Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[BlazeDragon]

AFAIC I think its fair to say that:

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

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

This is how I see it. I would rate Sobers higher because of his primary skill being better.

 

[smash84]

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.

Pretty much agree with your analysis. However if you want to include fielding then you might want to include captaincy too. Both captained their teams and Imran is one of the greatest captains ever.

 

[Slifer]

Pretty much agree with your analysis. However if you want to include fielding then you might want to include captaincy too. Both captained their teams and Imran is one of the greatest captains ever.

Well to be perfectly honest, I dont think its that farfetched to consider Imran to b greater than Sobers (I personally dont think he is) but Imran is certainly up there. I think it is a travesty that he always gets slighted when these world eleven or whatever teams get published by cricinfo etc.

I suspect that its because he is usually considered as an AR which usually puts him n direct competition with Sir Garry, and they have a silly policy of choosing one AR. AFAIC Imran is right up their with the best pacers of all time (Mcgraths, MM, etc) + his batting is just icing on the cake. I personally have never and will never choose my all time XI without the great Imran (nor Hadlee for that matter).

 

[smash84]

Well to be perfectly honest, I dont think its that farfetched to consider Imran to b greater than Sobers (I personally dont think he is) but Imran is certainly up there. I think it is a travesty that he always gets slighted when these world eleven or whatever teams get published by cricinfo etc.

I suspect that its because he is usually considered as an AR which usually puts him n direct competition with Sir Garry, and they have a silly policy of choosing one AR. AFAIC Imran is right up their with the best pacers of all time (Mcgraths, MM, etc) + his batting is just icing on the cake. I personally have never and will never choose my all time XI without the great Imran (nor Hadlee for that matter).

Agreed with pretty much everything that you posted. That is all that I think that there is to it that Imran does have a case to be considered as the second greatest after Bradman not that he necessarily is. Check this out from PEWS

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2474769-post14.html

 

[Tom Halsey]

Sobers for me, not particularly close.

Sobers' batting was better than Imran's bowling IMO by a small but distinct margin. Add to that, his bowling is highly underrated IMO due to his overall record being average. At his peak he was possibly one of the top five bowlers in the world, certainly top ten. Imran's batting was never really among the world's best.

As alluded to on the first page of the thread also, the peaks of Imran's batting and bowling didn't coincide quite like they did with Sobers.

 

[Ikki]

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

Imran is an ATG, no question about it. Whether he is top 5/in that absolute top echelon is where people are often split. Some make allowances for peculiarities in records, some don't; and that affects their rating.

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.

How would you describe it? Statistically, It is not even as good as the average bowler's average or SR of his era. It is not even as good as the average spinner's average or SR, let alone fast bowler, of his era. So it is not average and a bit worse than that. In my books you can call that mediocre.

I agree with your perception and I've argued that people were less statistically inclined then. Or maybe better said; they valued different stats.

I remember when the commentary of peers and experts about his bowling popped up it usually revolved around bowling average and wickets-per-match. On these basis, Sobers was probably not that bad most of the time, and as you say was a bonus. However, SR is really important and he was not a fine striker of the ball. He was also expensive especially in the initial period where he was a spinner.

He was a part-time spinner, part-time pacer; bowling full-time overs. It's one of the great mysteries to me how someone with such a bowling record could be lauded so highly as an all-rounder. If batting makes up for bowling deficiency it'd be safe to say that Bradman is an awesome all-rounder.

IMO unless you're a minnow side or one whose bowling is weak you simply do not bowl Sobers. In an all-time side picking him as an all-rounder is a bit of a joke IMO. There is such a drop in quality from the specialists to him that it is a waste to give him overs. That's why to me being a bowling all-rounder gives you even more; for all bowlers have to bat but not all batsmen have to bowl.

 

[Sanz]

@Tom Halsey - Welcome Back. Nice to see you post after such long time. Hope things are great at your end.

 

[Sanz]

He was a part-time spinner, part-time pacer; bowling full-time overs. It's one of the great mysteries to me how someone with such a bowling record could be lauded so highly as an all-rounder. If batting makes up for bowling deficiency it'd is safe to say that Bradman is an awesome all-rounder.

It is not a mystery for most people, it is like saying that Michael Artherton was a medicore batsman and then creating a mystery around how come some like Michael Artherton played 117 tests.

And how many overs did Bradman bowl ?

 

[Ikki]

It is not a mystery for most people, it is like saying that Michael Artherton was a medicore batsman and then creating a mystery around how come some like Michael Artherton played 117 tests.

And how many overs did Bradman bowl ?

Atherton was an above average player, who played some good innings, for a relatively weak batting side that had little competition for his place. I don't undertand your point at all. Sobers was good for his batting alone; his bowling was expensive though - both in terms of runs and overs. His teammates weren't a whole lot better for most his career.

You've seemed to miss the point about the Bradman example. Let's say he bowled a lot and averaged 55 and struck at 110...should his batting average make him a great all-rounder? At that level it's irrelevant for me.

 

[OMM!]

Ambrose, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Donald, Steyn, Wasim, Waqar and Pollock are all better than Imran as a bowler. FACT!

 

[Slifer]

Imran is an ATG, no question about it. Whether he is top 5/in that absolute top echelon is where people are often split. Some make allowances for peculiarities in records, some don't; and that affects their rating.



How would you describe it? Statistically, It is not even as good as the average bowler's average or SR of his era. It is not even as good as the average spinner's average or SR, let alone fast bowler, of his era. So it is not average and a bit worse than that. In my books you can call that mediocre.

I agree with your perception and I've argued that people were less statistically inclined then. Or maybe better said; they valued different stats.

I remember when the commentary of peers and experts about his bowling popped up it usually revolved around bowling average and wickets-per-match. On these basis, Sobers was probably not that bad most of the time, and as you say was a bonus. However, SR is really important and he was not a fine striker of the ball. He was also expensive especially in the initial period where he was a spinner.

He was a part-time spinner, part-time pacer; bowling full-time overs. It's one of the great mysteries to me how someone with such a bowling record could be lauded so highly as an all-rounder. If batting makes up for bowling deficiency it'd be safe to say that Bradman is an awesome all-rounder.

IMO unless you're a minnow side or one whose bowling is weak you simply do not bowl Sobers. In an all-time side picking him as an all-rounder is a bit of a joke IMO. There is such a drop in quality from the specialists to him that it is a waste to give him overs. That's why to me being a bowling all-rounder gives you even more; for all bowlers have to bat but not all batsmen have to bowl.

Dont want it to seem like Im picking on u but at first I was of similar opinion (bowling AR more valuable than batting AR) but I think it really depends on the make up of that all time team. Lets take two teams Pakistan and WI.

Hunte
Greenidge
Headley
Viv*
Lara
Sobers
Dujon+
MM
Holding
Amby
Garner

vs

Hanif
Anwar
Inzi
Javed
Yousuff
Imran*
Latif
Akram
Waqar
Mahmood
Saqlain

The bowling attacks pretty much cancel each other out (with Pak having a bit more variety) but no doubt in my mind WI are miles ahead in batting, a luxury afforded to them with Sobers at number 6. Swap Sobers for Imran and WI attack goes from being outstanding to outstanding +1 and Pakistans attack while a lil less potent, their batting improves markedly!!

 

[Sanz]

You've seemed to miss the point about the Bradman example. Let's say he bowled a lot and averaged 55 and struck at 110...should his batting average make him a great all-rounder? At that level it's irrelevant for me.

If the Historians, his peers suggested that Sir Don was a fantastic bowler and could bowl Leg spin, off spin if his team needed, could open the bowling when needed by his team and dazzle batsmen with his pace. And while fielding Sir Don could stand anywhere in the field, stop as many runs as he made and took catches as well as he could hit boundaries, Then yes I have no problem in accepting Sir Don as the Greatest Allrounder ever regardless of the statistics.

It may be irrelevant to you but for many fans that would be enough .

 

[Prince EWS]

Ambrose, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Donald, Steyn, Wasim, Waqar and Pollock are all better than Imran as a bowler. FACT!

Haha it's certainly debatable but in no way is that a fact.

 

[OMM!]

World's Greatest All-Rounders! (Biggest Gaps Between Batting & Bowling Averages)

Jacques Kallis (SA): 57.43 - 32.01 = 25.42
Garry Sobers (WI): 57.78 - 34.03 = 23.75
Tim Bresnan (ENG): 45.42 - 23.60 = 21.82
Imran Khan (PAK): 37.69 - 22.81 = 14.88
Keith Miller (AUS): 36.97 - 22.97 = 14.00

4th, arguably 5th, best for Imran. Not bad for the old fella! Poor man's Kallis, Bresnan and Sobers though!

 

[Prince EWS]

Bresnan

Howe to comment.

 

[OMM!]

Hey! Facts are facts!

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Bresnan will soon get found out and his amazing average thanks to crappy Indian bowling will rapidly go down.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bresnan will soon get found out and his amazing average thanks to crappy Indian bowling will rapidly go down.

Haha no ****...

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I think I needed to state the obvious for OMM!

 

[BlazeDragon]

Imran is an ATG, no question about it. Whether he is top 5/in that absolute top echelon is where people are often split. Some make allowances for peculiarities in records, some don't; and that affects their rating.

Won't deny him that. But in no way he was top 5 though.

Haha it's certainly debatable but in no way is that a fact.

Ambrose, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Donald, Steyn, Wasim, Waqar and Pollock are all better than Imran as a bowler. FACT!

Those two are pretty much a fact to be honest