Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
What a compelling reply, you sure are proving me wrong with them.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers
- Thread starter Craig
- Start date
- Status
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Longevity isn't enough to get to wickets or make runs, which you seem to be implying. If it was so, Imran would have scored a lot more.Waugh would have taken lot more wickets.
Why would I make such assumptions, It is you who is making the assumptions.
No, But I would say that Waugh was a better allrounder than Mcgrath. And that is an indisputable fact of CRICKET HISTORY.
Very Compelling Argument No. 2.
Last edited:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
I dont need to. You have to be proven right first to be proven wrong.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
So now Sobers become Crap.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I agree. Sobers' longevity is a talking point. However, to the extent that his bowling should earn him the undisputed title of the greatest all-rounder? I do not agree.
Waugh did not bowl much, or to the extent that Sobers did, so he is not comparable in many ways.
As for Imran, I'd actually rate his almost 4000 runs on par with Sobers' 254 wickets.
I didn't make such an assumption, I presented a scenario.
It was said that because Sobers was the leading wicket taker in periods throughout his career that this proved his efficacy as a bowler. I disputed this, more due to the extent to how effective it actually was. Because Sobers played over 20 years, he had in 1 career the career of maybe 3 bowlers. Those 3 bowlers could have all been better than him but not have accumulated as many wickets. It did not make Sobers better simply because he had more wickets than them. It was simply a byproduct of having played much longer.
Yes, he wasn't useless and I am not arguing that. However, those wickets came at a great cost. Therefore that point is only something that can be regarded to a certain extent, and to me it's that is more due to the longevity, and not the actual quality, of his bowling.
Yes, but what does that have to do with this?
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
For 63 of his 93 Tests as a bowler he was undeniably crap - whatever the reason.
The points I brought forth were facts; they are innately correct/right.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
No he took more wickets than Miller who want to pick ahead of Sobers. He scored 5000 runs more than Miller. If Miller decided to go to the war, it was his decision to go, why should I assume that he was going to be as successful as Sobers.
May be it was just not easy being a bowler. So you see longevity isn't enough to get you wickets, you have to be good at it to be asked to bowl.
So,in your own words, Apart from being one of the greatest all time batsman of all time, Sobers, in one career, had the career of Three Bowlers, who could not, despite being better, have accumulated as many wickets as him.
And you still doubt his bowling ability ?
I dont think you understand the ROLE of an ALLROUNDER.
Last edited:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Statsguru fact. Here is another Statsguru fact Andy Ganteaume is a better batsman than Bradman.
Bradman's record is better only because of longevity.
Last edited:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
So Was Imran for 67 of his test matches.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...iew=innings;wicketsmax1=2;wicketsval1=wickets
JBH001
International Regular
Fair enough. But, afaik, all those writers exclude Hutton and Hammond from the list as pre-war batsman, while May was a post war batsman. Benaud, iirc, did rate Hutton at the very top as well (he almost went for Hutton and Miller as his opening bats in his all time XI) but placed May as the best English bat of the post war generation. I dont know where he would put Compton in that group as, iirc, his career too began pre-war but I certainly do think he ranked May ahead of Barrington, if not ahead of Hammond and Hutton (and perhaps Compton). I think Cowdrey held a similar opinion too (although for him Hutton was indubitably the best English batsman he had ever seen).
Last edited:
Hmm... bad stats.
Your filter includes matches such as this where most people would say he performed well with the ball.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...;view=match;wicketsmax1=2;wicketsval1=wickets
this is a much more accurate depiction of which matches were "poor". A good 20 or so...but not the "67" you suggest.
Compton stated that he would put May a shade in front of Hutton "because he was equally happy against all types of bowling and because he was the most brilliant player off the back foot I have ever seen, not excluding Sir Don Bradman." Worrell stated that May combined aggression and defence better than any other player he knew. Graveney described May as "The greatest of all post-war English batsmen", adding that "He was a superb yet disciplined stroke player who had what I call 'the big innings temperament'."
Just a few quotes from some of May's distinguished admirers.
JBH001
International Regular
He was also well known for his on-side play, which is also probably indicated by his stance iirc.
Edit/ Those comments about May vs Hutton by Compton are interesting though. Would not have picked that. But, iirc, Hutton had a bad accident as a PT instructor during the war years, and (again iirc) subsequent surgery lessened the length of his left arm relative to his right arm. Post war he was not the batsman he had been pre-war. He was still defensively immaculate, but he was much less willing to attack and dominate the bowlers as he once had been.
Edit/ Those comments about May vs Hutton by Compton are interesting though. Would not have picked that. But, iirc, Hutton had a bad accident as a PT instructor during the war years, and (again iirc) subsequent surgery lessened the length of his left arm relative to his right arm. Post war he was not the batsman he had been pre-war. He was still defensively immaculate, but he was much less willing to attack and dominate the bowlers as he once had been.
Last edited:
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Yes and his off side play, particularly his driving, looked less aesthetically pleasing (to those inclined to orthodoxy of technique) since the swing of the bat and follow through were severely hampered and hence altered due to his injury.
archie mac
International Coach
Compton and Hutton were none too fond
True, but they certainly knew and respected each other's abilities. Compton generally believed that Hutton did not dominate bowling as consistently as a player of his talents should have done.
I think that we have reached the point of diminishing returns in this exchange. You insist - contrary to the views of every views of virtually everyone who actually saw him - that Sobers was a mediocre bowler, and reject all arguments to the contrary in favor of an exclusive focus on bowling averages.A 4 year period in a 20 year career. Very good and well, but Sobers was still only average in this period.
Yes, because Sobers played with 2-3 generations of bowlers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Time is short. I'll just make the following points in closing:
1. Although Sobers played Test cricket for 20 years he was not a great all-rounder for the entire period. In fact, NOBODY has ever been a great international all-rounder for such a period. Every all-rounder, including Rhodes, Miller, Imran and Botham has had periods when they focused more on one discipline than the other (or was mediocre at both batting and bowling). In Sobers' case, he began as a slow left arm bowler, became essentially a batsman and occasional bowler from 1956 to about 1961, and emerged as a great all-rounder only from 1962 onwards. He remained a great all-rounder until his knees and shoulder began to give him trouble in the early 70's, but enjoyed an 8 -10 year spell at the top. No on else has been as good for as long as he has.
2. England was not the only country against which Sobers enjoyed success. If that were the case he would not enjoy the esteem of cricketers in all nations. He is, for example, the only man to complete the Australian double of 1,000 runs and 50 wickets in a season, a feat that he achieved twice and one that Miller never managed.
3. The bowling all rounders - Miller, Imran and Botham - do not have better batting statistics than Sobers' bowling record. They all average in the mid 30's as Test batsmen, which would not be enough to secure a place in a strong Test side. Take the West Indies, for example. The top of the order in the mid 1960's consisted of Hunte, Carew, Kanhai, Butcher, Nurse and Sobers. At the end of Sobers' career (1974) it was Fredericks, Rowe, Kanhai, Kallicharran, Lloyd and Sobers, and by 1980 it had become Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Kallicharran, Rowe and Lloyd. None of the bowling all rounders could have held a place solely as a batsman in any of those teams.
4. Ultimately, it seems to me that if you are right all the cricketers and journalists who saw and assessed Sobers' bowling must be wrong. I see no evidence that you have any analytical ability, judgment or knowledge that the rest of the cricket world lacks. In fact, your argument shows little understanding or awareness of anything other than the crudest of statistics, and these are not generally considered sufficient by themselves for evaluating players. As such, yours is not an argument that I or most cricket lovers can take seriously.
- Status