Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[Red]

Yeah sure I am because I don't use spectacles/optical lenses of "BIAS" brand.

I don't think anyone here has argued Imran wasn't a fairly good batsman. And he improved significantly as his career went on. Fairly common knowledge.

However, regardless of his isolated average over that 10 yr period, if someone said to me "you're selecting a team, and you can have one of these guys AS A BATSMAN ONLY- Imran, Botham, Kapil or Miller", I'd choose Imran last every time.

Imran was fairly limited as a batsman. Solid technique, but not very dynamic.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Imran is overrated for his batting. However he certainly is a hero to me and millions of people around the world, so don't know why that is a problem.

 

[Red]

Imran is overrated for his batting. However he certainly is a hero to me and millions of people around the world, so don't know why that is a problem.

I think most people rate him pretty well as a batsman, but he did have limitations.

Fwiw I almost always select him in an ATG team. To have someone like Gilchrist at #7, and then Imran at #8 is ideal.

 

[Ikki]

His initial selection for the WIs was as a bowler.

I don't understand how this matters. Sobers' bowling was crap in the beginning, crap at the end, and bar a relatively small spell in his career as a bowler he was mediocre, at best, overall. It takes someone being highly selective to pick out 6-7 years of his peak (where he still was no more than a very good bowler) and ignore the other 13-14 years of plain garbage.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah sure I am because I don't use spectacles/optical lenses of "BIAS" brand.

Yeah, no. You're the one here who's really biased. Nobody here is saying that Garry Sobers is the best bowler of all time, however, he is most certainly not the worst, far from it. You just seem to have an irrational hatred of him, possibly because you think Imran is the best AR of all time. Imran's batting has always been overrated, due to that 10 year period people keep bringing up, and they use his average as proof that he was a great batsman. Average doesn't tell the whole story. Imran, whilst a decent batsman, was not that great, his average is very misleading. The reason he averages so much better than them is because he has a far higher proportion of not outs. For example, Miller, who played 30 less test matches than Imran, scored more centuries than him. Botham only played 15 more tests than him and still scored more than double his amount of centuries. The only one he really comes close to his Kapil, but, purely on batting, I'd rather have Kapil. He is not clearly better than any other bowling all rounder, except Hadlee.

 

[kyear2]

I don't understand how this matters. Sobers' bowling was crap in the beginning, crap at the end, and bar a relatively small spell in his career as a bowler he was mediocre, at best, overall. It takes someone being highly selective to pick out 6-7 years of his peak (where he still was no more than a very good bowler) and ignore the other 13-14 years of plain garbage.

No All Rounder is great at both diciplines, the closest one would come is Botham and he declined rapidly after his intial brilliance. Miller as a batsman wasn't much better than Sobers as a bowler , and wouldn't come close to an AT XI as a batsman either. Almost half of his test hundreds came in one series vs a thread bare attack on the flattest of decks in the Caribbean in '55 and he for his career he averaged 24 in England.
Additionally to not being not much better as a batsman if bettter at all than Sobers was as a bowler he was somewhat behind as a bowler compared to Sobers as a batsman.

This is just to say that one would never find someone brilliant at everything and it's about finding the best balance and for most people that is Sobers and it better to have a less than stellar 5th bowler that a substandard #5 batsman.

btw Keith Miller himself not only said that Sobers was the best All Rounder that played the game but the best cricketer period.

 

[Red]

I don't understand how this matters. Sobers' bowling was crap in the beginning, crap at the end, and bar a relatively small spell in his career as a bowler he was mediocre, at best, overall. It takes someone being highly selective to pick out 6-7 years of his peak (where he still was no more than a very good bowler) and ignore the other 13-14 years of plain garbage.

Sobers' bowling wasn't crap. His stats are very similar to someone like Alf Valentine's, and other guys like Bishen Bedi etc.. No one is saying he was a truly great bowler, but as a 5th bowling option he is exceptional

I'm not sure where this opinion that Sobers' bowling was "crap" comes from.

 

[kyear2]

Smali and Ikki.

 

[watson]

No All Rounder is great at both diciplines, the closest one would come is Botham and he declined rapidly after his intial brilliance. Miller as a batsman wasn't much better than Sobers as a bowler , and wouldn't come close to an AT XI as a batsman either. Almost half of his test hundreds came in one series vs a thread bare attack on the flattest of decks in the Caribbean in '55 and he for his career he averaged 24 in England.
Additionally to not being not much better as a batsman if bettter at all than Sobers was as a bowler he was somewhat behind as a bowler compared to Sobers as a batsman.

This is just to say that one would never find someone brilliant at everything and it's about finding the best balance and for most people that is Sobers and it better to have a less than stellar 5th bowler that a substandard #5 batsman.

btw Keith Miller himself not only said that Sobers was the best All Rounder that played the game but the best cricketer period.

Fair point re Miller's batsmanship. Just had a look at Miller's highest/best innings and I must admit that I'm not overly impressed by them. There are certainly no great batting feats that match the ones scored by Botham, or even Kapil and Imran.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[fredfertang]

I don't understand how this matters. Sobers' bowling was crap in the beginning, crap at the end, and bar a relatively small spell in his career as a bowler he was mediocre, at best, overall. It takes someone being highly selective to pick out 6-7 years of his peak (where he still was no more than a very good bowler) and ignore the other 13-14 years of plain garbage.

You have a perfectly valid point Ikki, not for the first time, but you don't help yourself in terms of putting it forward by dressing it up in such polemic language

Sobers plainly had some poor series as a bowler, 1957 in England in a series when the West Indian bowling generally was wholly undistinguished being a very good example, and he had some distinctly ordinary series elsewhere as well, but as I have already pointed out in England in particular, that first series apart, he was a highly effective and thoroughly decent bowler and he usually did a job - no Lillee or Imran I grant you, but well worth his place - tbh as a fellow lawyer I am always surprised that you don't choose your words more carefully.

 

[NUFAN]

Ikki has been a crap lawyer though for most of his career. He had some short periods where he was good but for the most part its been a mediocre career.

 

[the big bambino]

Revising the careers of true greats seems to be a weird feature of cricket forums. Really no one in their right mind would question Sobers' greatness all round and effectiveness a bowler within the context of a team's attack. I think revising the greats is a cricket forum's equivalent of dealing with creationists. They just never go away no matter how wrong they are.

 

[NUFAN]

Is P...A...K...I on the swear filter?

Looks like it. I got called out for using that term early on, other countries find it more offensive which is fine.

 

[MartinB]

QUOTE=watson;3054587]Fair point re Miller's batsmanship. Just had a look at Miller's highest/best innings and I must admit that I'm not overly impressed by them. There are certainly no great batting feats that match the ones scored by Botham, or even Kapil and Imran.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo[/QUOTE]

The other thing about Miller is like Botham, his batting declined in the second half of his career. If you look at the year by year averages for the first 6 years:

year 1946 		3 	3 	0 	149 	79 	49.66 	0 	1 	0 	view innings
year 1947 		5 	7 	2 	340 	141* 	68.00 	1 	1 	0 	view innings
year 1948 		8 	10 	0 	294 	74 	29.40 	0 	3 	1 	view innings
year 1949 		2 	3 	1 	95 	58 	47.50 	0 	1 	0 	view innings
year 1950 		5 	9 	1 	206 	84 	25.75 	0 	1 	0 	view innings
year 1951 		7 	13 	2 	568 	145* 	51.63 	2 	1 	1 	view innings

Miller also scored 600-700 runs at around 68 (3 centuries) in in the 1945 England vs Commonwealth Service team in 1945.

Miller was consitently averaging 45+ at test level for the first 6 years. That is a better Batting record than any of the
current Australian players (apart from Clark). At the age of 32 Miller had a bowling average of around 21 and a low to mid 40
batting average.

Miller's batting decline could of been because of:
1) Better attacks
2) Age - he was in his early/mid 30's by then. Would not be the first batsmen to struggle in his thirties
3) Nothing to prove any more, was coasting.

I remember an interview from one of 48 Australian (I think it was Lindsay Hassett)
when asked about wether Miller could hold down a top batting position, His response was no, Miller would of been one of the First picked;

If had to pick a player to Bowl for my life : K Miller
If had to pick a player to Catch/Field for my life : K Miller
If had to pick a player to Bat for My life : K Miller

Keith messed around a lot but when he played Batting / Bowling / Fielding there was no one better.

 

[smash84]

Smali and Ikki.

and you know very well why this "nonsense" is being "spouted"

His stats just don't hold up to him being a good bowler. And while I don't completely rely on stats but in his case they are to look past without thinking of all the praise showered on him for being the bowler who could do everything.

 

[Coronis]

Yep, I remember reading Bradman and Miller not getting on too well, because of Miller's approach to life and cricket. He wouldn't really play properly if there was no challenge, it seemed. Like if say his team looked certain to win, he might just throw his wicket away.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yep, I remember reading Bradman and Miller not getting on too well, because of Miller's approach to life and cricket. He wouldn't really play properly if there was no challenge, it seemed. Like if say his team looked certain to win, he might just throw his wicket away.

I know, a wonderful player to have while facing the atg xi, i would say. So keep him in the second xi. Will be so piped up that he will go a further mile for victory

 

[H4G]

These are their batting averages without considering not outs :

Imran ---------->30.2 (Had become decent batsman only by start of 1980s
Miller ---------->34.0 (Played on flattest wickets ever)
Botham ---------->32.2 (Had become "Hit &Miss" batsman by later half of his career)
Kapil ---------->28.5 (Average speaks itself how good a batsman he was)

My Points:

1.Once Imran became a complete batsman by early 1980s he averages 40 without considering not outs & his skills never declined.That shows how much better bastman he was than like Miller & Botham. Plus credit goes to Imran because he always batted in more pressure playing at 7 for most his career but 6 or lower during last few matches of his career.Getting that sort of performance by playing with tailenders at other end is a great achievemnt.And his so many not outs withh thatt good an show good he was to get out even being a lower order batsman & having to play with tailenders most of the time.

2.If you're so concerned about Imran's not outs then you should also consider Miller's wickets/match ratio of 3.0 which is far from being that of a good bowler, let alone an alltime great.He lacked stamina & would always give up after bowling a few overs.

3.If Sobers is a good bowler just because he was originally picked as a bowler then by that logic Imran is an alltime great batsman too as he originally made the Pakistan purely on his batting capabilities too.

4.Sobers averaged around 50 as a bowler in his first 30 tests.No bowler would ever be given a chance to bowl again after that sort of performance but he got which means he was always hugely overrated despite being a worst bowler.Then he became a mediocre bowler in 2nd half of his career & crap again in the last.Seriously any club or even lower than that level cricketer can take 235 wickets if he plays 93 matches & gets to bowl as many overs as Sobers did.

 

[the big bambino]

I don't doubt your figures or necessarily dispute your conclusions: Except the comments abt Sobers. The fact is no club bowler would have played that many games due to the simple reason they weren't good enough. So likening Sobers to a club bowler is an exaggeration that undermines the points preceding it.

 

[kyear2]

These are their batting averages without considering not outs :

Imran ---------->30.2 (Had become decent batsman only by start of 1980s
Miller ---------->34.0 (Played on flattest wickets ever)
Botham ---------->32.2 (Had become "Hit &Miss" batsman by later half of his career)
Kapil ---------->28.5 (Average speaks itself how good a batsman he was)

My Points:

1.Once Imran became a complete batsman by early 1980s he averages 40 without considering not outs & his skills never declined.That shows how much better bastman he was than like Miller & Botham. Plus credit goes to Imran because he always batted in more pressure playing at 7 for most his career but 6 or lower during last few matches of his career.Getting that sort of performance by playing with tailenders at other end is a great achievemnt.And his so many not outs withh thatt good an show good he was to get out even being a lower order batsman & having to play with tailenders most of the time.

2.If you're so concerned about Imran's not outs then you should also consider Miller's wickets/match ratio of 3.0 which is far from being that of a good bowler, let alone an alltime great.He lacked stamina & would always give up after bowling a few overs.

3.If Sobers is a good bowler just because he was originally picked as a bowler then by that logic Imran is an alltime great batsman too as he originally made the Pakistan purely on his batting capabilities too.

4.Sobers averaged around 50 as a bowler in his first 30 tests.No bowler would ever be given a chance to bowl again after that sort of performance but he got which means he was always hugely overrated despite being a worst bowler.Then he became a mediocre bowler in 2nd half of his career & crap again in the last.Seriously any club or even lower than that level cricketer can take 235 wickets if he plays 93 matches & gets to bowl as many overs as Sobers did.

Just a couple points, the wickets in Australia were supposedly not as flat as before the war, but the pitches in the W.I and the S.C certainly were panckake flat.

No one has ever said Sobers was an ATG bowler, a very good bowler who once he switched to fast medium and chinamen broght down his average from as you stated 50. Fairly good performance.

As far as Miller's wicket per match is concered, it is because he was used as a shock bowler with the new ball, partly because of a dodgy back (war injury). True though his wickets p/m does drop him slightly below ATG bolwer status for me and he hardly had to do the hard work of long spells or the more difficult task of bowling with the old ball especially in the '48 Ashes where they had the use of the new ball every 55 overs and Johnston bowled the most overs. It can be said that on an ATG level as a batsman he simply wasn't good enough and as a bowler he didn't bowl enough, and for me as stated previously not quite good enough to hold down a place in a first AT XI.