Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[kyear2]

Mine as well.

 

[smash84]

It all basically comes down to what do you prefer and which you see as more important, a specialist batsban at 6 who can perforn creditably as a 5th bowler, or playing only four bowlers, one of whom can bat a bit or play 5 spcialist bowlers, but essentially play a batsman short, which gives you a long tail.
.

Awta. It boils down to preference. One of the reasons I rate Imran very highly is the fact that he is an ATG bowler and to me good bowlers are more important to win the game. Just today Nasser Hussain gave an interview on cricinfo and he talked about the importance of bowlers and it reminded me of this

A 5th bowlers job is to keep things tight while giveing the strike bowlers a rest and taking the ocasional wicket or breaking a key partnership. That is what Garry is and if he had been used effectively instead of being over bowled and placed into a role which he was clearly not suited, his stats would have fared much better. But he was a team man and a willing one at that.

possibly

Captaincy wise, he was better that given credit, and all of the negative views of his captaincy was based on one sporting declaration, which is the opposite of some of the overly conservative cricket we see today, and his inability to understand that everyone wwasn't as good as he was, that people could be trying their hardest but still failing. But strategically he was Imrans equal, be there no doubt. He understood the game better than most and was a very under rated captain.

yeah but this inability to understand that everyone was not at the same level that he was was a glaring weakness in his captaincy. Strategically he may be Imran's equal but Imran's only strategy was "ATTACK". He taught Wasim Akram the maxim "the best form of defense is to attack". He was an extraordinary man manager. Coming to other captains who are excellent man managers are MS Dhoni and Stephen Fleming.

 

[Darth018]

How is that not relevant? It shows Imran has a very complete record as a bowler.

What does your James Anderson point prove?

It proves about as much as yours I would say.

You try and put him on the same level as the like of McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee just because of 1 thing. Well here is an example of one thing he hasn't accomplished that even a bowler the caliber of James Anderson has. Why not put him in the same catagory as Anderson also then? I won't say his record is so "complete" which you seem to be suggesting.

Emmm his record against the WI? Arguably the finest side history.

Now I understand why you wanted WI to win that poll against Australia so badly. Even if that were true it would be because of their bowling not batting.

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

Better statistics (even without era adjustment) would be a good start.

Agree with both of these. Imran Khan should not be considered a top 5 bowler by any means with or without era adjustment. Even putting him in that top 10 is quite debatable.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Agree with both of these. Imran Khan should not be considered a top 5 bowler by any means with or without era adjustment. Even putting him in that top 10 is quite debatable.

Agreed.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Why don't you give us a list of your top 10 then?

 

[smash84]

It proves about as much as yours I would say.

You try and put him on the same level as the like of McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee just because of 1 thing. Well here is an example of one thing he hasn't accomplished that even a bowler the caliber of James Anderson has. Why not put him in the same catagory as Anderson also then? I won't say his record is so "complete" which you seem to be suggesting.

I didn't take Imran's record in just one place. I took them in all places. Maybe mine is a little less selective application than yours?

Actually you are putting James Anderson on top just because of one thing. I mentioned Imran's bowling record in all countries. See the difference?

Now I understand why you wanted WI to win that poll against Australia so badly. Even if that were true it would be because of their bowling not batting.
.

haha. Yeah I wanted WI to win that poll so badly and there were about 20 other people whom I had put under duress to vote for WI

Agree with both of these. Imran Khan should not be considered a top 5 bowler by any means with or without era adjustment. Even putting him in that top 10 is quite debatable.

You should repeat this more often. It might be accepted as the truth.

 

[Ikki]

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!!

You quoted one part but didn't pay attention to the other. I agree; team composition matters. But, to be honest, even in that Pakistani team Sobers doesn't get to bowl: they are all better than him. And that's the problem; he's simply not good enough as a bowler unless you make it a case where you are saying "Sobers is a bowler in this team but strictly on his mid-60s form" - which is really pushing it.

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 .

There, in the bolded, is the problem. The great argument here is that Sobers was not a fantastic bowler. I have a great problem when someone with Sobers' stats is being called a fantastic bowler, let alone the proposed 55, 110 stats I brought up for Bradman.

I like that Ikki used Sobers' stats in Pak over 8 tests as a sample size. There is a certain Ricky Ponting whose record in India after 8 tests would force some to draw some conclusions, I am sure..


Smileyshah, where does Ponting rate, btw? I am curious because unlike Sobers bowling as an allrounder, Ponting was playing as a BATSMAN...

It wasn't Ikki, but how is 8 not enough? How is Ponting even relevant here? Looks like a strawman.

he played EIGHT tests against them.. 5 in 57/58 and 3 in 58/59.. IN other words, ZILCH against them when he was at his prime as a bowler. And most probably, he was bowling his left arm orthodox which no one is claiming he was among the better exponents of...

And that's the problem; his peak is far too short in a 20 year career. The rest of his career as a bowler is plain bad. Not average, not mediocre, but bad. Maybe it's Pakistan's fault that they didn't play another 8 against him .

What's also silly is that this is becoming about Pakistan. Sobers doesn't have a good bowling record against anyone bar India.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52946.html?class=1;template=results;type=bowling

 

[smash84]

And that's the problem; his peak is far too short in a 20 year career. The rest of his career as a bowler is plain bad. Not average, not mediocre, but bad. Maybe it's Pakistan's fault that they didn't play another 8 against him .

What's also silly is that this is becoming about Pakistan. Sobers doesn't have a good bowling record against anyone bar India.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

I genuinely lol'd at that

Yeah I mentioned it earlier that his bowling record is good only against India.

What HB and Kyear mentioned goes some way in explaining his stats but the for somebody who is willing to take a hit for his batting should be penalized for the same. After all Kallis is heavily penalized for not bowling enough. Sobers may have been good but what use is the all rounder if he has to leave his other suit. Imran doesn't get any extra marks for opening the bowling and coming out and batting too.

 

[Sanz]

There, in the bolded, is the problem. The great argument here is that Sobers was not a fantastic bowler. I have a great argument for someone with Sobers' stats being called a fantastic bowler, let alone the proposed 55, 110 stats I brought up for Bradman.

Don't twist my statement by highlighting 1 word out of an entire paragraph. Here is my statement in full :-

"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."

You can think whatever you want to but do not twist my statement. Your selective stats and inconsistent rules do not make a great argument, at least not in my opinion.

 

[Sanz]

Sobers may have been good but what use is the all rounder if he has to leave his other suit. Imran doesn't get any extra marks for opening the bowling and coming out and batting too.

This is just a silly statement. The fact is that no other cricketer, not even Botham performed as consistently as Sobers as an all rounder. Only Keith Miller comes close that too only as batsman and bowler, as a fielder no all rounder comes close. None of the All Rounders come close to the contribution Sobers made as an allrounder in his teams wins.

 

[Ikki]

Don't twist my statement by highlighting 1 word out of an entire paragraph. Here is my statement in full :-

"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."

You can think whatever you want to but do not twist my statement. Your selective stats and inconsistent rules do not make a great argument, at least not in my opinion.

I didn't twist your words. I'll reiterate: the main contention in this thread is if Sobers' bowling is as good as it is billed up to be. If people were merely going to listen to those experts without looking at his actual record then it is quite obvious that they'd share your opinion.

 

[Sanz]

I didn't twist your words. I'll reiterate: the main contention of in this thread is if Sobers' bowling is as good as it is billed up to be. If people were merely going to listen to those experts without looking at his actual record then it is quite obvious that they'd share your opinion.

No, Historians are not sharing my opinion. I am forming my opinion based on their accounts of what they saw in real life and wrote about. I am forming my opinion based on what his peers, who played with or against Sobers, said about him. Most all rounders are two cricketers in one, Sir Don Bradman called him "Five-in-one" cricketer.

Stats do not seem to tell the entire story but they do back the historians, his peers for the most part.

 

[Ikki]

Stats back the historians? Then pray tell why Sobers' bowling stats are so bad most of the time and mediocre overall? Thats the discussion here; why the stats don't match up to the hype. If you could settle this one we'd all be grateful.

Also, I wasn't referring to historians sharing your opinions - as pedantic as it was for you to point out anyway - but of other people who would share your opinion, if they only considered the opinions of those historians/experts.

 

[Sanz]

Stats back the historians? Then pray tell why Sobers' bowling stats are so bad most of the time and mediocre overall? Thats the discussion here; why the stats don't match up to the hype. If you could settle this one we'd all be grateful.

I said the stats back up the historians for the most part. I don't consider a bowling average of 34 as an average, considering guys like Kapil and Botham, who are considered among the greatest allrounders, have bowling record that is nowhere great but merely good and I still consider both of them better than Imran as allrounders.

In any case, If the discussion is about their allround skills, let's try to answer some questions here as honestly as we can. Between Imran and Sobers :-

1. Who contributed more to his team consistently as an allrounder (i.e. contributed more in all aspects of the game in individual tests) ?

2. Who contributed more to his team as an allrounder on a series by series ?

3. Whose contribution as an allrounder was bigger factor in his team's win ?


Let's open the stats book and compare their all round contributions.

 

[Ikki]

You asked questions; let's hear some explanations and reasonings using the stats you say support the historian view. I am open to all 3 of those questions favouring Sobers, but let's get some tangible evidence as to why.

 

[kyear2]

Stats back the historians? Then pray tell why Sobers' bowling stats are so bad most of the time and mediocre overall? Thats the discussion here; why the stats don't match up to the hype. If you could settle this one we'd all be grateful.

Also, I wasn't referring to historians sharing your opinions - as pedantic as it was for you to point out anyway - but of other people who would share your opinion, if they only considered the opinions of those historians/experts.

They dont for Lillee either, a fact that you continue to ignore with the fact that most from his era consider him among if not the best and at worst tied with Marshall and Hadlee all-time. You have used the argument previously that it isn't always purely stat driven, but about the team situation, about bowling out of your comfort zone and about being the lone wolf and about the theater of the performance.
I believe that Mcgrath statistically is better, most past players and journalists just dont agree with that sentiment. As I mentioned in another thread recently, we may just sometimes just have to watch and trust our eyes rather that just purely the stat sheet. I am not there yet either, but open to the viability of it.

I too believe that as a bowler he is over rated, but he was a team man, bowled what was required and sometimes after bolwing pace, later in the innings when he was tired, but still required to turn his arm over bowled spin.

The main difference in opinion here is that an all rounder is a primary batsman who can perform as a 5th bowler
Even in my second team Kallis is my all rounder, because you need 6 specialist batsmen, one of whom can turn his hand over to give his bowlers a rest, keep an end tight or break a partnership. The reason that Sobers is over Kallis is that Sobers has actually won matches for W.I with his batting, bowling and fielding. For me the only other player who has done that is Hammond (who I also consider an All Rounder) and Ian Botham, Miller just falls short. Imran makes my al time team because he was a better batsman than Hadlee, and not too far behind as a bowler and was better with the old ball because of his mastery of reverse swing. It was a luxury while Sobers was needed for his all round ability and flexibility he adds to the line up.
Just for futher example Sangakkara is in my third team because again primarily a batsman who adds a 6th batsman who allows then for a 5th bowler.

 

[smash84]

I said the stats back up the historians for the most part. I don't consider a bowling average of 34 as an average, considering guys like Kapil and Botham, who are considered among the greatest allrounders, have bowling record that is nowhere great but merely good and I still consider both of them better than Imran as allrounders.

In any case, If the discussion is about their allround skills, let's try to answer some questions here as honestly as we can. Between Imran and Sobers :-

1. Who contributed more to his team consistently as an allrounder (i.e. contributed more in all aspects of the game in individual tests) ?

2. Who contributed more to his team as an allrounder on a series by series ?

3. Whose contribution as an allrounder was bigger factor in his team's win ?


Let's open the stats book and compare their all round contributions.

For the early half of his career Imran didn't get to bat too often because of the strong batting line up. However when he did get the chance he performed quite well.

For series' where Imran did really well

against England 1981-82
against India 1982-83
vs England 1987
vs WI 1986
vs WI 1988

He was up there in both batting and bowling in all these series and these make up 25% of his career

 

[honestbharani]

I genuinely lol'd at that

Yeah I mentioned it earlier that his bowling record is good only against India.

What HB and Kyear mentioned goes some way in explaining his stats but the for somebody who is willing to take a hit for his batting should be penalized for the same. After all Kallis is heavily penalized for not bowling enough. Sobers may have been good but what use is the all rounder if he has to leave his other suit. Imran doesn't get any extra marks for opening the bowling and coming out and batting too.

If just showing up for batting is good enough, Lillee and Marshall > Imran as allrounders..


The point is that there was a whole 9 year period out of his 20 year career where Sobers had very good figures for a bowler, and this also coincided with a great run of his as a batsman. Imran doesn't have such a period.. I have seen stats from BS (that is Bhupinder Singh, btw, before you let your imagination run wild ) about Imran in a number of threads now and counters for those and it is somewhat obvious he didn't always succeed in both formats. So let me ask your own question to you,, What is the point of having an allrounder if he can only succeed in one discipline in any given match?

 

[honestbharani]

It wasn't Ikki, but how is 8 not enough? How is Ponting even relevant here? Looks like a strawman.

Yeah.. just like the argument on Sobers' bowling based on his record against Pakistan.. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[honestbharani]

Don't twist my statement by highlighting 1 word out of an entire paragraph. Here is my statement in full :-

"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."

You can think whatever you want to but do not twist my statement. Your selective stats and inconsistent rules do not make a great argument, at least not in my opinion.

Neither in the 76% of the voters too.. And I dare say, more than that % of cricket followers around the world and definitely more than that % of cricketers and cricket journalists (esp. ones who have seen both) will not agree.. I am too tired to open statsguru again here (and the damn site doesn't work properly with IE 6) but maybe we will do some nitpicking with Imran and Sobers over the weekend... As SJS famously said, you can prove just about anything with stats.