Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[thierry henry]

hahaha, my feelings on this issue are pretty well documented

ftr I'd back the argument that Imran is #1. For a substantial time he was a world class batsman AND bowler. Has anyone else ever managed this?

Sobers' versatility as a bowler should have helped him. He could bowl whatever style was suitable, e.g. he could bowl pace on seamers, spin on turning tracks, etc. Despite always having a favourable bowling style for the conditions up his sleeve, he averaged 34. He must have been particularly dire in all of the bowling disciplines if that's what he managed with that big advantage.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Imran was never a world class batsman. He maintained a good average for an extended period, but he hardly had a huge impact on games with the bat. How many centuries did he score in his career in games that weren't epic scoring draws on flat wickets? Two?

Imran was a good batsman, certainly, but he was never world class, and to suggest that he was is laughable really. It's like suggesting that, say, Mark Boucher is a world class batsman.

And that's the whole point really, to argue that Sobers isn't a "true all-rounder" because his bowling was merely good rather than great, but to argue that Imran was is ridiculous.

 

[Richard]

I agree with Fuller to an extent - Imran's average of 50 for however many games it was is beyond question impressive, but to suggest he was ever much other than a very, very fine lower-order batsman would be wrong.

Nonetheless, he was a better batsman than most bowlers of his skill could ever remotely dream of being.

 

[Matt79]

The other argument against Imran - who I hasten to say I think extremely highly of - is that he was not really at his peak at both disciplines at the same time, in the way a Sobers or Botham was. His batting improved markedly in the later stages of his career, which unfortunately coincided with the decline of his bowling.

 

[silentstriker]

At his best Imran Khan was a far better bowler than someone like Botham, but Botham was a better batsman at his peak than Imran (regardless of Imran's average over ten years). Also, Botham had his peak simontaneously, which made for some unbelievable cricket. Overall, I'd take Imran higher than Botham, but they were different players.

Sobers though was #4 bowler in the world while being #1 batsman in the world. That's remarkable, especially considering his bowling does not even tell the whole story (and that doesn't take into account him bowling all the styles, plus his fielding). Basically, he was Botham but for a decade instead of a couple years (far better batsman than Botham, but a worse bowler).

 

[Richard]

Seriously, people need to think twice before saying Imran was never at his peak with both disciplines simualtaneously.

It was only at the very end of his career (1989\90-1991\92, 13 Tests, the end by which he was barely bowling) that his bowling went downhill, and he'd begun to be top-shelf in that department the first time he really got his teeth into Test cricket, in 1976\77 (before which he'd toured England twice as a passenger). That's 71 Tests over 12-and-a-half years of excellence.

In the first 25 of those 71 Tests, meanwhile, he averaged just 25.20 with the bat. However, that still leaves 46 Tests where he was excellent with both bat and ball, which is pretty awesome stuff.

 

[Richard]

Basically, he was Botham but for a decade instead of a couple years (far better batsman than Botham, but a worse bowler).

Botham was superlative for far more than a couple of years.

(No C_C at the moment... let's keep our fingers crossed...)

 

[shortpitched713]

Okay, so let me get this straight. We're saying that averaging over 50 with the bat for 10 years isn't good enough for a "world class" bat? Personally I think thats balderdash.

Add to that the fact that he only played the better teams in the laer part of his career and that statement becomes even more laughable.

 

[open365]

I think the point Fuller was making is that Imran's avergae was infalted by scoring runs in games played on flat wickets that were never going to be anything other than a draw.

I'm too young to have seen any of them play so i can't really comment, though i will say like everyone esle in this thread that the poll is pretty much redundant due to the massive asian bias on cricinfo.

 

[Richard]

Okay, so let me get this straight. We're saying that averaging over 50 with the bat for 10 years isn't good enough for a "world class" bat? Personally I think thats balderdash.

Add to that the fact that he only played the better teams in the laer part of his career and that statement becomes even more laughable.

No-one's claiming he wasn't an excellent batsman, just that he wasn't a World-class top-order player.

 

[STRAIGHT BREAKS]

FFS, Sobers has nothing on Dominic Cork's allround pedigree.

 

[Richard]

Ignore.

 

[STRAIGHT BREAKS]

FFS Dire, tbh.

 

[marc71178]

Seriously, people need to think twice before saying Imran was never at his peak with both disciplines simualtaneously.

Yet he never even had one series when he combined the 2 and performed with bat AND ball...

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/ALL-ROUNDERS/MOST_RUNS_WKTS_SERIES.html

 

[Richard]

That's a pretty simplistic definition, in any case - like century-and-fivefor in match terms.

In any case, I don't tend to detract from a long-term pattern just because there is no standout.

Andrew Flintoff's Ashes 2005 was better than anything Imran ever did in a single series, sure, but is Flintoff a better all-rounder than Imran? Not even close.

 

[Slifer]

yet Sobers did it more often that most hence one of the reasons y most rate him higer than imran and co.

 

[shortpitched713]

No-one's claiming he wasn't an excellent batsman, just that he wasn't a World-class top-order player.

Since when does batting in the top versus middle order have anything to do with being a world class batsman?

 

[thierry henry]

And that's the whole point really, to argue that Sobers isn't a "true all-rounder" because his bowling was merely good rather than great, but to argue that Imran was is ridiculous.

Well that's the essence of the debate really. When I see Imran's batting average of 37, and the fact that he averaged substantially more than that for much of his career, my instinct is he must have been a legitimately good batsman.

When I see Sobers' bowling average of 34, and the fact he had several styles of bowling at his disposal to suit the conditions, I think he must've been pretty crappy and perhaps lucky to get as much of a bowl as he did.

In the end that's my intuition when it comes to statistical analysis of cricket- a guy who averages 37 is a decent bat, a guy who averages 34 is a pretty poor bowler. I think these default positions re: stats go a long way towards determining our viewpoints.

 

[shortpitched713]

Also something I never noticed before is that Imran has had the highest peak in the ICC rankings for any bowler in the modern era by a fair margin. 922 versus 915 for the next closest Murali with McGrath at 914.

And he didn't get a single vote in my poll for greatest fast bowler.

 

[Slifer]

37 a decent battin average? Since when? Last I checked averaging over 40 with the bat was considered decent and averagin under 30 as a seamer was decent and under 35 as a spinner decent.