Sobers rates Gavaskar as the greatest batsman

[Richard]

FTR, there is absolutely no way Bernard Julien was anything other than utterly terrible in 1976. Julien was a pretty decent Test cricketer from his 1973 debut to the 1975/76 series in Australia, but his 6 Tests in 1976 saw him average 109 with the ball, and about 18 with the bat.

This has very little to do with Gavaskar, but West Indies in 1976 were mostly a one-man attack of the newly-come-of-age Holding. Roberts bowled well in the First Test of the four, dreadfully in the Second, then dropped-out of the last two because he was exhausted - Daniel made a pretty decent debut in the Fourth. Holford bowled well in the opener, and the rest (Julien, Jumadeen, Padmore, Imtiaz Ali, Holder in the 1 Test he got) were of no note. I can't remember exactly when Gavaskar made however many runs he made in that series, but if it was the Second or Third Test, it certainly wasn't a case of making runs against an attack of any great note. If he made some in the First and\or Fourth, then that's more of an achievement.

 

[Sanz]

This is the kind of made up tripe really upsets me.

 

[Ikki]

But your statement was in regards to the west indian attack.
And SJS's analysis does not include the home series against the west indians.
Where after the 30 average series away in 82/83 ,he averaged 50.50 against a very strong attack at home.
And i think in his previous tour too when he had two great bowlers plus decent backup in julien he did well.Which somehow SJS diverted in his argument.
2nd Test: West Indies v India at Port of Spain, Mar 24-29, 1976 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

My statement still stands on that attack. His average in those two series is 41.4 - which is as I said ~40 and very "average". So what are you getting at? These are far cries to his average of 65.45 overall against WIndies.

 

[Richard]

This is the kind of made up tripe really upsets me.

It's a shame if someone posting the truth about Bernard Julien appears made-up to you, and if it upsets you.

Well, no, it's not really a shame, but I guess it's a shame for you.

 

[Sanz]

It's a shame if someone posting the truth about Bernard Julien appears made-up to you, and if it upsets you.

Well, no, it's not really a shame, but I guess it's a shame for you.

Conveniently you ignored the made up stuff.

but West Indies in 1976 were mostly a one-man attack of the newly-come-of-age Holding. Roberts bowled well in the First Test of the four, dreadfully in the Second, then dropped-out of the last two because he was exhausted - Daniel made a pretty decent debut in the Fourth. Holford bowled well in the opener, and the rest (Julien, Jumadeen, Padmore, Imtiaz Ali, Holder in the 1 Test he got) were of no note. I can't remember exactly when Gavaskar made however many runs he made in that series, but if it was the Second or Third Test, it certainly wasn't a case of making runs against an attack of any great note. If he made some in the First and\or Fourth, then that's more of an achievement.

 

[Sanz]

Eveyr thread is being hijacked these days by some morons these days. This forum needs a complete overhaul or it is dead. It is just impossible to post anything good about any cricketer and not encounter some utter drivel.

 

[Richard]

Conveniently you ignored the made up stuff.

None of that is made-up.

 

[Richard]

Eveyr thread is being hijacked these days by some morons these days. This forum needs a complete overhaul or it is dead. It is just impossible to post anything good about any cricketer and not encounter some utter drivel.

It's also just impossible to post anything and not encounter someone moaning that something is "utter drivel" or comparable claptrap of the sort, because it doesn't fit with what they'd like to believe... but that's always been the case, actually.

 

[Cevno]

FTR, there is absolutely no way Bernard Julien was anything other than utterly terrible in 1976. Julien was a pretty decent Test cricketer from his 1973 debut to the 1975/76 series in Australia, but his 6 Tests in 1976 saw him average 109 with the ball, and about 18 with the bat.

This has very little to do with Gavaskar, but West Indies in 1976 were mostly a one-man attack of the newly-come-of-age Holding. Roberts bowled well in the First Test of the four, dreadfully in the Second, then dropped-out of the last two because he was exhausted - Daniel made a pretty decent debut in the Fourth. Holford bowled well in the opener, and the rest (Julien, Jumadeen, Padmore, Imtiaz Ali, Holder in the 1 Test he got) were of no note. I can't remember exactly when Gavaskar made however many runs he made in that series, but if it was the Second or Third Test, it certainly wasn't a case of making runs against an attack of any great note. If he made some in the First and\or Fourth, then that's more of an achievement.

So now he has to score runs not only against great attacks,but also against them when all the frontline bowlers as well as backups were at its best.And that too on the liveliest tracks of the series ,when in fact he did on one lively pitch.
I'd like to know how many batsmen even Bradman would average more if those standards are applied to them.

Now if he had scored in the 4th test you would have said that Roberts was not present in that test.Despite the fact that 5 Indian batsmen did not bat in the second innings of the fourth and deciding test absent hurt.(though he did score a good 66 in the first innings)

But when gavaskar scored against holding and roberts in the second test on a friendly pitch almost with India defeating west indies,you give reasons that so and so bowlers were not at its best.So gavaskar could also not be at his best in the first test.
In the thrid test ,his 102 led to India chasing 403 in the fourth against holding and co.

 

[Sanz]

So now he has to score runs not only against great attacks,but also against them when all the frontline bowlers as well as backups were at its best.And that too on the liveliest tracks of the series ,when in fact he did on one lively pitch.
I'd like to know how many batsmen even Bradman would average more if those standards are applied to them.

Now if he had scored in the 4th test you would have said that Roberts was not present in that test.Despite the fact that 5 Indian batsmen did not bat in the second innings of the fourth and deciding test absent hurt.(though he did score a good 66 in the first innings)

But when gavaskar scored against holding and roberts in the second test on a friendly pitch almost with India defeating west indies,you give reasons that so and so bowlers were not at its best.So gavaskar could also not be at his best in the first test.
In the thrid test ,his 102 led to India chasing 403 in the fourth against holding and co.

Sadly that is how arguments on this forum work. People have already made up their mind about what they want to believe and then they start supporting their argument by trolling.

 

[Maximus0723]

Sadly that is how arguments on this forum work. People have already made up their mind about what they want to believe and then they start supporting their argument by trolling.

Unless, it's Player X vs. Mangos, all arguments at the end go in this direction.

I haven't read Richard, or anyone's post who might be making such a claims, so this not a personal attack.

 

[Richard]

Sadly that is how arguments on this forum work. People have already made up their mind about what they want to believe and then they start supporting their argument by trolling.

Actually they haven't, but some people are very fond of reading what they want to read rather than what has been written, so as to find the excuse to kick-up a fuss.

 

[Richard]

So now he has to score runs not only against great attacks,but also against them when all the frontline bowlers as well as backups were at its best.And that too on the liveliest tracks of the series ,when in fact he did on one lively pitch.
I'd like to know how many batsmen even Bradman would average more if those standards are applied to them.

Now if he had scored in the 4th test you would have said that Roberts was not present in that test.Despite the fact that 5 Indian batsmen did not bat in the second innings of the fourth and deciding test absent hurt.(though he did score a good 66 in the first innings)

But when gavaskar scored against holding and roberts in the second test on a friendly pitch almost with India defeating west indies,you give reasons that so and so bowlers were not at its best.So gavaskar could also not be at his best in the first test.
In the thrid test ,his 102 led to India chasing 403 in the fourth against holding and co.

I gave an account of what happened. You said Bernard Julien was a decent backup bowler; I pointed-out that, as of the 1976 spring and summer, he wasn't. Roberts did indeed withdraw from the last two Tests of the 1976 WI-vs-Ind series citing exhaustion, and his performance in the Second Test was indeed remarked as jaded.

I am not for a second saying Gavaskar's batting in the 1976 series was of no note - I have actually yet to form a strong opinion either way on it, despite the fact that some have decided to make-up their minds that I have. I haven't actually looked in any great depth at the Indian side of that series. I was merely giving the West Indian account of how that series unfolded.

 

[Streetwise]

Nothing better than a love in where two ex players can call each other the greatest, except for Thommo, he drinks alone.

 

[jeevan]

Nothing better than a love in where two ex players can call each other the greatest, except for Thommo, he drinks alone.

Gavaskar was on record that he regards Rohan Kanhai the greatest batsman he had ever seen. Even named his son after him, so it couldn't be lost on any one. This statement was made when he was still a player (i.e. did not include players from the current period), so it does include Sobers.

Gavaskar also rated Vishwanath higher than himself in direct comparison.

 

[Streetwise]

Gavaskar was on record that he regards Rohan Kanhai the greatest batsman he had ever seen. Even named his son after him, so it couldn't be lost on any one. This statement was made when he was still a player (i.e. did not include players from the current period), so it does include Sobers.

Gavaskar also rated Vishwanath higher than himself in direct comparison.

Gavaskar rated Sobers with Bradman in his speech on entering the ICC hall of fame.

 

[Jono]

As players though, not batsman. Right?

 

[Cevno]

My statement still stands on that attack. His average in those two series is 41.4 - which is as I said ~40 and very "average". So what are you getting at? These are far cries to his average of 65.45 overall against WIndies.

He actually averages 49.60 against roberts,Marshall and Holding in 7 matches.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

And he averages 53.07 in 9 matches against both Holding and Roberts-

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...es;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

 

[jeevan]

Gavaskar rated Sobers with Bradman in his speech on entering the ICC hall of fame.

Link? I don't know what Gavaskar said on that occasion, but he has rated Sobers as the greatest cricketer he has seen because he also wins games with the ball. (As Jono said).

 

[Burgey]

My statement still stands on that attack. His average in those two series is 41.4 - which is as I said ~40 and very "average". So what are you getting at? These are far cries to his average of 65.45 overall against WIndies.

Probably worth commenting that, growing up in the 70s and 80s, if you averaged 40 plus, you were generally considered a very good Test player.