marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
I did linear and he got in once out of 21 possible series - compared to other all rounders it was not a good output.
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2556222-post280.html
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll
- Thread starter Teja.
- Start date
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2556222-post280.html
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
If we are using 'performing with bat and ball at the same time' as the sole criterion, then the best allrounder battle should be between Ian Botham and Keith Miller (and Botham should win easily); not these 2.
Among great allrounders, Sobers was the best with the bat, Imran was the best with the ball, Botham performed best with the bat and ball 'at the same time' and Miller had the most potential.
However, while comparing Imran vs Sobers overall, I feel
Sobers' batting>Imran's bowling
Sobers' bowling>Imran's batting
Among great allrounders, Sobers was the best with the bat, Imran was the best with the ball, Botham performed best with the bat and ball 'at the same time' and Miller had the most potential.
However, while comparing Imran vs Sobers overall, I feel
Sobers' batting>Imran's bowling
Sobers' bowling>Imran's batting
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
From that list, we all know Botham killed it with both bat and ball for a period in his career, but man is Shaun Pollock underrated.........
*in before Teja agrees*
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
So, Sobers missing more than a third of his career is better than Kallis. Great argment. Also, even then you're wrong:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I thought you were referring to matches where he was only an opening bowler and bowled pace. Even in your stats he is averaging 31 and striking at 87. Very poor for an opening bowler and not comparable to the likes of Botham or Kapil.
You just stated that the stats back the historians. The stats you've just shown don't. So I am still wondering where these stats are you speak of.
Last edited:
kyear2
International Coach
Fully agree with everything you have said.
If you are looking for a true all-rounder then its Botham, especially early Botham. Keith Miller comes next, though he never fully reached his potential with the bat and in that area only really dominated againts the West Indies.
kyear2
International Coach
I sometimes wonder that with you too. Intagibles and mitigating circumstaces only count for players you support.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
It's ridiculous how often that I have to point this out to you, but I'll do it again because I hope it sinks in once.
If we are talking about players that are in a certain statistical ball-park, say averaging 50+ as batsmen or <25 avg, <60 SR with the ball I can buy that that intangibles and mitigating circumstances can exist to make up the difference between greats.
But Sobers' bowling is too far removed from the praise he gets to wash with that kind of excuse. So stop painting it out as if he is the same case but different standards are applied to him.
Last edited:
kyear2
International Coach
To me there are obviously 3 types of all rounders, a authentic top orer batsman who bowls and supplements the bowling attack (Sobers, Kallis) . A bowling all rounder, a front line bowler who can also bat a bit and normally bats at 7 or 8 in a strong line up (Hadlee, Imran, Akram). Finally there is a true all rounder who bats in the lower top, and also a front line/opening bowler, but whom isn't truely GREAT at either, but very good at both (Botham, Miller, Dev)
With a batting allrounder you get good balance as you have a full batting order and a capable fifth bower who can give your bowlers a rest, once again a modern example being Kallis.
A bowling all rounder gives you good batting depth, but unless you still have a batting or true all rounder you still only have four bowers and less flexibility. Modern example being Stuart Broad (recent vintage)
A true all rounder gives that fifth bowling option, and a better bat than the bowling all rounder, but your still short a full out specialist batsman, but depending on your team make up this or the batting all rounder would be your best option.
Take an all time team for example, if you play Sobers as a batsman, and Imran or Miller at 6, you weaken your line up for a bowler, when you consider the other bowlers available might bowl at most 10 overs. If you play Sobers you have a full strength batting line up and for the role required behind your four front line bowlers of allowing for rest and rotation and keeping things tidy.
Most of the great teams had four front line bowlers and then some one who could turn their hand over for a few overs in a bind, five front line bowlers for most of history has been seen as overkill, and Australia of late 90's-mis 00's only briefly used Gilly at 6, but for the most part took their chances with four bowlers with The Waughs filling the void as a fifth bower. The West Indies of the 80-90's went with four with Richards, Hooper ect backing up and both teams did quite fine. The England team of today utilises Pieterson as their fifth bowler and they are currently #1.
It's a matter of preference and team balance.
With a batting allrounder you get good balance as you have a full batting order and a capable fifth bower who can give your bowlers a rest, once again a modern example being Kallis.
A bowling all rounder gives you good batting depth, but unless you still have a batting or true all rounder you still only have four bowers and less flexibility. Modern example being Stuart Broad (recent vintage)
A true all rounder gives that fifth bowling option, and a better bat than the bowling all rounder, but your still short a full out specialist batsman, but depending on your team make up this or the batting all rounder would be your best option.
Take an all time team for example, if you play Sobers as a batsman, and Imran or Miller at 6, you weaken your line up for a bowler, when you consider the other bowlers available might bowl at most 10 overs. If you play Sobers you have a full strength batting line up and for the role required behind your four front line bowlers of allowing for rest and rotation and keeping things tidy.
Most of the great teams had four front line bowlers and then some one who could turn their hand over for a few overs in a bind, five front line bowlers for most of history has been seen as overkill, and Australia of late 90's-mis 00's only briefly used Gilly at 6, but for the most part took their chances with four bowlers with The Waughs filling the void as a fifth bower. The West Indies of the 80-90's went with four with Richards, Hooper ect backing up and both teams did quite fine. The England team of today utilises Pieterson as their fifth bowler and they are currently #1.
It's a matter of preference and team balance.
kyear2
International Coach
But why are you trying to compare him to your front line bowlers, he is supposed to be your fifth option batting at 6.
Why then not compare Imrans batting with your top five, even I dont attemp to do that, because that is not his nor Garry primary role.
If you have a guy who averages 30 as an opening bowler, then he is more that good enough to fill the role of a FIFTH bowling option.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
I think it was weldone who once claimed that there is no such thing as the all-rounder problem in cricket - that teams don't necessarily need one.
I think while regular teams would gladly welcome all-rounders, weldone's is a point well made when picking all-time sides IMO, especially the all time World XI.
I think while regular teams would gladly welcome all-rounders, weldone's is a point well made when picking all-time sides IMO, especially the all time World XI.
kyear2
International Coach
Its simple play Sobers and loose a bit as a support bolwer or Bothan or Kapil and loose just as much or more with the bat. Play Imran and its the same and you loose quite a bit in the field as well.
The strange thing is that you and smalishah84 have Sobers in your teams at the All Rounder Position at 6, though you also have Miller in your 11, but Malisha84 uses the same Sobers as her fifth bowling option and bats Imran below Gilchrist at 8.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Botham also averages 30.59, Kapil 30 so yes an average of 30.75 is comparable as an opening bowler. Not too long ago, you were arguing that the difference between Marshall's and Mcgrath was so little that it was easy to pick one over the other. Needless to say that withing a week, you have moved the goalpost. Now the criteria you want to use is SR, whereas you ignored the Strike Rate in the Mcgrath Cs. Marshall discussion and wanted to compare other "categories" such as "era adjustments".
Actually they do. A bowler who was capable of taking 20+ wickets on a no. of occasions in a series, who was asked to share major chunk of team's bowling by his captains which included Sir Frank Worrell, consistently contributed with ball in his teams wins etc. has to be a good bowler.
bagapath
International Captain
Really???????
--------
Ikki... I have been enjoying your arguments in this thread and basically agree with a lot of them. Only one thing I want to bring to your notice. We all know Sobers' batting and Imran's bowling are top notch stuff - top 5 of all time in their respective fields. And Sobers' bowling of 34 avg and 90+SR is definitely bad as you say when compared to regular bowlers. But, Imran's 37 batting avg is also equally bad when you compare it with regular batsmen. The question is: who is better, Sobers the bowler or Imran the batsman? The other way around they are equals and Sobers is way ahead as a fielder. Only their weaker departments need to be analyzed. The answer lied somewhere there.
I personally dont need too many runs from players batting below no.7. and I dont expect my 5th bowler to do more than support my main strike bowlers. so i think sobers provides better allround balance to me than imran.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
FTR
Botham's Bowling average isn't <25
Kapil's Bowling average isn't < 25 neither is his SR < 60
kyear2
International Coach
That is all I was trying to say.
smash84
The Tiger King
The thing is that I have Sobers in my all time side more as a pure batsman than anything else. I don't think I would want Sobers to turn his arm over too much.
Another thing to note is that a hypothetical ATXI would face another ATXI comparable to itself (A Mars XI as PEWS says, or is it somebody else). Now everybody doesn't have to bowl but everybody does have to bat. The lower you bat the better your chances of taking the game.
Outswinger@Pace
International 12th Man
Good lord, are you a girl?
The thing is that I have Sobers in my all time side more as a pure batsman than anything else. I don't think I would want Sobers to turn his arm over too much.
Another thing to note is that a hypothetical ATXI would face another ATXI comparable to itself (A Mars XI as PEWS says, or is it somebody else). Now everybody doesn't have to bowl but everybody does have to bat. The lower you bat the better your chances of taking the game.
I should have been better behaved in our encounters, in that case.
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
Now we know the secret behind all the smilies. Smali is a girl, lol. No wonder he is in love with Imran.