Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[SJS]

By the way, there is another way of looking at it.

If Sobers was not as great a batsman as he was, I would have preferred Miller as an all rounder to him.

 

[Ikki]

If two players have small difference in stats(analyzing those who layed on covered & uncovered wickets separately),then you can argue in favour of the one with relatively poor average using variables .If someone has too bad stats as compared to others in the team,then can be easily called as mediocre.Look at Sobers record compared to Hall,Griffith,Gibbs & Ramadhin and they all hardly are greats.Sobers has a too bad average & took so less wktsmatch compared to them that he can easily be termed as mediocre.

You mean its arguable that Bradman is not the best batsman ever?On what grounds is he considered best batsman ever?Its stats only,Sir.He's well ahead of others who played in that era.Sobers has poor stats compared to even good West Indian bowlers of that time.

Disagree, Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith were more than good; they were rather excellent. Gibbs, even though he bowled purely spin, is ahead of Sobers too. I think Gibbs is a bit overrated but he was better than Sobers.

 

[Ikki]

By the way, there is another way of looking at it.

If Sobers was not as great a batsman as he was, I would have preferred Miller as an all rounder to him.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I wonder why that is the case. Any advantage Sobers had with the bat deteriorates with Miller's strength with the ball. This was partly shown in the Per Innings Performance comparison.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I am not sure what you mean by this, but I am disappointed someone I respected like SJS takes attempts in every thread to big-up his buddy. I thought he was more mature than that. LT makes a wisecrack and SJS is behind him.

SJS just agrees with me that your use of stats is comical, that's all.

 

[SJS]

I think there is a very strong conspiracy on here to get me a new buddy some how or the other. How about someone from the fairer *** if you insist

 

[SJS]

I say LT old chap, why do we have to prove we are not buddies. Why not become buddies and let them be happy.

My self Swaranjeet, 58, retired, two sons in their 30's settled in the US, two labradors and a wife live with me in suburb of Bombay. (Sorry if you find me too old, too boring etc.)

How about sending your CV please.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I say LT old chap, why do we have to prove we are not buddies. Why not become buddies and let them be happy.

My self Swaranjeet, 58, retired, two sons in their 30's settled in the US, two labradors and a wife live with me in suburb of Bombay. (Sorry if you find me too old, too boring etc.)

How about sending your CV please.

Why not, here's mine. Swaranjeet, 58, retired, two sons in their 30's settled in the US, two labradors and a wife live with me in suburb of Bombay.


Nothing in common whatsoever.

 

[weldone]

By the way, there is another way of looking at it.

If Sobers was not as great a batsman as he was, I would have preferred Miller as an all rounder to him.

Exactly, it is the fact that he was such a great batsman (in fact one of the very bests in the business) and was a good bowler (not to mention his fielding), enhances his value so much...It's an unparalleled case of one being among the best 3 in one discipline and being good in the other...Similar would have been the case if Sachin had a bowling average of 30 or if Murali had a batting average of 35...

 

[Sanz]

You've counted more matches than Sobers' career:

Remember, that career ends April 5th 1974.

I knew you would post this. Such statistical nit-picking to prove the history wrong.

You said :- "Gavaskar obviously kept playing and his average drops because he faced much better bowling in the 80s"

Fact is Gavaskar's average Dropped to 49 in 1974 itself without facing those great bowlers of 80s. And in 1974 when his dropped to 49, he wasn't really facing any of the great bowlers of 80s.

 

[Ikki]

SJS just agrees with me that your use of stats is comical, that's all.

Sure, that's it. Didn't you guys not enough time to explain anything? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands though...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Sure, that's it. Didn't you guys not enough time to explain anything? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands though...

You'll have to enlighten us further with the bolded bit as it doesn't actually make sense. I do have a lot of time on my hands - though judging by our post counts not as much as you - that's the result of working hard when I was younger.

 

[Ikki]

I knew you would post this. Such statistical nit-picking to prove the history wrong.

You said :- "Gavaskar obviously kept playing and his average drops because he faced much better bowling in the 80s"

Fact is Gavaskar's average Dropped to 49 in 1974 itself without facing those great bowlers of 80s. And in 1974 when his dropped to 49, he wasn't really facing any of the great bowlers of 80s.

I didn't say it drops right away, I was talking about his overall average. Even Sobers' during his own 'era' had a poor average at one stage. He didn't score a century till his 17th test. Doesn't mean it wasn't easier during some stage of it.

I mean, let's forget about Sobers for a sec because you seem to be too invested in this argument. What about Barrington? Would you say Barrington's career average reflects that he really was that much better than Gavaskar? I wouldn't say Barrington's average reflects better on him because during that time it was not as hard to bat as it was in the 80s.

Furthermore, what's more nitpicking? The fact that Gavaskar averaged 57 in 14 matches, but because in the next 2 matches he only scored 18 runs it dropped it under 50.

We can move away from this as well. This wasn't the point, and is not an important point worth spending this much time on.

 

[Ikki]

You'll have to enlighten us further with the bolded bit as it doesn't actually make sense. I do have a lot of time on my hands - though judging by our post counts not as much as you - that's the result of working hard when I was younger.

Pardon, let me fix it "Didn't you guys say you don't have enough time to explain anything?".

You worked hard when you were younger to trash talk on an internet forum when you're older. Great stuff. You are an example to us all.

 

[SJS]

Exactly, it is the fact that he was such a great batsman (in fact one of the very bests in the business) and was a good bowler (not to mention his fielding), enhances his value so much...It's an unparalleled case of one being among the best 3 in one discipline and being good in the other...Similar would have been the case if Sachin had a bowling average of 30 or if Murali had a batting average of 35...

I have no disagreement my dear chap. Did you read my post where I said, I would have Sobers in my all time World XI in anycase because he is one of the greatest batsmen of all time. Once I have him in the side, and with his bowling skills, irrespective of how you rate them against Miller or Imran or anyone else, it is a simple question of finding four specialist bowlers to complete the side. If Miller is one of those four bowlers (on bowling merits) or Imran, great but my all rounder spot is filled by one of my certainties in the batting line up.

I have never said anything else.

Read my lips .... or better still, my posts

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Pardon, let me fix it "Didn't you guys say you don't have enough time to explain anything?".

You worked hard when you were younger to trash talk on an internet forum when you're older. Great stuff. You are an example to us all.

There isn't enough time in the world to explain to people who are incapable of understanding.
I've got plenty of other things to do as well, chuckling at imbeciles on an internet forum is just one of the perks.

 

[weldone]

I have no disagreement my dear chap. Did you read my post where I said, I would have Sobers in my all time World XI in anycase because he is one of the greatest batsmen of all time. Once I have him in the side, and with his bowling skills, irrespective of how you rate them against Miller or Imran or anyone else, it is a simple question of finding four specialist bowlers to complete the side. If Miller is one of those four bowlers (on bowling merits) or Imran, great but my all rounder spot is filled by one of my certainties in the batting line up.

I have never said anything else.

Read my lips .... or better still, my posts

Now, SJS, did I say anything else? ...I posted a comment agreeing with you and you thought I was saying something against you...And advised me to read your post...Well...

 

[Ikki]

There isn't enough time in the world to explain to people who are incapable of understanding.
I've got plenty of other things to do as well, chuckling at imbeciles on an internet forum is just one of the perks.

There's plenty of time to trash-talk though? You must have more time than you seem to suggest. I mean, how many posts have you actually made with a point in them? You're bordering on trolling.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There's plenty of time to trash-talk though? You must have more time than you seem to suggest. I mean, how many posts have you actually made with a point in them? You're bordering on trolling.

In this thread I have only one point to make and I made it straight away, ie you can't judge cricket solely on stats. You then come up with even more absurd arguments based on................stats.

 

[SJS]

Now, SJS, did I say anything else? ...I posted a comment agreeing with you and you thought I was saying something against you...And advised me to read your post...Well...

Oh I am sorry but I thought you would se that I am being light hearted. Not meant as a rebuke at all even if it sounded like that.

Just think of me as a buddy too and you will start understanding my weird sense of humour too

 

[weldone]

I mean, how many posts have you actually made with a point in them?

Kazo, it seems you forgot your maths lesson of standard 1...Weren't you taught that '0' too is a number?