Geoff Armstrong- The 100 Greatest Cricketers

[hendrix]

They'd be 5th bowlers though. Better to have a batting allrounder as 5th bowler than a bowling allrounder.

 

[MrPrez]

Please post that in the right thread and people will answer you

It is the right thread. It's another theoretical question that can be used as an example similar to the Miller debate.

 

[archie mac]

So 33 matches outweighs the 60 other tests he bowled with avg. 41, sr. 110?

That peak isn't good enough, even as it is. Whether Sobers scored a lot of runs isn't the issue because on his batting alone he has a place. We're talking about the drop in bowling quality one has to deal with when using him as a 3rd seamer.

Miller is ideal for such a role because his average and strike rate overall (let alone his peak) is world-class/ATG class. His limitation is less wickets per Test than other ATG bowlers but as a 3rd seamer it's not really an issue.

So if he only played these 33 Tests you would have no problem with him? So is the alltime team based on a player at his best or what he did over his whole career?

I always think a little of both, so we could choose the Sobers who played for those eight years which is a fair period.

Personally I would pick players at their peak for say two-three years. To beat another all time team you need the bowlers so players like Thommo and Jack Iverson would be in my team, they may both win you one Test each in a five Test series.

 

[MrPrez]

You certainly can't pick players based just on a certain period imo. Otherwise Philander would be a shoo-in.

 

[archie mac]

You certainly can't pick players based just on a certain period imo. Otherwise Philander would be a shoo-in.

Well with Sobers, surely 8 years is a long enough period. Otherwise players who go on too long are marked down. Which is another reason why stats can't be the be all and end all

 

[Ikki]

So if he only played these 33 Tests you would have no problem with him? So is the alltime team based on a player at his best or what he did over his whole career?

I always think a little of both, so we could choose the Sobers who played for those eight years which is a fair period.

Personally I would pick players at their peak for say two-three years. To beat another all time team you need the bowlers so players like Thommo and Jack Iverson would be in my team, they may both win you one Test each in a five Test series.

If people are picking players on short-lived peaks then the composition of most all-time sides would change. They'd regularly feature guys like Steyn, Waqar and Ponting. That Sobers suddenly gets the change in definition seems convenient.

Moreover, 33 Tests when you'ved played 93 isn't a good sample - especially when the rest of your career is so contrasting, as then it becomes misleading. The only reason 33 Tests would be acceptable to me is if he played 33 tests overall and in his era that was a reasonable/a lot to play.

Sobers' problem is that the rest of the 60 Tests were atrocious; that overall (combined with his peak) his figures are average at best; and that even if you were to consider his peak the figures aren't even impressive.

 

[smash84]

Kallis in hte 8th XI and Shaun Pollock not being considered good enough for the 9th XI. Meanwhile Rahul Dravid in the 6th XI, and Andrew Flintoff in the 9th XI. If he was a CW poster, he'd be on my ignore list.

If people are picking players on short-lived peaks then the composition of most all-time sides would change. They'd regularly feature guys like Steyn, Waqar and Ponting. That Sobers suddenly gets the change in definition seems convenient.

Moreover, 33 Tests when you'ved played 93 isn't a good sample - especially when the rest of your career is so contrasting, as then it becomes misleading. The only reason 33 Tests would be acceptable to me is if he played 33 tests overall and in his era that was a reasonable/a lot to play.

Sobers' problem is that the rest of the 60 Tests were atrocious; that overall (combined with his peak) his figures are average at best; and that even if you were to consider his peak the figures aren't even impressive.

quite awta.

 

[Satyanash89]

I think its impossible to justify saying that Sobers was anything more than an average, at best pretty decent support bowler. Its absolutely crazy to have him as a third seamer in an ATG lineup.

 

[MrPrez]

Yeah agree. We could always cherrypick and say that at one point Kallis was an opening bowler. I'm sure he had stages of his career where he averaged well under 30 too. You take a player for their overall quality, not for their peak, nor for their worst.

 

[Red]

Kallis in hte 8th XI and Shaun Pollock not being considered good enough for the 9th XI. Meanwhile Rahul Dravid in the 6th XI, and Andrew Flintoff in the 9th XI. If he was a CW poster, he'd be on my ignore list.

The book was written a number of years ago, which explains Kallis. In the revised edition he explains that he'd included Flintoff initially on the basis of the 2005 Ashes, but that Flintoff hadn't sustained that level.

 

[archie mac]

If people are picking players on short-lived peaks then the composition of most all-time sides would change. They'd regularly feature guys like Steyn, Waqar and Ponting. That Sobers suddenly gets the change in definition seems convenient.

Moreover, 33 Tests when you'ved played 93 isn't a good sample - especially when the rest of your career is so contrasting, as then it becomes misleading. The only reason 33 Tests would be acceptable to me is if he played 33 tests overall and in his era that was a reasonable/a lot to play.

Sobers' problem is that the rest of the 60 Tests were atrocious; that overall (combined with his peak) his figures are average at best; and that even if you were to consider his peak the figures aren't even impressive.

Well I don't agree. So if he would have retired before his bowling dropped off you would have no issues?

Must be just me so I will stop arguing

 

[Satyanash89]

Well I don't agree. So if he would have retired before his bowling dropped off you would have no issues?

Must be just me so I will stop arguing

No one knows... maybe we would, but you just cant be sure, which is exactly why you judge a player by how long he was actually great... which is why imo Sobers, Thomson, Bond, Philander (yet) are not ATG bowlers.

 

[ankitj]

I like that Geoff Armstrong puts Graeme Pollock in his first xi.

 

[Ikki]

Well I don't agree. So if he would have retired before his bowling dropped off you would have no issues?

Must be just me so I will stop arguing

It depends, maybe I would have. When the majority of your bowling career can only be classified as "poor" then I am not too gung-ho about letting all-time great batsmen face you.

 

[Slifer]

I know we've had our 'issues' in the past Ikki but I'm curious as to y u rate Viv Richards so highly when u r perfectly justified rating G Chappell higher ???

 

[Ikki]

Because besides the very last part of Richards' career I wasn't around to witness their careers myself. When I judge players in that regard it usually means I will look at their careers statistically as well as the contemporary esteem they're held in.

I am not sure Richards is better than Chappell - statistically, I'd give the nod to Greg, although it is close - but Richards gets a lot more love from his contemporaries. I tie-break it that way. Plus, Richards' SR is usually not factored when people discuss him although it seems the estimations put him around 67. This is a fantastic SR for a batsman that averages 50 and in comparison to his contemporaries he is like Sehwag...except with no glaring deficiency.

The reason I don't do the same for Sobers (as an all-rounder) is because I cannot logically persuade myself that his bowling on the whole was anything better than average (and even then I'm being generous).

 

[L Trumper]

Because besides the very last part of Richards' career I wasn't around to witness their careers myself. When I judge players in that regard it usually means I will look at their careers statistically as well as the contemporary esteem they're held in.

I am not sure Richards is better than Chappell - statistically, I'd give the nod to Greg, although it is close - but Richards gets a lot more love from his contemporaries. I tie-break it that way. Plus, Richards' SR is usually not factored when people discuss him although it seems the estimations put him around 67. This is a fantastic SR for a batsman that averages 50 and in comparison to his contemporaries he is like Sehwag...except with no glaring deficiency.

The reason I don't do the same for Sobers (as an all-rounder) is because I cannot logically persuade myself that his bowling on the whole was anything better than average (and even then I'm being generous).

But 60s are comparatively weaker in bowling compared to the decade before or after. And Sobers was a regular top 10 (top 5 even) bowler at that time. He is better than average at the time he was playing. Sobers actually bowled roughly 2000 more balls while playing less than 80 tests compared to Kallis. He was actually a proper bowler in the side. His record may not be brilliant, but he makes his team on his bowling alone. Hell there were times in mid 60s when he would make a world XI on his bowling alone. That is not something that can be completely dismissed.

 

[smash84]

neil johnson could also make the Zimbos on batting or bowling alone

 

[sobers no:1]

comparing sobers and kallis as bowlers is worse than comparing botham and s.pollock as batsmen

 

[watson]

There's no such word as 'worser'.