Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Anil]

But for every Hick there are loads of people who performed well at both.

For more people than not it's a relatively small step down - for some it's a big one.

it's not just hick and ramprakash, there are plenty of other examples of players who have been "giants" at first class level and total or at least comparative failures at international level...it's not the step/gap that is small or large, it's the same for everyone, it's that there are people who leap across, there are others who just barely make it across while there are yet others who just can't bridge that gap...

 

[steve132]

I'm late to this debate, but I'm adding my two cents because I suspect that I'm one of the very few contributors who actually saw Sobers play. It strikes me as astonishing that people can attempt to evaluate Sobers' status as a bowler on the basis of a SINGLE statistic - his test bowling average. Don't get me wrong - figures do matter, but they have to be understood in their context, and used with other sources of information such as the views of contemporary players and journalists.

For example, Peter May and Ken Barrington both played for Surrey and England at around the same time (May was four years older and retired relatively early). May's test batting average was 46; Barrington, who played in more tests, averaged 58, which is significantly higher. Nevertheless, virtually all of the players and journalists who played with or watched the Surrey pair considered May to be the greater batsman. It would be foolish to ignore their testimony.

Sobers was a batsman who can bowl, as opposed to Miller, Procter, Imran, Botham and Kapil, who were bowlers who could bat. His bowling never reached the heights that his batting did, but in his prime he was good enough to hold his place in a strong test side as either a seam bowler or a spinner. This, in fact, is what happened. The West Indies selectors were able to omit a fine Jamaican fast bowler named Lester King because Sobers could support Hall and Griffith, and they also excluded an excellent slow left arm spinner named Edwin Mohammed, who operated very successfully with Lance Gibbs for Guyana. When David Holford joined the W.I. team as a leg spinner he, not Sobers, was regarded as the fifth bowler.

Any test captain of that era would have been happy to have Sobers in his team purely as a bowler. Most of them have said so.

I admired Imran very much indeed, but I don't believe that he (or for that matter, Botham or Kapil) would have been chosen to play for the stronger W.I. sides of the 1960's through the early 1980's purely as a batsman. The mid-1960's team featured Kanhai, Butcher, Nurse and Sobers in the 3 to 6 batting positions. The team in the early 70's consisted of Kallicharran, Lloyd, Kanhai and Sobers in these slots, while during Lloyd's reign as captain around 1980 Richards, Kallicharran, Rowe and Lloyd himself played. Which of these players should have been dropped to play Imran as a batsman?

One last point. Most of the players and journalists who saw Sobers considered him to be the best allrounder in the game's history, not just a great batsman who could bowl occasionally. Few, if any, of them changed their views after seeing later generations of players. Ultimately we have to choose between two competing hypotheses. Either John Arlott, Trevor Bailey, Bishan Bedi, Geoff Boycott, Don Bradman, Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Dennis Compton, Colin Cowdrey, Jack Fingleton, Wes Hall, Ray Illingworth, Alan Knott, Clive Lloyd, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Barry Richards, John Snow, E.W. Swanton, Clyde Walcott, Everton Weekes, John Woodcock and many others are all complete idiots who know nothing about evaluating bowlers, or the people who claim that Sobers was a mediocre bowler are, to put it mildly, misinformed. I know which option appears more plausible to me.

 

[Anil]

welcome to cw steve, excellent 1st post! completely agree with you about sobers! the greatest cricketer the world has ever seen!

 

[Fiery]

Yeah great first post steve132. You've put forward a very convincing argument to those who perplexingly underate his genius on this forum

 

[Athlai]

Best post I've seen IMO. Quite right too.

 

[Burgey]

welcome to cw steve, excellent 1st post! completely agree with you about sobers! the greatest cricketer the world has ever seen!

Yeah great first post steve132. You've put forward a very convincing argument to those who perplexingly underate his genius on this forum

Best post I've seen IMO. Quite right too.

What they said. Welcome Steve.

 

[SJS]

I'm late to this debate, but I'm adding my two cents because I suspect that I'm one of the very few contributors who actually saw Sobers play. It strikes me as astonishing that people can attempt to evaluate Sobers' status as a bowler on the basis of a SINGLE statistic - his test bowling average. Don't get me wrong - figures do matter, but they have to be understood in their context, and used with other sources of information such as the views of contemporary players and journalists.

For example, Peter May and Ken Barrington both played for Surrey and England at around the same time (May was four years older and retired relatively early). May's test batting average was 46; Barrington, who played in more tests, averaged 58, which is significantly higher. Nevertheless, virtually all of the players and journalists who played with or watched the Surrey pair considered May to be the greater batsman. It would be foolish to ignore their testimony.

Sobers was a batsman who can bowl, as opposed to Miller, Procter, Imran, Botham and Kapil, who were bowlers who could bat. His bowling never reached the heights that his batting did, but in his prime he was good enough to hold his place in a strong test side as either a seam bowler or a spinner. This, in fact, is what happened. The West Indies selectors were able to omit a fine Jamaican fast bowler named Lester King because Sobers could support Hall and Griffith, and they also excluded an excellent slow left arm spinner named Edwin Mohammed, who operated very successfully with Lance Gibbs for Guyana. When David Holford joined the W.I. team as a leg spinner he, not Sobers, was regarded as the fifth bowler.

Any test captain of that era would have been happy to have Sobers in his team purely as a bowler. Most of them have said so.

I admired Imran very much indeed, but I don't believe that he (or for that matter, Botham or Kapil) would have been chosen to play for the stronger W.I. sides of the 1960's through the early 1980's purely as a batsman. The mid-1960's team featured Kanhai, Butcher, Nurse and Sobers in the 3 to 6 batting positions. The team in the early 70's consisted of Kallicharran, Lloyd, Kanhai and Sobers in these slots, while during Lloyd's reign as captain around 1980 Richards, Kallicharran, Rowe and Lloyd himself played. Which of these players should have been dropped to play Imran as a batsman?

One last point. Most of the players and journalists who saw Sobers considered him to be the best allrounder in the game's history, not just a great batsman who could bowl occasionally. Few, if any, of them changed their views after seeing later generations of players. Ultimately we have to choose between two competing hypotheses. Either John Arlott, Trevor Bailey, Bishan Bedi, Geoff Boycott, Don Bradman, Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Dennis Compton, Colin Cowdrey, Jack Fingleton, Wes Hall, Ray Illingworth, Alan Knott, Clive Lloyd, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Barry Richards, John Snow, E.W. Swanton, Clyde Walcott, Everton Weekes, John Woodcock and many others are all complete idiots who know nothing about evaluating bowlers, or the people who claim that Sobers was a mediocre bowler are, to put it mildly, misinformed. I know which option appears more plausible to me.

Word !

​

 

[silentstriker]

That's very, very simplistic. While Test-cricket is clearly more important, to completely discount First-Class stuff is crazy. It's the same game under the same rules, just one step down.

Sure, if you don't have a Test record to go on, I don't have a problem with counting the FC record in a way. But if you do have a significant Test record (ie a good amount of matches played), then I do not look at the FC record at all.

 

[Richard]

it's not just hick and ramprakash, there are plenty of other examples of players who have been "giants" at first class level and total or at least comparative failures at international level...it's not the step/gap that is small or large, it's the same for everyone, it's that there are people who leap across, there are others who just barely make it across while there are yet others who just can't bridge that gap...

There aren't "plenty" of giants, there are a few. There are some succcessful players who can't bridge the gap, yes.

For some the gap is large, for some it's small. Mostly the failures to step-up are due to technical shortcomings.

 

[Richard]

Sure, if you don't have a Test record to go on, I don't have a problem with counting the FC record in a way. But if you do have a significant Test record (ie a good amount of matches played), then I do not look at the FC record at all.

Even that's silly. As I say - sure, the Test record is important, but if you have two players of equalish Test record (Vivian Richards and Greg Chappell, for instance) it makes sense to look at First-Class ones.

Equally, it'd be foolish to assess Graeme Hick purely on Test record.

 

[Richard]

I'm late to this debate, but I'm adding my two cents because I suspect that I'm one of the very few contributors who actually saw Sobers play. It strikes me as astonishing that people can attempt to evaluate Sobers' status as a bowler on the basis of a SINGLE statistic - his test bowling average. Don't get me wrong - figures do matter, but they have to be understood in their context, and used with other sources of information such as the views of contemporary players and journalists.

For example, Peter May and Ken Barrington both played for Surrey and England at around the same time (May was four years older and retired relatively early). May's test batting average was 46; Barrington, who played in more tests, averaged 58, which is significantly higher. Nevertheless, virtually all of the players and journalists who played with or watched the Surrey pair considered May to be the greater batsman. It would be foolish to ignore their testimony.

Sobers was a batsman who can bowl, as opposed to Miller, Procter, Imran, Botham and Kapil, who were bowlers who could bat. His bowling never reached the heights that his batting did, but in his prime he was good enough to hold his place in a strong test side as either a seam bowler or a spinner. This, in fact, is what happened. The West Indies selectors were able to omit a fine Jamaican fast bowler named Lester King because Sobers could support Hall and Griffith, and they also excluded an excellent slow left arm spinner named Edwin Mohammed, who operated very successfully with Lance Gibbs for Guyana. When David Holford joined the W.I. team as a leg spinner he, not Sobers, was regarded as the fifth bowler.

Any test captain of that era would have been happy to have Sobers in his team purely as a bowler. Most of them have said so.

I admired Imran very much indeed, but I don't believe that he (or for that matter, Botham or Kapil) would have been chosen to play for the stronger W.I. sides of the 1960's through the early 1980's purely as a batsman. The mid-1960's team featured Kanhai, Butcher, Nurse and Sobers in the 3 to 6 batting positions. The team in the early 70's consisted of Kallicharran, Lloyd, Kanhai and Sobers in these slots, while during Lloyd's reign as captain around 1980 Richards, Kallicharran, Rowe and Lloyd himself played. Which of these players should have been dropped to play Imran as a batsman?

One last point. Most of the players and journalists who saw Sobers considered him to be the best allrounder in the game's history, not just a great batsman who could bowl occasionally. Few, if any, of them changed their views after seeing later generations of players. Ultimately we have to choose between two competing hypotheses. Either John Arlott, Trevor Bailey, Bishan Bedi, Geoff Boycott, Don Bradman, Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Dennis Compton, Colin Cowdrey, Jack Fingleton, Wes Hall, Ray Illingworth, Alan Knott, Clive Lloyd, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Barry Richards, John Snow, E.W. Swanton, Clyde Walcott, Everton Weekes, John Woodcock and many others are all complete idiots who know nothing about evaluating bowlers, or the people who claim that Sobers was a mediocre bowler are, to put it mildly, misinformed. I know which option appears more plausible to me.

The bit about the single statistic is the most important to me.

Less sure about the May-Barrington thing, though. May's record for Surrey was better than Barrington's. Barrington, for some reason, simply managed the most incredible overperformance at Test level. Added to the fact, of course, that May simply looked more like a batsman.

 

[silentstriker]

Even that's silly. As I say - sure, the Test record is important, but if you have two players of equalish Test record (Vivian Richards and Greg Chappell, for instance) it makes sense to look at First-Class ones.

Why? If their FC cricket record is similar, do you then look at their school record? It doesn't make sense. Tests are the best judge of your ability, and if you have a significant record in that format, why does it matter what you did in lesser competition?

If anything, it would only prove that they were good at hitting out at substandard attacks.

 

[Richard]

The difference between schools and First-Class is massively larger than between Test and First-Class. Schools cricket is infinately more haphazard than either.

 

[silentstriker]

The difference between schools and First-Class is massively larger than between Test and First-Class. Schools cricket is infinately more haphazard than either.

Regardless, my points stands that doing well against inferior opponents should not be a factor once you have a top level record. Especially considering the massive differences in the various FC leagues around the world, at different times, and all comparisons are completely meaningless.

It is really impossible to compare a guy playing FC cricket in NZ pitches against only NZ teams vs. a guy playing in SL pitches with SL teams. There are a million different variables to take in to account, and no comparison, direct or indirect, will really give you any useful data. And to say something like 'X averaged 30 in SL domestic competition but Y averaged 15 in NZ domestic competition, so X is a better player' is laughable at best IMO.

 

[Richard]

The point stands that the teams, if all other variables are equal, generally tend to be pretty equal. Australia of late have been better than most, of course, but if you put a Lankan team into the New Zealand competition, consistently, with good preparation, I reckon they'd go about the same. Similar with putting, say, an English side in a West Indian comp.

First-Class cricket is not invariable, but nor, really, is Tests. And there are times (the 1870s, for instance, when Duke Of Norfolk's XI was First-Class, and the 2000s when it goes to the Intercontinental Cup) when it becomes more and less reliable. But with CricketArchive you can get better reflections, as you could when StatsGuru was first introduced.

 

[silentstriker]

The point stands that the teams, if all other variables are equal, generally tend to be pretty equal. Australia of late have been better than most, of course, but if you put a Lankan team into the New Zealand competition, consistently, with good preparation, I reckon they'd go about the same. Similar with putting, say, an English side in a West Indian comp.

You've just changed the dynamic from a player to a team. A team might (just might, not guaranteed) but a player probably wouldn't be the same. In NZ fast bowlers would probably do better, but a batsman would probably do worse.

Team to team comparison is different from batsman to batsman or bowler to bowler, which is what you're talking about comparing here.

 

[Richard]

A team is made-up of players... yes?

 

[Ikki]

I'm late to this debate, but I'm adding my two cents because I suspect that I'm one of the very few contributors who actually saw Sobers play. It strikes me as astonishing that people can attempt to evaluate Sobers' status as a bowler on the basis of a SINGLE statistic - his test bowling average.

Except that no one has made an argument based on a single statistic. They're based on ALL the available bowling statistics. Only his economy is worthy of note, otherwise all else - average, strike-rate, 4-fer/5-fer - point to him being average at best.

This isn't like a Lillee argument where he is so close to his rivals as the best ever where testimonials will make a difference.

 

[silentstriker]

A team is made-up of players... yes?

Obviously, but the individuals within a team do not have to perform the same way for a team to be just as successful. In SL the batsman and spinners might to better, whereas in NZ the fast bowlers would do better and even though the 'team' performs similarly, the individual components do not have to.

And that's why you cannot compare players like you are doing. You changed the debate from a player to a team, which is incorrect.

 

[Matt79]

I'm late to this debate, but I'm adding my two cents because I suspect that I'm one of the very few contributors who actually saw Sobers play. It strikes me as astonishing that people can attempt to evaluate Sobers' status as a bowler on the basis of a SINGLE statistic - his test bowling average. Don't get me wrong - figures do matter, but they have to be understood in their context, and used with other sources of information such as the views of contemporary players and journalists.

For example, Peter May and Ken Barrington both played for Surrey and England at around the same time (May was four years older and retired relatively early). May's test batting average was 46; Barrington, who played in more tests, averaged 58, which is significantly higher. Nevertheless, virtually all of the players and journalists who played with or watched the Surrey pair considered May to be the greater batsman. It would be foolish to ignore their testimony.

Sobers was a batsman who can bowl, as opposed to Miller, Procter, Imran, Botham and Kapil, who were bowlers who could bat. His bowling never reached the heights that his batting did, but in his prime he was good enough to hold his place in a strong test side as either a seam bowler or a spinner. This, in fact, is what happened. The West Indies selectors were able to omit a fine Jamaican fast bowler named Lester King because Sobers could support Hall and Griffith, and they also excluded an excellent slow left arm spinner named Edwin Mohammed, who operated very successfully with Lance Gibbs for Guyana. When David Holford joined the W.I. team as a leg spinner he, not Sobers, was regarded as the fifth bowler.

Any test captain of that era would have been happy to have Sobers in his team purely as a bowler. Most of them have said so.

I admired Imran very much indeed, but I don't believe that he (or for that matter, Botham or Kapil) would have been chosen to play for the stronger W.I. sides of the 1960's through the early 1980's purely as a batsman. The mid-1960's team featured Kanhai, Butcher, Nurse and Sobers in the 3 to 6 batting positions. The team in the early 70's consisted of Kallicharran, Lloyd, Kanhai and Sobers in these slots, while during Lloyd's reign as captain around 1980 Richards, Kallicharran, Rowe and Lloyd himself played. Which of these players should have been dropped to play Imran as a batsman?

One last point. Most of the players and journalists who saw Sobers considered him to be the best allrounder in the game's history, not just a great batsman who could bowl occasionally. Few, if any, of them changed their views after seeing later generations of players. Ultimately we have to choose between two competing hypotheses. Either John Arlott, Trevor Bailey, Bishan Bedi, Geoff Boycott, Don Bradman, Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Dennis Compton, Colin Cowdrey, Jack Fingleton, Wes Hall, Ray Illingworth, Alan Knott, Clive Lloyd, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Barry Richards, John Snow, E.W. Swanton, Clyde Walcott, Everton Weekes, John Woodcock and many others are all complete idiots who know nothing about evaluating bowlers, or the people who claim that Sobers was a mediocre bowler are, to put it mildly, misinformed. I know which option appears more plausible to me.

That's a fair first post!

Welcome to the forums Steve!