Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[Sanz]

Of course, the real difference is:

Harmison: Average 31, SR 58
Sobers: Average 34, SR 92

To me, that's quite a glaring difference. If not to you, then it's no wonder that we won't agree.

And what about the Economy Rate ? I

 

[Ikki]

And Sobers wouldn't be the bowler and bowling 21599 deliveries if he was as crap as you are making out to be. So please do not talk about 'Bigger Picture' and seek out the reasons when your statsguru facts are macking a mockery of your arguments.

Sobers was an economic bowler. Not a wicket-taking one. Sobers is not crap. But, at least to me, he is not good enough of a bowler to be considered the greatest all-rounder of all-time and certainly not without dispute.

 

[Ikki]

And what about the Economy Rate ? I

Sobers' is more economic, but that's because of the era he played in, in comparison to Harmison. Do you have to be spoon-fed everything Sanz?

 

[Sanz]

Oh, but there is a huge one in their strike rates. Again, in another era Harmison would probably be averaging slightly under 30.

Really ?? And Why so ?

 

[Ikki]

Really ?? And Why so ?

You mean apart from having to play in routinely flat pitches? Another viable factor is the mentality of batsmen now compared to when Sobers' played.

 

[Sanz]

Sobers' is more economic, but that's because of the era he played in, in comparison to Harmison. Do you have to be spoon-fed everything Sanz?

No I dont have to be, But did Sobers also play against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, which you so fondly bring up in any Warne Vs. Murali discussion but seem to be ignoring it here ?

Just what is Harmison's average outside of England ?

Duh one year of < 25 in 10 years and you are claiming that he is better than Sobers. And the guy is still at his peak.

 

[aussie]

Ignoring his initial years and taking into account the rest of his career, once he was a 'real' all-rounder:

Do you see a huge difference between his overall and filtered figures? I don't.

No (although you need to cut off his period as an complete all-rounder @ Aus 68/69). What will be interesting is what you have derive from that statistical information?

Really? Ponting averages about 67 from that moment on. So in actuality, Ponting should be given the acclaim he would get had he gotten that in his overall career?.

Well yes given that he finally was allowed to bat in a more comfortable #3 role & just took it to the next level since then.

That may be what you judge a player by, solely by their peaks. But, I can speak for myself and many others that we judge a cricket on their whole. Peaks are usually short and do not last long.

Not just any player "The Great players" of game who may have who great overall records but that may have some statistical inbalances that those like us who have not seen them may want to question.

This is where regardless of what the stats say unless you saw them at their best we could never understand.

i.e up until now i can't understand how so much Pakistan & Asian fans who saw Waqar at his peak claim he was easily better than Shoaib and even watching video's & a few clips i don't see how given that in my time of watching cricket Shoaib has easily been the most destructive bowler when on form. But i'm more than willing to accept that given i didn't see him live i'll never understand how truly superb Waqar was at his peak.

When the peak of a cricketer their average 27 and the rest of their career is 40, I think it is quite misleading to judge a cricketer solely on 5-6 series of cricket in a career of 20+ series. But that's me.

I think the mistake you are making in that you are placing too much emphasis on Sobers bowling (while previously under-rating it) in that you are probably comparing his peak period as a bowler with Imran, Miller or Botham.

If one is to judge the main candidate for the greatest test all-rounder of all-time in Sobers, Imran, Miller at their peaks as all-rounders Sobers was clearly the superior batsman to them all followed by Miller/Imran/Botham while with the ball Imran was superior followed by Miller & Botham probably on with the ball at their peaks then Sobers. But ot of the three only Miller was a complete all-rounder from game 1 to retirement.

So basically as i've said before In comparison of Imran & Sobers i'd basically conclude that as great all-rounders at their peaks Sobers was obviously the most complete batsman while Imran the opposite on the bowling front.

The only all-rounder really who played test cricket that was a true all-rounder from test 1 to retirement (not having strank transformations & peak periods i.e Sobers & Imran or gradual declines i.e Botham) was Miller & yet many historians reckon some of his best years were lost to the war.

Its disappointing Procter & Rice didn't play test cricket since they potentially would have fit this criteria also.

And in reality, what would you call Miller's form where for about half his career he was averaging 45 with the bat and 22 with the ball?.

Did Miller actually do this or are you just suggesting a scenario?

Or Imran's 50+ with the bat and 19 with the ball? At least Imran's certainly is more impressive than Sobers'. And at the LEAST it should be recognised as close - if judged solely by peaks. But it isn't and what is worse is that the #1 is undisputed.

Actually based on what i read, video's & what people who have seen the great man have concluded Imran as an all-rounder where he combined solid batting ability with fast bowling of 90+ was from Karachi 1980 to Bridgetwon 1988, averaging 40 with the bat & 17 with the ball. After the WI series i read that Imran had lost his pace while his batting went to a new gear after then but it was not combined with destructive bowling any longer.

I personally though have never claimed Sobers is the undisputed # 1, as i just mentioned to you i give it to both Sobers & Imran at their best but with being the more dominant in one discipline than the other.

That's great. What if Warne had no problem and this period was 2/3rds of his career?.

I don't quite catch your drift here son, run that by me again playa..

Disagree. There is no use judging player's simply by their peaks. I am quite sure Wasim Akram never had a peak like Waqar Younis but few would argue that Waqar was better than Wasim. There was also a time where Jeff Thomson was unstoppable, but few would say he is a match for Lillee.

As I mentioned at the top:

"Not just any player "The Great players" of game who may have who great overall records but that may have some statistical inbalances that those like us who have not seen them may want to question."

 

[Sanz]

You mean apart from having to play in routinely flat pitches? Another viable factor is the mentality of batsmen now compared to when Sobers' played.

So now you are considering the other factors, the so called 'tangibles'.

As for the 'mentality' of the batsman - What is it ? Can you elaborate, please ?

 

[Ikki]

No I dont have to be, But did Sobers also play against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, which you so fondly bring up in any Warne Vs. Murali discussion but seem to be ignoring it here ?

Just what is Harmison's average outside of England ?

Sobers played against India. Regardless, Harmison's record without B&Z is still superior to Sobers' even with India included. If you wish to also do what is fair and remove India, then his figures hurt more than Harmison's.

If you don't need me to give you the info, then do the work yourself and come up with the figures.

 

[Ikki]

So now you are considering the other factors, the so called 'tangibles'.

NOW I consider them? NOW? Have you been reading the thread? My whole stance is to retrieve 'intangibles' from those who argue for Sobers.

As for the 'mentality' of the batsman - What is it ? Can you elaborate, please ?

They play a broader range of shots. Reducing risk whilst scoring at a faster clip. This is reflected in economy rates and strike rates across the decades. Statistics aren't all bad Sanz.

 

[Sanz]

Sobers played against India.

You are the most ignorant member on the forum, if you are comparing Indian batting against Sobers' team with current Bangladeshi lineup. Do You want to compare the Indian Batting lineup that played against Sobers to current Bangladeshi lineup ?

Regardless, Harmison's record without B&Z is still superior to Sobers' even with India included. If you wish to also do what is fair and remove India, then his figures hurt more than Harmison's.

How does it prove that Harmison would have done better in in any other era ? Harmison's record is superior only on face value(which you claim to not look at and claim that you look at them objectively), and the guy is at his peak.

Besides, why should I take India out ? It was India that beat WI in 1971 team, so hardly a weak team that you are makin out to be.

If you don't need me to give you the info, then do the work yourself and come up with the figures.

I dont need to. I dont need figures and stats to know that Harmison is a crap bowler compared to Sobers. You are the one keeps saying that Sobers is crap compared to Harmison i.e. Harmi is so much better than Sobers that it isnt even an apt comparison.

 

[Sanz]

They play a broader range of shots. Reducing risk whilst scoring at a faster clip.

What ? It is almost a widely accepted fact that batsmen of current generation are more attacking and hence offer more chances to bowlers.

This is reflected in economy rates and strike rates across the decades.

So SR of the bowlers have increased or decreased ?

Statistics aren't all bad Sanz.

Now I can see the wicked Smiley is coming out now- It is the beginning of acceptance on defeat on your part.

 

[Ikki]

No (although you need to cut off his period as an complete all-rounder @ Aus 68/69). What will be interesting is what you have derive from that statistical information?

It's already been done. That's his 'peak'. Coincidentally, him being an all-rounder stops and starts as his peak ends. The other 63 matches don't count.

Well yes given that he finally was allowed to bat in a more comfortable #3 role & just took it to the next level since then.

So Ponting is the greatest batsmen ever after Bradman without doubt? I see where you are going with this, but I do not agree with it. I do not judge solely on a person's peak, but if that's our difference then that is fine.

Not just any player "The Great players" of game who may have who great overall records but that may have some statistical inbalances that those like us who have not seen them may want to question.

This is the problem, you call this merely a statistical imbalance. This is MOST of his career. How do you know the statistical imbalance wasn't his peak?

This is where regardless of what the stats say unless you saw them at their best we could never understand.

i.e up until now i can't understand how so much Pakistan & Asian fans who saw Waqar at his peak claim he was easily better than Shoaib and even watching video's & a few clips i don't see how given that in my time of watching cricket Shoaib has easily been the most destructive bowler when on form. But i'm more than willing to accept that given i didn't see him live i'll never understand how truly superb Waqar was at his peak.

This is the problem with just judging something based on testimony. Because my testimony and yours is equal. But you can combine a statistical analysis and a realistic account of the events to decipher who was better.

This case, is not even that hard to figure out. There is, dare I say, no era in cricketing history where averaging 40 is deemed anything but bad.

I think the mistake you are making in that you are placing too much emphasis on Sobers bowling (while previously under-rating it) in that you are probably comparing his peak period as a bowler with Imran, Miller or Botham.

Actually, I am not. The peak periods for Sobers' bowling is good, but not great. whereas the peak periods for the others are truly great - importantly when combined with simultaneous success of their other discipline.

If one is to judge the main candidate for the greatest test all-rounder of all-time in Sobers, Imran, Miller at their peaks as all-rounders Sobers was clearly the superior batsman to them all followed by Miller/Imran/Botham while with the ball Imran was superior followed by Miller & Botham probably on with the ball at their peaks then Sobers. But ot of the three only Miller was a complete all-rounder from game 1 to retirement.

So basically as i've said before In comparison of Imran & Sobers i'd basically conclude that as great all-rounders at their peaks Sobers was obviously the most complete batsman while Imran the opposite on the bowling front.

The only all-rounder really who played test cricket that was a true all-rounder from test 1 to retirement (not having strank transformations & peak periods i.e Sobers & Imran or gradual declines i.e Botham) was Miller & yet many historians reckon some of his best years were lost to the war.

Its disappointing Procter & Rice didn't play test cricket since they potentially would have fit this criteria also.

I agree, it's a great shame. And what you wrote about Miller is precisely why I rate him ahead of the others and why he should walk into an all-time XI as the all-rounder - if you wish to have an actual all-rounder of use.

What boggles my mind even more is the fact that the top spot is so undisputed. I mean, the only thing in Cricket that is/can be undisputed is Bradman. He is just so far ahead it isn't funny. But Sobers' record is so easily questioned that it beggars belief that everyone willfully put a tick next to his name. I am trying to understand it.

Did Miller actually do this or are you just suggesting a scenario?

He actually did it. If you cut off 3 matches earlier he averages a bit better in both departments as well.

I don't quite catch your drift here son, run that by me again playa..

I meant, what if he had no injury excuse, something like Sobers' situation.

 

[Ikki]

You are the most ignorant member on the forum, if you are comparing Indian batting against Sobers' team with current Bangladeshi lineup. Do You want to compare the Indian Batting lineup that played against Sobers to current Bangladeshi lineup ?

I am not comparing India with Bangladesh. I am simply showing that Sobers also played minnows. Whether they are test standard or not. I see you didn't mention Zimbabwe, were India comparable with Zimbabwe? Have you actually taken a look at the figures from those years?

How does it prove that Harmison would have done better in in any other era ? Harmison's record is superior only on face value(which you claim to not look at and claim that you look at them objectively), and the guy is at his peak.

It doesn't prove it. I said it would be likely that he would average less considering the hindrances he has now. It isn't a 2-year-guarantee-or-get-your-money-back type deal.

Besides, why should I take India out ? It was India that beat WI in 1971 team, so hardly a weak team that you are makin out to be.

That's nice, although it doesn't really prove anything...other than they were better than Bangladesh. As I said, even if you keep those figures...

I dont need to. I dont need figures and stats to know that Harmison is a crap bowler compared to Sobers. You are the one keeps saying that Sobers is crap compared to Harmison i.e. Harmi is so much better than Sobers that it isnt even an apt comparison.

I said Sobers is not near as good as Harmison as a bowler. And he clearly isn't. Compare peak for peak, overall, whatever. It's not really arguable. I mean, you can argue it, but you won't make much sense - no offense.

 

[Ikki]

What ? It is almost a widely accepted fact that batsmen of current generation are more attacking and hence offer more chances to bowlers.

Sure, I can see Harmison's SR going up. But we were talking about his average and ER and I told you why I thought they were higher than what they would be in another era.

So SR of the bowlers have increased or decreased ?

Decreased - meaning improved.

Now I can see the wicked Smiley is coming out now- It is the beginning of acceptance on defeat on your part.

Er, what? Yeah, ok.

 

[Sanz]

I am not comparing India with Bangladesh. I am simply showing that Sobers also played minnows. Whether they are test standard or not.

So India were Minnows during Sobers era ? This is trolling and really I have had enough of it.

 

[Ikki]

So India were Minnows during Sobers era ? This is trolling and really I have had enough of it.

So they were one of the best teams were they? They were one of the weakest sides of the time. That's what a minnow is.

You know what's funny? In one thread you will totally debase the Indian side trying to impress us with how Gavaskar was THE hope and everybody else collapsed like a deck of cards, yet here they were a good, nay decent, batting side. Hmm.

 

[steve132]

So India were Minnows during Sobers era ? This is trolling and really I have had enough of it.

Sanz:

A word of advice. I don't think that you are going to get much further in this discussion. Some minds are just not open to rational debate and argument. A comparison between the Indian team of the 1960's and the Bangladesh of today is a fairly clear sign that the thread has jumped the shark, i.e. reached a dead end.

 

[Sanz]

Sanz:

A word of advice. I don't think that you are going to get much further in this discussion. Some minds are just not open to rational debate and argument. A comparison between the Indian team of the 1960's and the Bangladesh of today is a fairly clear sign that the thread has jumped the shark, i.e. reached a dead end.

Yeah, should have seen the light long back. But better late than never.

 

[SJS]

Richie Benaud is someone who actually played with and against both Miller and Sobers. Sobers played a total of 19 Tests against Australia. Of these almost exactly half (9 to be precise) were played between 1954 and 1961 and Benaud played in everyone of them. Miller's Test career stretched from 1945-46 to 1955-56. Benaud made his first class debut in 1948 and Test debut in 1953. Clearly he played a lot of cricket with Miller (and under him as Miller was NSW captain) and surely saw a lot of him as a cricketer too.

He does rate Miller very highly indeed and talks of him in very glowing terms calling him

...the greatest all rounder I played with or against but bear in mind that the period covered embraces Miller retiring in 1956 which was only two years after Garry Sobers made his debut..... Miller was an extraordinary cricketer. He, Arthur Morris and Ray Lindwall were my mentors....Miller succeeded Morris as captain of NSW and was the best captain I have known and certainly the finest captain never to have captained Australia.​

High praise indeed indeed and yet when he choosing the number one all rounder for his all time world XI he prefers Benaud stating : -

Garry Sobers, in my view, is the greatest all round cricketer the world has seen. He was certain to be on my team as one all rounder; a brilliant batsman, splendid fielder, particularly close to the wicket and a bowler of extraordinary skill, whether bowling with the new ball, providing orthodox left arm spin pr over-the-wrist spin. It is in the latter category that I would use him in this team, though he might also be given the new ball if Bradman (the captain of the side he chose) could extract it from the hands of Lillee, Barnes and Imran.​

Having preferred Sobers to Miller as the first all rounder he classifies him as the batting all rounder and goes about looking for a bowling all rounder. This time, however, he does not consider Milller and looks at Imran, Hadlee, Botham and Kapil. This is significant.

The choice of an all rounder in the team is not just a question of having a player whose batting abilities and bowling abilities are equally matched (unless of course you have Bradman and Barnes rolled into one) but of chosing what makes for a better side.

Many would contest Miller not being treated at par with the second group of four Benaud considered. In fact, many would consider it laughable that Miller should even be talked of in the same breath. But even if we disagree with Benaud, the point here is that Imran (whom he finally chose), is the better bowler and therefore the better choice to complement a side which already has an all time great batsman (Sobers) batting at number six.

Just as Miller was no where near Sobers as a batsman, Imran was a better bowler than him and it is this, the need for the side for the greater bowler, that guides the decision. Not any funny notions of both bating and bowling averages being in some sort of median range.

Of course, we may argue that Miller was a better bowler than Imran but thats quite another debate.