Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[Gowza]

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

yes but he's being picked as a bowler not an allrounder, otherwise you'd have to say everyone in the team is an allrounder just because they have to bat.

 

[Ikki]

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.

That's right, but only to an extent. If a bowler averages 40 in his career, do you need much more than statistics? No bowler, in any era, no matter what they bowled, in any team, can be considered good doing the above.

The irony of this discussion is that it isn't statistical analysis that should be checked, but subjective commentary. The statistics are there and are at a point where it's hard to argue otherwise. We are not talking about small differences here (I think I've said that 100 times now). The subjective commentary is the one that is so outlandish it doesn't match what actually happened. IT needs to be proved in the CORRECT context.

I put my hand up in arguing contrary to the populous and used many ways of analyzing. I kept coming to the same conclusion. The others have done nothing but resort to "well, don't tell me you disagree with so and so's opinion". That's their last resort. Even that opinion from so-and-so has a context. It does not apply to every instance of Sobers' career.

 

[Ikki]

yes but he's being picked as a bowler not an allrounder, otherwise you'd have to say everyone in the team is an allrounder just because they have to bat.

Wrong. Everyone in the team is a batsman, not an all-rounder, because they have to bat. Only a few, mostly one, will be an all-rounder who is also asked to bowl a fair share of overs. Miller when being selected as a bowler is not entirely a bowler because he is not relied on to bowl as many overs and he also has batting strengths far superior to just normal bowlers. This strength is explicit in his being picked - hence he is being picked as an all-rounder.

 

[Gowza]

so basically you're saying even players like mcgrath are allrounders just because they have to bat.

 

[Ikki]

so basically you're saying even players like mcgrath are allrounders just because they have to bat.

No, because that would be like saying Tendulkar is an all-rounder just because he bowls. All-rounders are those who excel at both disciplines.

 

[Gowza]

that doesn't make sense, miller gets to be an allrounder just because he has to bat but macgrath isn't even though he also has to bat.

 

[Ikki]

that doesn't make sense, miller gets to be an allrounder just because he has to bat but macgrath isn't even though he also has to bat.

Miller isn't an all-rounder just because he bats, Miller is an all-rounder because he is a very good batsman - as far as all-rounders go.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

no I read it, but you said "Stats are facts".. That they may be but I just wanted to point out that it is only "part of the fact", not the actual fact by itself.


Anyways, I think you and I are in agreement over the main point, so this is just semantics.

 

[honestbharani]

Kazo.. I think I am running in circles here with you.. I understand, to an extent, why you are arguing and what you are arguing about..


But you seem to have gotten it into your head that when a guy averages 40 with the ball, he HAS to have been bad. Circumstances means a lot in these cases, esp. when considering the bowling figures of someone who was so very very proficient with the bat that he almost always had more miles in his legs than any other all rounder when he came onto bowl. I can sense that you can say the same about a Miller or an Imran that they had bowled so much that they couldn't bat their best.. To be honest, I don't care about that. If so many luminaries of the game considered Imran better than Sobers, then I would too... Because I do believe that comparing across such different eras, it is much better to take the words of those who have seen both.


As such, there is no such point here. It is almost obvious that 90% of the cricketing world do consider Sobers the best all-rounder, any which way you want to define an all rounder... He seems to have more 5 wickets hauls + centuries than anyone else, his batting solely helps him get into the side, he is among the greatest batsmen of all time, probably second only to Bradman.. And when you throw in his more than useful bowling, it is obvious why people rate him one of the greatest cricketers ever...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This nonsense still going on? What's with the Google definitions?
I especially like the one "A player who can play as a batsman or bowler with equal proficiency."
In that case neither Sobers or Miller were all-rounders. You'd be looking at people like Ian Greig and Simon O'Donnell who were equally proficient at both disciplines but outstanding at neither.

 

[Ikki]

Kazo.. I think I am running in circles here with you.. I understand, to an extent, why you are arguing and what you are arguing about..

But you seem to have gotten it into your head that when a guy averages 40 with the ball, he HAS to have been bad. Circumstances means a lot in these cases, esp. when considering the bowling figures of someone who was so very very proficient with the bat that he almost always had more miles in his legs than any other all rounder when he came onto bowl. I can sense that you can say the same about a Miller or an Imran that they had bowled so much that they couldn't bat their best.. To be honest, I don't care about that. If so many luminaries of the game considered Imran better than Sobers, then I would too... Because I do believe that comparing across such different eras, it is much better to take the words of those who have seen both.

A person who averages 40 is bound to have good games here and there but on the whole is not an effective bowler. It doesn't matter how much you stretch this, it is an undeniable outcome. No matter what era you are talking about.

Now try to address this when the subjective assessments regarding Sobers' bowling interpret on being very good. There are too few instances on him being very good to suggest Sobers' bowling on the whole was good. In fact, there is more said about his versatility, and how that makes him a great bowler, than what he actually did when taking wickets.

In the past, you have to know, they did not measure cricketers the same. For them, an average of 34 was passable and they didn't consider SR as much as they did wickets per test for example. This is clearly seen in every estimation of the man where they rarely, if ever, mention his SR. It's also famously seen when Benaud is heard to have said that no one will ever pass Gibbs' record. Gibbs, doesn't have a good SR, not even for the best of spinners. It took him 18 years, bowling around 57 overs per test to crack the 300 mark.

The means of which they judge are too subjective, and most of the time they are statistically verifiable to be shown as false.

 

[honestbharani]

A person who averages 40 is bound to have good games here and there but on the whole is not an effective bowler. It doesn't matter how much you stretch this, it is an undeniable outcome. No matter what era you are talking about.

Now try to address this when the subjective assessments regarding Sobers' bowling interpret on being very good. There are too few instances on him being very good to suggest Sobers' bowling on the whole was good. In fact, there is more said about his versatility, and how that makes him a great bowler, than what he actually did when taking wickets.

In the past, you have to know, they did not measure cricketers the same. For them, an average of 34 was passable and they didn't consider SR as much as they did wickets per test for example. This is clearly seen in every estimation of the man where they rarely, if ever, mention his SR. It's also famously seen when Benaud is heard to have said that no one will ever pass Gibbs' record. Gibbs, doesn't have a good SR, not even for the best of spinners. It took him 18 years, bowling around 57 overs per test to crack the 300 mark.

The means of which they judge are too subjective, and most of the time they are statistically verifiable to be shown as false.

It could have simply meant that it was THAT difficult at that time to get wickets at a good strike rate that even the best got only 300.... That is where relative comparisons come in...

 

[SJS]

This nonsense still going on? What's with the Google definitions?
I especially like the one "A player who can play as a batsman or bowler with equal proficiency."
In that case neither Sobers or Miller were all-rounders. You'd be looking at people like Ian Greig and Simon O'Donnell who were equally proficient at both disciplines but outstanding at neither.

Or my mother-in-law she is equally bad at both

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Or my mother-in-law she is equally bad at both

Is that just an opinion you've form or can you produce stats to prove it?

 

[SJS]

Is that just an opinion you've form or can you produce stats to prove it?

She has yet to score a single run and yet to take a single wicket. O)n top of that she is yet to stop a run from being scored in the field let alone take a catch

 

[SJS]

You can always produce stats to prove anything

 

[Lillian Thomson]

She has yet to score a single run and yet to take a single wicket. O)n top of that she is yet to stop a run from being scored in the field let alone take a catch

I didn't know Gavin Hamilton was your mother-in-law.

 

[Migara]

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

Of course yes. But rather than having a good bowler who could bat at #8, I would go for a out and out fast bowler / spinner who will destroy a side.

 

[viktor]

Wrong. Everyone in the team is a batsman, not an all-rounder, because they have to bat. Only a few, mostly one, will be an all-rounder who is also asked to bowl a fair share of overs. Miller when being selected as a bowler is not entirely a bowler because he is not relied on to bowl as many overs and he also has batting strengths far superior to just normal bowlers. This strength is explicit in his being picked - hence he is being picked as an all-rounder.

Not going to comment on the actual debate, but this statement seems a little curious


Everyone in the team is a batsman, not an all-rounder, because they have to bat.:
So, McGrath is a batsman. He has to bat.

Only a few, mostly one, will be an all-rounder who is also asked to bowl a fair share of overs.
So, McGrath, who is going to bowl a fair share of overs is an all-rounder?

May be that came out wrong?

 

[SJS]

I didn't know Gavin Hamilton was your mother-in-law.