Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[Ikki]

After reading many of BP's posts about Imran, I think perceptions regarding his bowling tend to disregard him being picked too early. I don't think it was until the late 70s when he truly became ATG-class. He in effect had to make himself into one. When you consider the decade of the 80s where he had many ATG rivals, his stats match up with any of them - including Hadlee and Marshall.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

His performances against the WIndies are incredible in this period and helped his side become the only real competitor to them. Maybe career-wise (as in his overall career figures) suggest he may not be a top 5 ATG bowler but I think ability wise he was, once he got himself to that level.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Yeah, changing your action drastically (and therefore approach) is never easy. Imran's pig-headedness (in a good way) saw him through. Having said that, I don't think he was what I would call a natural cricketer. Unquestionably, a great fast bowler and possibly that skill was part natural (dormant in the earlier years), but his batting was very workmanlike.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki himself was saying that his arguments in both thread were pretty much the same.

They are, and the irony is that Sobers' bowling figures are so mediocre that it really shouldn't need era adjustments to prove. It's really not that close. Whereas in the other thread it was probably more relevant.

Even though, you know, as I'd mentioned already 100 times, I wasn't trying to play with the figures in the other thread; more to show that McGrath's era indeed was a more expensive era to bowl in.

 

[smash84]

After reading many of BP's posts about Imran, I think perceptions regarding his bowling tend to disregard him being picked too early. I don't think it was until the late 70s when he truly became ATG-class. He in effect had to make himself into one. When you consider the decade of the 80s where he had many ATG rivals, his stats match up with any of them - including Hadlee and Marshall.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

His performances against the WIndies are incredible in this period and helped his side become the only real competitor to them. Maybe career-wise (as in his overall career figures) suggest he may not be a top 5 ATG bowler but I think ability wise he was, once he got himself to that level.

True. He wasn't that great until he completely changed his action

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

In fact during the first 8 years of his career he only played 18 test matches and averaged a shade under 33. Pretty ordinary. It was only after he changed his action that his stats were arguably the best amongst the bowlers in the 80s

 

[weldone]

True. He wasn't that great until he completely changed his action

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

In fact during the first 8 years of his career he only played 18 test matches and averaged a shade under 33. Pretty ordinary. It was only after he changed his action that his stats were arguably the best amongst the bowlers in the 80s

John Snow deserves a metion here...

 

[smash84]

John Snow deserves a metion here...

Definitely. Imran credits him a lot in his book All Round View

 

[Debris]

Keith Miller is a hard one because after his war experiences he sometimes would not give 100%. Always thought his batting at Test level should have been better. Although Imran also showed he could score runs when he did not have to bowl

You have to judge them by how they actually performed after all is considered. For whatever reason, and in Miller's case they were quite good ones, the fact that a player sometimes does not give a full effort counts against them.

 

[L Trumper]

I think miller is vastly underrated in this forum. As a bowling all rounder he is the best there was, better than Imran in my view, although Imran had great captaincy thing going on, so swings and roundabouts.

 

[quytst0rm]

By seem I meant an average of 34 and a SR of 92 doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

A closer examination of his bowling record is even stranger. His average against Pakistan in 8 test matches is 113.5 and a SR of 356.2. Ouch. 8 test matches is not a very small sample. This kind of an average and SR is unheard of even for the likes of Sami.

You're comparing his secondary skill against Imran's primary. To make it fair, Imran's batting average is 50+ only against India and NZ, against the rest he averaged 32. While Sobers averaged over 60 against all the test playing nation of his time except Aus and NZ against whom he averaged 36.

Sobers's SR is consistent with other top bowlers of his era so in context it's not as bad as people are making it out to be.

The only advantage of Sobers's bowling seems to be the versatility in his bowling. And before someone points out that he used to bowl fast on pitches suiting spin and used to bowl spin on fast pitches (it sounds like an insult to his intelligence).

Why is this an insult when it is true? If a player is not bowling to his strength to accommodate his team it's not fair to penalize him.

I'm going to quote Migara regarding Sobers from a different thread

Corresponding to his era SR of 92 is not "horrendous". Even better spinners of his time has SRs of closer to 70. His average of 34 is acceptable and is a clear underestimate of his performance. Sobers bowled pace on spinning wickets, so an additional spinner can be added to the lineup. And he bowled spin on green wickets so a pacer can be added in extra. His Avg of 34 comprised of bowling done under the worst possible conditions. If he did it the other way round, I'd expect him to average 29 - 31 range because then he'll get the best conditions possible.

Even if you were to disregard the above argument, which player would you rather have?

Player A - 50.2 runs per innings, 2.5 wickets per match and 1.17 ct/match
Player B - 30.2 runs per innings, 4.1 wickets per match and 0.13 ct/match

 

[smash84]

I think miller is vastly underrated in this forum. As a bowling all rounder he is the best there was, better than Imran in my view, although Imran had great captaincy thing going on, so swings and roundabouts.

I haven't seen them both play and their stats are very similar however from most who have seen them play the view commonly held is that Imran was definitely the better bowler while Miller the better batsman.

 

[Ikki]

You're comparing his secondary skill against Imran's primary. To make it fair, Imran's batting average is 50+ only against India and NZ, against the rest he averaged 32. While Sobers averaged over 60 against all the test playing nation of his time except Aus and NZ against whom he averaged 36.

Sobers's SR is consistent with other top bowlers of his era so in context it's not as bad as people are making it out to be.

Yeh, but the stats Smali posts are terrible for a part-timer, let alone the 2nd strongest suite of an all-rounder. And his SR is not consistent with the top bowlers of his era. It is much worse, and in the above you have spiners in the comparison whereas Sobers has a touch more than half a decade as a pacer. So even though he has a diluted record with a period as a pacer his SR is still much worse - worse than even the average SR during his era.

Why is this an insult when it is true? If a player is not bowling to his strength to accommodate his team it's not fair to penalize him.

I'm going to quote Migara regarding Sobers from a different thread

Probably because it is not true - or didn't occur enough for it to matter. The composition of his sides point to such an occurrence being rare. For pretty much all his career he bowled with a recognised spinner and he played with plenty of other all-rounders (as was a widely used tactic during his era).

Even if you were to disregard the above argument, which player would you rather have?

Player A - 50.2 runs per innings and 2.5 wickets per match
Player B - 30.2 runs per innings and 4.1 wickets per match

You neglect to mention that bowling is not just about taking wickets, but not conceding runs and taking wickets as fast as possible. Therefore your equation is wrong.

I haven't seen them both play and their stats are very similar however from most who have seen them play the view commonly held is that Imran was definitely the better bowler while Miller the better batsman.

Miller's back injury is probably the only limitation that stopped him becoming the greatest cricket player - yes, maybe even better than Bradman - of all time. I agree with you, overall I'd say Imran is the better bowler but that is because I think Miller didn't bowl enough/didn't have a higher wpm. Skill-wise people thought he was up there with Lindwall which is saying a lot.

 

[smash84]

Miller's back injury is probably the only limitation that stopped him becoming the greatest cricket player - yes, maybe even better than Bradman - of all time. I agree with you, overall I'd say Imran is the better bowler but that is because I think Miller didn't bowl enough/didn't have a higher wpm. Skill-wise people thought he was up there with Lindwall which is saying a lot.

Yeah but you forget Imran's injury right at his peak. Took 2-2.5 years of his peak time where he could not bowl a single ball. With that under his belt I am pretty sure Imran would have had a fair more number of wickets given his streaks during that time.

Also from what I read Miller after the war was a very changed man. Probably had a very different view of life and hence did not take the game very seriously otherwise who knows what heights he would have reached.

 

[smash84]

You're comparing his secondary skill against Imran's primary. To make it fair, Imran's batting average is 50+ only against India and NZ, against the rest he averaged 32. While Sobers averaged over 60 against all the test playing nation of his time except Aus and NZ against whom he averaged 36.

No. Please follow the thread again. The whole debate started again when HB claimed Sobers's bowling >> Imran's batting. I told him that the stats did not prove that at all. Sobers was an all rounder more in the league of Kallis (who is criminally under rated). Why would I compare Sobers's bowling with Imran's? It is not even close. I already said that their stronger suits roughly cancel out each other.

And no Imran averages 50+ against both India and NZ and he average 37+ against Aus and 36+ against England. The only team he does not do well against in batting is SL and the WI where he averages 30 and 27+. Given how strong the WI were it is not a surprise.

Sobers's SR is consistent with other top bowlers of his era so in context it's not as bad as people are making it out to be.



Even if you were to disregard the above argument, which player would you rather have?

Player A - 50.2 runs per innings, 2.5 wickets per match and 1.17 ct/match
Player B - 30.2 runs per innings, 4.1 wickets per match and 0.13 ct/match

Sobers's SR is much below the decent bowlers of his era.

I will choose player B because I value good bowlers more than good batsmen

 

[GotSpin]

Yeah but you forget Imran's injury right at his peak. Took 2-2.5 years of his peak time where he could not bowl a single ball. With that under his belt I am pretty sure Imran would have had a fair more number of wickets given his streaks during that time.

Also from what I read Miller after the war was a very changed man. Probably had a very different view of life and hence did not take the game very seriously otherwise who knows what heights he would have reached.

We can reasonably judge from his FC record. A batting average just under 50 and a bowling average of 22 as well.

 

[fredfertang]

Miller's back injury is probably the only limitation that stopped him becoming the greatest cricket player - yes, maybe even better than Bradman - of all time. I agree with you, overall I'd say Imran is the better bowler but that is because I think Miller didn't bowl enough/didn't have a higher wpm. Skill-wise people thought he was up there with Lindwall which is saying a lot.

It would be fascinating to know what would have happened if they had swapped attitudes - I suspect Bradman would have been merely excellent, ie averaged around 55 - whereas Miller - well 99.94 with the bat and around 18 with the ball I expect

 

[BlazeDragon]

Maybe career-wise (as in his overall career figures) suggest he may not be a top 5 ATG bowler but I think ability wise he was, once he got himself to that level.

To be fair, you can say a lot of blowers is an ATG if you only take particular aspects of their career.

They are, and the irony is that Sobers' bowling figures are so mediocre that it really shouldn't need era adjustments to prove. It's really not that close. Whereas in the other thread it was probably more relevant.

Even though, you know, as I'd mentioned already 100 times, I wasn't trying to play with the figures in the other thread; more to show that McGrath's era indeed was a more expensive era to bowl in.

Mediocre is a pretty strong word I won't go as far as to say that really. Its just that his batting alone was good enough his bowling just came as a bonus pretty much.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Yeah, changing your action drastically (and therefore approach) is never easy. Imran's pig-headedness (in a good way) saw him through.

Basically, that would be a peak argument. This is like suggesting he was always one of the top greats after changing his action which isn't really true.

These are his statistics if you only include the last 4 years of his career
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Most certainly not a top great figure.

 

[Sanz]

Sobers's SR is much below the decent bowlers of his era.

Do you consider Lance Gibbs, Alf Valentine as decent bowlers ?

I will choose player B because I value good bowlers more than good batsmen

Sobers was not a good batsman, He was a great batsman and arguably the second only to Sir Don, which is saying something.

 

[smash84]

Sobers was not a good batsman, He was a great batsman and arguably the second only to Sir Don, which is saying something.

Sobers's batting was never in dispute. However being second to Bradman doesn't mean much since there is daylight between Bradman and the rest. I would say that Richards, Lara, Tendulkar, Chappell would be in the same ball park as Sobers. The difference between them is not that great.

 

[Slifer]

AFAIC I think its fair to say that:

A. Sobers batting = Imrans bowling
B. Sobers bowling = Imrans batting
C. Sobers fielding > Imrans fielding

Plus the fact that Sobers scored centuries in all positions he was placed, his exploits in Sheffield Shield in Oz, for the World XI teams. 1966: 722 runs 20 wkts and 10 catches etc. Last but not least the likes of Bradman and Benaud etc have nothing to gain in proclaiming him the best (they do after all have Keith Miller) but their adoration has always been unflinching. That for me is y SObers is the best.