Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[Sanz]

Barrington is the ONLY player with a comparable average over a significant number of Tests.

Not to disrespect anyone, but just one small point :-

Barrington Played Between 1955 - 1968, Avg. - 58.67 with 20 100s in 82 tests. During that period, Sobers averaged 66.14, with 19 100s in 61 tests.

 

[sanga1337]

Does either of you expect to change the other's mind?

I think they do...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Does either of you expect to change the other's mind?

No, but then again I never thought I'd see the day when it would be claimed on a cricket forum that Garry Sobers couldn't bowl.

 

[steve132]

Not to disrespect anyone, but just one small point :-

Barrington Played Between 1955 - 1968, Avg. - 58.67 with 20 100s in 82 tests. During that period, Sobers averaged 66.14, with 19 100s in 61 tests.

Sanz:

I prefer to err on the side of generosity. To be honest, none of Sobers' contemporaries was as great or, to put it in more utilitarian terms, as effective a batsman as he was, despite the amount of bowling that he did. .Most students of the game recognize this.

 

[steve132]

No, but then again I never thought I'd see the day when it would be claimed on a cricket forum that Garry Sobers couldn't bowl.

Neither did I - nor, I suspect, did any of the cricketers and journalists who saw him play. On the other hand, even on this forum only a small minority of posters appears to hold this view. Experienced cricketers would probably laugh at some of the claims being made here by the anti-Sobers posters.

 

[SJS]

Neither did I - nor, I suspect, did any of the cricketers and journalists who saw him play. On the other hand, even on this forum only a small minority of posters appears to hold this view. Experienced cricketers would probably laugh at some of the claims being made here by the anti-Sobers posters.

Well I did not laugh (nor do I count myself amongst experienced cricketers) but I had originally written "By the way, you really amuse me" before, not wanting to annoy anyone I changed it to .....

By the way, you really amaze me

 

[weldone]

No, but then again I never thought I'd see the day when it would be claimed on a cricket forum that Garry Sobers couldn't bowl.

I don't know if it has been claimed yet on this forum...But if it has been, then injustice has been done to the man...The fact is that Garry Sobers could bowl, he was a good bowler...Though I don't have an issue with people having different opinions about whether 'he was a very good bowler' or about whether 'he is among the best 50 bowlers ever'....

 

[Ikki]

Underwood was also a specialist spinner who bowled on uncovered wickets in England.

It doesn't matter by how much it inflated it. It was a tiny point when it was made but the fact that you claimed something as basic as that didn't even happen doesn't give the reader much confidence in anything else you try to claim.

But I know that point. When I say his overall SR is this and that. I am assuming when you reply with "he bowled long spells to hold up an end" that he did it enough to counter my points about SR. It only mitigates it slightly.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

But I know that point. When I say his overall SR is this and that. I am assuming when you reply with "he bowled long spells to hold up an end" that he did it enough to counter my points about SR. It only mitigates it slightly.

That's no longer the point. You claimed that such spells of bowling didn't happen which just gives the impression of a statsboy who has no idea what actually happens on the field of play.

 

[bagapath]

miller had more girl friends, flew a war plane in second world war, had the couragee to divorce at the age of 80 and remarry his long time girl friend and tuned up drunk to the field and took 7 for 27.

on the cricket field it has to be sobers. outside, it is nuggets all the way.

 

[Ikki]

Sobers was born in 1936, and there are scores of Test cricketers who are born within a decade or so of his birth, including such celebrated batsmen as Graveney, Harvey, May, Cowdrey, Barrington, Dexter, Kanhai, Boycott, Ian Chappell and Lloyd. Barrington is the ONLY player with a comparable average over a significant number of Tests. The number of Tests matters, because there is a considerable difference between maintaining a high average over 80-100 Tests and maintaining it over 20 or 25 Tests. For example, Pollock played only 23 Tests, and his average drops significantly if you include the Rest of the World Series against England and Australia in 1970 and 1972. These matches - like the Packer series in the late 70's - were played at a higher level of quality and intensity than most of Test cricket then or now. Likewise, Davis played only 15 Test matches (averaging 54) and could not hold a place in a strong West Indies team after that.

Walcott ended his Test career in 1960, and Gavaskar averaged 51, not 57, over his. If you want to select only a part of Gavaskar's career you must do the same for Sobers, who began his Test career as a bowler, at the tender age of 17. In summary, your claim that this was a period of unusually high batting averages is not supported by the available evidence.

It doesn't matter. You are saying the only way someone can compare with Sobers is that they played when he started and as long as them. This would be a feat in itself. Walcott played for 6 years of Sobers' career and averaged high. Same with the others I mentioned. Davis started and ended his career in the same period as Sobers career and averaged that. Pollock the same. Gavaskar obviously kept playing and his average drops because he faced much better bowling in the 80s, but he had 57 too.

Furthermore, this is still not the way to gauge an overall standard at the time. As I said before, the run average in Sobers' era was slightly higher than in others. If this is not an important point - and it isn't when you talk about Sobers' batting, because it was still great - then neither should it be that Sobers changed disciplines while bowling. Because the same difference on the respective records is minute.

You have submitted far more posts to this thread than I or anyone else has. Most of your "contributions" have been repetitive, tendentious and designed to denigrate Sobers' record as much as you possibly can.

I have posted facts, you have subjective opinion. And whether they are denigration is your opinion. For me, it's just what's there.

This is a prime example of your bias. You claim that Sobers scored most of his runs against India and Pakistan, but conveniently neglect to mention that his WORST record is against the worst team of the era, New Zealand.

Wrong, there is nothing convenient about that. Sobers, if he is to be one of the greatest ever, or 2nd after Bradman, must score against minnows. In fact, it's a huge blot on his record as a batsman that he did so poorly against them home and away.

HOWEVER, also blasting the day-lights out of two other sides that weren't much better doesn't go unnoticed too. Hayden may do badly against Bangladesh and them smash the crap out of Zimbabwe. It doesn't mean because he failed against one the other should count that out.

India and New Zealand played four Test series during Sobers' career. India won three of these, and the other one was drawn. The overall record in Tests won was 7-2 in India's favor. Is this your idea of a "very small" difference?

They are close, both are clearly minnows. India who you think was not a minnow won only 16 tests in 20 years - less than 1 test win a year.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have a similar record in the last 10 years. Played 8 times, Zimbabwe won 4, lost 1 time and drew 3.

During' Sobers career, New Zealand played India 16 times. India won 7 times, New Zealand won 2 times and there were 7 draws.

I am sure the similarity does not escape you.

That's fine, but it still doesn't give the whole picture. For example, India may have beaten Australia more times than other teams during this last decade but they haven't been the 2nd best side in the world.

During this time (about 54-74) India beat other teams 9 times and New Zealand 6 times. India beat England 5 times, Australia 3 times and WIndies 1 time. New Zealand beat S.Africa 2 times, WIndies 2 times, Pakistan once and Australia once.

 

[Ikki]

I don't know whether Kazo has made such a claim...But if he has done, then he has made a very wrong claim...On comparative basis, in Sobers' era, averages used to be slightly (yes, slightly) lesser than in Bradman's or Hobbs' or Sachin's era...At least by no means Sobers enjoyed some considerable advantage for batting due to the era in which he played...

No, actually, I had not said that. I said it was merely slightly higher than in other decades. This to offset the "well his 34 is better than other people's 34".

Unfortunately, Steve has taken a tiny scrap that he was afforded with and ran with it. But watch this space. Members constantly claim they won't post and as soon as they find something they think I said is inconsistent they jump back in again. They leave and enter as soon as they think they have some solid ground. One such poster says he won't respond to my question and is in this thread consistently poking fun. I obviously gave too much respect to some.

 

[weldone]

No, actually, I had not said that. I said it was merely slightly higher than in other decades. This to offset the "well his 34 is better than other people's 34".

Unfortunately, Steve has taken a tiny scrap that he was afforded with and ran with it. But watch this space. Members constantly claim they won't post and as soon as they find something they think I said is inconsistent they jump back in again. They leave and enter as soon as they think they have some solid ground. One such poster says he won't respond to my question and is in this thread consistently poking fun.

On your first point, no it was slightly lower than in most other decades, not higher...specially if you consider averages of batsmen only...

On the debate over the last few pages, though I haven't gone through it in details but if you are claiming that Sobers was a good bowler but not as good as some other great all-rounders except Kallis, then I have no issues...Similarly, if someone else says Sobers is a great bowler and though not in the best 30 he's definitely in the best 60, then also I have no issues...Because to me it's trivial whether he's the 55th best bowler ever or the 95th best...

But yes, if someone says he's among the best 10 bowlers ever, or if someone says he's among the worst bowlers to have played test cricket ever then I can't agree...

 

[Ikki]

On your first point, no it was slightly lower than in most other decades, not higher...specially if you consider averages of batsmen only...

That's incorrect, it was higher than all decades bar(in order of highest): 1940, 1920, 2000 and 1930.

On the debate over the last few pages, though I haven't gone through it in details but if you are claiming that Sobers was a good bowler but not as good as some other great all-rounders except Kallis, then I have no issues...Similarly, if someone else says Sobers is a great bowler and though not in the best 30 he's definitely in the best 60, then also I have no issues...Because to me it's trivial whether he's the 55th best bowler ever or the 95th best...

But yes, if someone says he's among the best 10 bowlers ever, or if someone says he's among the worst bowlers to have played test cricket ever then I can't agree...

I say Sobers was an average bowler in the grand scheme of things.

 

[weldone]

That's incorrect, it was higher than all decades bar(in order of highest): 1940, 1920, 2000 and 1930.



I say Sobers was an average bowler in the grand scheme of things.

On your first point, in Sobers' era the average of all no. 1 to no. 7 batsmen combined against the countries Sobers played was 34.99....The same number for Bradman was 39.93, for Hobbs 38.03, for Hammond 39.26, for Sachin 36.56, for Headley 37.45, for Richards 37.11, for Ponting 38.04...So, Sobers, as a batsman, was not priviledged to have played in the era he played and against the opposition he played...

On your second point, depends on what is 'average' to you...If, by average, you mean of the calibre of Danish Kaneria or Zaheer Khan or Danny Morrison or even Jacques Kallis, then I don't have any major issues...Bt by 'good' I meant he was a better bowler than say a Ravi Shastri or an Ashley Giles...For me, whether he was a better bowler than, say, a Danny Morrison, is debatable...But whether he was better than Shastri is not debatable at all...

 

[Ikki]

On your first point, in Sobers' era the average of all no. 1 to no. 7 batsmen combined against the countries Sobers played was 34.99....The same number for Bradman was 39.93, for Hobbs 38.03, for Hammond 39.26, for Sachin 36.56, for Headley 37.45, for Richards 37.11, for Ponting 38.04...So, Sobers, as a batsman, was not priviledged to have played in the era he played and against the opposition he played...

That's an incorrect way to judge IMO. Many of those players have overlapping careers. Also, earlier on, in decades prior, many all-rounders were used. Batting would go way down. That's why also some teams had often 5+ bowlers in their line-ups regularly.

I tried to get the average by decade with the 1-7 qualification but statsguru wouldn't let me. You try it out.

On your second point, depends on what is 'average' to you...If, by average, you mean of the calibre of Danish Kaneria or Zaheer Khan or Danny Morrison or even Jacques Kallis, then I don't have any major issues...Bt by 'good' I meant he was a better bowler than say a Ravi Shastri or an Ashley Giles...For me, whether he was a better bowler than, say, a Danny Morrison, is debatable...But whether he was better than Shastri is not debatable at all...

By average I mean someone like Jacques Kallis, yes.

 

[weldone]

That's an incorrect way to judge IMO. Many of those players have overlapping careers. Also, earlier on, in decades prior, many all-rounders were used. Batting would go way down. That's why also some teams had often 5+ bowlers in their line-ups regularly.

I tried to get the average by decade with the 1-7 qualification but statsguru wouldn't let me. You try it out.



By average I mean someone like Jacques Kallis, yes.

It's possible in statsguru...Even if you try batting performances of no. 1 to no. 6 batsmen, there won't be any significant difference in favor of Sobers, I'm sure...if any...

Well, as I've said earlier, as long as you consider Sobers a better bowler than, say a Ravi Shastri or an Ashley Giles, I don't have a 'major' issue...Though I feel Sobers was a slightly better bowler than Kallis, but that's debatable I agree.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

But still, Marshall, Hadlee and Barnes are better seamers than him.

IMO,Imran is the best bowler ever and even those who rate Marshall & Hadlee better accept that there was a minute difference between them & Imran.Regarding Barnes,he is an alltime great but not top 5 ever because of the wickets on which he played.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Sobers' peak period coincides with him both performing with bat and ball. I don't necessarily mean they took x wickets and made x runs in the same match. Imran, AFAIR, achieved most of his feats separately. Imran was a greater bowler at one stage and then he stopped bowling much and did well batting.

He did that only in last 7 or so games of his career.

As for Miller, he was not only excellent at both feats during the same time, he did it for half his career. Miller was a full-fledged all-rounder from day 1.

Taking just 3 wickets per game with a higher strike strike doesn't make him an excellent bowler.Neitherd id he has as good peak as Imran,that is in terms of averages & longetivity(in terms of no. of years & tests).Miler is nether an alltime great bowler nor batsman(not top 20 in both disciplies for sure).Even then,Miller being better than Imran or not is arguable but claiming that Botham was a better allrounder than Imran is highly laughable & insult to Imran.

 

[steve132]

It doesn't matter. You are saying the only way someone can compare with Sobers is that they played when he started and as long as them. This would be a feat in itself. Walcott played for 6 years of Sobers' career and averaged high. Same with the others I mentioned. Davis started and ended his career in the same period as Sobers career and averaged that. Pollock the same. Gavaskar obviously kept playing and his average drops because he faced much better bowling in the 80s, but he had 57 too.

Furthermore, this is still not the way to gauge an overall standard at the time. As I said before, the run average in Sobers' era was slightly higher than in others. If this is not an important point - and it isn't when you talk about Sobers' batting, because it was still great - then neither should it be that Sobers changed disciplines while bowling. Because the same difference on the respective records is minute.

If you can't see the difference in achievement between Sobers averaging 57 over a 20 year career and Davis averaging 54 over 15 Tests then you are really not qualified to assess players.

I have posted facts, you have subjective opinion. And whether they are denigration is your opinion. For me, it's just what's there.

The"facts" that you present are tendentious, because you ignore evidence that does not suit your preconceived thesis.

Wrong, there is nothing convenient about that. Sobers, if he is to be one of the greatest ever, or 2nd after Bradman, must score against minnows. In fact, it's a huge blot on his record as a batsman that he did so poorly against them home and away.

HOWEVER, also blasting the day-lights out of two other sides that weren't much better doesn't go unnoticed too. Hayden may do badly against Bangladesh and them smash the crap out of Zimbabwe. It doesn't mean because he failed against one the other should count that out.

Can you identify any batsman other than Bradman who did not fail against any country? How many batsmen have better Test records than Sobers does?

In any case, your initial claim was that Sobers piled up runs against weak teams. I pointed out that this argument was false, because his worst record was against the weakest team of his era. You are now making the directly contradictory argument that his failure against minnows "is a huge blot on his record." If you want to attack Sobers you should at least get your arguments straight.

They are close, both are clearly minnows. India who you think was not a minnow won only 16 tests in 20 years - less than 1 test win a year.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe have a similar record in the last 10 years. Played 8 times, Zimbabwe won 4, lost 1 time and drew 3.

During' Sobers career, New Zealand played India 16 times. India won 7 times, New Zealand won 2 times and there were 7 draws.

I am sure the similarity does not escape you.

That's fine, but it still doesn't give the whole picture. For example, India may have beaten Australia more times than other teams during this last decade but they haven't been the 2nd best side in the world.

During this time (about 54-74) India beat other teams 9 times and New Zealand 6 times. India beat England 5 times, Australia 3 times and WIndies 1 time. New Zealand beat S.Africa 2 times, WIndies 2 times, Pakistan once and Australia once.

This is absurd. If one team beats the other in three out of four series and draws the fourth they are not by any reasonable definition of the term "close," nor is the difference between them "very small." Anyone familiar with cricket in the Sobers era knows that not only was India's batting stronger than New Zealand's, but India also possessed a number of high quality spinners (Gupte and Mankad in the first half of Sobers' career, Bedi, Chandrasekhar, Prasanna and Venkataravaghan in the second), while New Zealand had nothing comparable. Both Sobers and Everton Weekes described Gupte as the best leg spinner they ever saw. Viv Richards described Chandrasekhar as the most difficult bowler he had to face. The duel between the West Indian batsmen and the second set of Indian spinners in 1971 was one of the most absorbing contests I have ever seen.

Once again you made a claim that has been shown to be false, and you are now trying to weasel your way out of this awkward position.