Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Richard]

Great post Richard! I think you've summarized the situation quite well. I think the topic has now been debated to death and is not going to produce any new points or change anyone's opinions. Though I must say that it wasn't all worthless. I think Bhupinder's Imran threads/posts brought Cricket Chat to life again. It had been very slow lately and his enthusiasm for Imran certainly caused a lot of interesting back and forth!

That's quite true now you mention it actually. The forum's been far busier this last week or so (obviously the two threads date back much further than that) than I can remember for months and months.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

In other words they continually modify their system until it comes up with the same players that most people would hand pick anyway.

It still doesn't have Shane Warne in top 10 & they have modified it only 1 time until now,so you are completely wrong there.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It still doesn't have Shane Warne in top 10 & they have modified it only 1 time until now,so you are completely wrong there.

I've just had a look at the full list, I think their system still contains one or two flaws. I don't think I'd be using that to prove the virtues of any cricketer. Dennis Lillee is at 33 and coming in at number 57 is Wasim Akram........just below Willis, Snow and ..........drum roll ...........Ken Higgs.

 

[nightprowler10]

I've just had a look at the full list, I think their system still contains one or two flaws. I don't think I'd be using that to prove the virtues of any cricketer. Dennis Lillee is at 33 and coming in at number 57 is Wasim Akram........just below Willis, Snow and ..........drum roll ...........Ken Higgs.

The rating basically takes into account highest peaks ever, and considering that, I don't think its too far off. Of course there's the whole thing about comparing across eras....

 

[Sanz]

I've already told you that I rate allrounders in a different way than you do.My ratings are almost sloely based on stats while yours are not.Sobers was a good batsman almost right from the start of his career while Imran was nothing with the bat nor ball till 1977.Thats the superiority Sobers has over Imran & thats the thing which Sobers has got advantage of while being.Imran at his peak averaged 51 with the bat & 19 with the ball.Where as Sobers at his peak(which was a 7 years period) averaged in early 60s with the bat & around 28 with the ball.I've already stated so many times by presenting statistical & other facts that how Imran's bowling equals Sobers' batting.And there was not any huge difference between between Imran's batting & Sobers' bowling but Imran's batting was just better IMO.

I dont care how you rate allrounder neither was I trying to make you change your opinion. I was merely arguing your point where you said Sobers had a higher rating because of his batting. And you have time and again claimed that Imran's bowling is either better or atleast equal to Sobers batting, they why doesn't his bowling help him get better ratings than Sobers. Add to that you have always said that Imran's batting is >> Sobers' bowling and then why doesn't that work in Imran's favor as well.

Needless to say that you never touched upon it and went on about how you rate Imran better allrounder than Sobers accodring to the stats, totally ignoraing that it was the stats i posted showed Sobers the better allrounder by quite a distance. That's is how you have basically argue this issue since the beginning, first make some outlandish remarks about sobers and when showed the evidence that you may be wrong, you itotally ignore that post and go back to same old repititive stance.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I dont care how you rate allrounder neither was I trying to make you change your opinion. I was merely arguing your point where you said Sobers had a higher rating because of his batting. And you have time and again claimed that Imran's bowling is either better or atleast equal to Sobers batting, they why doesn't his bowling help him get better ratings than Sobers. Add to that you have always said that Imran's batting is >> Sobers' bowling and then why doesn't that work in Imran's favor as well.

Needless to say that you never touched upon it and went on about how you rate Imran better allrounder than Sobers accodring to the stats, totally ignoraing that it was the stats i posted showed Sobers the better allrounder by quite a distance. That's is how you have basically argue this issue since the beginning, first make some outlandish remarks about sobers and when showed the evidence that you may be wrong, you itotally ignore that post and go back to same old repititive stance.

You're probably refering towards higher ever ratings achieved by allrounders,those ratings are based on their rankings with the bat & ball at the same time.Imran gets the disadvantage of not performing in the same series with both bat & ball less times than Sobers did.

And had I argumented with repetitive arguents,then these Imran Khan threds would've never been so big.Everyone knows that I have number of fairly valid arguments to argue in favour of Imran Khan.

 

[Ikki]

You're probably refering towards higher ever ratings achieved by allrounders,those ratings are based on their rankings with the bat & ball at the same time.Imran gets the disadvantage of not performing in the same series with both bat & ball less times than Sobers did.

And had I argumented with repetitive arguents,then these Imran Khan threds would've never been so big.Everyone knows that I have number of fairly valid arguments to argue in favour of Imran Khan.

As he probably should.

 

[Sanz]

Everyone knows that I have number of fairly valid arguments to argue in favour of Imran Khan.

Imran was a great allrounder, those arguments that you make or made are already known to everyone. It's not like after you made those arguments people started recognizing Imran as an allrounder.

 

[neville cardus]

w3 n0 l0ng3r tAlk lyk th1s nem0r bro

Then stop it.

 

[neville cardus]

Also mostly when people say they're putting someone on ignore list, they actually don't do it

An ignore list? Yay! How do I get mine working?

 

[neville cardus]

Consistency wise,only Marshall,Barnes & Spofforth were the ones more consistent than Imran.

Spoff? Consistent? Bowlers of the Nineteenth Century generally picked up wickets on a very regular basis. Spoff, however, was supposedly prone to rather massive vagaries of form, so I highly doubt that he's top-ten material.

 

[Prince EWS]

Imran was a great allrounder, those arguments that you make or made are already known to everyone. It's not like after you made those arguments people started recognizing Imran as an allrounder.

To be honest, I didn't rate Imran as highly as an allrounder before I started reading BS's posts. Obviously I knew he was a great player, but he has made me rate him above a few I had him below previously.

 

[kiwipostereborn]

The thing about how many styles sobers could bowl is pointless.. If I bowled with my turned around the wrong way and averaged 35 would I be a great bowler? The only thing that matters is the results he got.. not how hard it was for him because he bowled certain styles.

Fact is sobers was an average bowler, his stats show it. Kallis is a better bowler than him because he is bowling in a batsman dominated era with flatter pitches and has a better bowling average.

Yes sobers is one of the best cricketers ever but as an allrounder there is no way his record is good as imran khan's.

 

[neville cardus]

You do realize that there are more batsmen in cricket than bowlers, right?
Also, link me to the site from where you are getting all this stuff. Let us see what Imran and Sobers' peak batting and bowling ratings were, respectively.
And yes, they (Wisden) did do an allrounder list and Sobers came out well on top, didn't he? They used their own batting and bowling ratings for that, the very ones you are using now...

For what it's worth -- and that probably ain't very much --, here's a list, compiled in 2002, of the top ten allround averages in first-class cricket:

1. Grace ... 2.174
2. Tarrant ... 2.082
3. Woolley ... 2.052
4. Sobers ... 1.978
5. Procter ... 1.844
6. Rhodes ... 1.842
7. Hirst ... 1.822
8. Hadlee ... 1.751
9. Hearne ... 1.678
10. Imran ... 1.684

 

[neville cardus]

I realise there is a very certain element of PCKB (that's pots and kettles for those who CBA with that abbreviation)

Concerned Bikers' Association?

 

[neville cardus]

I've just had a look at the full list, I think their system still contains one or two flaws. I don't think I'd be using that to prove the virtues of any cricketer. Dennis Lillee is at 33 and coming in at number 57 is Wasim Akram........just below Willis, Snow and ..........drum roll ...........Ken Higgs.

'Nuff said.

 

[shortpitched713]

'Nuff said.

Its more of a peak form list than anything.

 

[neville cardus]

Its more of a peak form list than anything.

Higgs, though?

 

[Sanz]

The thing about how many styles sobers could bowl is pointless.. If I bowled with my turned around the wrong way and averaged 35 would I be a great bowler? The only thing that matters is the results he got.. not how hard it was for him because he bowled certain styles.

Fact is sobers was an average bowler, his stats show it. Kallis is a better bowler than him because he is bowling in a batsman dominated era with flatter pitches and has a better bowling average.

Yes sobers is one of the best cricketers ever but as an allrounder there is no way his record is good as imran khan's.

 

[The Sean]

For what it's worth -- and that probably ain't very much --, here's a list, compiled in 2002, of the top ten allround averages in first-class cricket:

1. Grace ... 2.174
2. Tarrant ... 2.082
3. Woolley ... 2.052
4. Sobers ... 1.978
5. Procter ... 1.844
6. Rhodes ... 1.842
7. Hirst ... 1.822
8. Hadlee ... 1.751
9. Hearne ... 1.678
10. Imran ... 1.684

I'm assuming there the cutoff is 500 FC wickets? Because otherwise KR Miller (497 FC wickets) with a FC batting average of nearly 49 and FC bowling average of 22 would rank at the top of that list.