Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[marc71178]

He didn't ?

Not at the same time, no.

 

[bagapath]

sobers' strength was his batting and for imran it was his bowling. they both achieved equally great feats in their strong departments.

while gary wasnt a great bowler, his bowling - in my opinion - was better than imran's batting. i was never a fan of imran the batter; and please dont tell me he averaged over 50 for close to a decade because i saw most of it. his batting was pretty insipid throughout his career including his peak years. forget botham, i rate even kapil above him as a batsman. sobers on the other hand had more great moments as a bowler than imran as a batsman.

considering this marginal advantage i am happily handing over to sobers' bowling over imran's batting, and the fact that sir gary was probably the greatest all round fielder ever while imran was less than average in that department, it is quite obvious to me that sobers was the superior cricketer of the two.

in a "being john malkovich" inspired dream match between them, imran bowling to sobers would be an even contest and awesome to watch. but the 10 other imrans in the field would drop catches and chase the hits to the boundary instead of stopping them with dives. sobers bowling to imran would be slightly in favor of the bowler especially when the 10 sobers' in the field catch blinders anywhere in their vicinity.

 

[archie mac]

AWTA

z

2-1 in the pole, closer then it should be for mine. Not that IK was not a great player just clearly behind GS

Just as Hobbs was a great player but not going to finish in front of Bradman, even though some would give him the nod based on his supposed edge on a sticky wicket

 

[smash84]

sobers' strength was his batting and for imran it was his bowling. they both achieved equally great feats in their strong departments.

while gary wasnt a great bowler, his bowling - in my opinion - was better than imran's batting. i was never a fan of imran the batter; and please dont tell me he averaged over 50 for close to a decade because i saw most of it. his batting was pretty insipid throughout his career including his peak years. forget botham, i rate even kapil above him as a batsman. sobers on the other hand had more great moments as a bowler than imran as a batsman.

considering this marginal advantage i am happily handing over to sobers' bowling over imran's batting, and the fact that sir gary was probably the greatest all round fielder ever while imran was less than average in that department, it is quite obvious to me that sobers was the superior cricketer of the two.

in a "being john malkovich" inspired dream match between them, imran bowling to sobers would be an even contest and awesome to watch. but the 10 other imrans in the field would drop catches and chase the hits to the boundary instead of stopping them with dives. sobers bowling to imran would be slightly in favor of the bowler especially when the 10 sobers' in the field catch blinders anywhere in their vicinity.

interesting........does captaincy play a role in deciding?

 

[vcs]

Sobers may be complete - in terms of being capable in multiple facets of the game - but overall he is overrated IMO. Not that he isn't great, but the widespread esteem he is held in doesn't make much sense to me. Imran is the better all-rounder, was a wonderful leader and that settles it for me. Better looking too.

Very rarely have I watched a cricketer who received universal acclaim throughout his career and come away with the impression - "Nah, he was overrated.". So why should it be any different with Sobers?

I'd be interested to know from people who were avid cricket followers at the time - when Imran retired (and presumably the accolades and tributes were flowing), how many renowned cricket experts were willing to declare him the best allrounder ever?

 

[archie mac]

Very rarely have I watched a cricketer who received universal acclaim throughout his career and come away with the impression - "Nah, he was overrated.". So why should it be any different with Sobers?

I'd be interested to know from people who were avid cricket followers at the time - when Imran retired (and presumably the accolades and tributes were flowing), how many renowned cricket experts were willing to declare him the best allrounder ever?

No one that I can remember at the time. It was felt he was one of the great four ARs of his era and there was a lot of argument which one was the best, but clearly all of them were rated behind Sobers

 

[Teja.]

Very rarely have I watched a cricketer who received universal acclaim throughout his career and come away with the impression - "Nah, he was overrated.". So why should it be any different with Sobers?

I'd be interested to know from people who were avid cricket followers at the time - when Imran retired (and presumably the accolades and tributes were flowing), how many renowned cricket experts were willing to declare him the best allrounder ever?

That depends on the trust you have on cricket experts though. 99% of these blokes honestly believe that Ricky Ponting and Tendulkar are better cricketers than Jaques Kallis and Shane Warne and Wasim Akram are better cricketers than Richard Hadlee. They hold an extremely subjective POV towards cricket which does not rate the cold value that a cricketer but rather bring in stuff like persona and influence, which I don't rate close to as much as what he actually did.

The Cricinfo XI was supposed to be selected by some of the supposedly most knowledgeable cricket experts in the world. They picked Wasim Akram for the spot of all-rounder(no less) over Imran Khan, Kieth Miller and Richard Hadlee. I consider it a downright moronic decision. Idc if they've watched more cricket than me, You just don't do that. When picking a XI, You pick the XI most likely to win you a game, not one where all the players have great memories and skill sets which will never be forgotten(yada yada yada)

How much weightage you give to the judgement of guys who hold opinions such as Akram>Imran/Miller/Hadlee depends from person to person. Personally, not very much.

/General rant not directly related to the poll in question

 

[honestbharani]

That depends on the trust you have on cricket experts though. 99% of these blokes honestly believe that Ricky Ponting and Tendulkar are better cricketers than Jaques Kallis and Shane Warne and Wasim Akram are better cricketers than Richard Hadlee. They hold an extremely subjective POV towards cricket which does not rate the cold value that a cricketer but rather bring in stuff like persona and influence, which I don't rate close to as much as what he actually did.

The Cricinfo XI was supposed to be selected by some of the supposedly most knowledgeable cricket experts in the world. They picked Wasim Akram for the spot of all-rounder(no less) over Imran Khan, Kieth Miller and Richard Hadlee. I consider it a downright moronic decision. Idc if they've watched more cricket than me, You just don't do that. When picking a XI, You pick the XI most likely to win you a game, not one where all the players have great memories and skill sets which will never be forgotten(yada yada yada)

How much weightage you give to the judgement of guys who hold opinions such as Akram>Imran/Miller/Hadlee depends from person to person. Personally, not very much.

/General rant not directly related to the poll in question

Cricket played by humans and therefore, the aura or any other feeling a person generated in an opponent (a fellow human, in most cases.. ) MATTERS..

 

[Teja.]

Cricket played by humans and therefore, the aura or any other feeling a person generated in an opponent (a fellow human, in most cases.. ) MATTERS..

Wasn't my point tbh. Viv Richards generating unquantifiable fear in opponents matters but him having great spirit, being a great bloke, playing shots for the gods at will and influencing the future generations of batsman doesn't matter at all to me when comparing him to a batsman of similar quality like say, Border. The only real quality I look for is the ability to make runs, hence, Both are equals for me even if every cricket historian of the time considers Viv to be a better batsman by a good deal.(Before anyone goes on a strawman 'You only look at the career averages lulz" rant on me, that isn't my point)

 

[smash84]

Cricket played by humans and therefore, the aura or any other feeling a person generated in an opponent (a fellow human, in most cases.. ) MATTERS..

True it does matter somewhat. Which is why Imran's leadership was so good. It inspired a motley bunch to perform at an unprecedented level and match arguably the greatest side in cricket history blow for blow.

 

[vcs]

That depends on the trust you have on cricket experts though. 99% of these blokes honestly believe that Ricky Ponting and Tendulkar are better cricketers than Jaques Kallis and Shane Warne and Wasim Akram are better cricketers than Richard Hadlee. They hold an extremely subjective POV towards cricket which does not rate the cold value that a cricketer but rather bring in stuff like persona and influence, which I don't rate close to as much as what he actually did.

The Cricinfo XI was supposed to be selected by some of the supposedly most knowledgeable cricket experts in the world. They picked Wasim Akram for the spot of all-rounder(no less) over Imran Khan, Kieth Miller and Richard Hadlee. I consider it a downright moronic decision. Idc if they've watched more cricket than me, You just don't do that. When picking a XI, You pick the XI most likely to win you a game, not one where all the players have great memories and skill sets which will never be forgotten(yada yada yada)

How much weightage you give to the judgement of guys who hold opinions such as Akram>Imran/Miller/Hadlee depends from person to person. Personally, not very much.

/General rant not directly related to the poll in question

I'm not concerned about one bad choice in an All-Time XI. I agree there were better candidates than Wasim for a Test bowling allrounder spot. Maybe they wanted the variety of a left-hander and the versatility that he brings.

I don't think there's a lot of difference between Tendulkar/Ponting and Kallis as "cricketers" (extremely nebulous concept that I'm not particularly fond of), especially when ODI prowess is taken into account. And then there are subtle things like game-changing impact, playing the game in a way it wasn't done before or pioneering a new facet (Sehwag/Jayasuriya for attacking opening, Gilchrist for keepers being expected to be competent batsmen) which aren't reflected in your stats. You can only pick up those things and weigh them against each other if you've followed a player's career in its entirety.

As it stands, I'd be more willing to believe Richie Benaud or Ian Chappell's opinion than someone who's formed an opinion on Imran/Sobers based on Statsguru filters.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd go with Imran too. Both give the impression of dads joining in a kid's cricket game and taking it a little too seriously at test level. What swings it for me is the absolutely obscene size of Imran's contribution to Pakistani cricket.

 

[honestbharani]

Wasn't my point tbh. Viv Richards generating unquantifiable fear in opponents matters but him having great spirit, being a great bloke, playing shots for the gods at will and influencing the future generations of batsman doesn't matter at all to me when comparing him to a batsman of similar quality like say, Border. The only real quality I look for is the ability to make runs, hence, Both are equals for me even if every cricket historian of the time considers Viv to be a better batsman by a good deal.(Before anyone goes on a strawman 'You only look at the career averages lulz" rant on me, that isn't my point)

You are missing the point. A number of times when trying to decide who is the better batsman between A and B (this is an example), people don't look at what runs he scored alone.. The number of unquantifiables in cricket far outweigh the quantifiables and it is perfectly possible that the better batsman among the 2 could well be the one with the lesser average, even wtih all sorts of standardizations done... Standardizing averages (a la PEWS) helps to give a better picture but that doesn't necessarily make it a true picture.. Given the variations that exist in conditions match to match at the same grounds, it is not really a silly thing.. And people, mostly tend to vote for whom they think was the "most skilled" when you say best than the ones who produced the "best returns" as long as the returns are reasonably close to each other...

 

[hang on]

at a slight tangent, while we are on the value of topic of experts's opinions of cricketers, i was wondering which experts are considered knowledgeable, and which complete buffoons....and no, smarty pants answers like 'those whose opinions match mine' are not what i am looking for!

for example, i would imagine a benaud's opinion would have more weight than those of a thomson, or even a hussain.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not concerned about one bad choice in an All-Time XI. I agree there were better candidates than Wasim for a Test bowling allrounder spot. Maybe they wanted the variety of a left-hander and the versatility that he brings.

I don't think there's a lot of difference between Tendulkar/Ponting and Kallis as "cricketers" (extremely nebulous concept that I'm not particularly fond of), especially when ODI prowess is taken into account. And then there are subtle things like game-changing impact, playing the game in a way it wasn't done before or pioneering a new facet (Sehwag/Jayasuriya for attacking opening, Gilchrist for keepers being expected to be competent batsmen) which aren't reflected in your stats. You can only pick up those things and weigh them against each other if you've followed a player's career in its entirety.

As it stands, I'd be more willing to believe Richie Benaud or Ian Chappell's opinion than someone who's formed an opinion on Imran/Sobers based on Statsguru filters.

Now you have officially crossed the line and will be stalked for ever by the spreadsheeters anonymous..

 

[honestbharani]

at a slight tangent, while we are on the value of topic of experts's opinions of cricketers, i was wondering which experts are considered knowledgeable, and which complete buffoons....and no, smarty pants answers like 'those whose opinions match mine' are not what i am looking for!

for example, i would imagine a benaud's opinion would have more weight than those of a thomson, or even a hussain.

as I had explained in posts about Shane Warne's list, it is perfectly feasible that the same expert has a buffoon opinion on one player but a perfectly valid and judgemental one on another...

 

[Teja.]

You are missing the point. A number of times when trying to decide who is the better batsman between A and B (this is an example), people don't look at what runs he scored alone.. The number of unquantifiables in cricket far outweigh the quantifiables and it is perfectly possible that the better batsman among the 2 could well be the one with the lesser average, even wtih all sorts of standardizations done... Standardizing averages (a la PEWS) helps to give a better picture but that doesn't necessarily make it a true picture.. Given the variations that exist in conditions match to match at the same grounds, it is not really a silly thing.. And people, mostly tend to vote for whom they think was the "most skilled" when you say best than the ones who produced the "best returns" as long as the returns are reasonably close to each other...

Er, Why did you generalize that all my judgements are based on career average and/or standardized average?

I agree that circumstances matter. Of course, they do. Runs scored in testing circumstances obviously matter more than runs scored coming in at 350/3 on a dead track on the 5th day in a match heading to a draw.

Skill is something which is likely to produce better performance, It is a means to an end. However, In the end, Performance is the one thing that matters. It barely matters if a batsman scores his runs in glorious spanking cover drives or nudges to the leg side of the bad ball. It's whether the runs are scored that matters.

It's extremely unfair to rate retired cricketers on their skill sets rather than their returns imo. A fast bowler on debut dreams that he can get 300+ wickets @ 25 by the end of his career not that he can learn rocking back for extra power a split second before releasing the ball by the end of his career.

 

[vcs]

Now you have officially crossed the line and will be stalked for ever by the spreadsheeters anonymous..

Meh, I don't belong to the "opinions > stats always" camp either. As always, something in between is usually the best.

 

[Migara]

Botham's peak > Anyone else's.

Anyone.

Mushtaq Mohammed disagrees. He had an awesome peak of one match where he hammered a century and took five wickets in an innings against WI, which Botham never came close to doing.

 

[bagapath]

cricinfo selected a XI. with marshall and lillee taking the newball and warne being the first choice spinner it makes better sense to bring in a left hander as the fourth bowler. and who better than akram (sorry davidson!) is there to do that job! even i was disappointed that hadlee, mcgrath and imran were ignored in the first XI. but akram completes the team better.

here we are comparing two players straight up. a lot of those experts who selected akram in that XI would probably go for imran if there was a head-to-head competition between them. because imran, indeed, was the superior cricketer of the two. here, they would go for sobers for the same reason.