Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[honestbharani]

A reasonably prevelant POV isn't neccesary a good one. Especially on an online forum. You'll get fanboys, people who want to appear smarter than they are siding with those who have tens of thousands of posts by voting alongside them, stat whores.

Very few of us know what it's like to see Sobers play in person. None of us have played cricket at that level. We may never be able to fully grasp what he meant on the field. To argue that we could is kinda bold.

How many cricket fans who've seen both Sobers and Imran at their peaks would pick Imran?
How many who've played with/against both, even at FC or Club level, would pick Imran?

Those are more telling questions that what a bunch of enthusiasts who have nothing else to base their opinions on except scorecards, anecdotes and youtube clips think.

Don't forget statsguru... and the spreadsheets they give birth too.. who needs to watch a game when you can filter down stats, put them in a spreadsheet and educate people who have actually played the game on who is better than whom..

 

[Uppercut]

Very true, those are the opinions that really matter.. there will never be a clear answer though, because a.) they're apples and oranges and b.) they're both ATG cricketers and c.) this trend of obsessively identifying who was the best seems to be prevalent only after Internet fora became popular, so the oldies probably just don't care that much.

It seems common sensical to suggest that watching two players play cricket is a good way to determine which of them is better, but without saying anything of the alternative, it isn't. The human mind sucks enough massive hairy balls at interpreting such huge amounts of data without having all kinds of excitement and shiny colours flying around in front of it.

The underlying "stats vs. perceptions" disagreement that crops up in every comparison thread essentially comes down to whether you think the qualities that win cricket matches are more closely correlated with the qualities that result in good statistics than they are with the qualities that result in onlookers being impressed. Personally I don't think either correlation is anywhere near as strong as may be commonly thought. The strength of the stats/quality correlation is overestimated occasionally but its weaknesses are really quite obvious. It's one of the advantages of using a mathematical approach in the first place- the limitations of your conclusions become much clearer. Recognising the weaknesses in the correlation between good cricket and cricket that makes people think you're good is so, so much more difficult. I'm hindered by the very flawed thought processes that I'm trying to recognise.

 

[Blaze 18]

tremendous posts from Slog_Sweep (something that we have come to expect)

agree unreservedly with slog sweep on the cricketing points brought up, but there is a slight whiff of the ad hominem in his peroration. perhaps ikki deserves it, but still a mite unnecessary, methinks.

Agreed.

 

[Maximus0723]

I noticed you said, that some of Sobers statistics were 'rubbish'. And, exactly which statistics would they be. Would it be his record in West Indian victories, where he averaged 77 with the bat, and 24 with the ball. Would it be the fact, that of the 26 centuries he made in Test cricket, his team lost only one of those matches. Or perhaps it's that he averaged over 70 with the bat, in seven calendar years.

Yes, these statistics do look quite 'rubbish'.
.

Having a SR of 92 is sub par. That's the only stat putting Sobers down. Though his average of 34 is still respectable.

An amazing and probably overlooked fact about Sobers is that he bowled every game. On average, he bowled 38 overs per game. That is absolutely amazing.

He is considered a complete all-rounder because the man can bat anywhere in any situation. Bowl anywhere with variations. Field anywhere. On top he was great leader and a respectable captain.

No other player in the history of cricket can say that.

 

[honestbharani]

It seems common sensical to suggest that watching two players play cricket is a good way to determine which of them is better, but without saying anything of the alternative, it isn't. The human mind sucks enough massive hairy balls at interpreting such huge amounts of data without having all kinds of excitement and shiny colours flying around in front of it.

The underlying "stats vs. perceptions" disagreement that crops up in every comparison thread essentially comes down to whether you think the qualities that win cricket matches are more closely correlated with the qualities that result in good statistics than they are with the qualities that result in onlookers being impressed. Personally I don't think either correlation is anywhere near as strong as may be commonly thought. The strength of the stats/quality correlation is overestimated occasionally but its weaknesses are really quite obvious. It's one of the advantages of using a mathematical approach in the first place- the limitations of your conclusions become much clearer. Recognising the weaknesses in the correlation between good cricket and cricket that makes people think you're good is so, so much more difficult. I'm hindered by the very flawed thought processes that I'm trying to recognise.

There is also the small matter of recognizing the fact that between men who are in the same statistical ball park (lets take any batsman averaging 50+) the averages don't always tell you who is better by itself... A number of factors (most or none of which are ever gonna be recorded) and hence your personal judgement is as likely to be correct as any stats based conclusion... There is no real way to say one is better than the other and that is something most stats people here juz don wanna accept and they have to go "opinions are nothing, stats are everything' in just about all the threads and that is why such reactions as slogsweep's come up..

 

[Engle]

All-rounder vs Cricketer

There is a difference between an All-rounder and a Cricketer.

Whereas one might argue that Sobers was the greater AR, I argue that Imran was the greater Cricketer. So, be wary of the term. When many of the pundits say that Sobers was the greatest AR that bestrode the world, they're not wrong.

Imran's influence went beyond the boundary. Leader, selector, mentor, influencer, media relations, law changer....These attributes don't show up on stats.

Put another way : Who do you think would be more beneficial for WI cricket right now ? Sobers or Imran ?
Sobers would win them a few matches. Imran would change their cricketing psyche.

 

[Maximus0723]

There is a difference between an All-rounder and a Cricketer.

Whereas one might argue that Sobers was the greater AR, I argue that Imran was the greater Cricketer. So, be wary of the term. When many of the pundits say that Sobers was the greatest AR that bestrode the world, they're not wrong.

Imran's influence went beyond the boundary. Leader, selector, mentor, influencer, media relations, law changer....These attributes don't show up on stats.

Put another way : Who do you think would be more beneficial for WI cricket right now ? Sobers or Imran ?
Sobers would win them a few matches. Imran would change their cricketing psyche.

So can Sobers. Sobers was also a great leader and that's not to downgrade Imran who I usually rank close to Sobers.

 

[smash84]

So can Sobers. Sobers was also a great leader and that's not to downgrade Imran who I usually rank close to Sobers.

I don't think Sobers inspired as much confidence and the ability to raise the game in people as much as Imran did. As far as leadership is concerned I think that even though Sobers might be considered as Imran's equal tactically the ability to raise his team to another level is not present in Sobers to a level that Imran had.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think Sobers inspired as much confidence and the ability to raise the game in people as much as Imran did. As far as leadership is concerned I think that even though Sobers might be considered as Imran's equal tactically the ability to raise his team to another level is not present in Sobers to a level that Imran had.

Imran was a born genius in terms of leading a team and getting them focussed... Not really sure of Sobers in that regard who seems to have been more of a laidback character..

 

[vcs]

It seems common sensical to suggest that watching two players play cricket is a good way to determine which of them is better, but without saying anything of the alternative, it isn't. The human mind sucks enough massive hairy balls at interpreting such huge amounts of data without having all kinds of excitement and shiny colours flying around in front of it.

The underlying "stats vs. perceptions" disagreement that crops up in every comparison thread essentially comes down to whether you think the qualities that win cricket matches are more closely correlated with the qualities that result in good statistics than they are with the qualities that result in onlookers being impressed. Personally I don't think either correlation is anywhere near as strong as may be commonly thought. The strength of the stats/quality correlation is overestimated occasionally but its weaknesses are really quite obvious. It's one of the advantages of using a mathematical approach in the first place- the limitations of your conclusions become much clearer. Recognising the weaknesses in the correlation between good cricket and cricket that makes people think you're good is so, so much more difficult. I'm hindered by the very flawed thought processes that I'm trying to recognise.

I see what you're saying. But applying statistical analyses to say Sobers was a mediocre bowler - having never watched him bowl - is pretty iffy to me.. I have no problem with people bringing in statistical analyses of modern players who I've watched because I have a fair idea of what to make out of the stats, and I usually manage to keep my perceptions of a player pretty much in tune with his statistical accomplishments. I can also accept disagreements in those cases. But evaluating players and calling them overrated just on their stats without ever having watched them or lived through that era is just presumptuous.

 

[Ikki]

I hate to break it to you champ, but you really don't know as much about the game of cricket, as you seem to think you do. After reading some of your incoherent ramblings, it's safe to conclude that you are totally clueless, and shamelessly ignorant. I have never seen anybody who thought so highly of his own opinion, and yet was wrong on nearly every topic.

How someone with only 30+ posts and a few months membership knows the ins and outs in my posting is questionable enough...but having seen the majority of your posts I can tell the person who thinks too much of their opinion is yourself. The above was unnecessary, but we'll move on.

If you were at a dinner table full of cricket legends, and said some of the things about Sobers in their company, that you say on this cricket forum, they would take one disdainful look at you, and abruptly ask you to leave. Put simply, there is no living cricketer who is as revered amongst past and present champions, as Garry Sobers.

I would say Sobers bowling stats are under par and were poor for the majority of his career. This with respect to what he bowled, when he bowled and his varying success.

If they disagreed, then they're the ignorants. I'm not interested in glowing observations backed on little statistical backbone.

So, what did some of these men, have to say about Sobers:

Richie Benaud, p 36:

'He was the greatest all-rounder the world has ever seen. He also finished up being one of the greatest batsman the world has seen.'

Tells us nothing about why.

Geoff Boycott, p 41:

'Blessed with so much natural talent, gifted beyond imagination, a natural genius, he allied all that to concentration, determination, and great stamina, which allowed him to play long innings and make big scores. If you're picking any side he's got to be number one, because he can win you games with either his batting or bowling.'

One can be blessed with the world's total in natural talent...unless the result justifies the praise then natural talent is all that is there. His bowling will rarely win you games. Anyone who suggests his bowling would do such a thing, with regularity, is taking the piss.

Sir Donald Bradman, p 42:

'Garry would be in my team for his batting alone....Garry was by far the best player of short pitched fast bowlers I ever saw. He was absolutely murderous, miraculous.... If you consider that he bowled left-hand fast-medium and spin with equal facility and great effect, he would also make any team as a bowler.'

Gary: great batsman and could bowl different ways.

However, he couldn't bowl very well for much of a period in his career.

Greg Chappell, p 47:

'He was the greatest all-round cricketer that I have ever seen, and am ever likely to see. He could have played in any team as a fast bowler or as a batsman alone. Garry would walk into any side and be the outstanding player. He is the best batsman I have ever seen.'

Again, opinion based on subjective perception. He could play on any team as a fast bowler? Hah.

Sunil Gavaskar, p 65:

'The greatest cricketer ever - he could do anything. He could bat, bowl fast, bowl spin and was a great fielder anywhere....You couldn't find a better all-round cricketer than him.'

He could do everything...but only some of them to a high degree.

Sir Richard Hadlee, p 81:

'Sir Garfield would have to be the best all-rounder in the history of the game....He was a natural timer of the ball with all the shots: cuts, pulls, hooks and had the ability to be dynamic and explosive with sheer brilliance. He was a lively new ball swing bowler and if conditions suited, he could bowl left-arm orthodox spin. Add his athletic fielding and superb close-in catching, is there anyone better?'

Lively pace bowler when the conditions suited...apparently they didn't suit him often enough. Bowled left-arm orthodox...not to much success.

Hanif Mohammed, p 83:

'The best player I ever played with or against. He was a four-in-one package of excellence. As a batsman he was sheer grace, as a new ball bowler he was very hostile in his first few overs, also a useful left-arm orthodox leg break, chinaman and googly bowler, and an excellent close-in fielder. There hasn't been another cricketer of comparable greatness to Garry Sobers.'

By that outline Andrew Symonds was a 4-in-one cricketer too.

Pretty much every tribute to Sobers was equally glowing, and left do doubt about his pre-eminence.

But pretty much every tribute falls short of assessing how poor his bowling is statistically for the duration of his career. And for that, no matter how glowing, he will continue to have detractors. Just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it true. At the risk of putting this thread off course...lots of people believe in a man in the sky.

Now, when I try and accurately assess the greatness of Garry Sobers the cricketer, who am I going to believe? Is it these countless cricket legends who are in complete awe of the man, and can provide me with first-hand accounts and testimonies, accurately describing the sheer genius of his play. Or is it some lightweight on a cricket forum, who has never played international cricket, never even seen Sobers play, and ignorantly chooses to completely ignore the overwhelming evidence declaring his pre-eminence.
Instead, he prefers to base his skepticism, on nothing more than his ability to analyze statistics.

Gee, that's a tough one.....

You can believe what you like...that's the beauty about opinions. The reality about his bowling - i.e. his stats - are facts. It has little to do with opinions. Facts show he was a crap bowler for the majority of his career. Bar the period in the 60s when he was a genuine pace bowler, for most of his career he was averaging 40+ and striking near 100 balls per wicket. That's just embarrassing.

You must be seriously delusional, if you actually think that you know more about the game of cricket, than these countless legends who are in complete agreement, that Sobers is the best of the best. You are basically trying to argue, that the likes of Bradman, Benaud, Chappell, Miller, Gavaskar and the rest of them, essentially don't know what they are talking about, and that you do.

Like I said, delusional.

Nah, you have to be delusional to believe a player who, for most of his career, was averaging 40+ and striking near 100 balls per wicket could get into any team for his bowling alone.

I noticed you said, that some of Sobers statistics were 'rubbish'. And, exactly which statistics would they be. Would it be his record in West Indian victories, where he averaged 77 with the bat, and 24 with the ball. Would it be the fact, that of the 26 centuries he made in Test cricket, his team lost only one of those matches. Or perhaps it's that he averaged over 70 with the bat, in seven calendar years.

Yes, these statistics do look quite 'rubbish'.

Sobers was a fantastic batsman...but I am talking about his bowling. It wasn't fantastic.

Now when you combine this with his versatile bowling, and his fielding genius, then you have the greatest all-rounder of them all. Sobers didn't just take basic catches, he took brilliant catches that won cricket matches. He was a game-changing fielder, the equal of anybody in the game's history. There are some brilliant reflex catches taken off Lance Gibbs at short leg, that illustrate this. They were completely instinctive, and only a
genius would have been able to pull them off. I think there is a clip of some of them, on You Tube.

Yes, fielding and batting, he was fantastic. Bowling, he was average at best - and he really wasn't if you look at it objectively.

There are certain things in life that become the gospel truth, because everybody who should know, is in total agreement. When you talk to historians, every authority figure on the subject believes that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are the two greatest presidents in American history. Likewise, every cricket authority believes that Don Bradman is the greatest batsman in cricket history, and that Sir Garfield Sobers is the
greatest all-rounder in the cricketing pantheon.

It's ironic that you use the word "gospel" because it's that kind of blind devotion to hearsay that keeps people dumber.

There is not a cricket legend, alive or dead, who would dispute that claim. Some of you people, who never even saw the man play, simply have to accept this fact, and quit trying to engage in some form of revisionist history. Once you have done that, then you can quietly move on with your lives, if you actually have one.

See...there are certain things... like averaging 50 with the bat over a career, where even if you haven't watched a game of cricket you should know that it is a great feat. But arguments like Sobers could be in any team because of his bowling alone are too stupid to begin arguing with. No matter how many "glowing observations" you can't make that record anything higher than average.

So, let me break it down for you champ: You know absolutely nothing about the game of cricket. Your opinions are nonsensical, and appear to be flying in the face of 50 years of conventional wisdom, while your arguments are embarrassingly flawed and illogical. There is a general expectation, that if you plan on sharing your opinion in a public discourse, that you at least have some command of the subject being discussed. You, quite clearly, do not. Until that day arrives, please refrain from embarrassing yourself, with your breathtaking ignorance, and your complete and utter cluelessness.

Let me break it down for you, in case you think I care about your opinion: I don't. I might be inclined to if you actually have proper evidence to persuade me. Your opinion being based on another opinion is not an intelligent argument. When your argument is down to merely the perceptions of others - other than cold hard facts - that shows you have no real argument.

"Sobers was great because X said he was great". What a convincing argument!

 

[smash84]

I see what you're saying. But applying statistical analyses to say Sobers was a mediocre bowler - having never watched him bowl - is pretty iffy to me.. I have no problem with people bringing in statistical analyses of modern players who I've watched because I have a fair idea of what to make out of the stats, and I usually manage to keep my perceptions of a player pretty much in tune with his statistical accomplishments. I can also accept disagreements in those cases. But evaluating players and calling them overrated just on their stats without ever having watched them or lived through that era is just presumptuous.

There is merit in what you say. I do believe that an analysis of a player's ability should come from both stats as well as having seen the guy play. An over emphasis on one while leaving the other aspect out is not a great way to judge players IMO.

 

[smash84]

How someone with only 30+ posts and a few months membership knows the ins and outs in my posting is questionable enough...but having seen the majority of your posts I can tell the person who thinks too much of their opinion is yourself. The above was unnecessary, but we'll move on.



I would say Sobers bowling stats are under par and were poor for the majority of his career. This with respect to what he bowled, when he bowled and his varying success.

If they disagreed, then they're the ignorants. I'm not interested in glowing observations backed on little statistical backbone.



Tells us nothing about why.



One can be blessed with the world's total in natural talent...unless the result justifies the praise then natural talent is all that is there. His bowling will rarely win you games. Anyone who suggests his bowling would do such a thing, with regularity, is taking the piss.



Gary: great batsman and could bowl different ways.

However, he couldn't bowl very well for much of a period in his career.



Again, opinion based on subjective perception. He could play on any team as a fast bowler? Hah.



He could do everything...but only some of them to a high degree.



Lively pace bowler when the conditions suited...apparently they didn't suit him often enough. Bowled left-arm orthodox...not to much success.




By that outline Andrew Symonds was a 4-in-one cricketer too.




But pretty much every tribute falls short of assessing how poor his bowling is statistically for the duration of his career. And for that, no matter how glowing, he will continue to have detractors. Just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it true. At the risk of putting this thread off course...lots of people believe in a man in the sky.



You can believe what you like...that's the beauty about opinions. The reality about his bowling - i.e. his stats - are facts. It has little to do with opinions. Facts show he was a crap bowled for the majority of his career. Bar the period in the 60s when he was a genuine pace bowler, for most of his career he was averaging 40+ and striking near 100 balls per wicket. That's just embarrassing.



Nah, you have to be delusional to believe a player who, for most of his career, wsa averaging 40+ and striking near 100 balls per wicket could get into any team for his bowling alone.



Sobers was a fantastic batsman...but I am talking about his bowling. It wasn't fantastic.



Yes, fielding and batting, he was fantastic. Bowling, he was average at best - and he really wasn't if you look at it objectively.



It's ironic that you use the word "gospel" because it's that kind of blind devotion to hearsay that keeps people dumber.



See...there are certain things... like averaging 50 with the bat over a career, where even if you haven't watched a game of cricket you should know that it is a great feat. But arguments like Sobers could be in any team because of his bowling alone are too stupid to begin to arguing with.



Let me break it down for you, in case you think I care about your opinion: I don't. I might be inclined to if you actually have proper evidence to persuade me. Your opinion being based on another opinion is not an intelligent argument. When your argument is down to merely the perceptions of others - other than cold hard facts - that shows you have no real argument.

Vintage Ikki.......

 

[vcs]

There is merit in what you say. I do believe that an analysis of a player's ability should come from both stats as well as having seen the guy play. An over emphasis on one while leaving the other aspect out is not a great way to judge players IMO.

Exactly. Stats and perceptions are like a positive self-reinforcing mechanism, your opinion of a player can only be considered complete when you pass your perceptions through the prism of what the cold stats reflect, and vice versa. Neither of them is complete, or makes much sense, without the other.

Or in Douglas Hofstadter's words :

“Pieces of evidence can add up in a self-reinforcing way, so as to bring about the locking-in of an hypothesis that no one of the pieces of evidence could on its own justify.”

http://www.uab.edu/philosophy/faculty/ross/PHL 372/PHL_372_Hofstadter2.htm

 

[Blaze 18]

Just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it true. At the risk of putting this thread off course...lots of people believe in a man in the sky.

I don't necessarily agree with your take on Sir Garry Sobers, but what you say here is so true.

 

[ankitj]

There is also the small matter of recognizing the fact that between men who are in the same statistical ball park (lets take any batsman averaging 50+) the averages don't always tell you who is better by itself... A number of factors (most or none of which are ever gonna be recorded) and hence your personal judgement is as likely to be correct as any stats based conclusion...

On the contrary, stats aggregate those and many other factors that may be important but our limited minds will neither recognize nor aggregate. And I hate, literally hate, when the term stats is used as pejorative. I like to call it "facts" more broadly, rather than just stats . It's almost as if for many people any argument not backed by stats/facts is better than one that is backed by stats/facts. Huh!

that is something most stats people here juz don wanna accept and they have to go "opinions are nothing, stats are everything' in just about all the threads and that is why such reactions as slogsweep's come up..

Funny. Because to me it's the anti-stats, or rather anti-facts brigade that spreads it's self-righteous smugness all over the forum.

May be it's got to do with my training and profession, but any argument not backed by facts is a non-argument. If I was sitting in a meeting with senior executives and present my conclusions on a business problem based on my subjective perceptions without presenting the facts behind, I will lose my job tomorrow.

Look, noone is saying that 'stats', the easily *visible* ones, answer all question. In context of cricket, batting average is not all that stats-suckers or fact-suckers are basing their opinion on. There's argument for Viv Richards for example to be regarded as a better test batsman than many with averages in high 50s. But the argument comes from his dominant and destructive batting, and not batting average. And sure enough, his SR (another stat/fact) brings it out. See, stats/facts din't fail you here. So what the **** is it you are cribbing about?

There can be right and wrong ways of looking at stats/facts. But those who totally dismiss stats/facts are perhaps imbecile.

* I don't use "you" for anyone in particular here

 

[0RI0N]

Ikki putting in a strong second half after being outplayed in the first.
GJIM

 

[smash84]

On the contrary, stats aggregate those and many other factors that may be important but our limited minds will neither recognize nor aggregate. And I hate, literally hate, when the term stats is used as pejorative. I like to call it "facts" more broadly, rather than just stats . It's almost as if for many people any argument not backed by stats/facts is better than one that is backed by stats/facts. Huh!



Funny. Because to me it's the anti-stats, or rather anti-facts brigade that spreads it's self-righteous smugness all over the forum.

May be it's got to do with my training and profession, but any argument not backed by facts is a non-argument. If I was sitting in a meeting with senior executives and present my conclusions on a business problem based on my subjective perceptions without presenting the facts behind, I will lose my job tomorrow.

Look, noone is saying that 'stats', the easily *visible* ones, answer all question. In context of cricket, batting average is not all that stats-suckers or fact-suckers are basing their opinion on. There's argument for Viv Richards for example to be regarded as a better test batsman than many with averages in high 50s. But the argument comes from his dominant and destructive batting, and not batting average. And sure enough, his SR (another stat/fact) brings it out. See, stats/facts din't fail you here. So what the **** is it you are cribbing about?

There can be right and wrong ways of looking at stats/facts. But those who totally dismiss stats/facts are perhaps imbecile.

* I don't use "you" for anyone in particular here

After a long time some real top notch stuff from Ankit

Ikki putting in a strong second half after being outplayed in the first.
GJIM

lol.....true.....he has come back with a vengeance.

 

[Blaze 18]

Ikki putting in a strong second half after being outplayed in the first.
GJIM

What is GJIM ?

 

[Ikki]

So people don't get me wrong, I'll put it this way: I care about contemporary opinion and it does sway me in judging players - especially ones that were outside my watching time.

It's why I rate Lillee ahead of his peers and Viv ahead of his peers. These guys, though, are in the statistical ball-park for someone to accept their superiority, regardless if they are a point or two (or more) behind some of their rivals. Not all things are statistically calculable but at the same time will play a great impact on the game. Anyone denying this, to my mind, hasn't watched cricket or experienced competitive sport. And whilst these things aren't calculable in stats, they often get passed on through commentary of other players and professionals in the sport and helps aid the reflections on a certain player. They can be invaluable.

But we're talking about a player whose bowling average is 34 and strikes at 92 - that's not good even for his time. It's not good for a spinner or a pacer. He has 8 4fers and 5 6fers in 159 innings - and this is a bowler who bowled ~39 overs a match (quite a lot). And this still hides the history of his bowling wherein, as I have mentioned a few times now, outside of the period where he was a genuinely good bowler we are talking about figures of averaging 40+ and at striking like 100 balls per wicket for the majority of his 20 year career. I don't care how naturally talented you are, that just isn't very good. He's not in the statistical ball-park for the kind of praises he receives to begin to make sense.

So relying on commentaries like the ones slog sweep mentioned are a waste of time. I am more interested in why these kinds of figures deserved that kind of praise.