Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[CaptainGrumpy]

If you want to value wickets and runs etc, why not look like at the icc rankings which place values on such things over a career.

Because I am not looking at "peak potential" on whatever scoring metric they use. Bradman is 28 points ahead of Mohammad Youseff. Not what I'm after thanks all the same. The ICC rankings are just good as a recent and peak form guide over a few matches. They not the best indicators of career performance.

They are also not that comparitive. The bowlers consistently have a slightly lower score than the batsmen. The all rounder score thing they use is calculated is not the batting score added to the bowling score, so its no good for comparing cricketers. I have no idea what the icc score means in terms of runs per wickets. Just seems if someone hits 875-900, they probably been hitting a rich vein of form previously.

The all rounder metric however they have calculated it, seems off to me. A 922 batsman, who is also a 715 bowler gets a 669 score as an all rounder? How does that compare to a batsman who doesn't bowl, like Bradman? I need something in terms of runs and wickets that is a direct comparison to what a cricketer brings to the match for his side with the bat and ball because that was cricket is. The ICC ranking system for allrounders is bonkers and does not match its batting and bowling metric. Why?

We all agree that Sobers' batting was his strong point and Imran's bowling was his. Looking at peak ratings, Sobers had 938 with the bat, whereas Imran had 922 with the ball. Pretty close to be fair and in line with what you'd expect for the 2 of them. Obviously both peaked at number one in the world.

If we then look at their weaker suit we see Sobers has 715 with the ball and Imran 650 with the bat, so quite a big gap there. In terms of rankings, Sobers reached number 4 whereas Imran peaked at 12. Obviously we have to take into account that there's more batsmen then bowlers so it's harder to get a higher place in the batting. However, when Sobers was number 4 with the ball, he was also number 1 with the bat. When Imran was number 12 with the bat, he was number 6 with the ball, although that is a slightly false position when you consider that he wasn't actually bowling at the time, so it doesn't look as impressive in that regard.

Finally, if you look at all-rounder peaks, Sobers gets 669 and Imran 518, which starts to show the gulf between them...

No, it starts to show that the ICC system cannot compare a batsman, to a bowler, to an allrounder. The allrounder system claculation they use is strange and bears no resemblance to the batsman and bowling rankings. Please read above.

Bradman averages 40-50 runs more than batsman over a career, nearly double other batsmen, that he is a mere 20-30 points ahead of out of 900. His batting is nearly 200% other batsmen for output, real runs, over a career and his value is like 3% better. That makes no sense to me. You want to use the peak form guide system to compare players knowing what I just said about Bradman? Makes no sense to me.

Youseff ICC score - 933. Bradman 961. Bradman average 99.94. Youseff averages 52.29. I do not want a bar of that as a comparitive tool for anything other than who's playing well at particular moment in time. Its a form guide where peak form is scored on a strange non comparative scoring system.

no

Any particular reason why you are answering for longranger Flem? No-one else has.

 

[The Sean]

The all-rounder metric is (batting rating x bowling rating) / 1000.

So a player who has a rating of 500 for both has an all-rounder rating of 250: (500x500) / 1000.

If you don't bowl then you have a 0 bowling rating, meaning you have a 0 all-rounder rating.

 

[marc71178]

A batsman who doesn't bowl isn't an all rounder, that's hardly rocket science.

You will disregard those because they don't agree with what you think is the right answer, ignoring that they clearly show the better all rounder is Sobers.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

A batsman who doesn't bowl isn't an all rounder, that's hardly rocket science.

But they are a cricketer. You haven't been reading the posts has in have you? You don't understand the runs per wicket average metric based as a par system do you? With all due respect, if you do not understand it, it is very difficult to argue with you. You do not even need to agree with it, but you do need to understand the idea. Otherwise you're wasting mine and your time.

You will disregard those because they don't agree with what you think is the right answer, ignoring that they clearly show the better all rounder is Sobers.

That is not what is going on at all. I spent time replying to your post. Please read it and respond to the content of my previous post, instead of saying I "ignore" the ICC player ranking system. I gave you reasons and questions.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

The all-rounder metric is (batting rating x bowling rating) / 1000.

So a player who has a rating of 500 for both has an all-rounder rating of 250: (500x500) / 1000.

If you don't bowl then you have a 0 bowling rating, meaning you have a 0 all-rounder rating.

Thanks for that. Still doesn't permit allrounders being compared to batsmen as cricketers. There is still the issue of bowlers being scored consistently slightly less than batsman. There is the issue that I cannot find Sobers

Although most batsman have bowled. Can you answer the Bradman and Youseff issue? Because that metric has been scaled to proportions I do not understand. Bradman 3% better than Youseff. That metric is not comparative.

I prefer a runs and wickets system where I see Bradman way out in front of everyone else, because he was.

 

[cnerd123]

Isn't there a thread here specifically designed for player ratings? If I recall correctly, the basic conclusion was that you might as well just try different ratings and see which one fits best in your own mind.

PEWS made this point excellently. You either undergo a satistical exercise with an open mind towards what the results show you, or you create a means of statistically proving what fits your intuition/opinions.

Cricket is too complex a game to be reduce to either stats or to "seen it with my own eyes" style analysis.

 

[The Sean]

Thanks for that. Still doesn't permit allrounders being compared to batsmen. Although most batsman have bowled. Can you answer the Bradman and Youseff issue?

My view is that the peak ratings (so 961 for Bradman, 933 for MoYo etc.) provide a snapshot of a batsman's form (over a period of time) at a certain point in their career. If you look at it that way, you can understand why batsman who had an extraordinary - some would say Bradmanesque - run of form like MoYo did would have a peak score not far short of Bradman's.

There are two key things to remember though when looking at the ICC ratings. First, it's not a linear rating - it becomes proportionally more difficult to increase your rating the higher you go. Going from 700 to 800 is much easier than going from 800 to 900, and increasing above 900 is more difficult still. The second thing is that you need to look at how long a batsman maintained a high rating to get a real view of his form, rather than just a single one off rating at a point in time.

The difference really comes when you look at the ICC rating career graphs for each batsman. All the great batsmen who hit 900+ generally did so for a relatively short period of time, and even the ones who went stratospheric - into the 930s and 940s - came down quite quickly due to the fact that, as difficult as it is to reach that score, it's virtually impossible to maintain it.

Then look at Bradman's graph. It's not one or two of high peaks with troughs below - it's a ****ing plateau. And more than that, it'a a plateau between 950 and 960 - remembering that the next highest peak rating, that of Len Hutton, is 945. To put it another way, and this is really where it becomes clear, the greatest single peak of form ever achieved by any other batsman is still lower than the level Bradman maintained match after match, year after year.

Plenty of batsmen have had streaks of form where they were nearly Bradmanesque. Bradman was Bradmanesque for his entire career.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

My view is that the peak ratings (so 961 for Bradman, 933 for MoYo etc.) provide a snapshot of a batsman's form (over a period of time) at a certain point in their career. If you look at it that way, you can understand why batsman who had an extraordinary - some would say Bradmanesque - run of form like MoYo did would have a peak score not far short of Bradman's.

There are two key things to remember though when looking at the ICC ratings. First, it's not a linear rating - it becomes proportionally more difficult to increase your rating the higher you go. Going from 700 to 800 is much easier than going from 800 to 900, and increasing above 900 is more difficult still. The second thing is that you need to look at how long a batsman maintained a high rating to get a real view of his form, rather than just a single one off rating at a point in time.

The difference really comes when you look at the ICC rating career graphs for each batsman. All the great batsmen who hit 900+ generally did so for a relatively short period of time, and even the ones who went stratospheric - into the 930s and 940s - came down quite quickly due to the fact that, as difficult as it is to reach that score, it's virtually impossible to maintain it.

Then look at Bradman's graph. It's not one or two of high peaks with troughs below - it's a ****ing plateau. And more than that, it'a a plateau between 950 and 960 - remembering that the next highest peak rating, that of Len Hutton, is 945. To put it another way, and this is really where it becomes clear, the greatest single peak of form ever achieved by any other batsman is still lower than the level Bradman maintained match after match, year after year.

Plenty of batsmen have had streaks of form where they were nearly Bradmanesque. Bradman was Bradmanesque for his entire career.

See Marc - I'm not the only one telling you that the ICC ranking system is more a form guide.

And I still don't like the ICC system for comparing cricketers because its not plausible with its "ranking" or "scoring system", they have skewed the bowlers to an unequal metric to the batsmen because they always score slightly less with a dipping tail. Even the top 100 is always just scoring less than the batsmen. I want to be able to compare batsmen to bowlers and all rounders (whether they bat more than they bowl or otherwise) and the metrics need to be the same.

 

[The Sean]

See Marc - I'm not the only one telling you that the ICC ranking system is more a form guide.

And I still don't like the ICC system for comparing cricketers because its not plausible with its "ranking" or "scoring system", I want to compare batsman to allrounders to bowlers in terms of cricketing value but because they scale and skew the metric for batting and bowling, its just not practically feasible.

Two additional points:

1. Yes, the ICC rating system is a form guide, though it does take a whole career into account. It just weights much more heavily toward recent performances.

2. The fact that it is a form guide still doesn't strengthen the Imran > Sobers argument. 500 rating points is the absolute elite rating for all-rounders. Imran was above 500 for only a handful of matches during his career (not helped by his injury which stopped him from bowling at his peak, to be fair). Sobers, on the other hand, maintained a rating above 500 for half his career.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Two additional points:

1. Yes, the ICC rating system is a form guide, though it does take a whole career into account. It just weights much more heavily toward recent performances.

2. The fact that it is a form guide still doesn't strengthen the Imran > Sobers argument. 500 rating points is the absolute elite rating for all-rounders. Imran was above 500 for only a handful of matches during his career (not helped by his injury which stopped him from bowling at his peak, to be fair). Sobers, on the other hand, maintained a rating above 500 for half his career.

Sure but I still don't like the ICC system for comparing cricketers because its not plausible with its "ranking" or "scoring system", they have skewed the bowlers to an unequal metric to the batsmen because they always score slightly less with a dipping tail. Even the top 100 is always just scoring less than the batsmen. I want to be able to compare batsmen to bowlers and all rounders (whether they bat more than they bowl or otherwise) and the metrics need to be the same. And I dont like the way top bowlers are scaled from the average bowlers as compared to top batsmen to average batsmen. I don't like or agree with the scaling, standardizing I understand an approve of. I don't see why the scoring system needed to be limited at 1000 if that has what has occurred because, no batsman is constrained by a maximum number of runs they can score or average in such a manner. It gets worse, the ICC website states that bowlers who do not bowl in a high scoring innings are penalized but bowlers are bonus rewarded for "3-50" type figures in a high scoring innings and innings. So, you get penalised for bowling a side out cheaply but rewarded for good figures where those figures could be result of not bowling an equal share of overs with the other bowlers? I disagree with that. Part timers don't typically bowl much on poor wickets where wickets are tumbling. The main spear heads normally bowl those innings complete without the support acts. The ICC system treats top bowlers unfairly. It then gives "workload" credit for bowlers who bowl lots of overs but don't take wickets? So Sober's benefits from this. I completely disagree with it. Bowlers who bowl overs and don't take wickets do not help other bowlers by getting new batsmen at the crease to dismiss early. They give up runs at their own end, and allow the innings to continue at the other end where runs are also scored. There is too much scaling in the ICC ranking system. It got too clever for its own good. Its now just a subjective form guide. All the bonuses for batsmen and average bowlers make it too much of a lottery.

I think that the ICC system has the batsman and bowlers on differing metrics which consistently undervalues bowlers, and top bowlers are not fairly valued against mediocre bowlers. That is why I like runs per wicket metric. Its free from human distortion. In the 1980's, 35.86 runs per wicket was average. If batsman hits that as an average, he is par. If he takes wickets at less than that, he improves on his par score. Seems so fair to me.If a batsman bats at 50 runs average, he is well ahead of par. Forget all the scaling.

What I use could also be a form guide because the runs per wicket average needs an era, but scores and could rank cricketers, as well as batsmen and bowlers with a 0 calculation. But the shorter the era data, the less averaged out it is.

 

[Redsok]

Sobers. Epic batsman - you could make a strong case for him as the 3rd best batsman ever, behind Bradman and Sachin (Or 4th best ever if you put Richards 3rd). Not as much an Epic bowler, but someone able to bowl left arm pace, swing, wrist spin AND offspin to a reasonable enough level at Test cricket deserves a lot of respect. And then also a brilliant fielder.

More of a complete package IMO. He was the real deal.

Imran at his peak does make a very strong case, (legendary fast bowler, more than useful batsman, great captain), but over the span of their careers, I have to go for Sobers.

Sachin doesn't even belong there. How old are you?


Sachin was great, but his "aura" is greater than the batsman he was. Nothing he did was "extraordinary" or "never seen before".. He had those nicknames, and the Indians worship him. But reality doesn't revolve around some people, or a country. Ya know?



Even Kallis has almost the same TOTAL ODI AND TEST runs, with a better average.. in MUCH LESS GAMES PLAYED. But Kallis also has almost 300 ODI (280) and almost 300 (290) Test wickets.. with 300+ catches. Now THAT, is extraordinary. That's why he's considered Top 3 Greatest cricketer, after Bradman and Sobers. Imran Khan is also in there. Peak BOTHAM could have been the Greatest, but he was never the same after his injury.



A better comparison with Sachin, would be Brian Lara.

 

[cnerd123]

I'm 47

You're wrong

 

[Teja.]

I started this thread and voted for Imran but I’m a convert. Sobers is better.

 

[Coronis]

A better comparison with Sachin, would be Brian Lara.

Far from the worst take on this forum.

 

[ankitj]

130 votes on this poll, wow!

 

[honestbharani]

Far from the worst take on this forum.

Yeah wonder if that warrants a thread.

 

[kyear2]

So this was an interesting thread.

50 odd page later and some things that stood out.

1. How are so many posters banned over the years.

2. The thread was closed and reopen at least twice, some contentious and quite off topic discussions.

3. Some of the best discussions were actually about Wasim (go figure) where the full range of opinions from best bowler ever seen, to the three periods of his career that must be taken into consideration, and Smali of all people brought up the fielding deficit especially compared to the Australian outfit. I've always found him to the the most polarizing of bowlers and found that part of the discussion to be particularly illuminating.
4. Another interesting discussion revolved around what makes a good captain and that too sparked quite divergent opinions.

5. Of course a large part of it was with the philosophical argument about which type of all rounder is more important, and I fear that there will never be any kind of consensus on that one, other than that most believe that ideally both should find a place in an XI in some form

6. Wish I could say it was a good read, but too many pointless statistical breakdowns and contentious arguments and some borderline spamming. It also showed how opinions changed over the past decade.

Personally also showed that some of the arguments I've engaged in over the years were possibly less personal but more a reflection of how much Imran means to quite a few on the forum, and how deeply that passion flows.

Oh, and Ikki was a ****.

 

[Slifer]

So this was an interesting thread.

50 odd page later and some things that stood out.

1. How are so many posters banned over the years.

2. The thread was closed and reopen at least twice, some contentious and quite off topic discussions.

3. Some of the best discussions were actually about Wasim (go figure) where the full range of opinions from best bowler ever seen, to the three periods of his career that must be taken into consideration, and Smali of all people brought up the fielding deficit especially compared to the Australian outfit. I've always found him to the the most polarizing of bowlers and found that part of the discussion to be particularly illuminating.
4. Another interesting discussion revolved around what makes a good captain and that too sparked quite divergent opinions.

5. Of course a large part of it was with the philosophical argument about which type of all rounder is more important, and I fear that there will never be any kind of consensus on that one, other than that most believe that ideally both should find a place in an XI in some form

6. Wish I could say it was a good read, but too many pointless statistical breakdowns and contentious arguments and some borderline spamming. It also showed how opinions changed over the past decade.

Personally also showed that some of the arguments I've engaged in over the years were possibly less personal but more a reflection of how much Imran means to quite a few on the forum, and how deeply that passion flows.

Oh, and Ikki was a ****.

You're being too nice. Screw that dude seriously!!!

 

[Adorable Asshole]

If we are only taking batting and bowling in consideration then there is not much between them to septate but Sobers was far better fielder than Imran and I don't think captaincy is that much of skill to offset that.

 

[subshakerz]

If we are only taking batting and bowling in consideration then there is not much between them to septate but Sobers was far better fielder than Imran and I don't think captaincy is that much of skill to offset that.

Nah, Sobers is a better specialist. They are roughly equal is secondary disciplines.