Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[nightprowler10]

A dire thread IMO with few exceptions.

Anyway, agree with most if not all posts favoring Sobers as the best ever all rounder.

IMO:

1) Sir Garfield Sobers
2) Imran Khan
3) Keith Miller
4) Ian Botham
5) Kapil Dev/Jacques Kallis

 

[honestbharani]

By that logic Bradman could have a bowling average of 70 and still be +30 and therefore be the greatest allrounder ever, yet noone that had a bowling average that high could seriously be considered as an allrounder.

The simple adding and taking away doesnt work. Its a lazy formula and inaccurate.

Kallis is also +23. As great as Sobers and far better than Imran, Botham, Miller etc by your methodology.

so, Goughy, you actually SAW batsmen play Sobers with the greatest of ease and have therefore concluded that he simply isn't good enough to be called a bowler?


So u know how many bowlers were much better than him at that time?


Just saying stuff like "He is just a part timer" when you haven't even watched the guy play borders on the ridiculous, tbh, no matter who the player being discussed is.

 

[thierry henry]

so, Goughy, you actually SAW batsmen play Sobers with the greatest of ease and have therefore concluded that he simply isn't good enough to be called a bowler?


So u know how many bowlers were much better than him at that time?


Just saying stuff like "He is just a part timer" when you haven't even watched the guy play borders on the ridiculous, tbh, no matter who the player being discussed is.

lol

So did he average 34 because he was just really, really, unlucky? Dropped catches? Batsman friendly pitches (hence negating his batting stats )

 

[honestbharani]

lol

So did he average 34 because he was just really, really, unlucky? Dropped catches? Batsman friendly pitches (hence negating his batting stats )

OR, we could try to explain it with facts such as him bowling spin so that they could play more seamers on seamer friendly tracks and him bowling medium pace so that they could play the extra batter on a batting track or the extra spinner on a turner.


Seriously, these are accounts u get from guys who played with the bloke, those who wrote about the matches he played in and quite simply, those who knew how good/bad the other guys going around at that time were.


Factor in facts like the Windies not being all that good a team at that time, they were only midtable at best back then, I believe...


It is just amazing to see a group of people here discussing how good/bad a guy was just based on a set of numbers without never having even seen him play and then try to say things like "he is only a part timer" as though it is a general fact like the sun rising in the east. By all accounts, you guys are entitled to your opinions, but to try to make it sound as though they are facts simply because u have a few numbers to prove it is, as I said earlier, bordering on the ridiculous.


Kallis averages 58 and Lara averages 53. Players around the world have rated Lara as the most dangerous player to bowl at and also one of the best ever. But are u guys going to say that Kallis is a better batsman and also a more dangerous than Lara, just because his numbers suggest so?


This is one of my pet gripes about cricket fans around the world. Speaking of players they have not even seen and then rating them (which means mostly saying, the current Player A is easily better than that old Player B)... Surely, there is a limit to relying on stats. And as for my earlier question, how many other bowlers had better records at that time and more importantly, how many other bowlers in the Windies had better records than Sir Garry at that time?

 

[Fusion]

A dire thread IMO with few exceptions.

Anyway, agree with most if not all posts favoring Sobers as the best ever all rounder.

IMO:

1) Sir Garfield Sobers
2) Imran Khan
3) Keith Miller
4) Ian Botham
5) Kapil Dev/Jacques Kallis

That's pretty much how I rank them as well. Gary Sobers to me is the most complete player of all time, and the 2nd greatest player period behind Bradman. As for Imran, I don't think it's a stretch to rate him 2nd behind Sobers in the "complete" player category. When it comes to all-rounders, sometimes people make it sound like Sobers first and daylight second. I think that's not giving enough credit to Imran. As has been pointed out, during his peak period as an all-rounder Imran's stats are magnificent.

I love debates like these. It's great to read people's opinions and see them make the case for their arguments. However, sometimes in order to support their player's case as being better, people unreasonably deflate the other player. In normal context, they would speak highly of the player they're now dissing, but they have to prove their point so out goes objectivity. Oh well, that can be the nature of any debate I suppose.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, I'd have to go with something like:

1. Sobers
2. Imran
3. Miller

Botham is an intriguing case because looking at it, he is not an all time great bowler like Imran, nor an all time great batsman like Sobers but there was a period where he really batted and bowled like he was. Frankly, I don't know where to rate him. If he had kept it up for maybe 3-4 more years than he did...he would probably challenge Sobers TBH.


Also, Hussain had his peak had an ICC batting rating of around 768, while Imran never went past 650 (which is quite good for a bowler).

Let's compare peaks (as measured by ICC's system, which is not flawless but does provide a good guide):

Imran Khan Bowling: 922 (Imran Khan is actually behind only SF Barnes and GA Lohmann in terms of best ever rating by a bowler)
Imran Khan Batting: 650

Botham Bowling: 911
Botham Batting: 811

Sobers Bowling: 715
Sobers Batting: 938

Miller Bowling: 862
Miller Batting: 681

Going by these, Imran is the best bowler (with Ian Botham as a surprisingly close second). In fact, at his best, Ian Botham had a higher bowling rating than Lillee ever did. Sobers is far and way the best batsman, but Botham is also second on that list. Miller is about in the middle with both.

This of course measures only the peaks, and not all the other qualities that Sobers' had. In any case, take from this what you will, but from looking at the ratings...I can only wish I was alive to see Ian Botham in full flow .

 

[J.J.B.Lewis]

Yea, I'd have to go with something like:

1. Sobers
2. Imran
3. Miller

Botham is an intriguing case because looking at it, he is not an all time great bowler like Imran, nor an all time great batsman like Sobers but there was a period where he really batted like it in both disciplines. Frankly, I don't know where to rate him. If he had kept it up for maybe 3-4 more years than he did...he would probably challenge Sobers TBH.

Keith Miller was as good a batsman as Imran or Botham but his wkts/match ratio of 3.0 is very poor as compared to 3.7 of Botham and 4.1 of Imran Khan.Thats why I think Keith Miller was nowhere near as good an allrounder as Imran Khan or Ian Botham.Anyway,top 5 of alltime for me:

1.Imran Khan
2.Ian Botham
3.Shaun Pollock
4.Keith Miller
5.Gary Sobers

 

[Anil]

i'd take that and double that...

 

[silentstriker]

Keith Miller was as good a batsman as Imran or Botham but his wkts/match ratio of 3.0 is very poor as compared to 3.7 of Botham and 4.1 of Imran Khan.Thats why I think Keith Miller was nowhere near as good an allrounder as Imran Khan or Ian Botham.Anyway,top 5 of alltime for me:

1.Imran Khan
2.Ian Botham
3.Shaun Pollock
4.Keith Miller
5.Gary Sobers

Shaun Pollock is a better all rounder than Gary Sobers? As far as these things can be compared, Sobers was a better batsman than Pollock was a bowler, and a better bowler than Pollock as a batsman. If that makes any sense.

 

[pasag]

Biased writers & experts did try to hide the achievments of Imran Khan as an allrounder from common cricket fans for around 2 decades by portraying Sobers as the greatest allrounder ever because he is a ****** & a ********* but its not possible anymore in this global village& age of internet & technology and this poll of Cricinfo is merely a small example of it.

I, like others would still like to know what the bolded part above is supposed to mean, while you're here J.J.B.Lewis.

 

[Swervy]

Yea, I'd have to go with something like:

1. Sobers
2. Imran
3. Miller

Botham is an intriguing case because looking at it, he is not an all time great bowler like Imran, nor an all time great batsman like Sobers but there was a period where he really batted and bowled like he was. Frankly, I don't know where to rate him. If he had kept it up for maybe 3-4 more years than he did...he would probably challenge Sobers TBH.


Also, Hussain had his peak had an ICC batting rating of around 768, while Imran never went past 650 (which is quite good for a bowler).

Let's compare peaks (as measured by ICC's system, which is not flawless but does provide a good guide):

Imran Khan Bowling: 922 (Imran Khan is actually behind only SF Barnes and GA Lohmann in terms of best ever rating by a bowler)
Imran Khan Batting: 650

Botham Bowling: 911
Botham Batting: 811

Sobers Bowling: 715
Sobers Batting: 938

Miller Bowling: 862
Miller Batting: 681

Going by these, Imran is the best bowler (with Ian Botham as a surprisingly close second). In fact, at his best, Ian Botham had a higher bowling rating than Lillee ever did. Sobers is far and way the best batsman, but Botham is also second on that list. Miller is about in the middle with both.

This of course measures only the peaks, and not all the other qualities that Sobers' had. In any case, take from this what you will, but from looking at the ratings...I can only wish I was alive to see Ian Botham in full flow .

when Botham got his highest rating 911 with the ball (one of the highest of all time), he was also ranked 7th in the world with the bat.

When Botham rated highest with the bat (811 3rd in the world), he was still 8th in the world with the ball.

Imran never came close to such domination with both bat and ball at the same time

 

[Swervy]

I'd rate Hussain as better than both Imran and Hayden, personally.

this is a joke right?

 

[Anil]

this is a joke right?

now you must be joking! knowing rich, you should know that he was dead serious...

 

[Swervy]

now you must be joking! knowing rich, you should know that he was dead serious...

yeah..that or just attention seeking!!!!

It just defies belief really, given firstly he never saw Imran bat, and secondly, the success Hayden has had compared to Hussain..laughable really

 

[silentstriker]

when Botham got his highest rating 911 with the ball (one of the highest of all time), he was also ranked 7th in the world with the bat.

When Botham rated highest with the bat (811 3rd in the world), he was still 8th in the world with the ball.

Imran never came close to such domination with both bat and ball at the same time

Yea, like I said, I wish I was alive to see him perform.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yea, I'd have to go with something like:

1. Sobers
2. Imran
3. Miller

Botham is an intriguing case because looking at it, he is not an all time great bowler like Imran, nor an all time great batsman like Sobers but there was a period where he really batted and bowled like he was. Frankly, I don't know where to rate him. If he had kept it up for maybe 3-4 more years than he did...he would probably challenge Sobers TBH.


Also, Hussain had his peak had an ICC batting rating of around 768, while Imran never went past 650 (which is quite good for a bowler).

Let's compare peaks (as measured by ICC's system, which is not flawless but does provide a good guide):

Imran Khan Bowling: 922 (Imran Khan is actually behind only SF Barnes and GA Lohmann in terms of best ever rating by a bowler)
Imran Khan Batting: 650

Botham Bowling: 911
Botham Batting: 811

Sobers Bowling: 715
Sobers Batting: 938

Miller Bowling: 862
Miller Batting: 681

Going by these, Imran is the best bowler (with Ian Botham as a surprisingly close second). In fact, at his best, Ian Botham had a higher bowling rating than Lillee ever did. Sobers is far and way the best batsman, but Botham is also second on that list. Miller is about in the middle with both.

This of course measures only the peaks, and not all the other qualities that Sobers' had. In any case, take from this what you will, but from looking at the ratings...I can only wish I was alive to see Ian Botham in full flow .

I don't see how you can use ICC Rating peaks to prove anything other than the nature of their batting and bowling at each of their respective peaks, and I feel that that method is highly flawed. For example a player like Kapil Dev would be highly underrated by that system, despite the fact that he was India's best seamer for a long time and made vital contributions with both bat and ball for a more extended period than any of these allrounders.

 

[Swervy]

I don't see how you can use ICC Rating peaks to prove anything other than the nature of their batting and bowling at each of their respective peaks, and I feel that that method is highly flawed. For example a player like Kapil Dev would be highly underrated by that system, despite the fact that he was India's best seamer for a long time and made vital contributions with both bat and ball for a more extended period than any of these allrounders.

so how would you suggest you could measure it? When it comes down to it, when you have a set of players evenly matched, it comes down to opinion. Although most observers would say that Dev wasnt as good a bowler as most of these allrounders and not as good a batter as most of them as well

Where I draw the line though is someone saying Hussain was a better bat than Haydos

 

[Richard]

He played in the same era!

No, he didn't, the change of era happened in 2001, by which time Hussain had just 2 years left, while Hayden was merely starting.

If the difference is that marked, then the guys who averaged so much in the nineties (Tendulkar, Lara, and Waugh) would be beyond comparison to anyone that plays now. By your definition, Dravid/Ponting could end up with an average of 70 and still not be better?

IMO, that's not right. There might be a difference, and in fact I think there is a big difference, but not that big.

It's not as simple as that. There were challenges that had to be answered in the 1990s that have rarely been posed in the 2000s. Hayden was capable of answering those posed in the 2000s, but not those that were posed in the 1990s. You can't just say "his average is X higher so therefore it's X proportional..." etc.

this is a joke right?

No, it's not. Hayden would have been eaten alive by the sort of stuff Hussain routinely faced. Hayden is indeed far, far better than Hussain at battering rubbish bowling, but given that for most of Test history that's not been the name of the game, I don't rate Hayden too highly. And where facing-up to good bowling is concerned, Hussain trumps Hayden at every turn.

 

[roseboy64]

Considering what happens to substandard players that play against him, I'd love to see that.

I'm not Namibian though.

 

[silentstriker]

I'm not Namibian though.

I am fairly certain that it's not the Namibian genes that made them get out....