Garry Sobers vs Imran Khan

[h_hurricane]

Sobers bowling > Imran's batting marginally imo. The reasoning is not on averages but on the volume of wickets/runs and the workload.

Sobers bowled around 40 overs per match which is an insane workload for a secondary skill. When he retired, he was among the top wicket takers in history. Think only Gibbs, Trueman, McKenzie, Benaud, Statham and Bedser were ahead of him.

Imran's run quantity look a bit underwhelming from that perspective for the era that he played in. Would have gone for him in the secondary skill if he had close to Kapil's/ Botham's runs.

 

[subshakerz]

Can someone take a look at his record and tell me why his bowling is rated so highly? For some reason I used to think he has more 5fers, but he has 6 of them in 93 matches. Ok, maybe he played in an era of high SR for bowlers but all the main bowlers in that era seem to have significantly better SRs than him. So he was just a bowler good enough to hold an end economically and take the occasional wickets?

He was a workhorse bowler. I suppose he should get some credit for that.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran's run quantity look a bit underwhelming from that perspective for the era that he played in. Would have gone for him in the secondary skill if he had close to Kapil's/ Botham's runs.

Kapil played a lot more tests for his runs.

Botham started and played his entire career in the top six, but then he was just a better bat.

The clincher for me is that in his prime Imran had multiple quality returns in series in Eng, Aus, Ind and NZ. He was better away from home than at home.

However, the workhorse argument is fine for Sobers though he wasn't that penetrative against top sides.

 

[capt_Luffy]

His record vs Australia is exceptional for the early 20th century? Not saying he was horrible, but based on that alone he's not in this conversation.

Two teams and no where near the talent we had even during the interwar periods.

Not to mention you can't remotely, with any level of certainty tell me how he bowled.

So for this you didn't see Barry, argument is nonsense. I've seen considerably more if Jim, and against quality opposition, than I've seen of either those two.

On reading into averages, no. On deep diving, very much. He had crazy WPM of around 6, and Australian wickets were pretty batting friendly back then considering the era. 77 wickets in 13 matches @22 is definitely very impressive once you factor in everything. He still holds the record for most 5-fers in Ashes.

 

[smash84]

Sobers bowling > Imran's batting marginally imo. The reasoning is not on averages but on the volume of wickets/runs and the workload.

Sobers bowled around 40 overs per match which is an insane workload for a secondary skill. When he retired, he was among the top wicket takers in history. Think only Gibbs, Trueman, McKenzie, Benaud, Statham and Bedser were ahead of him.

Sobers seems to have played a lot more than those bowlers as well which is why he has close to their number of wickets. His averages are terrible btw, but still at least you say that his bowling is marginally better than Imran's batting (the numbers don't bear that out IMO) but some posters acting on here like his bowling is so much superior than Imran's batting is ridiculous.

 

[h_hurricane]

Kapil played a lot more tests for his runs.

Botham started and played his entire career in the top six, but then he was just a better bat.

Yes, I am aware of that. There is a bit of a quantity issue in Imran's batting. If he would have played more and scored more runs (or scored the same amount of runs at an even better average), he would be winning the secondary skill comparison imo.

I would have rated Sobers lower, if he had taken only 150 wickets or so at a similar average.

 

[Coronis]

Sobers faced

Trueman, Snow, Underwood, Willis, Lindwall, Miller, Benaud, Lillee, Davidson, the quartet, Fazal and names I've no doubt forgot. He also played them all over the world.

Hammond went to WI and struggled, but he went, and took in the best pacers if their day. He also faced O'Reilly and Grimmett.

Headley only played against the best two teams of his time and travelled to both.

Hutton faced Lindwall, Miller, O'Reilly and travelled the world, post war.

Bradman faced who and where?

Yes, in those 10 years, where he played very briefly after the war and the vast majority of said career occured prior to the 2nd war, there was a shift towards the faster men, and in explosion of quality and quantity of them as well.

Anyone who thinks Bradman is averaging 100 anywhere from the 50's with the shift in pitches and emergence of pacers, I have a bridge to sell them.

Fun fact: Bradman averaged more after the war than before the war. At age 38-39

I liked that you give Headley credit for playing England B teams but not Bradman for playing England A teams.

Some notable bowlers he faced…

Verity, Bedser, Larwood, Tate, Bowes, Voce, Farnes, Laker

Unfortunately he wasn’t able to face guys like Martindale or Cowie.

Some of the quality 30’s English bowlers are often forgotten due to it being regarded as a batting era and the clear superiority of O’Reilly.

I know you didn't call me boy.

He didn’t. He called you boi.

You do realize that there wasn't even a 10 year gap between Sobers debuting and Bradman retiring right?

So why would Bradman average 70 while Sobers would average the same?

iirc As soon as Bradman retired test cricket conveniently changed so his era doesn’t count.

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.

iirc A lot of people don’t put Magic Johnson in their starting 5’s now in favour of Steph Curry. Do people think he’s better than Magic? I don’t think so.

Also iirc aren’t usually two top 5 players not making an all time starting 5?

 

[Coronis]

Can’t you just title it something like @kyear2 vs @subshakerz

It wouldn't be, not this time.

Quality thread tho.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, I am aware of that. There is a bit of a quantity issue in Imran's batting. If he would have played more and scored more runs (or scored the same amount of runs at an even better average), he would be winning the secondary skill comparison imo.

I would have rated Sobers lower, if he had taken only 150 wickets or so at a similar average.

Fair enough. It's a close thing.

 

[h_hurricane]

Sobers seems to have played a lot more than those bowlers as well which is why he has close to their number of wickets. His averages are terrible btw, but still at least you say that his bowling is marginally better than Imran's batting (the numbers don't bear that out IMO) but some posters acting on here like his bowling is so much superior than Imran's batting is ridiculous.

Yeah, there is no good reason to say Sobers the bowler was way better than Imran the batsman.

 

[smash84]

Yeah, it is mindboggling that to suggest that Bradman gets 1/3rd of his average cut down while Sobers keeps maintaining his while the difference in years in their playing eras is less than a decade. That is like saying that if Tendulkar were to play now, he would be averaging 35 instead of 50+ while Babar Azam would average the same.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah, it is mindboggling that to suggest that Bradman gets 1/3rd of his average cut down while Sobers keeps maintaining his while the difference in years in their playing eras is less than a decade. That is like saying that if Tendulkar were to play now, he would be averaging 35 instead of 50+ while Babar Azam would average the same.

iirc people also froth over Sobers being able to bowl 3 distinct styles. Though two of them he was quite poor at its a big deal. (Don’t get me wrong its cool and all, and the versatility is a plus but it gets overblown)

Sachin could bowl 3 styles of bowling too but he never gets the plaudits sadly.

 

[capt_Luffy]

iirc people also froth over Sobers being able to bowl 3 distinct styles. Though two of them he was quite poor at its a big deal. (Don’t get me wrong its cool and all, and the versatility is a plus but it gets overblown)

Sachin could bowl 3 styles of bowling too but he never gets the plaudits sadly.

Talk about yourself. My father always maintained he could had been a really solid bowler had he wanted to!!!!

 

[smash84]

iirc people also froth over Sobers being able to bowl 3 distinct styles. Though two of them he was quite poor at its a big deal. (Don’t get me wrong its cool and all, and the versatility is a plus but it gets overblown)

Sachin could bowl 3 styles of bowling too but he never gets the plaudits sadly.

Yeah, he bowled 3 styles but he was crap at 2 and serviceable in his 3rd style.

Funny enough, I actually rated Sachin the bowler. He was quite versatile and had a bit of a golden arm. Sadly he didn't bowl quite as much after his first decade.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah, he bowled 3 styles but he was crap at 2 and serviceable in his 3rd style.

Funny enough, I actually rated Sachin the bowler. He was quite versatile and had a bit of a golden arm. Sadly he didn't bowl quite as much after his first decade.

I don't think it's right to call Sobers a "serviceable" bowler in his stronger style though.

 

[ankitj]

One player averages 135 in a test series

The other averages 100, takes 20 wickets and snares 10 catches.

A third player will then average 80 and take 35 wickets @15

Don't forget Sobers as a batsman is closer to Imran than he is to Bradman. Also don't forget that a series featuring all 3 of them (or any 2) will never happen. Can we get back to talking about what they actually did?

 

[smash84]

I don't think it's right to call Sobers a "serviceable" bowler in his stronger style though.

He had a good 5-6(?) years in his 20 year career so I am not sure how else to put it.

I also wonder how many of those matches in that 6 year period came against India?

 

[subshakerz]

iirc people also froth over Sobers being able to bowl 3 distinct styles. Though two of them he was quite poor at its a big deal. (Don’t get me wrong its cool and all, and the versatility is a plus but it gets overblown)

Sachin could bowl 3 styles of bowling too but he never gets the plaudits sadly.

Unfortunately we have one of those folks mentioning versatility without quality in this thread.

 

[Slifer]

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

Averages against NZ
Lara 41.41
Sobers 23.76
Lloyd 16.71

Holding 34.56
Gibbs 57.18
Roberts 65.33

In NZ
Lara 36.90
Richards 19.25
Lloyd 15.27
Sobers 15.10

Marshall 32.11
Gibbs 45.25
Holding 47.85
Roberts 65.33

Then of course you have guys like Greenidge, Garner and Walsh who were very successful against them.

Viv and Marshall I don't hold it against them seeing as it was one 3 test series. The rest is just odd especially sir Gary. He played them when they were arguably still minnows and played them extensively. So peculiar.

 

[subshakerz]

Viv and Marshall I don't hold it against them seeing as it was one 3 test series. The rest is just odd especially sir Gary. He played them when they were arguably still minnows and played them extensively. So peculiar.

I think it makes Sobers a better bat.