Celebrating Sir Garry Sobers - The Bowler

[SJS]

When I said great I didn't mean all time, or anything of the sorts, just very good particularly for his time (even called the best quick of his time in one of those articles). 34 still doesn't coincide with the very good bowler analysis. Sorry about the word mix up.

Its an opinion

 

[Athlai]

A well regarded one. It just seems like his average suggest a poorer bowler than he actually was, and there must be a reason for it. When he bowled, a decline in his bowling, the ways in which he bowled, etc. I really have no idea, and hope that the more knowledgeable members could fill me in.

Because in fully appreciating a player, you have to be aware of their flaws IMO.

 

[SJS]

A well regarded one. It just seems like his average suggets a poorer bowler than he actually was, and there must be a reason for it. When he bowled, a decline in his bowling, the ways in which he bowled, etc. I really have no idea, and hope that the more knowledgeable members could fill me in.

I cant think of someone not being a very good bowler and yet bowl in 93 Tests over 19 years and pick up 232 wickets (yes at 34 each). Keep bowling that long at world class batsmen and see the direction your bowling figures go.

 

[SJS]

I am amazed that someone should consider a bowling average (of 34 in this case) as a flaw !! A flaw ??

Wow.

Astonishing.

 

[Athlai]

I am amazed that someone should consider a bowling average (of 34 in this case) as a flaw !! A flaw ??

Wow.

Astonishing.

Only in considering one as the greatest all rounder ever in a time where bowling averages were lower than they are now.

 

[Ikki]

I am not sure about the stats but from what I have read and heard, he averaged less in his first 30 tests as he played more as a batsman than as a bowler and then for a period, he regarded himself as one of the specialist bowlers and bowled a lot and did well as a bowler for quite a few years and then again dropped back to being a stock bowler/main batsman towards the end due to general fatigue and some injuries like his knee etc.. This is what I have heard..

Sobers was initially picked for bowling IIRC.

And when he was, as you say, a "specialist bowler" this is the period where he was bowling with Gibbs, Hall and Griffith.

This is where you got it wrong when you said when he was the 4th/5th bowler he wasn't good. Because this is the precise period he was good.

If Sobers was as great as he's being made out in this thread, (which I am perfectly happy to believe and intend this question out of pure honest ignorance) how come he has such a mediocre average? Great bowlers tend to have great figures which Sobers doesn't seem to have, what caused this statistical hiccup?

Sobers should not be questioned on being great - there is nothing that can make him a great bowler. The question is how good was he if he wasn't great? Now you can gauge that for yourself. I encourage you to read the Keith Miller vs. Gary Sobers thread to see the arguments and the counter-points. But I warn you, if you come to the same conclusion as me...well...some people don't like believing Santa doesn't exist.

 

[Athlai]

Sobers should not be questioned on being great - there is nothing that can make him a great bowler. The question is how good was he if he wasn't great? Now you can gauge that for yourself. I encourage you to read the Keith Miller vs. Gary Sobers thread to see the arguments and the counter-points. But I warn you, if you come to the same conclusion as me...well...some people don't like believing Santa doesn't exist.

Did you see him play?

 

[Ikki]

Did you see him play?

Nope not live. Not that old mate.

 

[honestbharani]

Sobers was initially picked for bowling IIRC.

And when he was, as you say, a "specialist bowler" this is the period where he was bowling with Gibbs, Hall and Griffith.

This is where you got it wrong when you said when he was the 4th/5th bowler he wasn't good. Because this is the precise period he was good.



Sobers should not be questioned on being great - there is nothing that can make him a great bowler. The question is how good was he if he wasn't great? Now you can gauge that for yourself. I encourage you to read the Keith Miller vs. Gary Sobers thread to see the arguments and the counter-points. But I warn you, if you come to the same conclusion as me...well...some people don't like believing Santa doesn't exist.

when I said 4/5th bowler, I meant the way he considered his role in his bowling line up. When he considered his role to be that of an attacking or at the very least a specialist bowler, his figures seem to have been good. But when he looked to bowl as a stock bowler or as a batsman who bowls than as an actual all rounder, his figures seem to be rather ordinary.


Any which way, I am more than willing to believe what almost 90% of the cricketing world seems to believe... I didn't see the guy and I don't want to rate him on the numbers alone. So many greats consider him a great that I don't see any reason why I shouldn't...

 

[Goughy]

Sobers bowling against England, 1970

Looking very similar in action to Paul Harris

 

[Athlai]

Nope not live. Not that old mate.

Then I don't think you should be making up your mind either way really.

 

[Ikki]

when I said 4/5th bowler, I meant the way he considered his role in his bowling line up. When he considered his role to be that of an attacking or at the very least a specialist bowler, his figures seem to have been good. But when he looked to bowl as a stock bowler or as a batsman who bowls than as an actual all rounder, his figures seem to be rather ordinary.


Any which way, I am more than willing to believe what almost 90% of the cricketing world seems to believe... I didn't see the guy and I don't want to rate him on the numbers alone. So many greats consider him a great that I don't see any reason why I shouldn't...

Fair enough. But I think you're being too trusting there. I am like you where I give great respect to opinions of the past and the intangibles certain cricketers brought. But what Sobers' is touted to be, and what he actually did are two stark things. Maybe if you have enough time on your hands you will look into it.

 

[Ikki]

Then I don't think you should be making up your mind either way really.

Well, we'll all keep to our own set of criteria I guess. I certainly don't make up my mind, in the sense that it is permanent. The other thread is my attempt at giving people a hard time to really bring something substantial to the table. The claims of Sobers are vast and they frankly do not add up any which-way.

If you read this thread and then looked at Sobers' actual figures (with comparison to his contemporaries, all that statistical mumbo jumbo, etc) you would think they were talking about a different bowler. Sobers at his absolute peak averages 27 for 30 tests - at least that is what those who think him the greatest all-rounder argue. However, in the rest of his 63 tests he averages 40. That's why (to answer your question) he has such an ordinary overall record.

I won't pretend that it's that simple to judge, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. When you're talking about gaping holes like this, it's beyond the need for having seen them. However, I am still open to be convinced with all the intangible factors others who did watch him have to say about him. The irony is that most people here didn't see him play either.

 

[Athlai]

I cant think of someone not being a very good bowler and yet bowl in 93 Tests over 19 years and pick up 232 wickets (yes at 34 each). Keep bowling that long at world class batsmen and see the direction your bowling figures go.

So how would he compare to the other 54 bowlers with more than 200 wickets? Where would he rate among the quicks? And the spinners? His figures would suggest he's the poorest but this thread suggest otherwise.

 

[Manee]

Looking very similar in action to Paul Harris

What a comparison.

 

[zaremba]

EDIT: I've deleted this post because I intended it for the Miller v Sobers thread and posted it here by mistake (as I said before, I don't think stats are the purpose of this thread). And I agree with the comment in the post below from Athlai about the value of having seen the guy play.

Z

 

[Athlai]

Yeah I can do the stats but I think the guys who actually saw him play may have more to put on the table than anything stats can offer.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

you can't take 235 test wickets without being good with the ball

Sobers was a fine bowler in later half of his career but for the first hald,he was worst bowler ever(statistical reality) and took just 1 wicket per game which record would be similar to that of batsman who averages 10-12 only.He was a fine in the the later half but worst + fine makes him a mediocre bowler overall.

 

[Sanz]

Sobers was a fine bowler in later half of his career but for the first hald,he was worst bowler ever(statistical reality) and took just 1 wicket per game which record would be similar to that of batsman who averages 10-12 only.He was a fine in the the later half but worst + fine makes him a mediocre bowler overall.

Shut the hell up and leave the thread, If you want to act like a troll by posting such crap.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Shut the hell up and leave the thread, If you want to act like a troll by posting such crap.

Yes,an average of close to 50 after playing 45+ games makes Sobers best bowler ever.Happy?

I've concluded that you are more biased in favour of Sobers than I'm told be in favour of Imran by some as you regard fairly valid statistical evidence simply as 'crap'.
If posting statistical + practical facts & truth makes me a troll,then I'm happy to be a troll.