Garry Sobers vs Imran Khan

[sayon basak]

Malcolm Marshall is the automatic pick as the first choice fast bowler and yet his name barely comes up when the names of greatest cricketers are mentioned

@capt_Luffy maybe you should do a thread constructing 9/10 ATG XI's by taking votes as you did in the 100 greatest cricketers list's thread.

 

[capt_Luffy]

@capt_Luffy maybe you should do a thread constructing 9/10 ATG XI's by taking votes as you did in the 100 greatest cricketers list's thread.

Did you forgot about the National XIs Thread I am running currently?? I plan to make an ATG one as well, but after all these ones conclude.

 

[sayon basak]

Did you forgot about the National XIs Thread I am running currently?? I plan to make an ATG one as well, but after all these ones conclude.

I'm gonna bookmark this post so that I can remind you after you are done with the Pak XI.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm gonna bookmark this post so that I can remind you after you are done with the Pak XI.

Then there is SL, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, WI, NZ, Zimbabwe, Ireland and England.

 

[sayon basak]

Then there is SL, Bangladesh, WI, NZ, Zimbabwe, Ireland and England.

At least I'm hopeful , as it's almost impossible to come up with more than 1/2 XI's of BD (same goes for IRE and maybe ZIM).

 

[capt_Luffy]

At least I'm hopeful , as it's almost impossible to come up with more than 1/2 XI's of BD (same goes for IRE and maybe ZIM).

3 for BangZim, 1 each of Afghanistan and Ireland.

 

[subshakerz]

Malcolm Marshall is the automatic pick as the first choice fast bowler and yet his name barely comes up when the names of greatest cricketers are mentioned

When it comes to conversation on fast bowlers, Marshall does come up more the last 20 years.

However, not on greatest cricketers.

My theory is that to achieve greatness in the pundit class, you really have to have something original about you and your place in cricket. That combined with world class returns = greatness in the eyes of eye pundit snobs.

Sobers, could do anything. Tendulkar, teen prodigy. Warne, new era big spinning leggie. Wasim, left arm variety. Viv, master blaster with no helmet. Lillee, ultra aggression. Gilly, redefined the keeper bat. Imran, reverse and first great Pak captain.

Marshall was the top fast bowlers but he came in an era with several great pacers and in a side of several great pacers. So he was better, big deal I guess. He didn't really bring something new to the table. Neither did McGrath or Hadlee, which is why they don't usually get their due plaudits

 

[Thala_0710]

Then there is SL, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, WI, NZ, Zimbabwe, Ireland and England.

Can't wait for the overall one. Maybe run a couple of these simultaneously

 

[capt_Luffy]

Can't wait for the overall one. Maybe run a couple of these simultaneously

Can do if you want. But I actually cherish these slow build-ups and this long process. Can definitely, say run Bangladesh and New Zealand simultaneously. Btw, I also plan to make 2 teams more for each of Australia and South Africa, given we are going as many made previously for most of the rest nations.

 

[smash84]

When it comes to conversation on fast bowlers, Marshall does come up more the last 20 years.

However, not on greatest cricketers.

My theory is that to achieve greatness in the pundit class, you really have to have something original about you and your place in cricket. That combined with world class returns = greatness in the eyes of eye pundit snobs.

Sobers, could do anything. Tendulkar, teen prodigy. Warne, new era big spinning leggie. Wasim, left arm variety. Viv, master blaster with no helmet. Lillee, ultra aggression. Gilly, redefined the keeper bat. Imran, reverse and first great Pak captain.

Marshall was the top fast bowlers but he came in an era with several great pacers and in a side of several great pacers. So he was better, big deal I guess. He didn't really bring something new to the table. Neither did McGrath or Hadlee, which is why they don't usually get their due plaudits

Not exactly. Most of the public watches cricket to be entertained. The cricketers who entertain more while being at the peak of the game just leave lasting impressions which is why Lillee, Wasim, Warne, Viv, Lara, Tendulkar get rated so highly. They were as good or better than their peers and far more entertaining. It is one reason why Kallis doesn't get rated quite as highly but Sobers does.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not exactly. Most of the public watches cricket to be entertained. The cricketers who entertain more while being at the peak of the game just leave lasting impressions which is why Lillee, Wasim, Warne, Viv, Lara, Tendulkar get rated so highly. They were as good or better than their peers and far more entertaining. It is one reason why Kallis doesn't get rated quite as highly but Sobers does.

Explains your previous query on why Trumper gets rated so much higher than Bradman as well.

 

[Coronis]

Top 4 for me, don't know what his thought was behind putting him above Bradman.

Here's a interesting piece of note that I found regarding Trumper vs Bradman.

"Interestingly, the vast majority of cricketers blessed with the good fortune to watch both considered Trumper the more accomplished. To the best of my knowledge, 18 of Victor’s peers offered a verdict – Monty Noble, Clem Hill, Hanson Carter, Vernon Ransford, Charlie Macartney, James Kelly, Warwick Armstrong, Joe Darling, Hugh Trumble, Jack Ryder, Herbie Collins, Hunter Hendry, Arthur Mailey, Len Braund, Wilfred Rhodes, Francis Jackson, Percy Perrin and Kumar Ranjitsinhji – and of this group only one considered Don Bradman superior (Rhodes)".

Shows that we should take Rhodes’ peer rating seriously.

But it was his delight in his last years to recall the old days. I asked him what he thought of Ranjitsinhji. “He were a good bat were ‘Ranji.’ But I always fancied myself getting him leg before doin’ that leg glance of his.” I tried again. “What did you think of Trumper? “‘E were a good bat were Victor.” There was no advance on a good bat in Wilfred’s vocabulary of praise. Once, though, he let himself go. I asked him his opinion of Sidney Barnes as a bowler. “The best of ‘em today is half as good as Barnie.” He intended this as a compliment to the champions of today.

 

[subshakerz]

Not exactly. Most of the public watches cricket to be entertained. The cricketers who entertain more while being at the peak of the game just leave lasting impressions which is why Lillee, Wasim, Warne, Viv, Lara, Tendulkar get rated so highly. They were as good or better than their peers and far more entertaining. It is one reason why Kallis doesn't get rated quite as highly but Sobers does.

I mean, there are plenty of cricketers who were entertaining but not rated as great. Marshall was plenty entertaining.

I think what makes the most impression is being original in a way that stands out. But yes to also play with flair true.

 

[kyear2]

Does Imran's relative reputation amongst the "experts" suffer due to the same phenomenon – if you didn't break on to the international scene with reputation of a prodigy but instead raised your game later, you don't get favourable rating compared to those with reverse career trajectory?

Sobers failed the first 4 years of his career. His catching and fielding basically kept him in the team.

Wasim was also had his troubles to start.

Hadlee didn't set the world on fire, neither did Marshall.

 

[kyear2]

Imran was more suitably as a lower order bat by the standards of his time than Sobers as a bowler. His supposed 'lower output' has to be balanced with him playing lower in the order at 6/7. But overall he fits in comfortably with mid-30 averaging bats at no.6 that every side had.


He was averaging 40 in his bowling prime phase and much higher towards career end. If you want his batting career peak to be just his career end, then give those numbers. I have given them for you, he has a batting average of 60 and is far ahead of Sobers bowler peak while being better than him outside it too.

If you want to rate Sobers as bowlers ahead based on grunt work, fine. But he wasn't very effective in wicettaking overall.

You are lying again about Kallis. I never suggested he had a peer rating problem as an AR, only as a bat.

Imran as an overall cricketer has consensus of being the best AR of the four, is repeatedly rated ahead of the others in top 10 cricketer lists and features in more ATG XIs. I have given you the references already.

Needless mention of Steyn at the end.

You have repeatedly said that Kallis wasn't seen or rated as an all rounder till the end, and you even posted articles to show that as well. But even if you want to say as a batsman, the same question still applies.

The question wasn't only among the 4, the question was if he was rated or spoken of as the greatest after Bradman or in the same breath or in the same league of Bradman or Sobers, during his career.

You use it against Kallis, but again the same applies here.

 

[kyear2]

Imran's reputation as an overall cricketer is quite high though, features in enough top 10 cricketer lists and ATG XIs, generally seen as best of the AR quartet, but somewhat overshadowed by him as a great captain.

As a bowler, he is somewhat underrated but during his career, he was seen as the best in the world around 81 to 83, rated Wisden Cricketer of the Year, but then got injured during his peak for two years and when he returned, Marshall had rose up by then. Timing matters quite a bit.

There were periods when Botham was seen as the best of the quartet and you know this.

As a bowler he he was never quite rated as highly as the others and there were reasons for that.
With regards to being the best in the world. '81 Lillee still held that mantle, and by '83, it was Marshall's who held it until Sir Curly took the baton from him.

 

[subshakerz]

There were periods when Botham was seen as the best of the quartet and you know this.

Sure early career.

As a bowler he he was never quite rated as highly as the others and there were reasons for that.
With regards to being the best in the world. '81 Lillee still held that mantle, and by '83, it was Marshall's who held it until Sir Curly took the baton from him.

Yes and between 81 to 83 it was Imran.

 

[subshakerz]

You have repeatedly said that Kallis wasn't seen or rated as an all rounder till the end, and you even posted articles to show that as well. But even if you want to say as a batsman, the same question still applies.

No it's relevant to him as a bat.

He was always seen as an AR, I argued that early career he was better than Sobers as a.bowler, and by end career, seen as the an ATG AR.

The question wasn't only among the 4, the question was if he was rated or spoken of as the greatest after Bradman or in the same breath or in the same league of Bradman or Sobers, during his career.

You use it against Kallis, but again the same applies here.

Huh? That isn't my argument against Kallis. And I never made that argument for Imran either.

I always maintained that by end career Imran was seen as an ATG cricketer and is rated as such.

 

[Coronis]

There were periods when Botham was seen as the best of the quartet and you know this.

As a bowler he he was never quite rated as highly as the others and there were reasons for that.
With regards to being the best in the world. '81 Lillee still held that mantle, and by '83, it was Marshall's who held it until Sir Curly took the baton from him.

My favourite knight btw.

 

[kyear2]

I have Sobers>Imran too but don't agree with most of what you've written here. This is overrating Sobers a bit imo. I would have Lara over Sobers as well and you can certainly debate him with others like Richards. He isn't an ATVG level quick bowler for me either.
And let's not go into Messi vs Sobers

Richards yeah, Lara not quite imo.

I have it as

Bradman | Tendulkar | Sobers | Richards | Hobbs
Lara | Smith | Hutton

Re the argument as a quick. I wouldn't call him great, but I would say that he averaged possibly around 28 as a pacer and wouldn't have got the new ball opportunities that many of those in that grouping would have received, and bowled a lot more of the dog overs than they would have as well.

And I know nothing about soccer, so I wouldn't.

Just a quick article about the great man