Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[Ikki]

SJS, Richie has not added to anything anyone else has said about Sobers. Indeed, it is not only weird to see him behind Sobers but behind Imran too. His reasonings for both I disagree with.

A question I'd like to ask Richie is...why ask Sobers to bowl at all? When you have Imran, Warne, Barnes and Lillee you are wasting your overs handing any over to Sobers.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Except, no one compared them to each other. Rational debate? Zimbabwe were also better than Bangladesh yet Sanz 'compared' them.

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

I think you both proved that you did not have a reliable answer to someone questioning your belief. Indeed, it's probably better you stopped.

 

[Ikki]

Waugh was determined to win at all costs. Miller played ferocious and competitive cricket, but he played for fun. Waugh never gave his wicket away. Miller often did.

On the 1948 tour of England, Bradman focused on going through the Australians' 34 games undefeated, an objective which frankly bored Miller, who always preferred a close-fought contest to a walkover. Coming in at 364 for two against Essex, he deliberately missed a straight ball from Trevor Bailey to be bowled for a golden duck. Bradman remarked to Bailey: "He'll learn."

Bradman was not just wrong: he didn't get the point. Miller often gave his wicket away because he felt that others deserved a chance. He was the exact opposite of many bowlers, who find excuses when the pitch is flat, yet beg for the ball when conditions are helpful or tailenders are on the menu. He would be drawn into the fray by the prospect of a contest against the greatest batsmen yet, when they were gone, pass on his bowling duties to others. This meant that Miller's percentage of top-order wickets was exceptionally high. Likewise as a batsman, Miller was only interested in confronting the most testing opposition. Bradman had been formed as a man by the Bodyline series, when cricket really did for a short time seem like a matter of life and death. But Miller flew Mosquito fighter-bombers on long, perilous raids over wartime Germany. He saw death and destruction at first hand. Perry describes how on several occasions Miller's own life was preserved only by a near-miracle.

 

[SJS]

SJS, Richie has not added to anything anyone else has said about Sobers. Indeed, it is not only weird to see him behind Sobers but behind Imran too. His reasonings for both I disagree with.

A question I'd like to ask Richie is...why ask Sobers to bowl at all? When you have Imran, Warne, Barnes and Lillee you are wasting your overs handing any over to Sobers.

I think Richie Benaud is much more capable than me to answer these questions. I do not, for a second, pretend to know more than those who have not just played the game at the highest level but are highly respected for their understanding of the game. It does not stop me from thinking for myself but invariably, when discussing those I haven't seen, my thinking is coloured by one or more of such worthies.

I am afraid I am not one of those who will stand up and say every thing any one says about Barnes or Trumper (just two names from an earlier era) is nonsense because of x, y and z reasons or, worse still, because stats 'show' that to be the case..

None of these writers and students of the game were/are unaware of statistics and if inspite of statistics we do have differences of opinions it must mean that stats do not mean everything otherwise all some 'smart alec' has to do is to come up with a 'fool-proof' software/formula for evaluating all cricketers over the entire history of the game and this silly exercise of polls must end - (which it must anyway).

I am one of those who firmly believes that statistics do not tell everything. That having been said, I also believe that when discussing great players, particularly when they come from different eras, it is very difficult to be able to say precisely who was better unless the difference was stark in which case there wouldn't be a debate to start with.

This is an excercise best done in bars over a pint of beer and in the same spirit that the bar commands. Any efforts at punditry, in my humble opinion, are a sign of false sense of oneself.

No one can deny that Sobers was a better batsman than Miller and that Miller was the better bowler (fast bowler) but it is a silly exercise to try and put a value to Sobers's edge over Miller as a batsman and weigh it, as it were, against Miller's edge over Sobers as a bowler. Thats trying to be too clever by half.

You can argue for the next six months for Miller and quote stats for that and I could argue for the same time quoting stats as well as quoting players and cricket writers to the contrary. Thats not going to settle this.

If you are convinced Miller was the better all rounder its fine by me. I have no argument with that. I came here because some silly figures are being thrown around to show why Sobers was not much of a bowler. I can show stats of bowlers who played for years - for every single team on the planet - as pure bowlers with much worse figures (averages alone forget not getting anything like his number of wickets) but I wont do that because it is a mug's game and doesn't interest me one bit.

You are welcome to your opinion and as can be seen you are not alone in that. So nothing wrong whatsoever. But lets not use disingenuous arguments to prove that. For there IS no proof in such matters.

I can only tell you why I would chose Sobers before Miller.

I would chose Sobers in any world XI purely as a batsman alone. I have seen him bat and trust me he was good enough to stand along with the greatest of all time as a batsman alone.

Almost all the greats, both players and writers, of the game agree on this point.

Once you have him in the team as a batsman, you automatically have a bowler of whatever pedigree - very good according to some and just good according to others (unless you think he was a lousy bowler and should not bowl even if in the side in which case just consider me a doddering old fool and put me on your ignore list).

So, while selecting your specialist batsmen, you get an all rounder in the side - a batting all rounder no doubt, not as good a bowler as Miller (unless you need spin) or Imran but a batting allrounder nevertheless.

Now you have to go ahead and chose the rest of your side. If the specialist bowlers include someone who can also bat very well, who is to grudge that. Everyone doesn't go like Benaud who went specifically looking for two allrounders in the side. Bradman considers someone like Lindwall an adequate bowling all rounder (after all he did score two test centuries). Its purely personal.

Ask me to chose between Lindwall and Lilley and what do I do. I may chose one or the other but it really is no issue. I am in no position to say who was better. I did not see Lindwall. Sobers may have played both and Benaud certainly saw both bowl for most of their careers. For me to think my word carries more weight than either of them would be the height of conceitedness on my part. However much of a celeberated statistician I might be.

The fact that even Sobers and Benaud may differ on this point (I dont know if they do) would only show how difficult it is to separate these two great bowlers. Then to try and do it based on mere numbers is ...... what to say..... I have run out of words

 

[Ikki]

Dear SJS, thanks for your reply, but, forgive me for asking again, but why would you let Sobers bowl in an all-time XI side? I am not asking your theory of why Benaud would, just why you yourself would.

In such a side, you already know the calibre of the bowling cast. If you ARE going to bowl him, why would you do that knowing there are much more capable and better bowlers - since fatigue is not going to be an issue either? And if you WON'T bowl him, then effect, you aren't picking him as an all-rounder, are you?

This is not a case like Trumper, for example. You can prove statistically that Trumper was amazing. In Trumper's era, the average batsman averaged 25 runs. Trumper averages 39. That is a whole 14 points ahead of the curve. As the game changed and Trumper aged, he actually made more runs. Barnes likewise, has a similar case when you compare with his contemporaries.

Sobers does not have this element. His weaker discipline over the course of his career was not that good - even when you compare his contemporaries. When you judge players, for whatever reason, you must have a standard. Without it, it is a whimsical farce.

 

[SJS]

Dear SJS, thanks for your reply, but, forgive me for asking again, but why would you let Sobers bowl in an all-time XI side? I am not asking your theory of why Benaud would, just why you yourself would.

.

Thats easily answered. He would, in all probability be the only left arm bowler in my side. The only left arm orthodox spinner, the only left arm wrist spinner and the only left arm seam and swing bowler. All three bowling styles have merits and so has variety in an attack.

 

[SJS]

By the way, you really amaze me

 

[Ikki]

Thats easily answered. He would, in all probability be the only left arm bowler in my side. The only left arm orthodox spinner, the only left arm wrist spinner and the only left arm seam and swing bowler. All three bowling styles have merits and so has variety in an attack.

Even though you know he is less likely to take wickets and more likely to concede runs? Remembering that when he bowled spin this is what happened, according to his fans?

The distance between Sobers' bowling and the others is very large.

By the way, you really amaze me

Why do I feel it's not in a good way?

 

[SJS]

Even though you know he is less likely to take wickets and more likely to concede runs? Remembering that when he bowled spin this is what happened, according to his fans?

The distance between Sobers' bowling and the others is very large.



Why do I feel it's not in a good way?

I dont know how large is very large.

Two of the leading spinners produced by West Indies after WW2 (and hence Sobers' contemporaries in a way) have been Gibbs and Valentine.

Gibbs got his wickets at 29.1 and a strike rate of 87.8. Played 79 Tests.

Valentine got his at 30.3 and strike rate of 93.2. Played 36 Tests as pure bowler.

By the way Indian off spinner Venkataraghavan got his wickets at 36.12 and a strike rate of 95.4. Played 57 Tests as pure bowler

If youn think against that Sobers's 235 wickets at 34.0 and strike rate of 91.9 are very large, for a batting all rounder, well you and I are not on the same page and never will be. Why waste each others time I say.

I am done. Thank you Sir.

 

[honestbharani]

I dont know how large is very large.

Two of the leading spinners produced by West Indies after WW2 (and hence Sobers' contemporaries in a way) have been Gibbs and Valentine.

Gibbs got his wickets at 29.1 and a strike rate of 87.8. Played 79 Tests.

Valentine got his at 30.3 and strike rate of 93.2. Played 36 Tests as pure bowler.

By the way Indian off spinner Venkataraghavan got his wickets at 36.12 and a strike rate of 95.4. Played 57 Tests as pure bowler

If youn think against that Sobers's 235 wickets at 34.0 and strike rate of 91.9 are very large, for a batting all rounder, well you and I are not on the same page and never will be. Why waste each others time I say.

I am done. Thank you Sir.

lol.. I am waiting for Richard to come in and say that "Spinners are just crap" here after reading those stats, SJS...

 

[SJS]

lol.. I am waiting for Richard to come in and say that "Spinners are just crap" here after reading those stats, SJS...

Oh I can add some more spinners to that list. Quite a few more in fact.

 

[Ikki]

I dont know how large is very large.

Two of the leading spinners produced by West Indies after WW2 (and hence Sobers' contemporaries in a way) have been Gibbs and Valentine.

Gibbs got his wickets at 29.1 and a strike rate of 87.8. Played 79 Tests.

Valentine got his at 30.3 and strike rate of 93.2. Played 36 Tests as pure bowler.

By the way Indian off spinner Venkataraghavan got his wickets at 36.12 and a strike rate of 95.4. Played 57 Tests as pure bowler

If youn think against that Sobers's 235 wickets at 34.0 and strike rate of 91.9 are very large, for a batting all rounder, well you and I are not on the same page and never will be. Why waste each others time I say.

I am done. Thank you Sir.

Um, you compared the wrong players. Read the question again: Why would you bowl Sobers in an all-time side? I can understand why he would bowl for the WIndies, but not for an all-time XI.

I specifically named: Barnes, Warne, Lillee and Imran - alluding to Benaud's list. The gap between Sobers and them is huge.

Could you please address the question again comparing the correct players.

I know you said:

Thats easily answered. He would, in all probability be the only left arm bowler in my side. The only left arm orthodox spinner, the only left arm wrist spinner and the only left arm seam and swing bowler. All three bowling styles have merits and so has variety in an attack.

then I replied:

Even though you know he is less likely to take wickets and more likely to concede runs? Remembering that when he bowled spin this is what happened, according to his fans? The distance between Sobers' bowling and the others is very large.

I'd appreciate the answer with regards to the all-time XI bowlers.

 

[SJS]

Um, you compared the wrong players. Read the question again: Why would you bowl Sobers in an all-time side? I can understand why he would bowl for the WIndies, but not for an all-time XI.

I specifically named: Barnes, Warne, Lillee and Imran - alluding to Benaud's list. The gap between Sobers and them is huge.

Could you please address the question again comparing the correct players.

My all time world XI will have the players I consider all time greats, or should that not be the case ?

My specialist bowlers could be Barnes, Lillee, Lindwall, Grimmett(O'Rielly). You may not consider them of world Xi caliber but thats an opinion

 

[SJS]

And now I am definitely done. Please dont think it rude if I do not reply any more. Its for just one reason - I have nothing more to say.

 

[Ikki]

My all time world XI will have the players I consider all time greats, or should that not be the case ?

My specialist bowlers could be Barnes, Lillee, Lindwall, Grimmett(O'Rielly). You may not consider them of world Xi caliber but thats an opinion

I consider them all greats. Again, why would you let Sobers bowl when you have all-time great bowlers in your side? Who're more capable at taking wickets and/or restricting runs.

See, this is the big difference with a batting all-rounder and a bowling all-rounder. All the players must bat, but not all must bowl. Therefore, I see very little reason, if any, to pick Sobers as an all-rounder (remember, when I say all-rounder I mean with the intention of using him properly, not 1-2 overs for variety's sake). Unless, you can mention something that I am clearly overlooking?

 

[Ikki]

And now I am definitely done. Please dont think it rude if I do not reply any more. Its for just one reason - I have nothing more to say.

I'd genuinely like your response. For you are actually someone whom I think actually saw him and thus will know something besides stats or even just testimony as you have witnessed it yourself. Others here are trying to give stats a pejorative meaning when they themselves were not alive at the time.

I'd like to know your thoughts on my theory for not using Sobers as an all-rounder in an all-time XI.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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.

Present some concrete evidence in favour of that and should not be be words of some hardcore Sobers' fan.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Sobers bowlingf or an alltime XI would be a big joke and insult to alltime great bowlers in the team.I would easily pick Sobers as a bastman in my alltime but never would I like him to be picked as an allrounder and bowl.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I consider them all greats. Again, why would you let Sobers bowl when you have all-time great bowlers in your side? Who're more capable at taking wickets and/or restricting runs.

See, this is the big difference with a batting all-rounder and a bowling all-rounder. All the players must bat, but not all must bowl. Therefore, I see very little reason, if any, to pick Sobers as an all-rounder (remember, when I say all-rounder I mean with the intention of using him properly, not 1-2 overs for variety's sake). Unless, you can mention something that I am clearly overlooking?

That shows
A batting allrounder>A bowling allrounder(of the same quality) and that only quality bowling allrounders should be picked for allrounder spot in alltime XIs.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Put it this way:

Who would you rather have in your team?

As batsman:Sobers in alltime first XI.
As bowler:Imran in alltime first XI.
As allrounder:Imran in alltime first XI.
Miller would be my choice as alrounder in alltime 2nd XI.