Best left handed batsman of all time

[Dissector]

Yeah I had initially written 95 and then changed it. 95 was his highest score in the series. He basically hit five fifties in five innings with two not outs.

 

[Richard]

However both England and Australia were better than average test sides especially in their home conditions. So the quality of opposition would have been better than the average test that Sobers played.

It's true that England in 1970 had one of the better sides we've assembled since WW One, and it's true that Australia in 1971/72 had a darn good team. But Sobers faced several other ones which were at least equals of that through his career in my book.

 

[Dissector]

Well yes. I wasn't saying that they were the toughest teams he ever faced. I was just saying that they were significantly better-than-average test opposition and definitely deserved to be considered with the rest of his test record. In the context the earlier discussion of great bowlers who Sobers had made runs against at test-level you could definitely add Lillee to the list for these were tests in all but name.

BTW does anyone know what's happened to the video for the 1970 series. I definitely remember seeing recordings on TV a long time back but I haven't seen any youtube video for example. I would love to see highlights of the Sobers/Pollock partnership in particular.

 

[MrIncredible]

Actually Dissector for both of those ROW series at the time they were given test status, which is the only reason y Sobers considered playing them at all. It was only years later that test status was removed. Either way he thought of them as tests and played his game accordingly and he was damn great in both series.


Ps Dont agree with test status being given to these type of series but if ne deserves test status it would be those 2 series of the 70s rather than that sham we had a few years ago.

 

[MrIncredible]

Let's take these points in order.

1. Quality of bowling. I presented a long list of bowlers that Sobers faced in his Test career. That list includes Lindwall, Miller, Trueman, Statham, Davidson, McKenzie, Snow, Fazal Mahmood, Bedi, Benaud, Chandrasekhar, Gupte, Laker (omitted from my original post) and Underwood. Sobers faced great bowlers throughout his career, and - unlike Lara - did not have the opportunity to fatten his average by feasting on bowlers from Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. You have listed Warne, McGrath, Murali and Donald as great bowlers that Lara faced. It would, however, be extremely misleading to maintain that he spent most of his career batting against bowlers of this quality, since less than half of his career was spent playing against Australia, South Africa and Sri Lanka. I see no evidence that over the course of his career Lara on average faced better bowling than Sobers did. If anything, the evidence points in the other direction.

2. Pitches. You attempt to belittle Sobers' successes by claiming that his runs were scored on "flat pitches." In my original post I pointed out that (a) Lara played a higher proportion of his Tests in the West Indies than Sobers did, and (b) Sobers had a better home AND a better away batting average than Lara did. To date I have not seen any reply to these points.

If you want to claim that West Indian pitches were better in Sobers' day than they were in Lara's you need to provide evidence in support of that view. I note, however, that Lara scored tons of runs on the same "flat" pitches of the Caribbean. His innings of 375 and 400 not out come to mind. Perhaps revealingly, both of those matches were drawn, while when Sobers scored 365 not out the West Indies won by an innings. In any event, you can't simply dismiss any runs scored in the West Indies as easy. One of Sobers' greatest innings was an unbeaten century at Sabina Park in 1968 on one of the worst pitches ever seen in international cricket. And, of course, we know that Sobers was more successful away from home than Lara was.

3. Support. You claim that Sobers "had a lot of support from fellow batsmen so was never under as great an amount of pressure." This is not a statement that anyone familiar with the history of West Indian cricket in the 1960's and 1970's would make. While it is true that Sobers played in a better batting team than Lara did, on at least one occasion in every series West Indies would be desperately short of runs. In fact, one of the reasons why Sobers is regarded so highly is precisely because of his ability to bat under pressure. His innings at Lords in 1966, Madras 1967, Sabina Park 1968 and 1971, Melbourne 1972 and Bridgetown 1972 among others show this.

Lara is an all-time great, but most observers who saw both him and Sobers consider Sobers to be the greater batsman. Nothing in their respective records or in your arguments provides any compelling evidence to the contrary.

Lara played 4 tests combined vs Zim/Bang.

 

[Goughy]

Dennis Lillee: 8-29 against World 11

That.Was.Rapid

All genuine fast bowling dismissals and Test calibre batsmen would not get into line.

 

[Richard]

Well yes. I wasn't saying that they were the toughest teams he ever faced. I was just saying that they were significantly better-than-average test opposition and definitely deserved to be considered with the rest of his test record. In the context the earlier discussion of great bowlers who Sobers had made runs against at test-level you could definitely add Lillee to the list for these were tests in all but name.

BTW does anyone know what's happened to the video for the 1970 series. I definitely remember seeing recordings on TV a long time back but I haven't seen any youtube video for example. I would love to see highlights of the Sobers/Pollock partnership in particular.

Actually Dissector for both of those ROW series at the time they were given test status, which is the only reason y Sobers considered playing them at all. It was only years later that test status was removed. Either way he thought of them as tests and played his game accordingly and he was damn great in both series.


Ps Dont agree with test status being given to these type of series but if ne deserves test status it would be those 2 series of the 70s rather than that sham we had a few years ago.

The Australia vs. ROW games in 1971/72 actually weren't ever given Test status - the 1970 England vs. ROW ones were. It was right that said status was revoked as any team with "Rest Of" in the title has no merit for Test status in my book. I sincerely hope that one day the same retrospective will be applied to the 2005/06 artiface.

Those games all of couse do 100% deserve First-Class status and are examples of how sometimes the best First-Class cricket can indeed rank above plenty of Test cricket.

 

[SJS]

That.Was.Rapid

All genuine fast bowling dismissals and Test calibre batsmen would not get into line.

Thats true. But whenever I see these old "highlights" I really regret not being able to see much larger periods of play that went before the dismissal. Those are the really interesting bits but most TV channells in their stupidity tend to consider the wicket taking delivery (or the boundary stroke) as being the only ones worth preserving for posterity. In variably, as with those couple of deliveries to Sobers or from Sobers to Lillee, will show why a batsman would be rooted to his stance when the lethal delivery arrived.

The famous spell from Donald to Atherton is a case in point - not of the batsman's refusal to move in that case but of the working over a great bowler can give to a batsman which is so fascinating. The fact that he then falls to the same bowler or to another (as is so many times the case) to a good ball or a relatively modest one is really not the point. When you see such great spells from a great bowler to a great batsman you realise how important and how much more exciting Test cricket can really be if the conditions are provided for all concerned to raise their game to its highest level. Also, in so many cases, it may show you that the scoreboard can be, and often is, an ass.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sobers above Lara above Pollock above Harvey. In fact, I have Sobers as a batsman behind only Bradman and Tendulkar in my mind, just ahead of Richards.

 

[kyear2]

Sobers, Lara, Pollock and Harvey. Personall for me overall though I rate Sobers behind both the Don and Viv as they both batted at 3, where as Sobers spent much of his career at 5 or 6

 

[G.I.Joe]

Brian Lara.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Think KP

 

[NUFAN]

Sobers above Lara above Pollock above Harvey. In fact, I have Sobers as a batsman behind only Bradman and Tendulkar in my mind, just ahead of Richards.

Sobers, Lara, Pollock and Harvey. Personall for me overall though I rate Sobers behind both the Don and Viv as they both batted at 3, where as Sobers spent much of his career at 5 or 6

What do the likes of Sangakkara and future good lefties have to do in their career to be considered in the top 4? Is there any criteria that they need to pass or what? Just curious.

 

[watson]

Nothing between Sobers and Lara other than Lara played a lone hand in a Windies batting order that slowly became more woeful over time. Hence Lara had more pressure on him to succeed. On the other hand if Sobers failed with the bat then he had everyone from Weekes, Worrell and Walcott to Fredericks, Kahai, and Lloyd to back him up.

OK, I'll go Brian Lara.

(Pollock wasn't tested enough in the Test Match arena to make a definitive determination)

 

[harsh.ag]

What do the likes of Sangakkara and future good lefties have to do in their career to be considered in the top 4? Is there any criteria that they need to pass or what? Just curious.

Well, in terms of pure style, he is not getting ahead of Sobers and Lara. When talking about Pollock, you are in a sense dealing with a legend, and it is hard to place Sanga as an equal even though he might be equally talented, if that makes any sense (not sure it does). I think he is in the same class as Harvey though. I do rank him above Lloyd and Border, and of course above Morris, Lawry, Hayden, Fredericks, Gower, Gilchrist (as a pure batsman).

 

[harsh.ag]

Just realized I didn't actually answer your question . To be honest, the biggest thing I am looking for in a lefty is oodles of style to go with the substance. They can look so much more stylish than even the best right handers. In that sense, you have to be beautiful to watch. Lara definitely up there. Chanderpaul definitely not. And he won't get there even if he becomes WI's highest run scorer. With Sanga, even though he scores slowly, but he really can be a joy to watch on the off side. Some of his on side play is cumbersome, but overall he looks quite graceful. So, given his extraordinary stats (I count only those he scored as a non-keeper), he gets to be up there, but misses out somewhat. So, for future lefties, the bar is set by Harvey's brilliance. Cross that and Pollock can be easily disperched. But you have to be extraordinary to get ahead of Lara.

 

[NUFAN]

Cheers harsh. It is interesting though how style can be of so much importance. Some Cricketers are almost destined to never become great though even if they averaged 70, which seems a little 'harsh'.

The reason for my question was to work out what budding lefties need to do to be ranked so high, because currently it doesn't look like averaging 50 plus (Hayden, Chanderpaul, maybe Sangakkara) is enough these days.

Speaking of lefties, I consider Stephen Fleming as one of the most stylish batsman over the past 20 years. He was a joy to watch, especially when driving down the ground and I read an article recently that he holds the record for the most highest scores at different venues. I guess you can easily argue that his substance was lacking.

Nufan's most enjoyable lefty top 7 (from the past 20 years)

1. Matthew Hayden
2. Stephen Fleming
3. Kumar Sangakkara
4. Brian Lara
5. Graham Thorpe
6. Darren Lehmann
7. Adam Gilchrist

 

[fredfertang]

If style were the sole or determining criteria then it would have to be David Gower

 

[Burgey]

Look, it's got to be Sobers hasn't it? I mean, really?

 

[Red]

It's Sobers, no doubt. Second best batsman of all time. Second picked in any ATG team.

One guy who has gone up and up in my estimation is Neil Harvey. Bloody good batsman, great team man. Apparently his advice to incoming batsman was nearly always "These blokes aren't that good, let's get stuck in to them"!! Brilliant batsman, especially on the sort of tough wickets we don't see these days.

Combine that with the fact he was one of Australia's greatest fielders and his talent shows.

For mine, Harvey has now leapfrogged Border in my ATG Australian team top 6.


Trumper
Morris
Bradman
G. Chappell
N. Harvey
Ponting