Garry Sobers vs Imran Khan

[peterhrt]

Some very notable Windies players have been quite poor/subpar vs NZ (or just in NZ)

New Zealand have a good record against West Indies over the years. At home they have won 14 Tests and lost 7. Overall (home and away) the Kiwis lead 17-13.

Compare that with India v West Indies, where the Indians have lost more than they have won at home and trail 23-30 overall.

 

[kyear2]

Yet you voted that it's not close?

Just a reminder that you rate Sobers ahead of Bradman. So if Imran and Kallis are close, they should be in your top 5 cricketers of all time. Are they?


It wasnt. Imran was overall the level of a standard lower order bat in the 80s and would have made any team in the world. I think that edges Sobers.

I said they come as close as anyone, I didn't say it was close. I also don't rate Sobers ahead of Bradman, I said it's arguable.

I have Imran 10th and would have to look back at where I rate Kallis, I'm pretty sure top 20 but wouldn't swear. Kallis definitely behind Imran though.

Name the team Sobers the bowlers wouldn't have made in the 60's. I'll wait, actually I'm literally waiting. He averaged 27 for most of the decade bowling 3 different styles.

Imran's batting was incredibly soft. Between the not outs and the downhill skiing it's not close to what his average suggests.

ORS had a post comparing Imran to Azhar during his prime averaging over 50, and how much less runs he actually scored in comparison.

At the end of the day, and over their career both were borderline test standard, but Sobers's bowling was more impactful and required by the team.

 

[kyear2]

Five cricketers of the century

The selection of Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year has always been the perquisite of the Almanack's editor of the day

search.app

Compton made it above Hadlee and Imran. In fact, Imran couldn't even make it into the top 10.

Nice.

Yeah, outside of the top 2 the vote is meaningless. Having 24 votes out of a hundred placing one in the top 5 doesn't mean anything. Vote could have been structured very differently.

It does show that two players stand head and shoulders above the rest though, and that's not arguable.

 

[kyear2]

Sober's batting> Imran's bowling
And Sober's secondary discipline is a very special case, a 3 in 1 bowler. Would add much variety to the attack.

Imran's batting might've been comparable, but still Sobers comfortably. Also good at fielding.

Sir Garry was better in primary, and better in secondary, both of them.

One could argue impact, but he was a better slip (and short leg) than Imran was a batsman. Not even close if one is being serious.

 

[kyear2]

Gentle reminder. Fictitious ATG XI composition has zero bearing on how good a player was at test cricket which is played between national teams.

Every year in football, basket ball and ai assume soccer there are all pro, all NBA etc teams. That counts towards how player are views and rated.

This BS argument that a player can be undiputedly the 3rd greatest player of all time, but can't make an all time team because, or it's arguable because.... But also that it doesn't matter is just that.

The team is constituted based on how good you were at test cricket.

And none of this is the argument.

The argument is that one is the second name of the team sheet for a reason..... The other, if he makes it, is one of the last and it's a discussion. That's based on test cricket.

And if accomplishments such making such teams is fictitious, so are ratings.

 

[sayon basak]

As a batter he was great, as a bowler, merely superb, though he would have made the West Indies side as a bowler alone. He was remarkably versatile with the ball, bowling two styles of spin - left-arm orthodox and wristspin, but he was also a fine fast-medium opening bowler. His catching close to the wicket may have been equalled but never surpassed, and he was a brilliant fielder anywhere.

Sobers was an enterprising captain - at times maybe too enterprising, as when a generous declaration allowed England to win a decisive match in Port-of-Spain.

 

[kyear2]

OK. All the "it's not close" voters – what are you smoking?

I think that question is best aimed at the persons who voted for the lower two options, especially the last one.

The only head to head vote that has existed outside of the community and by historians and past players was the Cricinfo slot for the all-rounders, and it was pretty conclusive.

 

[DrWolverine]

The whole concept of even considering Sobers and Imran being remotely on the same level is beyond my comprehension.

The difference is really not that much.

Imran is a Top 10 fast bowler. Sobers is a Top 5 batsman.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Every year in football, basket ball and ai assume soccer there are all pro, all NBA etc teams. That counts towards how player are views and rated.

This BS argument that a player can be undiputedly the 3rd greatest player of all time, but can't make an all time team because, or it's arguable because.... But also that it doesn't matter is just that.

The team is constituted based on how good you were at test cricket.

And none of this is the argument.

The argument is that one is the second name of the team sheet for a reason..... The other, if he makes it, is one of the last and it's a discussion. That's based on test cricket.

And if accomplishments such making such teams is fictitious, so are ratings.

Your assumption is totally wrong dear, no one gives two damn shits about those teams. Ballon d'or, despite all his flaws (still think Messi winning last year was hysterically poor), means much more, which tbf, is hardly any hurdle. Paolo Maldini practically makes 95% of all AT teams (and the rest 5% are weed addicts) while Cruyff does hardly 20%; but you will be hard pressed to find many people who rate Maldini higher.

 

[subshakerz]

I said they come as close as anyone, I didn't say it was close. I also don't rate Sobers ahead of Bradman, I said it's arguable.

Whatever just make up your mind.

Name the team Sobers the bowlers wouldn't have made in the 60's. I'll wait, actually I'm literally waiting. He averaged 27 for most of the decade bowling 3 different styles.

Yeah and you neglect to mention that was only 1/3rd of the test Sobers played. So even if Sobers makes it in the 60s, over his entire career, maybe not.

Imran's batting peak was for 2/3rds of his career.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Imran's batting was incredibly soft. Between the not outs and the downhill skiing it's not close to what his average suggests.

Nonsense. Imran overall was a test class specialist lower order bat for any team in the 80s.

Please recall you weren't able to rebut that WI in the 80s, the best team in the world, had Gus Logie play as a lower order bat for an entire career, and Imran was surely better than him.

At the end of the day, and over their career both were borderline test standard, but Sobers's bowling was more impactful and required by the team.

Prove it. I find that hard to believe give how weak Pakistanis batting was in the 80s and the fact that by the last few years of his career Imran was the best bat in the side, and won MOS just for his batting.

 

[kyear2]

The whole concept of even considering Sobers and Imran being remotely on the same level is beyond my comprehension.

Yeah, there's a two (three if including Grace) man pantheon in the history of the game game.

That's not something that arguable. There's an argument for third and Imran is in it for many, but to suggest that he's seen as being in the pantheon with those two has never been a serious or even proposed discussion.

 

[subshakerz]

This BS argument that a player can be undiputedly the 3rd greatest player of all time, but can't make an all time team because, or it's arguable because.... But also that it doesn't matter is just that.

I mean it's possible because Bradman and Sobers are well ahead of the next in line. Nobody after those two is a lock per se.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Btw, irrespective of anyone's thoughts on Imran and Sobers, Sobers>Bradman is 10000x crazier than Imran>Sobers. This is but just to state that in that pantheon, 1 and 2 have a crazy difference.

 

[subshakerz]

Btw, irresponsible of anyone's thoughts on Imran and Sobers, Sobers>Bradman is 10000x crazier than Imran>Sobers. This is but just to state that in that pantheon, 1 and 2 have a crazy difference.

Yeah @kyear2 loses credibility here when he asserts Sobers is potentially better than Bradman.

But then he also considers McGrath a better cricketer than Hadlee, so his rankings are entirely off.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah @kyear2 loses credibility here when he asserts Sobers is potentially better than Bradman.

But then he also considers McGrath a better cricketer than Hadlee, so his rankings are entirely off.

McGrath>Hadlee isn't crazy. I don't agree with it, but not crazy. Sobers>Don is

 

[sayon basak]

McGrath>Hadlee isn't crazy.

As overall cricketers, it's close to being one.

 

[subshakerz]

McGrath>Hadlee isn't crazy. I don't agree with it, but not crazy. Sobers>Don is

I think the opposite. A person could argue that Bradman averages 70 in the current era and Sobers is close enough with batting to overtake him. Bad argument, but still.

Whereas there is very very little to separate McGrath and Hadlee at all as bowlers yet one is a a decent bat.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think the opposite. A person could argue that Bradman averages 70 in the current era and Sobers is close enough with batting to overtake him. Bad argument, but still.

Whereas there is very very little to separate McGrath and Hadlee at all as bowlers yet one is a a decent bat.

That's a laughably foolish argument tbf. Then you have think Hammond and Headley averages mid 30s, McCabe and Ponsford high 20s and so on...... It's meritless and only have the backing of "I made the **** up". It's brain-dead, with the only backing being Don having gawkingly high average.

On the other hand, someone might rate McGrath an enough better bowler to overtake Hadlee's batting. They would be wrong, very wrong, but no way near as wrong.

 

[subshakerz]

That's a laughably foolish argument tbf. Then you have think Hammond and Headley averages mid 30s, McCabe and Ponsford high 20s and so on...... It's meritless and only have the backing of "I made the **** up". It's brain-dead, with the only backing being Don having gawkingly high average.

On the other hand, someone might rate McGrath an enough better bowler to overtake Hadlee's batting. They would be wrong, very wrong, but no way near as wrong.

We just agree then that Kyears rates between laughably foolish and very wrong.

 

[capt_Luffy]

As overall cricketers, it's close to being one.

Close, but quite not there.