• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

Who was the better Test cricketer: Imran or Sobers?

  • Total voters
    169
harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
CaptainGrumpy said:
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).
Click to expand...
No.
 
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
Flem274* said:
this is one of the strangest replies to my posting i've seen
Click to expand...
You're welcome. In future try to be more constructive instead of "they're different, they're incomparable, its too difficult for me to realise, accept or admit that cricket is a game of runs and wickets on a scoreboard, so move on to a new topic". Unless you don't think that cricket is a game of runs and wickets on a scoreboard. In which case I am really interested in your view.

I suspect you have not read the previous page of this thread, in particular post #883, before you posted with "apples and oranges".
 
Last edited:
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
CaptainGrumpy said:
You're welcome. In future try to be more constructive instead of "they're different, they're incomparable, its too difficult for me to realise, accept or admit that cricket is a game of runs and wickets on a scoreboard, so move on to a new topic". Unless you don't think that cricket is a game of runs and wickets on a scoreboard. In which case I am really interested in your view.

I suspect you have not read the previous page of this thread, in particular post #883, before you posted with "apples and oranges".
Click to expand...
you have a small penis
 
bagapath

bagapath

International Captain
in a team that already has hobbs, hutton, bradman, v.richards, tendulkar, gilchrist (wk), marshall, warne, lillee, murali
who will be the first choice to complete the XI, sobers or imran?
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
bagapath said:
in a team that already has hobbs, hutton, bradman, v.richards, tendulkar, gilchrist (wk), marshall, warne, lillee, murali
who will be the first choice to complete the XI, sobers or imran?
Click to expand...
boot out a batsman, lillee or a spinner and play both.
 
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
bagapath said:
in a team that already has hobbs, gavaskar, bradman, v.richards, lara, sobers sangakarra (wk), imran, hadlee, marshall, murali
who will be the 12th man on a spinning pitch so that Warne can play, Marshall or Lillee?
Click to expand...
It is a tough decision. I'd probably look at the factors on match day and see how Marshall is feeling with niggling injuries and what not. But I'd probably drop Marshall, and not Hadlee, and open with Imran and Hadlee. Sobers at first change. Then bowl spin with Warne and Murali.
 
Last edited:
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
CaptainGrumpy said:
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 with a positive net runs per wicket of 95 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.
Click to expand...
bump
 
Last edited:
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
bagapath said:
in a team that already has hobbs, hutton, bradman, v.richards, tendulkar, gilchrist (wk), marshall, warne, lillee, murali
who will be the first choice to complete the XI, sobers or imran?
Click to expand...
I guess this is a good question to determine who you'd rather have as an all-rounder; and in that case I'd rather have Imran. But I'd probably replace Tendulkar with Sobers and have them both ;).
 
C

CaptainGrumpy

Banned
Ikki said:
I guess this is a good question to determine who you'd rather have as an all-rounder
Click to expand...
No. Its really not. With respect to bagapath if he is not aware, and to yourself if you were not being facetious, its a terribly fallacious post. That is why Flem and I independently changed the team selection.

Which is what you have done yourself.
 
Last edited:
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
OverratedSanity said:
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.
Click to expand...
What you mean when he was playing without the dual pressure of bowling and batting and thus wasn't being an all rounder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top