Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[robelinda]

Well the 87 WC was a massive surprise achievement for us, Border and especially Simpson were 100% behind that win, very young inexperienced team in foreign conditions.

 

[Sanz]

Well the 87 WC was a massive surprise achievement for us, Border and especially Simpson were 100% behind that win, very young inexperienced team in foreign conditions.

I knew that I was missing someone there. Allan Border and Simpson, completely agree with their role in rebuilding the Aussie team that eventually became arguably the greatest team of all time.

But remember Border and Simpson were two people. Imran was alone, no help at all.

 

[Top_Cat]

Reckon the insanely talented players played their part too.

 

[smash84]

but Imran was the one who nurtured the talent otherwise Wasim and Waqar did not know how to set batsmen up and take wickets. Had he not been around they would have suffered the same fate as the mohammad zahids and the shoaib akhtars and people like saeed anwar and inzi would never have made the team

 

[subshakerz]

Reckon the insanely talented players played their part too.

Plenty of talented Pakistani players throughout the 90s, but didn't have the same results due to lack of leadership.

 

[robelinda]

Maybe thats why Symnods played so well in the 03 WC.....

 

[Furball]

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.

It's true with batting all-rounders, whose bowling is only really useful in a weak bowling side. Kallis, for example, would barely be required to bowl in the current England side.

It's not true with bowling allrounders, IMO you can never have enough batting in your lineup. England's bowlers give the XI strength in two different areas; they're the best bowling unit in the world, which is an obvious strength, but Broad, Bresnan and Swann are all pretty good with the bat as well which gives the England batting lineup enormous depth.

edit: in a World XI there's really no valid reason for picking Marshall and McGrath over Imran and Hadlee. The latter 2 make your team infinitely stronger because of the batting depth they'll give.

 

[Ikki]

Poor spinner on the basis of what ? Specialist spinners of his era like Gupte, Gibbs averaged around 29. Sobers averaged 34. Gibbs was probably among the top spinners of his time had a SR of 87.7, Sobers SR was 91.9. Considering the environments (opposition, pitch, conditions) would be so identical for both of them, Sobers compares pretty well to another specialist spinner from his team of that era, alf Valentine.

Gibbs wasn't that good though; he isn't even in the top 2nd tier of spinners IMO. Much of his infamy comes from the wicket record he held and for being the one decent spinner the WIndies have had. Otherwise he is behind the likes of Kumble, Chandra, MacGill, Benaud, let alone Warne, Murali, O'Reilly. Lance hit some heights and had some notable performances, but on the whole his record isn't very impressive.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/51883.html
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...1;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Valentine? LOL

Yet even in that regard as you point above; Sobers is far behind someone like even Gibbs. As their overall records show, he is not only 5 points inferior in average, he is 5 inferior in SR as well - and this is despite the fact that he played a large chunk of the 60s as a pacer...otherwise it would be even worse.

And I am not sure how you use your stats but based on Warne's record against India, I am surprised that you would even consider him bowling. I have bigger chance of winning against India with Sobers bowling than with Warne.

Yes, well being selective has its benefits I guess. I might as well bowl Michael Clarke or something eh? Nevermind the fact that the minnows Sobers bowled to were nothing like the batsmen Warne bowled against. Let's just block that out of our conscious, shall we? I've heard someone already claim that the 80s Indian batsmen were better than the 90s and 00s; might as well claim the 50s, 60s and early 70s too.

Sobers shouldn't get a bowl; unless you want to lose. The difference between his bowling and the rest is too large to accomodate him. Unless it was a move akin to Clarke's yesterday, when throwing on Michael Hussey.

Have you identified the average spinners of his time ?

In the games that Gibbs and Sobers bowled together, exact same opposition, exact same condition.

Gibbs SR is 87.7, Sober SR is 89.2
Gibbs avg. is 29, Sobers Avg is 32.6

Not much difference I would say.

Valentine & Sobers in the team, same conditions, oppositions :-

Valentine SR is 109, Average 38.7
Sobers' SR is 97, Average 34.56

Yes..that's the thing...Sobers is worse...despite playing as a pacer...why does this keep eluding you? I think this is why this myth pervades for so long; the proponents holding it together don't seem to be interested in facts/stats.

 

[kyear2]

It's true with batting all-rounders, whose bowling is only really useful in a weak bowling side. Kallis, for example, would barely be required to bowl in the current England side.It's not true with bowling allrounders, IMO you can never have enough batting in your lineup. England's bowlers give the XI strength in two different areas; they're the best bowling unit in the world, which is an obvious strength, but Broad, Bresnan and Swann are all pretty good with the bat as well which gives the England batting lineup enormous depth.

edit: in a World XI there's really no valid reason for picking Marshall and McGrath over Imran and Hadlee. The latter 2 make your team infinitely stronger because of the batting depth they'll give.

Kallis woulsn't get a bowl but Pieterson does? Strange.
It's always a little risky, as India showed vs. Englad, to go into a test with only 4 bowlers in the instance of injury of lack of performance by the top 4. It cannot ever hurt to have a Kallis or Sobers or even a Chappell or Hammond in your line up.

Note, when picking bowlers you go with the best bowlers, your batsmen are selected to bat and then your wicket keeper and probably one bowling all rounder/ lower order handy batsman to complement them. If the others can bats then its a bonus.
Btw Marshall was more that useful as a lower order batsman, and some have referred to him as an all rounder.

 

[Furball]

Kallis woulsn't get a bowl but Pieterson does? Strange.
It's always a little risky, as India showed vs. Englad, to go into a test with only 4 bowlers in the instance of injury of lack of performance by the top 4. It cannot ever hurt to have a Kallis or Sobers or even a Chappell or Hammond in your line up.

Note, when picking bowlers you go with the best bowlers, your batsmen are selected to bat and then your wicket keeper and probably one bowling all rounder/ lower order handy batsman to complement them. If the others can bats then its a bonus.
Btw Marshall was more that useful as a lower order batsman, and some have referred to him as an all rounder.

Note the use of the word "barely." Kallis would get thrown the ball for a few overs to rest the rest of the quicks before the 2nd new ball. Having at least one batsman who can bowl a few tidy overs is always handy, but isn't necessary for a side that has a good bowling unit. Kallis continues to be a useful option with the ball for South Africa because they don't have a 3rd seamer or a spinner worthy of the name. England have a strong, settled bowling unit which is taking wickets for fun against everyone they face. So Kallis' bowling simply wouldn't be a factor.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Kallis continues to be a useful option with the ball for South Africa because they don't have a 3rd seamer or a spinner worthy of the name. England have a strong, settled bowling unit which is taking wickets for fun against everyone they face. So Kallis' bowling simply wouldn't be a factor.

Not to sidetrack the main debate, but I have to express my objection on that point. Kallis was well past his bowling glory days around the 2001/02 period, yet bowled regularly in a side that had three proper seamers - Pollock, Ntini and Nel/Langeveldt. And there were times, where he looked more threatening than the third seamer. Given his ability to swing the ball and slip in a heavy one every now and then, I think he also had a fair contribution in sustaining pressure that ultimately led to a wicket falling to Pollock or Ntini or even to Nel.

He'd be a very worthy component in any attack, IMHO. Building pressure (through tight, challenging overs) is a team exercise even though they may not share the wickets equally.

 

[TINJU Jishnu]

garry sobers - greatest cricketer of alltime
imran- 2nd greatest pakistani cricketer of all time

sobers >> stats
imran << stats

sobers - arguably greatest batsman of all time + arguably greatest fielder of all time + dangerous bowler (most versatile)

imran - a great pace bowler (<< at least 8-10 other pace bowlers) + ok with bat (over rated)

captaincy -


as an allrounder
1.sobers >>>>>>>>> miller and kapil > botham > imran

 

[smash84]

garry sobers - greatest cricketer of alltime
imran- 2nd greatest pakistani cricketer of all time

sobers >> stats
imran << stats

sobers - arguably greatest batsman of all time + arguably greatest fielder of all time + dangerous bowler (most versatile)

imran - a great pace bowler (<< at least 8-10 other pace bowlers) + ok with bat (over rated)

captaincy -


as an allrounder
1.sobers >>>>>>>>> miller and kapil > botham > imran

 

[Darth018]

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?

If don't get if mine just "one thing" if yours is not. Its not just one thing he had to bowl to every country before finally achieving an average less than 20. Something Imran Khan has never done.

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

You don't need 20 other accounts to show desperation. Reading your posts were good enough and you wanted WI to win that poll quite badly.

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

You should repeat Imran Khan is the "greatest Asian bowler" more and that might be accepted as the truth as well. I guess him being considered one of the top best all rounders is not good enough for you he has to be considered one of the top best bowlers as well for you to be satisfied.

Whatever. Your can't statistically prove that he was a top 5 bowler with or without era adjustment and I think even you know that much.

 

[BlazeDragon]

It's true with batting all-rounders, whose bowling is only really useful in a weak bowling side. Kallis, for example, would barely be required to bowl in the current England side.

It's not true with bowling allrounders, IMO you can never have enough batting in your lineup. England's bowlers give the XI strength in two different areas; they're the best bowling unit in the world, which is an obvious strength, but Broad, Bresnan and Swann are all pretty good with the bat as well which gives the England batting lineup enormous depth.

edit: in a World XI there's really no valid reason for picking Marshall and McGrath over Imran and Hadlee. The latter 2 make your team infinitely stronger because of the batting depth they'll give.

I have to disagree.

Its true that lower order batting can help sometimes but the same can be said about batsmen who bowls. Like look at Watson against Sri Lanka in the current series. Doing better than even some of the specialist bowlers. But you can't expect these guys to be consistent. I bet if you put Broad, Bresnan, Swann in a couple of more of those situations like those you mentioned they will show us their pack of failures eventually.

There is plenty of reasons to pick Mcgrath/Marshall over Imran/Hadlee in a World XI IMO. Because they are better at the the main thing they do which is bowling. In a World XI filled with specialist batsmen, the caliber of batting from the likes of Imran and Hadlee would be pretty much useless if you are playing constantly or at least certainly not good enough to wash away the fact someone like Mcgrath and Marshall would be much more effective with the ball.

Plenty of talented Pakistani players throughout the 90s, but didn't have the same results due to lack of leadership.

Speculative and I completely disagree. The likes of Waqar, Inzamam did all they could with the players available to them.

I know this sort of myth exist that its always the batting department that cost Pakistan the game. While I would agree that bowling is their main strength that's not true at all. There have been plenty of cases where their batsmen put justifiable score on the board and their bowlers failed to restrain the opposition. There have also been cases where both department failed. It has happened to Pakistan a lot even with great bowlers like Wasim/Waqar in the team and there is nothing captaincy could have done about that.

I find Imran Khan captaincy to be kind of like Dhoni's. The success rate is about the same and both gets credited the most for that world cup win. Except that Imran Khan never stuck around after that and never had to face off against a super great batting side like Australia and South Africa of the Aus domination era which the likes of Wasim/Waqar had to.

 

[Flem274*]

In a World XI filled with specialist batsmen, the caliber of batting from the likes of Imran and Hadlee would be pretty much useless if you are playing constantly or at least certainly not good enough to wash away the fact someone like Mcgrath and Marshall would be much more effective with the ball.

Imran Khan never stuck around after that and never had to face off against a super great batting side like Australia and South Africa of the Aus domination era which the likes of Wasim/Waqar had to.

No.

 

[Ikki]

Its true that lower order batting can help sometimes but the same can be said about batsmen who bowls. Like look at Watson against Sri Lanka in the current series. Doing better than even some of the specialist bowlers. But you can't expect these guys to be consistent. I bet if you put Broad, Bresnan, Swann in a couple of more of those situations like those you mentioned they will show us their pack of failures eventually.

Watson's a bad example IMO because he is so good with the ball. If his body could hold itself together he could be picked for both bat and ball - yes, he could be one of the greatest ARs ever, if not the greatest. His bowling, when he bowls, is as good as the specialists. He averages 29 and strikes at 59.

Kallis and other batting allrounders aren't as good as him with the ball.

 

[bagapath]

There is plenty of reasons to pick Mcgrath/Marshall over Imran/Hadlee in a World XI IMO. Because they are better at the the main thing they do which is bowling. In a World XI filled with specialist batsmen, the caliber of batting from the likes of Imran and Hadlee would be pretty much useless if you are playing constantly or at least certainly not good enough to wash away the fact someone like Mcgrath and Marshall would be much more effective with the ball.

that is a blasphemous argument. imran and hadlee were as good as marshall and mcgrath to take the new ball against any team anywhere in the world. it is impossible for anyone to rank these four bowlers in any order without any personal bias. you are welcome to choose marshall and mcgrath to open your bowling (I would go for marshall and hadlee), but there is no way you can say imran and hadlee were not good enough to make it to any dream xi purely as fast bowlers. they did everything, and more, required of any all time top 5 bowler to deserve that kind of respect. even marshall and pigeon would agree to come in at first and second change if all four of them were picked in a team. they all were absolute equals. no question about that.

 

[ankitj]

I would go for marshall and hadlee

.

 

[Furball]

I have to disagree.

Its true that lower order batting can help sometimes but the same can be said about batsmen who bowls. Like look at Watson against Sri Lanka in the current series. Doing better than even some of the specialist bowlers. But you can't expect these guys to be consistent. I bet if you put Broad, Bresnan, Swann in a couple of more of those situations like those you mentioned they will show us their pack of failures eventually.

There is plenty of reasons to pick Mcgrath/Marshall over Imran/Hadlee in a World XI IMO. Because they are better at the the main thing they do which is bowling. In a World XI filled with specialist batsmen, the caliber of batting from the likes of Imran and Hadlee would be pretty much useless if you are playing constantly or at least certainly not good enough to wash away the fact someone like Mcgrath and Marshall would be much more effective with the ball.



Speculative and I completely disagree. The likes of Waqar, Inzamam did all they could with the players available to them.

I know this sort of myth exist that its always the batting department that cost Pakistan the game. While I would agree that bowling is their main strength that's not true at all. There have been plenty of cases where their batsmen put justifiable score on the board and their bowlers failed to restrain the opposition. There have also been cases where both department failed. It has happened to Pakistan a lot even with great bowlers like Wasim/Waqar in the team and there is nothing captaincy could have done about that.

I find Imran Khan captaincy to be kind of like Dhoni's. The success rate is about the same and both gets credited the most for that world cup win. Except that Imran Khan never stuck around after that and never had to face off against a super great batting side like Australia and South Africa of the Aus domination era which the likes of Wasim/Waqar had to.

Having anymore that one batsman who can bowl in a side is a bit pointless because there's a limit as to how much that batsman will be able to bowl. On the other hand everyone in the side is normally required to contribute with the bat and you can never have enough batting. The difference between Imran/Hadlee and Marshall/McGrath as bowlers is negligible, but the former pair give you far superior batting depth.