Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[SJS]

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).

Exactly.

It has been a dilemma for captains over time - how many bowlers to play in the eleven - four or five. On some days, when the batsman start piling up the runs (as they will do on some days irrespective of how good is your attack), you will need a bowler to come in and provide rest, relief, variation or a combination of all three. Captains have even used batsmen like to do that.

With someone as Sobers in the side as a batsman, that dillemma is taken care of. Now you chose your best four bowlers and forget about what to do if you find you are a bowler short for aby of the reasons given above.

A bowler who takes 32 wickets at 34 each - even at 34 each - is good enough for that role - and how ?

Thats logic. Unfortunately logic is not a substitute for bull-headedness.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

There's no age he could be where you'd feel safe either. What is he, 70-odd now? I'd back him to score a 2nd grade ton.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Bowling is not always about just taking wickets.. If it were, we can all just do what Richard says and pack our sides with fast or fast medium bowlers and ignore the spinners.. Only someone who has played the game enough at some level and also understood how the game works can understand why, on an average, it will take more balls and cost more runs for a spinner to get a wicket than a fast bowler and why is it still almost a necessity to have a good or at least decent spinner in a cricketing side... Some things cannot just be explained with cold numbers alone.


In the same way, it is not always a necessity for a bowler to take wickets, at least not for every bowler in the team. Some bowlers are assigned certain roles and as long as they do their brief, it will still end up benefitting the team. And from what one has read about Sobers, he was a very good bowler when he took an attacking role... As far as stats are concerned, if someone can give us a very solid breakdown of his stats for the 9 or so years that he did play the role of an attacking bowler and break it down as how many wickets he got at what strike rate as a fast medium bowler and as a left arm orthodox spinner and as a chinaman bowler, we will get a clearer perspective of exactly how "good" his bowling was. And I fear there is no real way to get that and so we simply have to depend on what people who have watched him have to say......


And as to why he would bowl in an all time XI, well, if my four bowlers (off the top of my head, say Imran, Ambrose, Warne and Wasim) were having trouble bowling against Bradman, Lara, Sachin and Dravid (again, juz off the top of my head, not saying these ppl are the ones who will make my all time team) and I see that the guys are tiring and I need a bowler who wont be a partimer and as such get clobbered by the greats.. THAT is the time when Sir Garfield Sobers would prove his worth as a bowler. He will give me control against the great batsman and there is always the threat of him getting a wicket too, if we get off to a good start and can afford to try his attacking style... Esp. if say I had McGrath instead of Wasim in my side, I would bring on Sir Garry as second change regardless of the state of the match.. For as far as I am concerned and based on what I have read and heard, he was very good as a left arm fast medium bowler who got good swing and cut off the wicket at a lively pace and had good changes of pace as well.. With exact stats not available for that part alone, I am willing to consider the opinions of well respected writers and players on this...

 

[honestbharani]

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 keep saying this again and again and I dont understand why it is such a hard concept to grasp.......



Statistics are NOT the whole facts.. They are only PART of the fact... They don't tell you the whole picture. It gives the numbers (runs, wickets, balls, strike rate, average) but you don't know how well they bowled or batted from that alone.. It takes a lot more than just pure numbers to get the WHOLE FACT.

 

[SJS]

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.

You are absolutely right. One cant ignore statistics completely. That is why no one argues with Bradmman's average - so huge is the difference with everyone else in his era (which is most important) and in any other.

However, as you rightly mention, one has to add an understanding to the figures. Thus to understand WG's figures we have to understand what was happening in that time (which is a function of many things including the nature of wickets for example), the fact that a lot of his stats are because he played so late into his career. One cant expect him to be the same in his fifties as he was in his twenties. That is universal and even applies to an absolute phenomenon like Bradman whose 1948 tour to England was his least prolific as far as stats go.

But the fact is that when a batsman averages in the high 40's or the 50's (maybe lower if we 100 years and more into the past) you dont doubt that he is in the very top bracket. However, to compare (a somewhat playful exercise I always maintain), you need to talk of other things.

Same applies to bowlers.

What we cant do, as you seem to agree, is to reduce the appreciation of sportsmen, in as complex a sport as cricket, to mere statistics. In that case, as I have said so many times before, instead of arguing here, someone should just come out with a 'perfect' formula for comparing all cricketers, we should all feed it to our computers and be done with this 'warfare'

 

[pasag]

That is universal and even applies to an absolute phenomenon like Bradman whose 1948 tour to England was his least prolific as far as stats go.

Still averages 90 for the tour, 15 ahead of Hasset, the next best

But yeah, very strongly agree with yours and hb's posts, as I'm sure you know.

 

[Dissector]

Many of you will have seen it already but for those who haven't I thought I would post one of my favourite youtube cricket videos about Sobers's legendary 254 for the ROW against Australia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SzfWtTZOtA

As to the question of why you would bowl Sobers in an all-time 11, it's not that hard really. First of all whenever I pick an all-time 11 I imagine they will play against a similar 11 so perhaps the first all-time 11 would play against the second all-time 11 which would have a spectacular batting line-up in its own right. Secondly the teams would play in the full range of conditions that you see in test cricket meaning there will be some pitches which favour batting. Keeping these two points in mind it is quite likely that in some games even the four best bowlers you can think of would struggle against their opponents. A fifth bowler would come in handy in such situations even if he isn't quite as good as the others.

Some additional scenarios where a Sobers would come in handy with the ball (and note they are not mutually exclusive):
a) One of your four bowlers is injured or having a bad day.
b) Your main fast bowlers are tired and you want to preseve their energy for the second new ball
c) The pitch isn't doing much for the quicks and the opponents are playing them comfortably. You want to try spin at both ends.
d) One of the opposing batsmen is well-set but in the past he has shown weakness against left-arm seamers.

And so on... The bottom line up is that back-ups are useful and variety is useful and when you have an absolutely superlative batsman who provides these with the ball it would be madness not to pick him.

Also I would like to say that I am one of those who enjoys statistics and thinks they are extremely important in evaluating players. However an argument along the lines of: why bowl Sobers who averages 34 in his career when you have 4 bowlers who average (say) 22 is exactly the kind of silly argument which gives statistics a bad name.

 

[JBH001]

Nice link, Dissector. Thanks for that.

 

[SJS]

Many of you will have seen it already but for those who haven't I thought I would post one of my favourite youtube cricket videos about Sobers's legendary 254 for the ROW against Australia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SzfWtTZOtA

... an argument along the lines of: why bowl Sobers who averages 34 in his career when you have 4 bowlers who average (say) 22 is exactly the kind of silly argument which gives statistics a bad name.

It does some good though. It tells me exactly where not to waste my breath (and time)

 

[Ikki]

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.

ICC player rankings themselves go against some of the very best "known" cricketing history. ICC player ranking puts Dennis Lillee only one spot up from Harmison. The irony that you talk of others treating statistics badly and talk about these rankings.

If you are going to claim statistics are being used wrongly here, correct their use and show where the fault was. Otherwise, you really are pushing it trying to argue that you are in favour of statistics as well - it certainly doesn't appear that way.

Why would you bat Miller in an all time side?

You have to bat Miller, or any all-rounder, when picking them.

 

[Ikki]

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,

Why is Miller the least effective bowler? When you consider stats at face value like you have, you have to look at the era as well. With regards to Miller's SR, it was one of the lowest of his time.

Miller's career SR is 61.5. The average SR during his career was 80.5.
Murali's career SR is 54.4. The average SR during his career is 66.9.

Very impressive and not weak at all.

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.

Wrong. Miller on his bowling alone can make the 1st all-time XI, and comfortably the 2nd.

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.

Wrong, the other way round in fact. Miller is more suited to being picked as an all-rounder than the others.

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.

What you've argued is not why Miller should be picked, but why an all-rounder should be picked at ALL when you have 4 quality bowlers. That's a fair argument. Australia in their dominance of the past decade did without an all-rounder.

HOWEVER, if you ARE picking an all-rounder and intend on using them as an all-rounder Miller is clearly superior to Sobers with regards to that choice.

 

[Ikki]

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).

Then you are not picking Sobers as an all-rounder, but a part-timer - at best.

 

[Ikki]

Exactly.

It has been a dilemma for captains over time - how many bowlers to play in the eleven - four or five. On some days, when the batsman start piling up the runs (as they will do on some days irrespective of how good is your attack), you will need a bowler to come in and provide rest, relief, variation or a combination of all three. Captains have even used batsmen like to do that.

With someone as Sobers in the side as a batsman, that dillemma is taken care of. Now you chose your best four bowlers and forget about what to do if you find you are a bowler short for aby of the reasons given above.

A bowler who takes 32 wickets at 34 each - even at 34 each - is good enough for that role - and how ?

Thats logic. Unfortunately logic is not a substitute for bull-headedness.

The other 4 bowlers do not need rest. Even at their average quote per match they can more than fill in the overs. In fact, a few of them can do the lion's share by themselves: a Murali or an O'Reilly perhaps. And when you give these bowlers that chance they not only concede LESS runs than Sobers they are also likelier to take a wicket. That's logic.

 

[honestbharani]

Then you are not picking Sobers as an all-rounder, but a part-timer - at best.

But he is much much better than a part timer......

 

[Ikki]

Many of you will have seen it already but for those who haven't I thought I would post one of my favourite youtube cricket videos about Sobers's legendary 254 for the ROW against Australia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SzfWtTZOtA

As to the question of why you would bowl Sobers in an all-time 11, it's not that hard really. First of all whenever I pick an all-time 11 I imagine they will play against a similar 11 so perhaps the first all-time 11 would play against the second all-time 11 which would have a spectacular batting line-up in its own right. Secondly the teams would play in the full range of conditions that you see in test cricket meaning there will be some pitches which favour batting. Keeping these two points in mind it is quite likely that in some games even the four best bowlers you can think of would struggle against their opponents. A fifth bowler would come in handy in such situations even if he isn't quite as good as the others.

Some additional scenarios where a Sobers would come in handy with the ball (and note they are not mutually exclusive):
a) One of your four bowlers is injured or having a bad day.
b) Your main fast bowlers are tired and you want to preseve their energy for the second new ball
c) The pitch isn't doing much for the quicks and the opponents are playing them comfortably. You want to try spin at both ends.
d) One of the opposing batsmen is well-set but in the past he has shown weakness against left-arm seamers.

And so on... The bottom line up is that back-ups are useful and variety is useful and when you have an absolutely superlative batsman who provides these with the ball it would be madness not to pick him.

Also I would like to say that I am one of those who enjoys statistics and thinks they are extremely important in evaluating players. However an argument along the lines of: why bowl Sobers who averages 34 in his career when you have 4 bowlers who average (say) 22 is exactly the kind of silly argument which gives statistics a bad name.

You just argued for Sobers as a PART-TIMER, not an ALL-ROUNDER. An all-rounder is going to be used regardless if his other bowler is feeling a bit tired. A combination of the best bowlers ever will do well in every condition and are not reliant on a bowler like Sobers to help them. And again, that's the "throwing the kitchin sink" kind of situation I envisaged earlier.

Take a look at the other bowlers in that World XI match you posted.

Let's name them: Gifford, Bedi, Intikhab Alam, Greig.

Should I use the laugh smiley? None of these bowlers would make an all-time XI. Daniel Vettori played in a World XI and bowled well even, it still doesn't mean anything in the bigger picture other than at a time he got picked for that squad.

 

[Ikki]

But he is much much better than a part timer......

Does it really matter? He will bowl a handful of overs at best. That's not an all-rounder. That is a part-timer. My contention is: if you have the express intention of picking an ALL-ROUNDER, why would you pick Sobers if you aren't going to use him as an all-rounder?

I have no problem with someone saying I'll pick Sobers as a part-timer, that's not a problem.

 

[Ikki]

Bowling is not always about just taking wickets.. If it were, we can all just do what Richard says and pack our sides with fast or fast medium bowlers and ignore the spinners.. Only someone who has played the game enough at some level and also understood how the game works can understand why, on an average, it will take more balls and cost more runs for a spinner to get a wicket than a fast bowler and why is it still almost a necessity to have a good or at least decent spinner in a cricketing side... Some things cannot just be explained with cold numbers alone.

Apart from Murali/Warne/Tiger/Clarrie you should probably never pick a spinner over a great fast bowler. This is beside the point, even statistically, the distance between a Murali and a Lillee is minute. The more deciding factor is who will be on form that day.

But the difference between a Sobers and a Lillee is huge. You are wasting overs by giving any over to Sobers. Logically, you would want to concede as few runs and take as many wickets as you can.

In the same way, it is not always a necessity for a bowler to take wickets, at least not for every bowler in the team. Some bowlers are assigned certain roles and as long as they do their brief, it will still end up benefitting the team. And from what one has read about Sobers, he was a very good bowler when he took an attacking role... As far as stats are concerned, if someone can give us a very solid breakdown of his stats for the 9 or so years that he did play the role of an attacking bowler and break it down as how many wickets he got at what strike rate as a fast medium bowler and as a left arm orthodox spinner and as a chinaman bowler, we will get a clearer perspective of exactly how "good" his bowling was. And I fear there is no real way to get that and so we simply have to depend on what people who have watched him have to say......

That may be true. But his stats are so high that he'd have to have in effect bowled something like 90% spin because those figures are poor for a medium pacer.

Furthermore, whether it be a holding or slowing the run-rate the other bowlers can do it better than Sobers. What more, is that they are also more likely to take a wicket while doing it. If it's for striking and taking a wicket, again, the other bowlers are better suited.

And as to why he would bowl in an all time XI, well, if my four bowlers (off the top of my head, say Imran, Ambrose, Warne and Wasim) were having trouble bowling against Bradman, Lara, Sachin and Dravid (again, juz off the top of my head, not saying these ppl are the ones who will make my all time team) and I see that the guys are tiring and I need a bowler who wont be a partimer and as such get clobbered by the greats.. THAT is the time when Sir Garfield Sobers would prove his worth as a bowler. He will give me control against the great batsman and there is always the threat of him getting a wicket too, if we get off to a good start and can afford to try his attacking style... Esp. if say I had McGrath instead of Wasim in my side, I would bring on Sir Garry as second change regardless of the state of the match.. For as far as I am concerned and based on what I have read and heard, he was very good as a left arm fast medium bowler who got good swing and cut off the wicket at a lively pace and had good changes of pace as well.. With exact stats not available for that part alone, I am willing to consider the opinions of well respected writers and players on this...

By bowling Sobers like that you are still using him as a part-timer. What "if" this happened. Yes, there are many dire circumstances where even the best bowlers will have trouble but a part-timer will come in and take the others. That's great, but that's not the role of an all-rounder.

Also, Sobers, even in his peak, did not average under 30 against any team bar India. So he's more likely to get smacked even more than your poorly performing star bowlers. Let's talk about what is more likely than the dire circumstances where it "may" be alright to give him a bowl.

 

[Gowza]

miller can't make an all time team as a batsman anyway, he'd be picked as a bowler meaning he's not being selected as an allrounder. so even if sobers can't be picked as an allrounder in an all time XI miller can't be either.

 

[Ikki]

miller can't make an all time team as a batsman anyway, he'd be picked as a bowler meaning he's not being selected as an allrounder. so even if sobers can't be picked as an allrounder in an all time XI miller can't be either.

Wrong. Even if you are being picked for your fielding, you have to bat. So that's always a consideration.

 

[sanga1337]

I keep saying this again and again and I dont understand why it is such a hard concept to grasp.......



Statistics are NOT the whole facts.. They are only PART of the fact... They don't tell you the whole picture. It gives the numbers (runs, wickets, balls, strike rate, average) but you don't know how well they bowled or batted from that alone.. It takes a lot more than just pure numbers to get the WHOLE FACT.

I don't think you read my whole post. I said you should use a combo of BOTH to determine the greatness of a player.