Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[Ikki]

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?

I do not know. That is what I am asking. I can only let "he looked like a great bowler" go so far as how I, personally, judge a player. Based on his record, it really isn't that impressive at all. And that is why I am asking for extrinsic evidence that may sway me.

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

I agree that his average would have been better, but on the whole, not enough for me to say that he was a) consistently at least a good all-rounder and b) better than Miller.

I agree with you on Botham, whom I think with Miller, are two true all-rounders in that they excelled with both disciplines at the same time.

 

[archie mac]

I do not know. That is what I am asking. I can only let "he looked like a great bowler" go so far as how I, personally, judge a player. Based on his record, it really isn't that impressive at all. And that is why I am asking for extrinsic evidence that may sway me.



I agree that his average would have been better, but on the whole, not enough for me to say that he was a) consistently at least a good all-rounder and b) better than Miller.

I agree with you on Botham, whom I think with Miller, are two true all-rounders in that they excelled with both disciplines at the same time.

Were there not a number of series where he bowled very well? He did take a fair few wickets

Sobers and Miller had a lot in common, both thought cricket just a game, and sometimes would not try as hard as they might, although from what I have read it seems Miller was the better captain (not according to Bobby Simpson) although not tested at the highest level. Still most of those who watched both had Sobers in front, but never by much

 

[Ikki]

I am not that good in finding old threads, but does anyone remember that thread where we were looking at x number of wickets with x number of runs and how many times that occured for all-rounders - namely, Miller, Imran, Botham and Sobers?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Er, not sure how it is meaningless. .

Of course you don't understand why it's meaningless, because the stats guru can't explain it you. Steve's already shown a 7 year period where Sober's took 113 wickets at 27 which is perfectly reasonable for a bowler never mind someone who also averaged 65 with the bat. If that had been his whole career no doubt the statsguru would have exploded in his honour.
I actually feel sorry for the think they know it all younger generations who think they can judge cricket on decimal points and have a complete disinterest in talking to people who were there.

 

[Richard]

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.

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.

Suffice to say the notion of May being better than Hammond and Hutton, and Compton himself, is sufficiently ludicrous for me to dismiss it.

May is a batsman I've always held in high regard, but have never quite realised how high he tends to be held by so many fellow cricketers. I guess I'll have to try and work-out exactly why this should be. Right now, it strikes me as almost Trumper-esque.

 

[Richard]

Both Dickys and KaZ's opinions are invalid.

They are both wearing glasses so laden with bias

I don't do bias. It's an utterly pointless, stupid thing.

 

[Richard]

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.

None of which are anything to do with the team they play for.

It's rather funny that you try to prove you're not biased by showing how you argued that an Australian was better than an Austalian though. Let's suffice it to say you don't realise your bias, which I dare say isn't your fault, but pretty much everyone else recognises it. No-one who's had any decent read of my posts has ever accused me of being biased towards players from any one team. I've been accused of bias for and against those from every single cricket-playing country in my time, but it's all been by people who've only just taken their first look.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I actually agree, Richard often posts utter crap, but never based on nationalistic bias.

 

[Ikki]

Of course you don't understand why it's meaningless, because the stats guru can't explain it you. Steve's already shown a 7 year period where Sober's took 113 wickets at 27 which is perfectly reasonable for a bowler never mind someone who also averaged 65 with the bat. If that had been his whole career no doubt the statsguru would have exploded in his honour.
I actually feel sorry for the think they know it all younger generations who think they can judge cricket on decimal points and have a complete disinterest in talking to people who were there.

Let's look at that period:

So what is remarkable about his record there? He is slightly better than average against Australia and England. He is very good against India. Now, India, was the worst batting side of his time. In fact, it was a pretty weak team in general. He also averaged 85 against India in the same period - for that average of 65 you cite.

So, are you arguing that Sobers is the greatest all-rounder based on THIS? THIS being his PEAK? Disregarding the rest of his 20 year career?

Miller for almost half his career was averaging something like 45 with the bat and 21 with the ball before his decline. So yes, in order for people to judge Sobers highly it really needs to be consistent throughout his career.

As I said and continue to say: Yes, Sobers did have a period where he was absolutely a great all-rounder, but for the rest of his career he was not even average with his weaker discipline...he was just plain bad.

The period before his peak:


The period after his peak:


How do you want people to judge him? These are cold-hard-numbers. Are there mitigating factors? Is there anything else?

 

[Ikki]

None of which are anything to do with the team they play for.

It's rather funny that you try to prove you're not biased by showing how you argued that an Australian was better than an Austalian though. Let's suffice it to say you don't realise your bias, which I dare say isn't your fault, but pretty much everyone else recognises it. No-one who's had any decent read of my posts has ever accused me of being biased towards players from any one team. I've been accused of bias for and against those from every single cricket-playing country in my time, but it's all been by people who've only just taken their first look.

Richard, everyone also realises your lunacy, but it doesn't seem to affect you either. People in glass houses should not be throwing stones.

Didn't you also say Ian Bishop was better than Warne? I mean, you are ridiculous.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Let's look at that period:

So what is remarkable about his record there? He is slightly better than average against Australia and England. He is very good against India. Now, India, was the worst batting side of his time. In fact, it was a pretty weak team in general. He also averaged 85 against India in the same period - for that average of 65 you cite.

So, are you arguing that Sobers is the greatest all-rounder based on THIS? THIS being his PEAK? Disregarding the rest of his 20 year career?

Miller for almost half his career was averaging something like 45 with the bat and 21 with the ball before his decline. So yes, in order for people to judge Sobers highly it really needs to be consistent throughout his career.

As I said and continue to say: Yes, Sobers did have a period where he was absolutely a great all-rounder, but for the rest of his career he was not even average with his weaker discipline...he was just plain bad.

I was expecting the spreadsheet reply. Why don't you go and find a boxing forum and tell the members that Muhammad Ali couldn't box based on his fights as a 40 year old when he was in the early stages of Parkinson's disease and half his career wins were against crap opposition.

 

[Ikki]

I was expecting the spreadsheet reply. Why don't you go and find a boxing forum and tell the members that Muhammad Ali couldn't box based on his fights as a 40 year old when he was in the early stages of Parkinson's disease and half his career wins were against crap opposition.

If Muhammad Ali also had a flood of losses at the start of his career then your jest would hold some truth. In reality, you cannot reply with any sane logic but a teasing insult back. I expected your reply too. No one can argue how someone averaging in the 40s for most of their career was even an average bowler. It is conclusively bad.

He has 30 matches averaging 27 and 63 matches where he averages 40. Come on.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If Muhammad Ali also had a flood of losses at the start of his career then your jest would hold some truth. In reality, you cannot reply with any sane logic but a teasing insult back. I expected your reply too. No one can argue how someone averaging in the 40s for most of their career was even an average bowler. It is conclusively bad.

He has 30 matches averaging 27 and 63 matches where he averages 40. Come on.

No, as a boxer you can choose your level and make sure you're not fighting beyond your capabilities and gradually move up in class. Had he fought the best heavyweights from day one he might well have had a string of losses at the beginning. As a cricketer at the top level you play against the top players from the first time you're chosen. In both cases decline is inevitable.

Sane logic to you means stats so there's no point. Those of us who enjoy cricket will continue to do so, those who enjoy torturing themselves with stats likewise.

 

[Ikki]

No, as a boxer you can choose your level and make sure you're not fighting beyond your capabilities and gradually move up in class. Had he fought the best heavyweights from day one he might well have had a string of losses at the beginning. As a cricketer at the top level you play against the top players from the first time you're chosen. In both cases decline is inevitable.

Sane logic to you means stats so there's no point. Those of us who enjoy cricket will continue to do so, those who enjoy torturing themselves with stats likewise.

As a boxer you are not judged by your amateur record once you turn professional. No one cares if Mohammad Ali lost bouts as an amateur but once he turned professional, he is responsible for his own legacy. The same thing goes for FC cricket and Test class cricket.

What you are essentially asking is not only to give leeway when a cricketer starts off, but also give leeway where he is aging. Essentially, only judging a cricketer by their prime.

You are purposely distorting my stance. I have said, and will say again, I think in order to be in consideration for something, some title, you must have SOME statistical boundary. For example, I would never consider someone who averages 10 as a batsmen, when his contemporaries are averaging much more, as "the greatest batsmen ever". Another example would be, never considering a bowler who averages 40 as the greatest bowler ever. No matter how good their peak was.

Once you are roughly in that statistical qualification, then I don't care if you are 5 points off or 1, because other feats translate more impressively than simply being ahead by a small difference. But Sobers, for most of his career has an appalling bowling record. Yet you want people to ignore this and tout him as the greatest all-rounder ever? Without dispute? It's mind-boggling that the poll is so one-sided considering what has been discussed.

I am not Richard, I do not haggle for pedantry. If you, in your own honest mind, can't see what I am saying, then I feel sorry for you.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If you, in your own honest mind, can't see what I am saying, then I feel sorry for you.

Too late for that old chestnut...I've already expressed my sympathy for you and your pocket calculator.

 

[Ikki]

Too late for that old chestnut...I've already expressed my sympathy for you and your pocket calculator.

Yes, and with respect I kept trying to explain my stance - something that you kept distorting. But now, it is clear as day you won't accept anything else and cannot rebut anything said so you will stick to childish jibes.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's mind-boggling that the poll is so one-sided considering what has been discussed.

It just means people think your argument is not worthy.

 

[Ikki]

It just means people think your argument is not worthy.

Actually, I think it's quite the opposite. You can engage in pages of to-and-fro but not state a cogent reply to people who question your stance? Funny. Sounds more like the ability to reply is not there instead of the will. But of course, you are arguing that someone who averaged 40 with the ball for 13 years was the greatest all-rounder ever. I wouldn't want to try and explain myself either. I'd be explaining myself out of my own stance.

 

[Sanz]

It just means people think your argument is not worthy.

it just means that Statsguru Spreadsheets are worthless piece of junk.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Actually, I think it's quite the opposite.:

Removing the "childish jibes", you think the one-sidedness of the vote reflects that people think you have a worthy argument? Super.