Top Five Most Underrated Cricketers Ever.

[viriya]

If anything, the fact that Sobers got his bowling average to drop by 20 points shows how good he was with the ball after that. His bowling is ridiculously underrated imo. Handled a workload far higher than any other batting all rounder, and had several series where he was had genuinely world class returns with the ball.

It's really not surprising considering he played 93 tests.. and he bowled more later.. imo his bowling is overrated - a strike rate of 92 is really pretty poor. Worst of any bowler with 175+ wickets:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ualval2=wickets;template=results;type=bowling

 

[steve132]

If anything, the fact that Sobers got his bowling average to drop by 20 points shows how good he was with the ball after that. His bowling is ridiculously underrated imo. Handled a workload far higher than any other batting all rounder, and had several series where he was had genuinely world class returns with the ball.

In the 1960-1968 period, he dominated with bat and ball like no other cricketer ever. Look up some stats in that period and since you love spreadsheets. And 8 years is a ****ing long time. Almost as long as the entire career of someone like Flintoff.

Absolutely. Longtime posters will know that we have had this discussion before, and I don't want to derail the thread by rehashing it. I would only say that virtually everyone who saw Test cricket in the 1960's agreed that Sobers would have been selected for a strong Test side with either bat or ball - the classic definition of an all-rounder. IMO Miller, Procter, Imran and Botham are the other postwar all-rounders who could clearly meet this standard. Other players' claims are more debatable.

The other observation I would make is that many player evaluations now seem to be based almost exclusively on their statistical records without any reference to the historical context in which these achievements occurred. One classic example is the relative standing of two Surrey batsmen, Peter May and Ken Barrington. They were fairly close contemporaries, born just four years apart, although May retired early. Although every cricketer who played with or against them considered May to be easily the greater batsman, many of today's fans - who did not see either man bat - have been swayed by Barrington's Test average of 58 and regard him as the superior player. It's hard to accept this, unless you think that every player and journalist of the period was totally misinformed or inept. The fact is that, valuable though Stats Guru is, official statistics do not tell the whole story about a player's ability and achievements.

 

[viriya]

The other observation I would make is that many player evaluations now seem to be based almost exclusively on their statistical records without any reference to the historical context in which these achievements occurred. One classic example is the relative standing of two Surrey batsmen, Peter May and Ken Barrington. They were fairly close contemporaries, born just four years apart, although May retired early. Although every cricketer who played with or against them considered May to be easily the greater batsman, many of today's fans - who did not see either man bat - have been swayed by Barrington's Test average of 58 and regard him as the superior player. It's hard to accept this, unless you think that every player and journalist of the period was totally misinformed or inept. The fact is that, valuable though Stats Guru is, official statistics do not tell the whole story about a player's ability and achievements.

Good point, but isn't it more about results than ability when it comes to rating players? IMO Barry Richards would have had a great career if he played Test cricket more, but since he didn't he doesn't get mentioned when considering the best Test batsmen.. Similarly even if Peter May had more ability than Barrington, at Test level he didn't perform at the same level - actually he had a lower strike rate to the supposed stonewalling Barrington..

It's the classic debate.. for example there are a lot of Sri Lankan cricket fans who still consider Aravinda to be SL's best ever batsmen, but even if he did have more ability than say a Sanga or a Mahela, he really didn't perform in Tests at the level he could enough to be considered greater than them.

 

[the big bambino]

I was waiting and there you have it. People who quote Sobers SR as the reason why they think his bowling over rated just don't understand cricket. Sobers was a versatile bowler. He was asked to do the stock bowling role with a consequential impact on his SR. Whereas if he could only bowl seam up with the new ball his SR and ave would've been lower and his bowling held in higher regard by people who know excel better than cricket.

 

[viriya]

He was asked to do the stock bowling role with a consequential impact on his SR. Whereas if he could only bowl seam up with the new ball his SR and ave would've been lower and his bowling held in higher regard by people who know excel better than cricket.

Kallis was a stock bowler who never got to bowl with the new ball.. his SR is a relatively respectable ~70.

Just because Sobers could bowl anything doesn't mean he was actually effective with everything. True, he had 2-3 great all-round series, other than that people talk him up cos of his versatility, not necessarily the actual record.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sobers also bowled almost 10 overs more per innings than Kallis on average. That takes a toll.

 

[the big bambino]

Kallis was a stock bowler who never got to bowl with the new ball.. his SR is a relatively respectable ~70.

Just because Sobers could bowl anything doesn't mean he was actually effective with everything. True, he had 2-3 great all-round series, other than that people talk him up cos of his versatility, not necessarily the actual record.

See what I mean? And if Kallis bowled containing finger spin his dexterity would have made him more valuable and his SR would've suffered as a result.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Viriya, if you can't understand the value Sobers provided by being a workhorse bowler who could snap out a couple of wickets each innings, and simply point to his strike rate to say he's overrated, then I have nothing to say to you. Gibbs, a top quality bowler, bowled in the same side as Sobers and had a SR of 88. I'd say Sobers did a fine job when you consider that arguably the world's best spinner at the time had such a high SR.

 

[cnerd123]

Also, if you define an ATG allrounder as one who would have been selected in their own side as either a batsman or bowler, then Sobers fits in there, regardless of what is SR was, because he actually did make his side as a bowler alone.

 

[viriya]

See what I mean? And if Kallis bowled containing finger spin his dexterity would have made him more valuable and his SR would've suffered as a result.

Spinners have a higher strike rate yes, but that's usually countered by them getting more wickets/game. In Sobers' case, he got 2.5 wickets/game.

Viriya, if you can't understand the value Sobers provided by being a workhorse bowler who could snap out a couple of wickets each innings, and simply point to his strike rate to say he's overrated, then I have nothing to say to you. Gibbs, a top quality bowler, bowled in the same side as Sobers and had a SR of 88. I'd say Sobers did a fine job when you consider that arguably the world's best spinner at the time had such a high SR.

Gibbs had a relatively high strike rate (even for a spinner) as well yes, but he also got wickets at a 29 average with 4 wickets/game - which is a significant difference.

All I'm saying is Sobers was a workhorse similar to Kallis, and even if he was more talented as a bowler he didn't have the results to speak of aside from a few great series.

Also, if you define an ATG allrounder as one who would have been selected in their own side as either a batsman or bowler, then Sobers fits in there, regardless of what is SR was, because he actually did make his side as a bowler alone.

He got selected as a bowler, but he kept his spot as a batsman (considering he averaged 50+ with the ball after 20 tests).. Thilan Samaraweera got his first start at Test level as a off-spinning all-rounder, but he turned out to be more valuable as a bat.. doesn't mean we should consider Samaraweera a genuine all-rounder because of that fact.

 

[cnerd123]

Samaraweera didn't end up with 235 test wickets and 6 five-fers tho.

If he did he would certainly be in consideration.

 

[harsh.ag]

Lacking a JBMAC post here.

 

[viriya]

Samaraweera didn't end up with 235 test wickets and 6 five-fers tho.

If he did he would certainly be in consideration.

Yes, so the definition of a genuine all-rounder shouldn't be just that they were/could be picked for both disciplines.. imo if they are average to better than average in both disciplines that is enough qualification.. in numbers terms, anyone who can average 30+ with the bat and ~35 with the ball over a long period should be considered a genuine all-rounder.. those who do even better at that, say Aubrey Faulkner with a 40+ batting average and a 26 bowling average are the actual ATG genuine all-rounders in that sense, where they were better than average in both disciplines..

 

[the big bambino]

Spinners have a higher strike rate yes, but that's usually countered by them getting more wickets/game. In Sobers' case, he got 2.5 wickets/game.

You do realise that Sobers was a batsman before he was a bowler don't you with the consequential impact on his wkts/match?

 

[viriya]

You do realise that Sobers was a batsman before he was a bowler don't you with the consequential impact on his wkts/match?

I'm not sure what we're arguing here.. if you're saying Sobers was a batting all-rounder there's no disagreement. If you're saying he "could've" gotten more wickets if he didn't bat in every game, the same argument could be made for someone like Pollock who almost certainly would've averaged higher with the bat if he wasn't the main bowler in his side. Irrelevant at the end of the day.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yes, because time periods, and the role within the team do not matter #No-Nuance-No-Dice

 

[cnerd123]

Yes, so the definition of a genuine all-rounder shouldn't be just that they were/could be picked for both disciplines.. imo if they are average to better than average in both disciplines that is enough qualification.. in numbers terms, anyone who can average 30+ with the bat and ~35 with the ball over a long period should be considered a genuine all-rounder.. those who do even better at that, say Aubrey Faulkner with a 40+ batting average and a 26 bowling average are the actual ATG genuine all-rounders in that sense, where they were better than average in both disciplines..

Why not a combination of the two? Define an ATG Allrounder as:
- Good enough to make their side (or maybe expand that to 'most sides') on either discipline
- Above average performance in both disciplines

If they don't meet both, they are a Batting or Bowling allrounder.

Sobers does meet both. You need to consider, as mentioned several times, his role in the side, the era he played in, and the conditions he played in.

He also earns bonus points for being a Test-class bowler of pace, swing and spin (of both types). As far as I'm aware no one has managed to break down bowling statistics for Sobers in each of the three styles, but it is suggested his stats take quite a hit due to playing the role of a containing spin option for chunks of his career.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm not sure what we're arguing here.. if you're saying Sobers was a batting all-rounder there's no disagreement. If you're saying he "could've" gotten more wickets if he didn't bat in every game, the same argument could be made for someone like Pollock who almost certainly would've averaged higher with the bat if he wasn't the main bowler in his side. Irrelevant at the end of the day.

Ok, point out another batting all rounder who got 2.5 wickets a match after 93 matches over 20 years. Then we'll talk about whether his bowling was overrated or no.

 

[the big bambino]

I'm not sure what we're arguing here.. if you're saying Sobers was a batting all-rounder there's no disagreement. If you're saying he "could've" gotten more wickets if he didn't bat in every game, the same argument could be made for someone like Pollock who almost certainly would've averaged higher with the bat if he wasn't the main bowler in his side. Irrelevant at the end of the day.

My word... You don't rate sobers bowling bcos of the high SR remember. Mitigating factors that contribute to it have been explained to you.

 

[viriya]

Ok, point out another batting all rounder who got 2.5 wickets a match after 93 matches over 20 years. Then we'll talk about whether his bowling was overrated or no.

I do consider him the GOAT all-rounder partly because of this. That doesn't mean his bowling wasn't overrated.

My word... You don't rate sobers bowling bcos of the high SR remember. Mitigating factors that contribute to it have been explained to you.

A combination of SR and wkts/match shows that even though he was a versatile bowler he was never much more than a stock bowler in practice. When people hype him up as the GOAT all-rounder it's usually "and he could bowl anything", without much focus on his actual record.