Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[bagapath]

Well it obviously depends on the composition of the rest of the team; that's the point we've been trying to make to you.

I think if you took a cross section of every team in the history of cricket, more of them would benefit more from replacing a player with Imran than replacing a player with Sobers, which is why I rate Imran higher. However, stacking the deck with a certain team composition with an obvious requirement as you did with your ten player team doesn't really help to answer the question.

Of course it depends on the team composition. Of course I get it.
I can settle for the answer you are giving. I could have settled for it long before this discussion even began. But I am trying to deal with the question this thread is addressing.

I am just trying to ask myself where my heart is leaning. Do I want the superbat+fifthbowler Sobers or superbowler+hardworkingbat Imran if I have to choose only one of them? Considering I have seen a lot of Imran's career as it was unfolding, and seen Sobers in vintage cricket footage and read a lot of stuff written about them both, I can be reasonably sure how good they were in their primary and secondary roles and also as a package. The question is, who is the superior cricketer?

Taking them both in my team is an obvious choice; it also makes this whole thread irrelevant.

Using different permutations for the team composition....
Knowing their strengths and weaknesses....
Understanding the value they bring to the team....
Gun to my head...
Who do I choose?

You are welcome to say you would choose one of them conditionally, or choose one of them in most circumstances. Saying you will choose both doesn't serve the purpose of this thread.

Of course they both were outstanding cricketers.
Of course they both can walk into almost all ATG teams.
But who deserves to be in more such teams than the other one?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hahaha. Ok.

If there is one last spot in a team, who would you take, niazi or soby?

Dunno.

BUT STOP CALLING HIM NIAZI

 

[bagapath]

Dunno.

BUT STOP CALLING HIM NIAZI

Come closer. Let me whisper in your ears.

Niazi
Niazi
Niazi

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Of course it depends on the team composition. Of course I get it.
I can settle for the answer you are giving. I could have settled for it long before this discussion even began. But I am trying to deal with the question this thread is addressing.

I am just trying to ask myself where my heart is leaning. Do I want the superbat+fifthbowler Sobers or superbowler+hardworkingbat Imran if I have to choose only one of them? Considering I have seen a lot of Imran's career as it was unfolding, and seen Sobers in vintage cricket footage and read a lot of stuff written about them both, I can be reasonably sure how good they were in their primary and secondary roles and also as a package. The question is, who is the superior cricketer?

Taking them both in my team is an obvious choice; it also makes this whole thread irrelevant.

Using different permutations for the team composition....
Knowing their strengths and weaknesses....
Understanding the value they bring to the team....
Gun to my head...
Who do I choose?

You are welcome to say you would choose one of them conditionally, or choose one of them in most circumstances. Saying you will choose both doesn't serve the purpose of this thread.

Of course they both were outstanding cricketers.
Of course they both can walk into almost all ATG teams.
But who deserves to be in more such teams than the other one?

They both do. That is not the question. They both can because there are eleven places in a team, and they perform different roles. Who was the better cricketer? That is the question. For me it is obviously Imran Khan and the statistics support that for the wickets he took for their cost and the runs he scored. He's 15 runs ahead of Sobers per match when the value of his wickets is taken into account. Just so many incredibly cheap wickets from Imran for the team, 4.11 of them per match on average, while his batting does not need to be carried by the other batsman as it would for Marshall or McGrath. Massive contributor to any side.

If I asked you who the better cricketer was between Ishant Sharma and Ricky Ponting, you know the answer. They perform different roles, may have different head to head success, but you still know the answer. Better cricketer between Glen McGrath and Marlon Samuels. Again you probably know the answer. Cricket is a game of runs and wickets. Wickets cost runs to a bowler. Batsman can only score runs until they lose their wicket. There is a direct link to each and every cricketer, their runs per wicket average. Whether it is their own wicket lost, or an opposition wicket taken.

 

[bagapath]

Who was the better cricketer? For me it is obviously Imran Khan.

Good answer. Totally acceptable.

He's 15 runs ahead of Sobers per match when the value of his wickets is taken into account.

Whatever. You believe in your own stats. I imagine having to choose between them for the last remaining spot in the team to decide who between them is the superior cricketer.

You don't have to follow my line of thought. I will certainly not follow yours.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I imagine having to choose between them for the last remaining spot in the team to decide who between them is the superior cricketer.

You don't have to follow my line of thought.

Its because your line of thought is fallacious. We have tried to help you Bagapath. Flem has, PEWS has, I have. You beg the question with your "there are already 5 atg batsmen and 4 atg bowlers and a keeper, now decide who you want". You're not answering who is the better cricketer, you're answering who best fits the team you have already selected. You have the conclusion of Sobers in your premises, and you cannot seem to realise that.

Imran and Sobers perform different roles bagapath. Imran was the main strike bowler for his team for the majority of career, Sobers a support act with the ball (even when he opened the bowling in a spinner dominated attack). Imran was meant to be more of a support act with the bat, but he more than carried his own weight whereas Sobers a primary run scorer.

With all due respect bagapath, you are fallacious and not of sound logic.

Put it this way, you have three atg bowlers (including Warne and Murali), 6 atg batsman, and a wicket keeper. Who do you pick as the final selection for a test match, Imran or Sobers? Can you see the problem now? Or do I need to make the test match at the WACA for you?

 

[Zinzan]

Not sure what's more annoying in this thread, the constant editing or the constant 'liking' of anything certain posters type.

I think I'll lock in the serial liking thing, it's more cringe-worthy.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I had to like your post Zinzan.

 

[bagapath]

With all due respect bagapath, you are fallacious and not of sound logic.

Thanks for your guidance. I will try and become a better human being from now on (soaring orchestral music fills up the soundtrack).

 

[Red]

If I asked you who the better cricketer was between Ishant Sharma and Ricky Ponting, you know the answer. They perform different roles, may have different head to head success, but you still know the answer. Better cricketer between Glen McGrath and Marlon Samuels. Again you probably know the answer. Cricket is a game of runs and wickets. Wickets cost runs to a bowler. Batsman can only score runs until they lose their wicket. There is a direct link to each and every cricketer, their runs per wicket average. Whether it is their own wicket lost, or an opposition wicket taken.

This is a bit pointless. Ishant Sharma and Ponting? McGrath and Samuels? I mean, come on...

The real reason this is interesting is that we have two cricketers who on balance can be seen as the same. Sobers can be counted among the 5 greatest batsmen of all time, plus he is a decent bowler. Imran can be counted among the 5 greatest quicks of all time, plus he is a decent batsman.

But it's more than just a mathematical formula of runs output vs runs given away/wickets. Sobers brings conceivably the most aggressive batting of all time and the ability to steal a game in a session, as they say. His bowling at ATG level is handy, but not strike level. Imran is a master of swing bowling, truly brilliant with the ball in his prime. His batting is handy, but no better than a number 8 in an ATG discussion, but still a valid point. It's a good discussion IMO.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

This is a bit pointless. Ishant Sharma and Ponting? McGrath and Samuels? I mean, come on...

No its not pointless. Because people instictively know who was better, despite the fact that one was a bowler and the other a batsman. It serves the point that comparison can be made. It can be made because cricket is a game of runs and wickets. I am merely putting that comparison into a runs above and below par. Some cricketers are below par, some are well above par. I am setting par at the average runs per wicket in the decade. It ignores fielding.

But it's more than just a mathematical formula of runs output vs runs given away/wickets.

I should have started a new thread. And while I don't disagree entirely with what you wrote above, ask yourself this, does the scoreboard determine the winner, the loser or whether a match is a draw? A bowler can take 5 wickets and bowl horribly, he can bowl incredibly well and take 0 wickets. It averages out. A batsman can get a bad decision from the umpire that either gives him out or not out. It averages out. Never perfectly. But Bradman was a better batsman than Chris Martin, and the averages also suggest this is the case. Cricket is a game of runs and wickets. Some cricketers are below par, some are well above par. I am setting par for a cricketer at the average runs per wicket in each decade. Its not perfect*. But it is a better means for comparison to look at the true value of a bowler over their career, and how often their captain bowled them over their career. Just how many wickets that bowler took per match. Just how many runs that batsman scored per innings. What did they actually do over their career. Not what their peak potential was in their MOTM performances. Nor there ordinary worst. But its all included.

His batting is handy, but no better than a number 8 in an ATG discussion, but still a valid point.

And Imran can bat 7 in an ATG team if Gilly, Flower, Sanga or AB is not the keeper.

*For example, maybe a slight adjustment needs to be made for leg byes and byes. But that would be very small as against the rest of extras and runs off the bat. Insignificant I would think at first blush. Batsmen who score quickly before getting out give less time for extras to be accumulated or for teammates to score runs which is averaged out by batsman who occupy the crease and bat time, and often save matches from being losses. Bowling SR is only weakly reflected in how many wickets the bowler took per match. Its not perfect. But it is incredibly useful as a comparative guide. Commentators intuitively know and express that bowlers and the value of good bowlers is underrated in cricket. This comparison goes a long way to redressing that. Bradman is still the best cricketer by miles with this measure.

 

[Red]

Anyway, all that aside, Sobers for me. Sobers is the second greatest batsman in test cricket history. He was also good enough to open the bowling or bowl first change pace in over half of his tests.

Imran is great, but batting at 8 in an ATG side, he's only going to add slightly more with the bat than Hadlee or Wasim, and in spite of a pretty good batting average, he had limitations as a batsman. No doubt a great bowler, one of the top 10-15 quicks of all time, but within a pack of lot of quicks, a few of whom could bat also.

In short, there's no one better to bat at #6 and be your fifth bowler than Sobers. The same might be said of Imran at #8 as third quick, but the margin between Sobers and the next best and Imran and the next best is firmly in favour of Sobers being better.

tldr: Sobers was a better fielder so Sobers.

 

[bagapath]

pretty much agree with everything said above, especially your point about imran being a limited batsman, except that i would rate him among the top 8 fast bowlers of all time for sure. not too many bowlers are better than him by a large margin; hadlee, mcgrath, marshall and lillee, probably. all the other giants like ambrose, trueman, steyn, akram and holding are not necessarily better than him.

 

[Zinzan]

Anyway, all that aside, Sobers for me. Sobers is the second greatest batsman in test cricket history. He was also good enough to open the bowling or bowl first change pace in over half of his tests.

Imran is great, but batting at 8 in an ATG side, he's only going to add slightly more with the bat than Hadlee or Wasim, and in spite of a pretty good batting average, he had limitations as a batsman. No doubt a great bowler, one of the top 10-15 quicks of all time, but within a pack of lot of quicks, a few of whom could bat also.

In short, there's no one better to bat at #6 and be your fifth bowler than Sobers. The same might be said of Imran at #8 as third quick, but the margin between Sobers and the next best and Imran and the next best is firmly in favour of Sobers being better.

tldr: Sobers was a better fielder so Sobers.

My thoughts precisely & I'm someone who'd probably rate Imran as Asia's greatest ever cricketer, but there's only ever been one Sobers.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I think the formula needs tweaking and actual innings may not be best to use. But an arbitrary figure is set of between 1.5 and 1.7 innings per match for fairer comparison.

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;

then becomes

Imran, 4.11*22.81; – 1970’s 36.72; 4.11*13.09; 53.79 runs under average; Batting average 37.69; 1.6 * ~1.6 run = match value ~55.5 positive.
Sobers, 2.52*34.03 - 1960’s 36.36; 2.52*2.33 = 5.8; 57.78; 21.42 * 1.6 = match value 34.272 + 5.8 = ~40.07 match value positive;

I will look into some statistical information for the best innings per match average.

This is because I plugged Youseff v Viv into the formula and found a possible human error. Viv was ahead on runs per wicket average, but was then harsly penalised for playing far less innings per match as a comparison tool, because I was using his actual runs for his career, and not standardised his number of innings per match. See smalishah84, you're helping. Even if its in a manner you would never have thought of.

I am not sure sure whether it is because Viv played in such an anomalous successful team, and was such a great batsman himself that his first innings and second innings averages are closer together. But I think the arbitrary figure based on statistical average has credit.

So

Youseff 156/90; 52.29; 38.37, 24.128 (actual as 1.7 innings per match)
1.6 * 13.92 = 22.27 (standarised to 1.6 innings)

Viv 182/121; 50.23; 35.86, 21.6 actual (actual 1.5 innings per match - very low, great bowlers and strong batting team played in)
1.6* 14.37, = 22.9

Obviously that increases if it 1.7 innings per match.

I will look for the average number of innings per match for players and welcome constructive thoughts to improve the formula, that includes arbitrarily standardizing the number of innings batted per match or keep it as actual innings completed. It may be that the original formula is fine, and that teams such as the West Indies team will cause an anomaly for being incredibly successful.

I think it may be best to use a comparing player's innings per match, but that does not permit a ranking list. Bradman was also 80/52=~1.5. At 1.6 innings per match he is then

1.6 * (99.94-37.38) (62.56) = 100.096 runs ahead of par in a match standardized whereas his actual was 95 runs.

Wickets per match does not penalize a team for winnings by an innings. But it does penalize a batting team for winning by an innings in terms of restricting the batsman's opportunity to bat. A great bat in a weak team, suddenly gets far more batting opportunities to score more runs per match. I imagine Andy Flower would get a great advantage here, and Viv Richards the greatest disadvantage. You can extrapolate the multitude of reasons for yourselves.

I welcome thoughts on actual innings as against a standardised or averaged innings per match (even if from each player's era)

bump.

Actually want feedback from enlightened people on the standardized innings per match and whether the eras needs further standardising such as taking the 55.5 run positive for Imran and dividing it by the average per wicket for his era to give an indexed score. I think this will improve for say WG Grace era comparison. I will test and adjust the formula tomorrow.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Anyway, all that aside, Sobers for me. Sobers is the second greatest batsman in test cricket history. He was also good enough to open the bowling or bowl first change pace in over half of his tests.

Imran is great, but batting at 8 in an ATG side, he's only going to add slightly more with the bat than Hadlee or Wasim, and in spite of a pretty good batting average, he had limitations as a batsman. No doubt a great bowler, one of the top 10-15 quicks of all time, but within a pack of lot of quicks, a few of whom could bat also.

In short, there's no one better to bat at #6 and be your fifth bowler than Sobers.

The same might be said of Imran at #8 as third quick, but the margin between Sobers and the next best and Imran and the next best is firmly in favour of Sobers being better.

tldr: Sobers was a better fielder so Sobers.

What is this margin? How have you assessed it? Does it involve runs and wickets? What is the value of this margin? Is it just your vibe or have you done an objective analysis?

I had no idea that you had diabetes... But your analysis was rather weak. You sort of said well Imran was not as good as a bowler as "lillee and marshall could be rated ahead of him perhaps, mcgrath and hadlee as well" where it is arguable and minute. Then said Sobers is the second best batsmen to Bradman (that premise alone is arguable) and then concluded from that that Sobers as a batsman > Imran the bowler which is an illogical conclusion to make, unless you meant only in terms of your questionable ranking. But its only a ranking. Its not a measure like runs per wicket average is.

With all due respect, change the Lillee and marshall to "ten to 15 bowlers equal but a pack of quicks", and your argument suffers the same fallacies as Bagapaths. Except yours is perhaps worse, because it seems to be that Sobers is such a better choice for the batting 6 and being the 5th bowler 'role' (begs the question that the '5th bowler' must bat 6) than say arguably Kallis or any other top 6 batsman, than Imran is for the 'bowler batting at 8 role of Hadlee or Wasim. I hope the error of thought here has been sufficiently explained. Ranking fallacy aside to compare someone's batting to someone else's bowling, Kallis and Hadlee are as relevant as every other cricketer of the era and no more. To be frank, the "gap" or "guage" between the next best in a ranking of a skill set, even if the rank is objectively determined, and those player's respective performances and abilities is not relevant, and it is not determinitive. It is a fallacy. We're talking Sobers and Imran, not the next best to Sobers and the gap in skill (however you purport objectively measure this) to Sobers compared to the next best to Imran and the gap in skill to Imran. Except you went further and said that Imran was only a slightly better batsman than Hadlee. Your premises are begging further questions.

We agree that Imran bowling is better than Sobers.
We agree that Sobers batting is better than Imran's batting.

But I say that the difference between Imran's superior bowling is so much better than Sobers superior batting when their runs and wickets combined are tallied.

I have measured the margin given that Imran is commanding more than 10 runs per match in positive value than Sobers. Imran is 55 runs ahead of par with 4.14 cheap wickets per match, Sobers is 40ish ahead of par with his majestic batting. Imran's bowling is further ahead of Sobers than Sobers' batting is ahead of Imrans. Imrans batting is only slightly above par. But he is a bowler who the batsman do not have to carry in this innings. He bats at par. Par is determined by the average runs per wicket for the eras they played in. Now you can disagree with my calculation, and tell me it needs to be improved, but you talk of margins and do not have a calculation, so what are you basing your "margin" on? Because I am uising their entire career batting and bowling performances. I do not know what criteria you are using, if any?

 

[cnerd123]

Can u stop spamming plz.

 

[honestbharani]

Sobers for me... for the reasons stated by Red Hill..

 

[AldoRaine18]

At least we are back to discussing about the two greatest all rounders the game has seen. Happy to see the Kallis bandwagon sail into the sunset.

 

[Red]

What is this margin? How have you assessed it? Does it involve runs and wickets? What is the value of this margin? Is it just your vibe or have you done an objective analysis?



With all due respect, change the Lillee and marshall to "ten to 15 bowlers equal but a pack of quicks", and your argument suffers the same fallacies as Bagapaths. Except yours is perhaps worse, because it seems to be that Sobers is such a better choice for the batting 6 and being the 5th bowler 'role' (begs the question that the '5th bowler' must bat 6) than say arguably Kallis or any other top 6 batsman, than Imran is for the 'bowler batting at 8 role of Hadlee or Wasim. I hope the error of thought here has been sufficiently explained. Ranking fallacy aside to compare someone's batting to someone else's bowling, Kallis and Hadlee are as relevant as every other cricketer of the era and no more. To be frank, the "gap" or "guage" between the next best in a ranking of a skill set, even if the rank is objectively determined, and those player's respective performances and abilities is not relevant, and it is not determinitive. It is a fallacy. We're talking Sobers and Imran, not the next best to Sobers and the gap in skill (however you purport objectively measure this) to Sobers compared to the next best to Imran and the gap in skill to Imran. Except you went further and said that Imran was only a slightly better batsman than Hadlee. Your premises are begging further questions.

We agree that Imran bowling is better than Sobers.
We agree that Sobers batting is better than Imran's batting.

But I say that the difference between Imran's superior bowling is so much better than Sobers superior batting when their runs and wickets combined are tallied.

I have measured the margin given that Imran is commanding more than 10 runs per match in positive value than Sobers. Imran is 55 runs ahead of par with 4.14 cheap wickets per match, Sobers is 40ish ahead of par with his majestic batting. Imran's bowling is further ahead of Sobers than Sobers' batting is ahead of Imrans. Imrans batting is only slightly above par. But he is a bowler who the batsman do not have to carry in this innings. He bats at par. Par is determined by the average runs per wicket for the eras they played in. Now you can disagree with my calculation, and tell me it needs to be improved, but you talk of margins and do not have a calculation, so what are you basing your "margin" on? Because I am uising their entire career batting and bowling performances. I do not know what criteria you are using, if any?

The criteria I am using is having watched them both play cricket, and having read a fair bit about both of them. And comparing them is difficult, they play different roles in their respective sides.

The point is, I don't care about a mathematical formula, because not every test match situation requires the same approach. Batsmen and bowlers don't just go out to the middle and score or bowl to their precise career average and then go out or finish their spell.

Sobers was an incredible batsman. Look up the anecdotal evidence of people who played against him. Look at times when he took apart bowlers in their prime when he was well past his. Look at how quickly he could score, how quickly he could turn a game.