadsheets can prove anything you have to compare the people you consider to be the best with the other top players, not by making a batting average of every Tom, Dick or Harry who batted in the top 7. Sober's figures might not stack up along side the best bowlers of his era, but equally nor do Miller's batting figures against the top batsman in his era yet he's supposedly the more rounded allrounder.
You could probably take any long period in the past 50 or 60 years and get a 1-7 batting average somewhere in the mid 30's - utterly meaningless.

 

[Migara]

That's not the right way to see it IMO. If you are judging him against Spinners, then that is not close. If anything, the fact that he also bowled pace should put him much more ahead of them since it would be a more wicket-taking endeavour. Since he bowled pace and spin whereas they only did spin. And still, apart from Valentine (who was also good on his day), he was not only more expensive but took fewer wickets. Why would they resort to giving him the ball when you have all-time greats like Gibbs - who was better in every facet? How many spinners do you need? Two were more than enough. As for drying up an end for a session, then even Valentine was better at that then Sobers. So all 3 were better at doing that job, so why Sobers? Really doesn't begin to make sense.

That's where it starts to have sense. When the wicket was taking spin, Windies used to pick both Ramdin and Valentine, and to drop a pace bowler. Sobers used to do that work of a seamer on seamer unfriendly pitches. When Gibbs, Valentine and Ramdin was going well, SObers was used to get the shine off the ball. Conversely, when they were on a green top, Valentine usually sat out. Sobers with Ramdin bowled spin to give pacemen a rest. Under these circumstances also he bowled in spin-unfriendly conditions. His averages matches up to his teams more attacking options due to this reason.

Sobers, funny enough, was not the 5th option. This is the whole point. Sobers bowled almost 40 overs a test match. About as much as a McGrath. He should have been used more sparingly. That enabled him to take 2.5 wickets a match, and people remember that. Yet they fail to remember how expensive he was most of the time.

The WIndies in Sobers' time, in general, from what I see from the scorecard, bowled many bowlers instead of a stock few.

Seemingly Lance Gibbs also did the same. He bowled rougly 50% more deliveries per match than Sobers, but still the Avg and SR are closer than what would you suggest. SObers bowled a lot because he was the stock bowler of the side. McGrath, Murali, Warne, Vaas, Hadlee were different, as they were both stock bowler and the aatcking bowler, for their sides.

 

[steve132]

You're struggling on lift-off mate. West Indies were anything but a great bowling side. Sobers' inclusion definitely did not make them stronger for it. Just take a look at the names.

The 1963-1967 West Indian bowling attack of Hall, Griffith, Gibbs and Sobers was considered the best in the world, and was the best balanced attack that the West Indies ever had. (Clive Lloyd's teams after 1976 never had a quality spinner). In fact, it is a primary reason why the West Indies were regarded as world champions in that era.

It does not make much sense to aggregate West Indian bowling statistics over the twenty years that Sobers played. Such "statistics" include data from two or even three separate generations of players.

I, really, by arguing my case, am asking HOW could Sobers be so universally talked about as a bowler when his record is at best average. I don't care if he LOOKED like a good bowler. This isn't, as I said, a difference of 1-2 runs on average...his record is really not arguable to me...and if it is, then those who pit him at the top should bring some REAL basis for it. Not because it is a competition, but because if any of us are to appreciate him we have to have some reasoning behind it.

Sobers began his career as a slow left arm bowler. He then became, from 1956 to 1960, a batsman and occasional bowler. The inclusion of bowling statistics from these years drags down his career average.

Sobers became a fast medium bowler about 1960, and two years later he added wrist spin to his repertoire. His claims to greatness as an all rounder are based mainly on his performance over the next half dozen years. Between 1962 and 1968 he played 30 Test matches, scoring 2,831 runs at an average of 65.84 and taking 113 wickets at 27.76. It would be a gross understatement to say that these are not the performances of a mediocre bowler.

I am not one who takes contemporary analysis lightly. You have to see my takes on Lillee and Richards to notice this. They didn't have the best records amongst their contemporaries but were lauded the best. Now, at least they were IN the statistical ball-park. Sobers, just isn't and no argument here has put him near it. Testimony can only go so far. Especially in an age where not all matches were seen by everybody and unlike today the statistical data is not as readily available.

The problem is that, despite protestations to the contrary, your argument is based almost exclusively on statistics. Not only that, but you use statistics in a very crude form - ignoring, for example, the Reliance Mobil ICC rankings, which provide a very different picture of Sobers' bowling abilities from yours.

There is a saying that you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion on this or any other issue. I do not, however, see any reason to take yours more seriously than I do the judgments of hundreds of players and journalists who saw Sobers play. Indeed, the fact that few, if any knowledgeable observers share your views is the clearest indication that these views have little merit.

 

[JBH001]

The place the May > Barrington claims come from is because they were both Surrey players, and as many of the assessments in those days came from those who watched domestic cricket as international. May was easily the better batsman of the two for Surrey, but he certainly wasn't for England.

This is indeed very odd, but it's the way it is. There's several reasons why it could have been, none of which completely explain such vast disparities.

Have to read the rest, but Benaud (to name just one) named May the best post war English batsman. And he would have based his opinion on tests.

 

[Anil]

The 1963-1967 West Indian bowling attack of Hall, Griffith, Gibbs and Sobers was considered the best in the world, and was the best balanced attack that the West Indies ever had. (Clive Lloyd's teams after 1976 never had a quality spinner). In fact, it is a primary reason why the West Indies were regarded as world champions in that era.

It does not make much sense to aggregate West Indian bowling statistics over the twenty years that Sobers played. Such "statistics" include data from two or even three separate generations of players.

Sobers began his career as a slow left arm bowler. He then became, from 1956 to 1960, a batsman and occasional bowler. The inclusion of bowling statistics from these years drags down his career average.

Sobers became a fast medium bowler about 1960, and two years later he added wrist spin to his repertoire. His claims to greatness as an all rounder are based mainly on his performance over the next half dozen years. Between 1962 and 1968 he played 30 Test matches, scoring 2,831 runs at an average of 65.84 and taking 113 wickets at 27.76. It would be a gross understatement to say that these are not the performances of a mediocre bowler.

great points steve, completely agree...

 

[vic_orthdox]

The flip side of that is Sobers being used as a second spinner when the pitch was taking turn, or him bowling a few overs of seam if the pitch was green and his bowlers tired.

Valentine and Ramadhin would both be selected in those situations, I'm sure.

 

[sanga1337]

Denis Compton regarded May as the best English batsman of his time, ranking him ahead of Hammond and Hutton. Tom Graveney considers May to be the best post war English batsman, ahead of Hutton and Compton. As far as I know, all of May's and Barrington's contemporaries who expressed an opinion (Trevor Bailey, John Edrich, Brian Johnston, etc.) considered May to be the best of all purely postwar English batsmen.

There is no reason to assume that these cricketers based their judgments exclusively or even primarily on performance in county cricket as opposed to Test cricket. In any case, this view is not held only by English players and journalists. All the West Indians that I know who have rated postwar English batsmen (including Frank Worrell and Gary Sobers) regard Hutton and May as the best.

Out of interest do you know why they considered him better?

 

[gwo]

Both Dickys and KaZ's opinions are invalid.

They are both wearing glasses so laden with bias they fail to see the awesomeness of top level players such as Sobers, Murali, Hayden and Gilchrist.

on topic. Sobers > Miller as a cricketer.

 

[Ikki]

The 1963-1967 West Indian bowling attack of Hall, Griffith, Gibbs and Sobers was considered the best in the world, and was the best balanced attack that the West Indies ever had. (Clive Lloyd's teams after 1976 never had a quality spinner). In fact, it is a primary reason why the West Indies were regarded as world champions in that era.

A 4 year period in a 20 year career. Very good and well, but Sobers was still only average in this period.

It does not make much sense to aggregate West Indian bowling statistics over the twenty years that Sobers played. Such "statistics" include data from two or even three separate generations of players.

Yes, because Sobers played with 2-3 generations of bowlers.

Sobers began his career as a slow left arm bowler. He then became, from 1956 to 1960, a batsman and occasional bowler. The inclusion of bowling statistics from these years drags down his career average.

Sobers in said period bowled 25 overs a match - compare this to Miller's 31 overs per match. Still, anything but an occasional bowler. Occasional bowler is someone like Steve Waugh.

His figures for this period:

His figures are so bad that occasional bowler or not, he was terrible.

Sobers became a fast medium bowler about 1960, and two years later he added wrist spin to his repertoire. His claims to greatness as an all rounder are based mainly on his performance over the next half dozen years. Between 1962 and 1968 he played 30 Test matches, scoring 2,831 runs at an average of 65.84 and taking 113 wickets at 27.76. It would be a gross understatement to say that these are not the performances of a mediocre bowler.

His claim to fame is what he did against England, I've acknowledged that. Not that he took well against a weak Indian batting line-up in said period. This is his best period, it is only 23 matches long. Again, this is my whole point with Sobers. He had a very short peak and was average-to-awful for the rest of his career.

The problem is that, despite protestations to the contrary, your argument is based almost exclusively on statistics. Not only that, but you use statistics in a very crude form - ignoring, for example, the Reliance Mobil ICC rankings, which provide a very different picture of Sobers' bowling abilities from yours.

Actually, it isn't much different. He has a good peak but average career in whole. Anyway, the less said about those rankings the better. Those rankings put Harmison almost on par with Lillee. And you say my evaluation is flawed.

There is a saying that you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion on this or any other issue. I do not, however, see any reason to take yours more seriously than I do the judgments of hundreds of players and journalists who saw Sobers play. Indeed, the fact that few, if any knowledgeable observers share your views is the clearest indication that these views have little merit.

I agree with that statement. There is only so much data I can put in front of you. You can call it worthless, bad, corrupt, yet not show why, and still stick to your own opinion. That's fine. But, as I said, someone like me and those who haven't seen Sobers will start to increasingly ask questions you cannot deny or brush off.

 

[Ikki]

If you really think spreadsheets can prove anything you have to compare the people you consider to be the best with the other top players, not by making a batting average of every Tom, Dick or Harry who batted in the top 7. Sober's figures might not stack up along side the best bowlers of his era, but equally nor do Miller's batting figures against the top batsman in his era yet he's supposedly the more rounded allrounder.

Actually, the point is not that he doesn't stack up against the best, it's that he's closer to the worst. Because, if you do take a sample of all bowlers and make a qualification, Sobers is amongst the bottom. These rank as individuals, not a group as a whole.

You could probably take any long period in the past 50 or 60 years and get a 1-7 batting average somewhere in the mid 30's - utterly meaningless.

Er, not sure how it is meaningless. If every decade is in the mid 30s, it shows the average batsman's average is not high. However, the 60s and 70s are the among the high averaging decades. How else do you propose you gauge a standard? You can't compare him to the best because he is clearly not one of the best, and you say we can't compare him to the rest because the result is meaningless. It seems very convenient that he has a standard all for himself.

 

[Ikki]

That's where it starts to have sense. When the wicket was taking spin, Windies used to pick both Ramdin and Valentine, and to drop a pace bowler. Sobers used to do that work of a seamer on seamer unfriendly pitches. When Gibbs, Valentine and Ramdin was going well, SObers was used to get the shine off the ball. Conversely, when they were on a green top, Valentine usually sat out. Sobers with Ramdin bowled spin to give pacemen a rest. Under these circumstances also he bowled in spin-unfriendly conditions. His averages matches up to his teams more attacking options due to this reason.

Seemingly Lance Gibbs also did the same. He bowled rougly 50% more deliveries per match than Sobers, but still the Avg and SR are closer than what would you suggest. SObers bowled a lot because he was the stock bowler of the side. McGrath, Murali, Warne, Vaas, Hadlee were different, as they were both stock bowler and the aatcking bowler, for their sides.

Sorry, that argument doesn't wash. Remember that WIndies bowled with more than just these bowlers you've named. Guys like Sir Frank, Atkinson, Holford, Carew bowled buckets of overs as well and did fast bowling as well as spin. They essentially had 5-6 bowlers throughout these years. It was not a matter of leaving one guy out and putting another guy in, considering the conditions. They had more than Sobers as an all-rounder.

 

[archie mac]

Actually, the point is not that he doesn't stack up against the best, it's that he's closer to the worst. Because, if you do take a sample of all bowlers and make a qualification, Sobers is amongst the bottom. These rank as individuals, not a group as a whole.



Er, not sure how it is meaningless. If every decade is in the mid 30s, it shows the average batsman's average is not high. However, the 60s and 70s are the among the high averaging decades. How else do you propose you gauge a standard? You can't compare him to the best because he is clearly not one of the best, and you say we can't compare him to the rest because the result is meaningless. It seems very convenient that he has a standard all for himself.

I like the avatar

Why do you think no one from his playing days has any doubt that he was a fine bowler, and most say that if he was not such a great batsman he would have been a great bowler?

There are hardly any of the true all rounders who have been at their best with bat and ball at the same time (one reason why Botham should be rank near the very top imo), maybe his average would have been much better if he only bowled in one style, but I am sure his captains thought it a great thing that he was that versatile