Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Fusion]

I'm not Namibian though.

I agree with SS's point but the response was funny.

 

[Fiery]

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.

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.


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.

What's this "change of era" you speak of? Is this a "Richard theory" I'm unaware of?

And the rest of your post is garbage I'm sorry to say

 

[roseboy64]

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

Actually it's not laughable. Hayden has had to face worse bowling attack than Hayden has. Hussain had to face the likes of Walsh and Ambrose close to their prime while Hayden has murdered the likes of Taylor and Bravo. Not stating stats because it could be that Hussain dominated Ambrose but it's pretty true that Hussain would have faced better bowling than Hayden has for most of his career. In any case I'd rate them equally as good batsmen. Someone like Langer may be rated a bit higher though.

 

[roseboy64]

I agree with SS's point but the response was funny.

It rings true though in more ways than one. I can only speak for myself as to who I'd fancy myself doing better against. McGrath destroyed Nambia but I'm not Namibian. I'd much rather face him than Warne.

 

[Richard]

What's this "change of era" you speak of? Is this a "Richard theory" I'm unaware of?

It's no theory of mine at all - near enough everyone accepts that there was a shift - a very, very swift one - between batting being challenging and being not-so-challenging. That happened around about the 2001 time - pitches became flatter, loads of good bowlers went (or entered a final, lesser, phrase of their career - eg Allan Donald), balls became poorer in quality (ie they swung less) and as a result an explosion of high-scoring occurred.

And hence, players like Hayden who would never have lasted 5 minutes in most Test eras looked like World-beaters. And good batsmen like Ponting, Laxman and Jayawardene were made-out to be demi-Gods (if possibly only for a time in Laxman's case).

Scores only tell you so much in this game. Context is required.

And the rest of your post is garbage I'm sorry to say

Unless you're prepared to state why that holds no weight.

 

[Slifer]

I honestly don't believe anyone can possibly claim Sobers' bowling was as good as Imran's. I'm most certainly not "anti-Sobers" nor am I in the "clan" suggesting Imran was a better all-rounder than Sobers. All I've ever been saying is that Sobers' bowling was slightly overrated.

Fair enough. And Sobers as a bowler is certainly not in Imran's league but i wood consider him as the better all round player based on this:

Batting= Sobers>Imran
Bowling= Imran>Sobers
Fielding= Sobers>Imran

Therefore edge goes to Sobers. Plus he could bat pretty much anywhere, field anywhere ad he bowled everything (though not top notch by most people's standards).

 

[Fiery]

Fair enough. And Sobers as a bowler is certainly not in Imran's league but i wood consider him as the better all round player based on this:
Batting= Sobers>Imran
Bowling= Imran>Sobers
Fielding= Sobers>Imran

Therefore edge goes to Sobers. Plus he could bat pretty much anywhere, field anywhere ad he bowled everything (though not top notch by most people's standards).

Wood you?

 

[Anil]

Actually it's not laughable. Hayden has had to face worse bowling attack than Hayden has. Hussain had to face the likes of Walsh and Ambrose close to their prime while Hayden has murdered the likes of Taylor and Bravo. Not stating stats because it could be that Hussain dominated Ambrose but it's pretty true that Hussain would have faced better bowling than Hayden has for most of his career. In any case I'd rate them equally as good batsmen. Someone like Langer may be rated a bit higher though.

hussain may have faced better bowlers during his career but when did he dominate these bowling greats?

 

[Beleg]

You folks are splitting hairs.

 

[Beleg]

Hayden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hussain

 

[vic_orthdox]

well the truth is Hussain wasnt as good as Richard seems to be making out, but Imran wasnt as good as maybe you are making out.

Imran tended to do well in great batting conditions. He rarely won a game in tests with his batting (unlike someone like Botham). Imran's average did get bumped a bit by having very little batting under him and being not out a hell of a lot (I know not his fault, but still something to consider)

Heres your Imran scores over 50 in tests:

59 (out of 565/9dec, include one double hundred and two hundreds)
56 (out of 420/9 dec, including one hundred)
123 (out of 369 vs WI, Imran easily highest score of game)
70* (out of 500/8 dec, on flattest Melbourne pitch for years)
65 (out of 199 in second innings, chasing 313 to win, in low scoring affair)
67* (out of 275, match lost)
117 (out of 652)
83 and 72* (out of 470 and 238/7, in game where Mohsin Khan got 152 and Yallop got 268, and Imran didnt bowl in the match)
63 (out of 295 vs 1985 Sri Lankan bowling attack)
61 (out of 159 vs WI, Imran had innings highest score, and a match changing innings)
135* (out of 487/9 dec, in match where two other Pakistan batsman got 90s in first inn, and top four Indians got 90s)
66 (out of 341against as weak an Indian bowling line up as you will ever see )
72 (out of 395)
118 (out of 708, one other hundred and a 260 in that innings)
71 (out of 438, where NZ also scored 447 in first inn)
69* (out of 616/5 dec)
109* (out of 409)
66 (out of 699/5 dec)
136 (out of 387/9 dec in second innings, Imrans inning went a long way to saving the match, along with Wasim Akrams hundred)
82* (out of 199, in a complete dead game due to the weather)
73 (out of 345)
58* (out of 242/6 chasing 346 to win)
93* (423/5 dec)

So really no more than 5 innings where Imran genuinely changed a game, or heavily contributed with the bat in trying circumstances. He so much was in the slip stream of some real great batsmen in those pakistan teams, and his average benefited from it.

And that is where someone like a Botham will always score over Imran.

Isn't that sort of the nature of a number 7 though? You look at Gilchrist, and most of his scores are in large totals.

However, I still agree with what your saying.

 

[J.J.B.Lewis]

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.

Thats because I think:
A good bowling allrounder>A very good batting allrounder

 

[headhunter]

reply

is that a county crickit competion?

 

[Richard]

hussain may have faced better bowlers during his career but when did he dominate these bowling greats?

He didn't. Domination is not a prerequistite for being a good batsm - oh, let's not do this again.

 

[silentstriker]

Domination in the Test arena is a bit overrated. It's certainly a help to the team to have people who can score quick and put pressure on bowlers, but it is definitely not a requirement. Kallis and Dravid are not liabilities and they are both excellent players to watch and have on your team.

 

[Richard]

Angus Fraser - a bowler - even said Kirsten and Richardson must have been great to have on your team, even if they weren't quite so good to watch.

 

[pup11]

Thats because Kirsten and Richardson were effective players in their own damn way so it really didn't mattered whether they were good to watch or not.

 

[Anil]

He didn't. Domination is not a prerequistite for being a good batsm - oh, let's not do this again.

the person i was responding to said he did, that's what i was replying to...in any case, he is far, far inferior to hayden...

 

[Swervy]

Angus Fraser - a bowler - even said Kirsten and Richardson must have been great to have on your team, even if they weren't quite so good to watch.

I thought you didnt really take much notice of what ex-players had to say about their contempories?

 

[roseboy64]

the person i was responding to said he did, that's what i was replying to...in any case, he is far, far inferior to hayden...

I never said he dominated but he did come out with a good average during that period. Pay closer attention to what's written. Don't just assume because you see a certain word it automatically defines the entire sentence.