Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[Ikki]

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

Why does he have to? He made it clear it was an assumption and if you were paying attention Perm's point was not in favour of Sobers at all.

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.

That's debatable. There were many instances where Sobers performed with bat and ball. Dare I say, more than Imran whose form with both disciplines weren't really simultaneous to the best of my memory. His talent with the bat is also usually overstated as well. He, unlike a Miller, was not a middle-order batsmen for most his career.

 

[zaremba]

Sorry to bore everyone with statistics, particularly as they're not very well thought through. I posted this post on the "Sobers the Bowler" thread in error, because I meant to post it here, so I've moved it across.



The closest statistical comparison I can think of is with Jacques Kallis, who's played 121 matches to Sobers' 93.

Batting:
Kallis: 9,681 runs @ 56.28, 30 x 100
Sobers: 8,032 runs @ 57.78, 26 x 100

Bowling:
Kallis: 233 wickets @ 31.51, 5 x 5, SR 67.3
Sobers: 235 wickest @ 34.03, 6 x 5, SR 91.9

Those stats are surprisingly similar.

I'm not saying that they are comparable players (from everything I've read and know about Sobers they are very different indeed).

Normally you'd treat cross-generational statistical comparisons with a very big pinch of salt. A little less so, however, with all-rounders, because conditions which inflated batting averages would also tend to inflate bowling averages, so the gap between batting average and bowling average (one measure of an all-rounder's quality) may remain relatively unchanged.

I've not analysed how much each of them benefitted from playing against weak opponents.

I would stress once again I'm not attempting to judge either player's respective worth which, apart from anything, isn't something that mere statistics can necessarily reveal - but I find it an interesting comparison nonetheless.

 

[Ikki]

It's pretty hard to judge those two considering Sobers also bowled spin and bowled almost twice as much as Kallis per test. Kallis also bowled in a less friendly bowling era with usually good bowlers around him. Kallis while having better figures will have a much harder time affecting a game with his bowling, because he never bowled as much.

Sobers really wasn't a great bowler, but he bowled enough overs a Test that if he was on song he would affect the match. That's essentially what people remember from him. But on the whole, he doesn't have great figures. Not even in his peak - pretty good, but not great.

The fact that Sobers bowled so much for so long cannot be understated. Sobers was not a great wicket-taker. Even at his peak he was just a bit better than the 'average' bowler. His feat of 235 wickets lends more to the fact that he bowled a lot per match and he played for 20 years. NOT that he was a great or even good wicket taker. This is irrefutable. No bowler in history can strike at 90+ and be considered a good wicket taker. This is harsh to say, but no matter what people write, these are the facts.

 

[Ikki]

I should also add, with regards to his long bowling spells and low SR, that this is why I ask others: why would you let Sobers bowl in an all-time XI at all?

He takes too long to take a wicket, eating up overs better bowlers will take advantage of, and in the course of doing so conceding runs unnecessarily.

Remember, during Sobers' career, an SR of 78 was average. His own overall SR was 92 and his peak was was 78. This is not evil statsguru people haggling over a ball or a run here. It's quite a large difference. I bring it up because it's just so glaring, yet no one wants to talk about it and no one has had any justifiable reason for this.

 

[weldone]

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

Ashley Giles is probably gonna top that list ...Played quite a few tests as a bowler, and with an average worse than all of the spinners you have quoted...

 

[zaremba]

Ashley Giles is probably gonna top that list ...Played quite a few tests as a bowler, and with an average worse than all of the spinners you have quoted...

Vettori 34.43
Emburey 38.40
Gleeson 36.20

 

[weldone]

Vettori 34.43
Emburey 38.40
Gleeson 36.20

Ashley Giles 40.6; played 54 tests as a pure bowler...

 

[zaremba]

Ian Salisbury: 15 Tests as a pure bowler. Average 76.95

 

[fredfertang]

Ian Salisbury: 15 Tests as a pure bowler. Average 76.95

I bet Chris Schofield is envious

 

[zaremba]

Yes I suppose that Salisbury at least has an average

 

[steve132]

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

The pool of "hardcore Sobers fans" includes virtually all the players and journalists who saw him play. I listed some of them in an earlier post:

John Arlott, Trevor Bailey, Bishan Bedi, Dickie Bird, Don Bradman, Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Denis Compton, Colin Cowdrey, Ted Dexter, Jack Fingleton, Tom Graveney, Charlie Griffith, Wes Hall, Ray Illingworth, Brian Johnston, Alan Knott, Jim Laker, Dennis Lillee, Clive Lloyd, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Hanif Mohammed, Barry Richards, John Snow, E.W.Swanton, Derek Underwood, Clyde Walcott, Peter Walker, Everton Weekes, Ian Wooldridge.

If we have to ignore the testimony of these experts, how can we evaluate Sobers' bowling using anything other than the crudest of statistics?

 

[sanga1337]

The pool of "hardcore Sobers fans" includes virtually all the players and journalists who saw him play. I listed some of them in an earlier post:

John Arlott, Trevor Bailey, Bishan Bedi, Dickie Bird, Don Bradman, Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Denis Compton, Colin Cowdrey, Ted Dexter, Jack Fingleton, Tom Graveney, Charlie Griffith, Wes Hall, Ray Illingworth, Brian Johnston, Alan Knott, Jim Laker, Dennis Lillee, Clive Lloyd, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Hanif Mohammed, Barry Richards, John Snow, E.W.Swanton, Derek Underwood, Clyde Walcott, Peter Walker, Everton Weekes, Ian Wooldridge.

If we have to ignore the testimony of these experts, how can we evaluate Sobers' bowling using anything other than the crudest of statistics?

Sure but that doesn't mean you shouldn't completely ignore statistics either. A lot of players opinions is subjective where as statistics are fact. You should use both to determine the greatness of a player rather than just statistics or opinions.

 

[steve132]

Sure but that doesn't mean you shouldn't completely ignore statistics either. A lot of players opinions is subjective where as statistics are fact. You should use both to determine the greatness of a player rather than just statistics or opinions.

I don't think that anyone on this thread has argued that we should ignore statistics. I certainly did not make such a claim.

We do, however, need to be reasonably sophisticated about the way in which we treat statistics - by, for example, understanding the context in which they were posted. For instance, despite all the statistics quoted in this thread no one has referred to the ICC player rankings. In this respect cricket lags a long way behind a sport like baseball, which has analysts like Bill James who can massage raw data to construct genuinely effective frameworks for evaluating player performances.

 

[weldone]

Ian Salisbury: 15 Tests as a pure bowler. Average 76.95

Ya that's another...Still, at least he didn't play 54 tests like Giles...How many English spinners have played as many tests as Giles as pure bowlers? ... Not many I suppose...

 

[Burgey]

Love 'em both. Can't I have both in my team?

Always loved Sobers telling the story of he and his mate in a hotel room in the mid 50s when they were pups at about 10.30 on a night in the middle of a test, listening to calypso records.

There's a knock on the door, it's Lindwall and Miller. "We know you're in there you little bastards, open up". They did. About three hours and two bottles of scotch later they left the room after sharing some tales with the new kids to test cricket.

I can see current players doing exactly the same thing really - not. A far more innocent time back then, but are we any the better for its passing?

 

[Migara]

Why would you bowl Sobers in an all-time side?

Why would you bat Miller in an all time side?

 

[Burgey]

There's also a story I heard (whether true or not I dunno) that after he'd retired Sobers was living in Adelaide for a while, and a local side playing nearby was short one day, so they had someone go around to see if he'd have a hit. Apparently he did!!! Imagine being the opposing captain and seeing that name on a team sheet.

I'd love to know if that story is true or not. Sounds more apocrophyl than anything else.

 

[Migara]

If an all time XI has four bowlers (my choice) Marshall, Hadlee, Barnes and Murali, why would you even consider Miller? Marshall, Hadlee and Barnes as pace bowlers are miles ahead of Miller. When it is known fact that spinners average more than fast men. But Murali averages better than Miller. So why play him as a bowler in such a all time great side?

Player		Wickets	Average	ER	SR
Barnes		189	16.43	2.4	41.6
Hadlee		431	22.29	2.6	50.8
Marshall	376	20.94	2.7	46.7
Miller		170	22.97	2.2	61.5
Murali		735	21.95	2.4	54.4

Now in that bowling line up Miller is the least effective bowler. Then when you consider batsmen,

Hutton, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Tendulkar, Viv Richards, Sobers and Gilchrist / Sangakkara (who all average 50+ except Gilly), Miller is absolutely no match (avg 37) with the bat against those as well.

The point is very clear, Miller neither as a batsman nor a bowler will make even the 2nd All time XI according to Kazo's arguments. SObers could make it as a batsman, and can bowl some useful stuff, while Miller is not good enough to make it in either way.

Then if you consider a second XI, the bowlers will be, McGrath, Lillee, Ambrose and Warne. I could have picked Imran over Ambrose, and Donald over McGrath as well. But no reasonable prudent man will pick Miller over any of those bowlers. Then batting also it will be the same.
Gavaskar, Hammond, Hayden, Lara, Kallis, E. Weekes, A. Flower. And here also Miller won't fit with the bat either.

Imran and Sobers could make a All time XI, but Miller cannot. , According to Kazo's logic, which is a laughable one.

I would pick an all rouner like Miller, Sobers, Imran or Kallis to give my bowling that extra edge, even if my batting is to suffer.

 

[Burgey]

If you've got an all time XI, why even pick an all rounder then? You've got the best 4 bowlers, the best batsmen (one of whom in my team - Sobers- just happens to have been a damn fine all rounder) and the best keeper.
That line up doesn't need an all rounder just for the sake of saying "we need to have one for a balanced team" (not saying they're your words BTW), because any team with the 4 best bowlers and the six best batsmen is going to be superbly balanced in any event.

 

[JBH001]

Yes, and thats probably why Sobers gets that slot. Almost all team (all time and otherwise) selections would generally go for 6 batsman, 4 bowlers, and wicket keeper.

Given that premise it makes a lot more sense to have Sobers at 6 as a worthy batsman (which none of the other all-rounders are) along, of course, with his added versatility as a left arm bowler and the differing styles of bowling he brings to the party - if needed (even if he was not to do too much bowling in the first place).