Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[Plumbinfront]

As for Imran Khan, he is overrated. He could never quite perform with both bat and ball at the same time and as a fielder he is comfortably behind Sobers, Kallis, Dev and Botham. As a batsman, he is well behind Sobers and Kallis, and slightly behing Botham, Dev and Miller. As a bowler, he is surpassed by Hadlee. His captaincy record is nothing to write home about either although he must be praised for managing to unite a team as volatile as Pakistan.

 

[H4G]

I don't get it, why is Ikki posting irrelevant and meaningless stats again and again to prove that Sobers isn't an ATG bowler? Who said he is a comparable bowler to the McGraths and the Marshalls? The point is he is an excellent fifth bowler who would be a perfect fit in an all time side for that reason because he could bowl..well...anything. That 60/93 matches is rubbish. Tendulkar has scored 50 tons hasn't he? That would have taken him 50 matches. So for 150/200 matches he would have a crap average and that makes him a crap player...right?! See how flawed the logic is.

What did ikki post about Sobers which is irrelavent? He posted 100% truth backed with historic & statistical facts.
And where did I say that Inzamam is better than Tendulkar?

Problem with people like you is that you don't even read whats going on in thread and just blindly quote people & start hero-worshipping of your favorites or may be you do it just to increase your post count.

 

[Plumbinfront]

If I cared about post count I would have more than 75 posts. The Inzamam thing has been edited as that was for another thread in which you have, as is the norm, posted tripe.

 

[H4G]

As for Imran Khan, he is overrated. He could never quite perform with both bat and ball at the same time and as a fielder he is comfortably behind Sobers, Kallis, Dev and Botham. As a batsman, he is well behind Sobers and Kallis, and slightly behing Botham, Dev and Miller. As a bowler, he is surpassed by Hadlee. His captaincy record is nothing to write home about either although he must be praised for managing to unite a team as volatile as Pakistan.

3rd Test: Pakistan v India at Faisalabad, Jan 3-8, 1983 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Well I have to say you are either a troll or really know nothing about history of cricket. Imran is rated as one of the greatest captains ever based on performance & not for nothing like your hero Sobers is as a bowler.And its highly debatable whether Hadlee was better than Imran as a bowler or not.

 

[H4G]

If I cared about post count I would have more than 75 posts. The Inzamam thing has been edited as that was for another thread in which you have, as is the norm, posted tripe.

Welcome to the block list as you are just a troll because I never said Inzamam is better batsman than Tendulkar & everyone here knows it.Good bye

 

[Plumbinfront]

Haha, I like how you bring up ''performances''. You love numbers don't you....How about you tell me what Imran Khan's TEST record as captain looks like? How many matches did he win as a leader? Numbers show that he sucked as captain, has a worse win percentage than even Wasim and Miandad IIRC. If the tripe you posted in the match winning batsmen is how you rate players then this should be very simple to grasp....

Sobers is not my hero. I have voted for Kallis as you can see. However, both Kallis and Sobers are better than your hero Imran Khan. Pity he only has 4 votes *ouch*

 

[Plumbinfront]

Welcome to the ban list as you are just a troll because I never said Inzamam is better batsman than Tendulkar & everyone here knows it.Good bye

ban for what? Go and have a look at the match winning batsmen thread bro. Good bye!

 

[H4G]

This is why it is tedious arguing this with people who clearly don't appreciate that the other person had thought about this at length.

Warne, Lillee, Murali, Marshall, etc, all have records comparable with basically any other great you wish to name in their stead as the 'greatest'.

Sobers' bowling record, on the whole, is so far away from the plaudits it has gained that the suggestion can't be entertained by someone who appreciates the statistical nuances. I'll repeat:

When it comes to statistical arguments, you can often make a case that the batsman that averages 50 is better than the one which averages 55. The bowler that strikes at 60, is better than the one that strikes at 55. There are factors such as the pitch and opponent quality that make that a reasonable claim. These are estimations within reason. For Sobers, those things just don't wash and its a mystery why a record that is so beyond the commentary it has garnered still gets lauded by fans. Even those that never witnessed him play.


So I can clearly understand nuances in statistics which can favour a player here and there based on certain contexts. But no context that actually existed for Sobers can explain a career where for the majority of it you are bumping shoulders with the worst bowlers in Test history.



From 69 to retirement Sobers averaged 37 and struck @ 104 balls per wicket.

From 58-74 he averaged 33 and struck @ 91 balls per wicket.

Neither are what you would call effective compared to the average ratios of bowlers in his era.

If 61-68 is his peak, then 54-60 and 69-74 are his non-peak. His combined non-peak record is: 110 wickets, averaging 41, striking at 110 balls per wicket. This was his record for 60/93 tests and 13/20 years of playing cricket.

I think its time to rethink his bowling.



Yes, his ER is good...but if the best you can say about his bowling is that he was economical then that is a backhanded compliment. That's the kind of praise one gives to a part-timer. Not a front-line bowler or one who is considered one of the greatest all-rounders of all-time.

Nice research work bro,respect+.But you didn't leave any room for me to add anything about Sobers bowling here

 

[Pothas]

Nice research work bro,respect+.But you didn't leave any room for me to add anything about Sobers bowling here

Well I never thought I would thank Ikki for anything but if it means we don't have to hear from you then I was clearly wrong.

 

[Ikki]

Regarding Miller and Imran, I just don't see them as better batsmen than Sobers was a bowler and just as they were at times chosen as batsmen, Sobers was also chosen as a bowler but most importantly just as Sobers isn't good enough to make an AT XI as a bowler (and he isn't) Miller nor Imran are not good enough to make one as batsmen. Thats my point, apart from Botham, there are no perfect All Rounders, thats it. You either have to sacrifice batting (Imran, Miller) or bowling (Sobers, Kallis) and I would rather have a weaker 5th bowler (whose role is limited at best as a relief bolwer in an AT XI context) than #5 or 6 batsman.

Imran was clearly a good batsman by the end of his career and although he bowled less he still had the ability to be a world class bowler.

Miller, on the other hand, was always more than just an average batsman - where it is hard to even say Sobers was overall an average bowler - he was a very good one and for half his career averaged 45 with the bat and 22 with the ball - ending with a batting average of 37 which is still a way above average. If I read properly, he was actually more of a specialist batsman in the beginning (averaged almost 50 in domestic cricket) and was told to concentrate on his bowling since Australia basically had the batting covered. And from the beginning he was imperious at both...he didn't have to learn either. If not for the War and his war-time injuries he may have been remembered as an even better player.

Your other point I don't really feel is relevant. The reality is, Miller/Imran are bowling all-rounders. They don't have to justify their place as batsmen - although they're very good - but Sobers does to be able to bowl. And he simply can't. Even having him as a 5th bowler is useless because he is so far off the standard of his specialist-bowler teammates that he is taking overs away from them and costing his own team.

For me Sobers' bowling is really only relevant in a side which does not have great bowling depth and needs an all-rounder like him to plug gaps and bowl long overs.

I don't get it, why is Ikki posting irrelevant and meaningless stats again and again to prove that Sobers isn't an ATG bowler? Who said he is a comparable bowler to the McGraths and the Marshalls? The point is he is an excellent fifth bowler who would be a perfect fit in an all time side for that reason because he could bowl..well...anything. That 60/93 matches is rubbish. Tendulkar has scored 50 tons hasn't he? That would have taken him 50 matches. So for 150/200 matches he would have a crap average and that makes him a crap player...right?! See how flawed the logic is.

Do you actually read the posts? I'm citing averages of 40+ and strike-rates of 100+ for Sobers... no one is confusing him with McGrath here.

 

[kyear2]

Just ignore H4G as he is ignoring the point that is trying to be made and pushing an agenda that is not even being currently discussed.

 

[H4G]

Just ignore H4G as he is ignoring the point that is trying to be made and pushing an agenda that is not even being currently discussed.

Care to explain that what point I am ignoring & what agenda I am trying to push?

 

[H4G]

I've got no agenda here,looks like posting facts backed up by strong arguments & statistical evidence is making some people mad.

 

[Coronis]

For the record, I'd have Sobers in my side, even if he had never bowled a single ball in test cricket, his batting is that good. The fact that he is such a great fielder, and a good 5th bowling option is just a bonus, imo. Sobers is the only AR who would be on my side just for his batting/bowling. Hadlee and Imran come close. Oh, and if not for apartheid, Procter would be considered the greatest allrounder. Batting better than anyone bar Miller, Kallis and Sobers, and bowling right on par with Hadlee and Imran.

This guy is often forgotten, but shouldn't be.

Man, I have never seen such a drastic difference between First Class and Test bowling stats.

 

[Red]

For the record, I'd have Sobers in my side, even if he had never bowled a single ball in test cricket, his batting is that good.

That's exactly right. Plenty of good judges reckon he is the next best batsman after Bradman. I think he has some competition for that title, but there's no doubt he makes my ATG side as a batsman alone.

I regards to his bowling, I see it as extremely handy in a match situation. He might bowl 4 or 5 overs with a very old ball just before the new ball is due to give the quicks a chance to freshen up. And while his strike rate isn't awesome, the fact that he seems to have been very economical means that when he bowls in tandem with an ATG bowler, the batsmen are going to find it very difficult to score, meaning they'd have to attack one or the other.

 

[kyear2]

For the record, I'd have Sobers in my side, even if he had never bowled a single ball in test cricket, his batting is that good. The fact that he is such a great fielder, and a good 5th bowling option is just a bonus, imo. Sobers is the only AR who would be on my side just for his batting/bowling. Hadlee and Imran come close. Oh, and if not for apartheid, Procter would be considered the greatest allrounder. Batting better than anyone bar Miller, Kallis and Sobers, and bowling right on par with Hadlee and Imran.
.

True, Sobers makes the team based on his batting and slip fielding alone, the bowling is simply a large bonus.

Totally agree on Procter, as I have previously said, if not for the evils of the government, I believe that he and Richards would have been certainties for any AT XI. There was simply no way around it though.

Barry Richards
Jack Hobbs/ Len Hutton
Don Bradman
Viv Richards
Sachin Tendulkar
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Mike Procter
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Glenn Mcgrath

Procter brings better batting and fielding to the team and Barry brings that additional match winning ability with little drop off in technique, probably also a better slip option than Warne.

 

[the big bambino]

From 69 to retirement Sobers averaged 37 and struck @ 104 balls per wicket.

From 58-74 he averaged 33 and struck @ 91 balls per wicket.

Neither are what you would call effective compared to the average ratios of bowlers in his era.

If 61-68 is his peak, then 54-60 and 69-74 are his non-peak. His combined non-peak record is: 110 wickets, averaging 41, striking at 110 balls per wicket. This was his record for 60/93 tests and 13/20 years of playing cricket.

I think its time to rethink his bowling.



Yes, his ER is good...but if the best you can say about his bowling is that he was economical then that is a backhanded compliment. That's the kind of praise one gives to a part-timer. Not a front-line bowler or one who is considered one of the greatest all-rounders of all-time.

Ha ha. I see the discrepancy. You mention his peak as 61-68. So I took figures from 69-74. That appeared to be a reasonable assumption. BUT!!! I took my figures from cricketarchive which takes figures from ENGLISH season 1969. The result is the discrepancy. Crickarchive filters out the tests in 68/69 season but played in early 1969. Statsguru picks those matches up.

However I think your opinion on Sobers in the 69-74 era are distorted by 3 tests played against Aus in early 1969. He averaged 76 in those matches whereas he averaged 40 overall in the series. However from 1969 Sobers played 5 more series and averaged 28, 33, 33, 28, 30 taking 53 wkts overall at 30.96.

I think a fairer indication of Sobers' bowling is his form over 5 series not 3 tests. So I'd tend to rate his form in the latter period from mid 69 to retirement. Its fairer.

I also think rating Sobers' bowling to a frontliner is a standard designed to see him fail. He is a batting all rounder and his bowling is his off suit. Therefore it should be compared to say Imran's batting (though I can't think of stat comparison atm) or Kallis' bowling. In that regard he is certainly a candidate for greatest AR.

 

[the big bambino]

It's quite clear his stats would equal or better those of Imran, Hadlee and co if his awesome WSC numbers were included. Same for Viv Richards as well

I think he averaged around 26 in wsc. Thats terrific as it was against great sides but also on friendly pacey pitches. He also took a 7 fer v the WI under very dodgy lights with a red ball too maybe. I don't think that supertest should be included in his figures so ffavourable were the circumstances were for him.

Nonetheless, and if my memory is right, his ave would have gone up if you include supertests.

 

[Red]

Barry Richards
Jack Hobbs/ Len Hutton
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Mike Procter
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Glenn Mcgrath

Just fixed that for you kyear. Has to be this way.

 

[kyear2]

I think he averaged around 26 in wsc. Thats terrific as it was against great sides but also on friendly pacey pitches. He also took a 7 fer v the WI under very dodgy lights with a red ball too maybe. I don't think that supertest should be included in his figures so ffavourable were the circumstances were for him.

Nonetheless, and if my memory is right, his ave would have gone up if you include supertests.

I belive that Lillee's avg in WSC was actually 23, but he took the most wickets by far. Procter from memory had the best averge. He really would have been special.