smash84
The Tiger King
At least that many I would think if not more.Around 10 or 11 I'd venture..
I think that is one of the advantages Garry Sobers had i.e. playing long series.
At least that many I would think if not more.Around 10 or 11 I'd venture..
Does he? Why?John Snow deserves a metion here...
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.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.)
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.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.
Beyond 89 he is hitting 59 as an average. As captain in 82-92 he is averaging 52 with the bat.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.
Yeah, I suspected soThere 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.There you go:
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
He averaged 39 in 80-88
Pumping up Imran's batting overlooks the ability to actually play influencing knocks, which is coupled with being a front line batsmanI 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.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.
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.Pumping up Imran's batting overlooks the ability to actually play influencing knocks, which is coupled with being a front line batsman
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.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.
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".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.
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.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".
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.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.
Exactly what I meant to say. Not the best sentence structure. Meant "also" as "in addition to stats".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.
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.Also, the only way to differentiate between great batting and bowling ARs is if you definitively rank one skill ahead of the other.