Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[bagapath]

Agree with smalishah84 and archiemac on their takes on the relative leadership qualities of these legends. Since that factor doesn't play a role in the current argument AFAIC, I am still with Sobers.

 

[archie mac]

G Smith captained the World XI against Australia..

There have been other World XI teams, the one in 71 was in Australian, there be another in England.

The one you refer to is the only one given Test match status. Although the one in England was given Test match status until it was taken away.

Lets hope that also happens to the joke of a match you refer to

 

[archie mac]

Agree with smalishah84 and archiemac on their takes on the relative leadership qualities of these legends. Since that factor doesn't play a role in the current argument AFAIC, I am still with Sobers.

Tbh even if it did I would still vote for Sobers

 

[thierry henry]

Heh, I use the same logic to arrive the complete opposite conclusion of not really caring about what people thought at the time. I regularly disagree with the general consensus about modern cricketers so there's every chance I would've disagreed back then too.

Yeah, this.

Anyway, I'm gonna shock the world and vote Imran because Sobers couldn't really bowl. It's amazing really, every ball he bowled was full of such aura and charisma and general Calypso awesomeness, yet was rarely likely to take a wicket.

 

[thierry henry]

Also, Imran had an extended period of time where he was putting up combined awesome numbers with bat and ball. I appreciate that the batting figures might be bolstered a bit by not outs and that he didn't make *that* many big contributions with the bat, but there was NEVER a period in Sobers' career when he was more than ok-ish with the ball. I've heard every justification under the sun for Sobers' bowling but if you break it down, it is actually pretty consistent(ly mediocre) throughout his career

 

[Maximus0723]

On some days, I will take Kallis before both of them.

 

[Spikey]

imma clear something up, in the Cricinfo world XI Sobers, Imran and Hadlee were all considered all-rounders, Wasim was not. In fact Warne is listed in front of Wasim in the batting order.

 

[smash84]

Yeah, this.

Anyway, I'm gonna shock the world and vote Imran because Sobers couldn't really bowl. It's amazing really, every ball he bowled was full of such aura and charisma and general Calypso awesomeness, yet was rarely likely to take a wicket.

lol......

tbf to Sobers, at his peak as an allrounder he might have been a more complete all rounder than Imran sine Imran's batting was never too great...however he could hold the crease for a long time

 

[bagapath]

but, mate, whats your take on my theory that imran bowling to sobers would result in a stalemate and sobers bowling to imran is more likely to end in sobers' favor?

 

[Maximus0723]

but, mate, whats your take on my theory that imran bowling to sobers would result in a stalemate and sobers bowling to imran is more likely to end in sobers' favor?

No. It would favor Imran or be equal to Imran.

 

[Xuhaib]

Imran batting = Daniel Vettori

Sobers bowling = Daniel Vettori

If Daniel Vettori bowls to Daniel Vettori Ireckon it will be an even contest. A lot of people afre underrating Imran as a bat he was a pretty good batsman under pressure stone walled atleast 2 drawn series vs the mighty Windies.

 

[abmk]

Also, Imran had an extended period of time where he was putting up combined awesome numbers with bat and ball. I appreciate that the batting figures might be bolstered a bit by not outs and that he didn't make *that* many big contributions with the bat, but there was NEVER a period in Sobers' career when he was more than ok-ish with the ball. I've heard every justification under the sun for Sobers' bowling but if you break it down, it is actually pretty consistent(ly mediocre) throughout his career

Oh really ? how about this period then ?

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Here's the record of the bowlers ( min 20 wickets) in that period. sobers doesn't seem to be doing badly, does he ?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...1;spanval2=span;template=results;type=bowling

 

[ankitj]

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..

In response to that I will quote the guy who posts as thierry henry (and who has a scathing sense of humour and wit )

lol yeah

Apparently cricket matches are decided by asking the players how they felt and who seemed better. Runs and wickets, that's for maths geeks.

 

[honestbharani]

In response to that I will quote the guy who posts as thierry henry (and who has a scathing sense of humour and wit )

yeah.. runs and wickets are taken/scored by spreadsheets or humans? but hey, lets juz pretend statsguru can answer everything on what will happen Coz obviously cricket is played by bots who sim games based on stats..

 

[honestbharani]

In response to that I will quote the guy who posts as thierry henry (and who has a scathing sense of humour and wit )

wit and humour... cant be measured (and stored in statsguru) .. so doesn't matter in ascertaining quality of posters, hey..

 

[smash84]

but, mate, whats your take on my theory that imran bowling to sobers would result in a stalemate and sobers bowling to imran is more likely to end in sobers' favor?

I think it would result in an equal stalemate when Sobers bowls to Imran because Sobers doesn't seem to be a very penetrative bowler in any case. Imran could hold his ground against some very good bowlers (he wouldn't be attacking) so I don't see Sobers with the ball as really troubling Imran.

And besides according to most accounts that I have read on CW or as most CWers would make you believe Sobers used to bowl spin on tracks supporting fast bowlers and vice versa. So in effect his bowling has more chance of getting clobbered .........

 

[honestbharani]

I think it would result in an equal stalemate when Sobers bowls to Imran because Sobers doesn't seem to be a very penetrative bowler in any case. Imran could hold his ground against some very good bowlers (he wouldn't be attacking) so I don't see Sobers with the ball as really troubling Imran.

And besides according to most accounts that I have read on CW or as most CWers would make you believe Sobers used to bowl spin on tracks supporting fast bowlers and vice versa. So in effect his bowling has more chance of getting clobbered .........

Except he had a ER of around 2... His bowling was probably what Imran's batting was when he was in that mood.. stonewalling

 

[cnerd123]

Important thing about Sobers is that he almost always bowled as the bowler around which the rest of the bowlers would attack. Very rarely would he be the strike bowler; his job was to support the strike bowlers, build pressure. And he did that very well.

And in terms of skill, he's unique. He bowled everything. Anythin. Whatever the team needed. If you gave Imran a 90/100 for Pace bowling, Sobers would probably be a 65/100 in each out of finger spin, wrist spin, pace and swing. Possibly a little higher. So you could argue that no matter what Sobers bowled, Imran was better, but the simple fact that Sobers was actually able to bowl all those styles to a fairly good degree (FC bowling average of 27) surely must count for something. Also, despite what may seem as an ordinary average, he probably would have played several Tests for WI as a pure bowler alone even if it wasn't for his batting.

Considering his bowling came second to his exceptional batting, it is quite amazing. And then he was brilliant in field, and a good tactician; I agree with what was posted earlier, Sobers shouldn't be considered behind Imran tactically, only in man-management skills.

Yea, defo the better allrounder and arguably the greatest cricket, second to Bradman at worst.

 

[Noble One]

How much wrist spin did Sobers actually bowl? I know he dabbled in when he was purely a spinner up until the early 60's, but did he ever bowl it after that point?

 

[slog sweep]

Some of you guys spend half of your lives on a cricket forum, and you can't even get the basics right. Wasim Akram was not selected in the Cricinfo World XI as an all-rounder, because nobody in their right mind would select him in that role. He was chosen as a pure bowler, because that is what he was: a fast bowling genius who became one of the greatest bowlers the world has ever seen. Garry Sobers was chosen as the all-rounder
by a unanimous decision, while Malcolm Marshall, Wasim Akram, Dennis Lillee, and Shane Warne were the four bowlers selected, by large margins. Anybody who has a massive problem with that bowling attack, is a serious imbecile.

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

This is an excellent point. I saw Imran Khan play, and have no doubt that he was a champion. But, when he retired, there was virtually nobody who declared him to be the greatest all-rounder ever. It wasn't even set in stone, that he was the greatest all-rounder of his own generation. He was one of the four premier all-rounders of the 70s and 80s, but there was never any concrete agreement, as to who was the best of them.

So, it seems a little ridiculous that people who didn't even see him play,are now trying to engage in some sort of revisionist history, trying to anoint him as the greatest all-rounder ever. Trust me, if he really was that good, there would have been a plethora of cricket legends and esteemed journalists, lining up to declare him as the second greatest cricketer in history. But, that simply did not happen.

When Wisden named their five greatest cricketers of the 20th century, they surveyed 100 people, including cricket historians, renowned journalists, and champion players, to get an accurate cross-section of the cricket community. Imran Khan received 15 votes, and Garry Sobers received 90 votes. Of those 100 people surveyed, there were 11 each from Pakistan and the West Indies, so you can safely assume that all, or most of their
countrymen, would have voted for Khan and Sobers, respectively.

So basically, of the remaining 89 neutral voters, only 4 or 5 voted for Imran, and 79 voted for Sobers. When any logical human being looks at this incredibly lopsided result, they come to one very obvious conclusion: If Imran Khan really was the equal of Garry Sobers, then why aren't those numbers closer together?