Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[smash84]

Around 10 or 11 I'd venture..

At least that many I would think if not more.

I think that is one of the advantages Garry Sobers had i.e. playing long series.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

John Snow deserves a metion here...

Does he? Why?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

This is a very rough outlay that many cricketing statisticians have probably done a far better job of. But I loathe Sobers difference of batting average to his bowling average as being indicative of being a better all rounder than Imran. Because while that provides a handy rule of thumb as to a players worth in a team, it ignores whether the person is a true front line bowler, or more of a '5th bowler'. Its also not written very clearly, and I may edit it to later so that it is easier to read. But anyone who loves cricket statistics should be able to follow it.

The runs per wicket averages were taken from here: Why 55 is the new 50 | Decade Review 2009 | ESPN Cricinfo.

I have used actual wickets per match at the actual average, and then deducted that from the average of the era. I would happy using 36 as a blanket runs per wicket. I can see that the 1950's is very low, which means Sobers would be get say another ~6.8 runs with the bat but lose 3.6 of those runs with the ball.

There will be plenty of flaws of this as a statistical analysis. I concede that it is crude and lacks precision. I did it very quickly and without any deep thought or critical analysis. But it starts elucidating the point and for many of us debunks the myth that Sobers, as great as he was, and he truly is great, as a batsman alone, carries himself well above with the bat, let alone carrying his share of wickets, was the greatest all rounder, nor was he a better all rounder than Imran.

Feel free to critique and suggest improvements. If someone has links to far better statistical analysis, then by all means share that. This is just a straight out, average runs in actual innings as against average runs per wicket with actual wickets rated against the runs per wicket average of the time.

Imran, 4.11*22.81; – 1970’s 36.72; 4.11*13.09; 53.79 runs under average; Batting average 37.69; 1.43 * ~1 run = match value ~55 positive.
Sobers, 2.52*34.03 - 1960’s 36.36; 2.52*2.33 = 5.8; 57.78; 21.42 * 1.72 = match value 36.85 + 5.8 = ~42.65 match value positive.

1.43 innings per match for Imran. 1.72 innings per match for Sobers. I thought actual innings per match was fairest, (and necessary after using actual wickets taken) and definitely benefits Garfield no end in comparison. I could have used the 1980's average for Imran, but it doesn't make a tad of difference to the point I am trying to make as he will still be ahead by some margin. He will lose a run or two of value (4.11 with the ball for every run, so that is say 4 runs by using the 1980's but then offset by his batting average and his 1.4 times at bat, so that is roughly only 2.6 runs of match value decreased from his 1970's score of 55.).
.
So a batsman who does not bowl averaging 36 is worth 0. A specialist batsman averaging 30, is worth -6 (* average innings per match batted). Wicket keepers are excluded in value.

A bowler averaging 30 with the ball, 0 with the bat, taking 6 wickets per test is worth 0 (6 wickets per test at 30 with the ball is useful for a player but not even Chris Martin averages 0 with the bat). If they average 15 with the bat, at bat on average 1.5 times per test, suddenly they are worth a major match winning 22.25 match value positive.

I have always suspected that bowlers are underrated. Especially the great bowlers. But when a great bowler can carry their own with the bat, they then become an amazing player for their team's success.

I've not done one for Kallis, nor any other allrounder. It would appear that the Don Bradman will be the clear leader on this analysis with his statistical outlier of a batting average. I suspect Hadlee will be doing quite well too, but not as well as Imran.

Problems with this method analysis: possibly players who bowled far more often than they should have? But the player could then be critiqued as a batsman alone. Any other problems with this analysis? It appears at first blush, even in its most crude method and admittedly while ignoring fielding, as a fair measure of all round cricketing ability in comparison of eras and players against each other, and it more fairly rates bowlers value for taking wickets. It possibly penalizes in the eyes of some the players who did bowl as often as they should have, but that is upto their captains (and the player to say bowl me).

More importantly it completely ignores bowling strike rate, which is one area that Imran is well ahead of Sir Garfield, but that would be a far more complex equation needing further variables to reveal its value.

 

[Zinzan]

Depends how you want to slice it and dice it. Here's a very good statistical analysis that provides a better understanding of Sobers, particularly the bowler. Stats analysis: Garry Sobers: An allrounder like no other | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

In the 8 year period from Jan 1961 to Dec 1968, Sobers played 79 of his 93 tests, averaged 63 with the bat, (easily the best average in that period followed by Ken Barrington who was under 60.) and 125 wickets at 27 with the ball (4th best average behind Trueman, Gibbs & P Pollock.)

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Depends how you want to slice it and dice it. Here's a very good statistical analysis that provides a better understanding of Sobers, particularly the bowler. Stats analysis: Garry Sobers: An allrounder like no other | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

In the 8 year period from Jan 1961 to Dec 1968, Sobers played 79 of his 93 tests, averaged 63 with the bat, (easily the best average in that period followed by Ken Barrington who was under 60.) and 125 wickets at 27 with the ball (4th best average behind Trueman, Gibbs & P Pollock.)

Play that game with Imran in the 1980's (1980-88) as captain, his bowling average is like 17.77 and his batting average over 50. It gets worse for Sobers.

I had read that article you refer to above and was appalled that it used the difference in batting and bowling average as a means of comparison and had Kallis as number 1, Sobers at 2. That is another reason I wrote the above post. Totally overlooks the ability to actually take wickets, or more accurately, the value of having actually taken wickets, which is coupled with being a front line bowler.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Play that game with Imran in the 1980's (1980-88) as captain, his bowling average is like 17.77 and his batting average over 50. It gets worse for Sobers.

I had read that article you refer to above and was appalled that it used the difference in batting and bowling average as a means of comparison and had Kallis as number 1, Sobers at 2. That is another reason I wrote the above post. Totally overlooks the ability to actually take wickets and actually be a front line bowler.

There's no way Imran's batting average was that high during the 80-88 period. Maybe if you go beyond 89 when his batting became almost his primary discipline.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

There's no way Imran's batting average was that high during the 80-88 period. Maybe if you go beyond 89 when his batting became almost his primary discipline.

Beyond 89 he is hitting 59 as an average. As captain in 82-92 he is averaging 52 with the bat.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There you go:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

He averaged 39 in 80-88

 

[Zinzan]

There you go:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

He averaged 39 in 80-88

Yeah, I suspected so

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

There you go:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

He averaged 39 in 80-88

Thanks - but thats 9 years, Ill take 7 years of 1981- 1988 with a batting average of 43.58 and bowling average of 17.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/40560.html?class=1;spanmax1=02+Jan+1989;spanmin1=01+jan+1982;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

 

[harsh.ag]

I had read that article you refer to above and was appalled that it used the difference in batting and bowling average as a means of comparison and had Kallis as number 1, Sobers at 2. That is another reason I wrote the above post. Totally overlooks the ability to actually take wickets, or more accurately, the value of having actually taken wickets, which is coupled with being a front line bowler.

Pumping up Imran's batting overlooks the ability to actually play influencing knocks, which is coupled with being a front line batsman

 

[Zinzan]

I had read that article you refer to above and was appalled that it used the difference in batting and bowling average as a means of comparison and had Kallis as number 1, Sobers at 2. That is another reason I wrote the above post. Totally overlooks the ability to actually take wickets, or more accurately, the value of having actually taken wickets, which is coupled with being a front line bowler.

Well there is some true there... Kallis & Sobers are the best Batting all-rounders of all-time..and Imran & Miller the best Bowling all-rounders.. Although what Botham did between 1978-1985 was pretty damn special.

Incidentally & captaincy aside, how do you rate Miller vs. Imran?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Pumping up Imran's batting overlooks the ability to actually play influencing knocks, which is coupled with being a front line batsman

Its just runs per wickets in matches played as against the runs per wickets average of the eras. Its just adding wickets taken per match as against runs scored per match. I'm not pumping up his batting. I was using the entirety of a career, Zinzan started suggesting using period of peak prowess.

It really makes for interesting revelations about who was contributing to the success of a side and comparisons of players, allrounders and batsmen alike, and who was not contributing as much.

 

[harsh.ag]

Its just runs per wickets in matches played as against the eras. Its just adding wickets taken per match as against runs scored per match. I'm not pumping up his batting. I was using the entirety of a career, Zinzan started suggesting using period of peak prowess.

But all runs are not scored equal, just like all wickets are not taken equal. Can't say definitively which of a bowling all rounder and batting all rounder is better. Just not possible.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

But all runs are not scored equal, just like all wickets are not taken equal. Can't say definitively which of a bowling all rounder and batting all rounder is better. Just not possible.

That is why career averages are used to smooth out that rough fact that not all runs and wickets are as easy to score or collect. It works better the longer someone's career was. Because in the end in averages, all runs are treated equally and all wickets are treated equally. But what can be done, is see who is well above their own eras and the players they played against using a standardised value, which this method does do. But even in a single match, day 2 runs are worth the same as day 5 runs, and day 5 wickets are worth the same as day 2 wickets. There will be different grounds and different pitches and different players, but the runs per wicket average of each era reflects this fact where something becomes statistically significant. Which the article is about "why 55 is the new 50".

What do you know, Don Bradman is going to be 1.52 * 62+ something for a score of 95.09. Seems about right to me even if Khan scores the second highest on this method with a score in the mid 50's.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

If people have suggestions of refinement to the calculation so as to compare players and playing records, I am all ears.

 

[harsh.ag]

That is why career averages are used to smooth out that rough fact that not all runs and wickets are as easy to score or collect. It works better the longer someone's career was. Because in the end in averages, all runs are treated equally and all wickets are treated equally. But what can be done, is see who is well above their own eras and the players they played against using a standardised value, which this method does do. But even in a single match, day 2 runs are worth the same as day 5 runs, and day 5 wickets are worth the same as day 2 wickets. There will be different grounds and different pitches and different players, but the runs per wicket average of each era reflects this fact where something becomes statistically significant. Which the article is about "why 55 is the new 50".

You could also use your own eyes and brains. Also, the only way to differentiate between great batting and bowling ARs is if you definitively rank one skill ahead of the other. And that's fine, but you have to go ahead and say so.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You could also use your own eyes and brains. Also, the only way to differentiate between great batting and bowling ARs is if you definitively rank one skill ahead of the other. And that's fine, but you have to go ahead and say so.

This is so pretentious. It's funny because people are always one extreme or the other. Use your eyes and ignore stats, or ignore common sense and just stats whore.

It's both. You absolutely have to use both your common sense and stats.

 

[harsh.ag]

This is so pretentious. It's funny because people are always one extreme or the other. Use your eyes and ignore stats, or ignore common sense and just stats whore.

It's both. You absolutely have to use both your common sense and stats.

Exactly what I meant to say. Not the best sentence structure. Meant "also" as "in addition to stats".

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Also, the only way to differentiate between great batting and bowling ARs is if you definitively rank one skill ahead of the other.

This sentence makes no sense to me. The result of cricket is determined by the score. The score is made up of runs from completed innings, which has a finite amount of wickets. Its the scoreboard. Its batsmen & bowlers. Why do I need to rank a skill ahead of another skill? Cricket is runs and wickets. What's the score? Who's winning? Runs and wickets.

By using the runs per wicket average, I am deliberately treating both skills equally. Because they are equal. It is not surprising then that I find bowlers to be underrated, because you do not seem to appreciate that runs per wicket applies to batsmen and bowlers equally for their teams fortunes to be successful (which is why I give favour to bowler's with a lower SR).