Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[Migara]

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.

Once more I beg to differ. Out of all those names you mentioned, Sobers was the best. He was the best stock bowler. That is the very reason to use him a lot.

 

[Ikki]

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

We're not doing chilfish jibes anymore? I was just getting started though. Meh.

I think the one-sidedness of this poll should at least reflect itself through some solid argument. "You are a statsguru boy" "You cannot judge" are not arguments that convince anyone. And no, it is no one's duty to convince anyone else, but damn, you make it even easier to not side with you.

 

[Sanz]

Steve made a great argument and that pretty much sums of the opinion of those who voted for Sobers. A no. of solid arguments have been made in the past too but all useless :-

Yeah.

Basically, my view of Sobers is similar to C_Cs. I argued the points in a bit more depth in "the greats" thread, but...

Sobers is a better bowler than he would appear because of his average, for several reasons. First and foremost he is one of the few players for whom the idea that they could have done better in one discipline if they could have concentrated on it is genuinely true. Sobers was not just a batsman who bowled, he was a batsman who was a specialist bowler. Not only did he bowl 40 overs a test (which stands up well against any specialist), but he was also one of the most prolific wicket takers of his time. Indeed, I believe in the entire decade of the 1960s, only Graham McKenzie took more wickets. He played alongside some great bowlers, was comfortably the greatest batsman of his generation and arguably the second best of all time, and STILL led virtually the entire world in wicket taking. This is an utterly remarkable feat, that nobody else in history can even come remotely close to.

Given these credentials, obviously one would ask why his average is relatively high compared to other bowlers of his time. I think C_C found the major reasons for this, which are to do with simple fatigue and the fact that his multiple abilities with the ball and the weakness of his bowling support forced him to fill roles in the team that he was unsuited to at times. Sobers was certainly a better medium pacer than spin bowler, but was required to bowl spin because a) his team often had no other quality spin options, especially late in the game on pitches more inclined to deterioration than todays, and b) it was far less stressful on his body, for a guy who batted for hours on end, fielded first slip and captained the team, as well as bowling 40 overs a test. Sobers was a passable spin bowler, a very good medium pacer, a brilliant fielder and one of the greatest ever batsmen.

To compare him as a bowler to Jacques Kallis and claim that Kallis is superior because of his average is simply ludicrous, and shows an unwillingness to take anything into account beyond the raw numbers, and even those raw numbers in only the simplest possible fashion. Kallis was a good bowler early in his career, when he was a poorer batsman than he is today, and was effective as a genuine seam option for his captain, and his record early in his career reflects that. He was never however a prolific wicket taker. He filled in overs in a strong attack boasting guys like De Villiers, Donald, Pollock, McMillan and Kluesener, and if he didn't have a good day he simply didn't bowl. As his career has progressed, this has become the case more and more, where now he virtually never bowls unless it is in swing-friendly conditions against Zimbabwe. If Kallis was, next week in the second test, forced to open the bowling and bowl 20-30 overs in an innings, he would be slaughtered, and if he was forced to do it every match his average would soon skyrocket. Similarly, if Sobers had the luxury of bowling only when it suited, only his preferred style of bowling in the conditions, and only when he wasn't being played with ease, his average would sit comfortably below 30.

They are simply impossible to compare with averages alone.

 

[Sanz]

What steve said in 2008, SJS said it about 3 years ago :-

A few points to consider :

1. To understand Sobers bowling over his career we must first keep in mind the span of time it covered - 20 years ! Lets have a modern day bowlers, particularly a new ball bowler, bowl over twenty years and then see what the stats look like. We can be pretty sure the difference with sobers average will not appear that glaring.

2. His career needs to be divided into three parts really of thirty tests each (33 in the last one-third). Each of these cover between 6 to 8 years each -1954 to 60, 1960 to 67 and 1968 to 1974.

In the first period Sobers did not bowl much. About a dozen over per innings. He used to bat higher up the order and bowled in frequently and sometimes never.

During this period he took just 31 wickets in 30 test matches. Forget a batting all rounder, this wouldnt qualify him for any type of all rounder.

The next period saw him bowling much more. He added more variety to his bowling and sent down almost twice as many overs (45) per test match with nearly 4 wkts per test(total 113) at under 29 each.

The last 33 test brought him another 93 wickets. During most of this time he was captain of a declining side with poor bowling resources and he had to bowl longer which he probably wouldnt have if he had Lloyd's bowling resources. He was much more economical giving away under 2 runs per over in the second half of this period but the bowling average went up to 35.

During 1960-1974 he took 204 wickets at 31.6 each at a strike rate of 80. This is not bad when you recall that he started his career way back in 1954.

Yes he was a batting all rounder but he was not a run of the mill bowler as his stats may show at a cursory examination.

I personally feel his bowling failed to fulfill his enormous talent because he tried to bowl too many things. Pace and spin is bad enough but try asking Warne to bowl off spin and Murali conventional leg spin and see what happens to their shoulders as well as their figures. This is what he was doing by bowling chinamen alongwith conventional left arm leg spin.

Its okay when a part time bowler like sachin does something like this for 4-5 overs once in a while but for a serious test match bowler, this was too much. It gave him the tag of a bowler who could bowl every thing but I suspect it denied him the mastery of a particular type of bowling over a long period.

 

[Sanz]

If you like it short :-

Harmison's certainly not a great bowler, but if he could bat like Ponting he'd rival Bradman, and that's the point.

Anyway, I don't see why people put such unreasonable requirements on Sobers' bowling. He took over 200 wickets at a fairly unimpressive average, but guys like Imran and Botham average in the 30s with the bat. Why aren't they "great bowlers but decidedly mediocre batsmen", when that's what they would be if you judged them by the standards of a specialist, as people seem keen to judge Sobers? The fact is that no player has ever come as close as Sobers has to being world class in all fields of the game. He was hands down the best batsmen in the world in his era, one of the most successful and prolific bowlers and useful in multiple styles, albeit without a devastating record, and one of the best fielders. No, his bowling was not good enough to get him in an all-time XI or anything, but it was certainly every bit as good as Imran's batting IMO, as much as one can judge such a thing.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

We're not doing chilfish jibes anymore? I was just getting started though. Meh.

I think the one-sidedness of this poll should at least reflect itself through some solid argument. "You are a statsguru boy" "You cannot judge" are not arguments that convince anyone. And no, it is no one's duty to convince anyone else, but damn, you make it even easier to not side with you.

The one-sidedness of the poll has nothing to do with siding with me. The vast majority of cricket followers believe Sober's to be the best allrounder ever and base this judgement partially on stats and partially on eye witness accounts of his peers. This rubbishing of Sober's bowling is nothing new on here, it's been done by BS before and no one was convinced then either.

 

[aussie]

LT sir, you might as well give up. Not wanting to cause any vibes but its obvious in debating great of players of the past CW has two sections those who wish to take foolishly ridicule players they have not seen based on stats while others wish to learn.

But i wouldn't worry though since its a fairly small group.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

LT sir, you might as well give up. Not wanting to cause any vibes but its obvious in debating great of players of the past CW has two sections those who wish to take foolishly ridicule players they have not seen based on stats while others wish to learn.

But i wouldn't worry though since its a fairly small group.

I know, but just occasionally a lost soul comes on board.

 

[Ikki]

Steve made a great argument and that pretty much sums of the opinion of those who voted for Sobers. A no. of solid arguments have been made in the past too but all useless :-

But it's too easy to take apart.

1) Being the leading wicket-taker of your time is not an achievement unless it is because you are regularly taking a high amount of wickets with a low average. Sobers played over 20 years of cricket which means his aggregate amount of wickets will surpass much better bowlers simply because he has played longer, not because he is a better bowler.

2) The Windies, as I showed, had more than enough spin options and it's a fallacy to believe that he was filling in because no one else was there. Maybe on occasion but not on his overall career.

3) It's true that Sobers' efforts are amazing in that he batting so much, fielded with high energy and bowled almost 40 overs. That is a grand feat just to complete. HOWEVER, the fact is he did bowl and was largely throughout his career ineffective. Again, WIndies did not have a shortage of bowlers, either spin or pace. Him bowling that much was to his detriment but only so much slack can be given there. He could have ended up taking more wickets and having a better record due to that opportunity, but he didn't.

4) Yes, it is difficult to compare with Kallis but not so much with Miller.

 

[Sanz]

It may be too easy for you to break apart using your meaningless stats based on petty assumptions. For those who believe in history, it is almost unbreakable.

 

[Ikki]

What steve said in 2008, SJS said it about 3 years ago :-

1) 20 years is a long time to play cricket, yet it was a decision he made. The fact that out of those 20 years, 13 of them he was poor is not a saving grace. It also did not happen all at one time. In his last 3rd (as SJS asks us to divide) he averaged 52 with the bat. We cannot exactly laud him for his longevity then make an excuse for it when he falls short.

2) SJS is incorrect to assume Sobers was not bowling regularly and could not qualify as an all-rounder. Sobers in his first 30 matches bowled 23 overs per match. This is easily in all-rounder territory. If even you take out his last third because you think age played a part, since debut and 12 jan 1967 (2 thirds) he averages 33 and strikes at 87 bowling 35 overs a match.

Even during the period that SJS calls "not bad" it really is only average. A correction should be made as he averages 32 in this time as well.

I mean, you guys are really stretching the limits here. Maybe, as SJS says, he would have become better had he focused just on one type of bowling. Maybe Miller would have been better had he not gone to the war. But that kind of maybe is something to ponder about, not to use and universally proclaim one person the greatest all-rounder ever.

 

[Ikki]

If you like it short :-

Sobers was not near as good as Harmison is/was. That comparison isn't even apt.

 

[Ikki]

It may be too easy for you to break apart using your meaningless stats based on petty assumptions. For those who believe in history, it is almost unbreakable.

These are facts, not assumptions. What you are in effect arguing are assumptions.

1) He played for 20 years so his aggregate wicket total will be more than others - this is not a reflection on his bowling as much as it is on the amount of cricket he played.

2) Bowling 23-25 overs a match is enough to be considered an all-rounder. Miller himself bowled 31 overs a match.

 

[Sanz]

Sobers was not near as good as Harmison is/was. That comparison isn't even apt.

Like you have seen Sobers bowl.

End of the discussion.

 

[Sanz]

These are facts, not assumptions. What you are in effect arguing are assumptions.

1) He played for 20 years so his aggregate wicket total will be more than others - this is not a reflection on his bowling as much as it is on the amount of cricket he played.

Imran Played for 21 years scored < 4000 runs, Steve Waugh played for 20 years and 160 tests, took only 92 wickets.

 

[Ikki]

Like you have seen Sobers bowl.

End of the discussion.

And you've seen him bowl?

I have not seen Gibbs bowl either, but I can make a very accurate estimate that Murali was better. Or conversely, I have not seen Lindwall bowl either but I can make a very accurate estimate that he was better than Brett Lee.

You are clutching at straws.

 

[Sanz]

And you've seen him bowl?

I am not the one who made the statement :-

"Sobers was not near as good as Harmison is/was. That comparison isn't even apt."

 

[Ikki]

Imran Played for 21 years scored < 4000 runs, Steve Waugh played for 20 years and 160 tests, took only 92 wickets.

So? But would you make the point that a young Waugh had scored less runs than Imran had made in his entire career and tout Imran?

Would you take the aggregate amount of wickets Waugh took and say before McGrath overtook him that because Waugh had taken more wickets than McGrath at that time he was decent?

You are again clutching straws.

The underlining factor should be, if x amount of runs were made, what was the average per dismissal/inning/test. Or, if x amount of wickets were taken, at what cost were they taken. For example, Imran may have scored more aggregate runs than Michael Clarke thus far, but it doesn't make him better.

 

[Sanz]

You are clutching at straws.

Wow, What a compelling argument like the useless sheets of meaningless statistics.

 

[Ikki]

I am not the one who made the statement :-

"Sobers was not near as good as Harmison is/was. That comparison isn't even apt."

And it isn't. Arguing that Sobers was Harmison+Ponting is quite ridiculous actually.

You don't need to have seen someone bowl when they average 50 to know they are crap. Likewise you don't have to have seen someone average 99.94 with the bat to know they were good.

Averaging 40 in 63/93 tests is one of those things.