Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[Top_Cat]

Even during the 00s, a decade of high run scoring, the average batsman's average was 32 IIRC - compared to Imran's 37. It shows one was woefully below the average in his weaker discipline during his career, and the other was higher. Therefore they don't equate.

Using the global batting/bowling averages introduces some pretty significant bias, though. More so in batting than bowling i.e. generally have to be of a certain standard to get a bowl at all (leave alone regularly) but everyone bats, etc.

 

[abmk]

There is a reason I don't equate. What is good, bad or average is relative. One has to look at an era's bowling or batting to see what the norm was. As I listed above:



Even during the 00s, a decade of high run scoring, the average batsman's average was 32 IIRC - compared to Imran's 37. It shows one was woefully below the average in his weaker discipline during his career, and the other was higher. Therefore they don't equate.

not a correct way to go about it. The effect of the lower order in lowering the batting averages is more than that of the part-timers increasing the bowling averages I'd think ...Either way, you can't equate or compare with the averages that way unless you can prove they have near equal effect

 

[vcs]

There is a reason I don't equate. What is good, bad or average is relative. One has to look at an era's bowling or batting to see what the norm was. As I listed above:



Even during the 00s, a decade of high run scoring, the average batsman's average was 32 IIRC - compared to Imran's 37. It shows one was woefully below the average in his weaker discipline during his career, and the other was higher. Therefore they don't equate.

Eh, so what? Tailenders have to bat, but batsmen who can hardly turn their arms over don't get to bowl.

bagapath beat me to it.

EDIT : and Top_Cat and abmk.

 

[Top_Cat]

Mine was a late edit so I probably didn't beat you in fairness.

Arm wrestle?

 

[Jono]

Good counter to the global batting stat

 

[vcs]

Mine was a late edit so I probably didn't beat you in fairness.

Arm wrestle?

I thought you were implying the same thing TBH.

 

[Top_Cat]

Exactly the same, just felt like the touch of a man.

Putting it out therrrreeee, feel free to send it on back.....

 

[MrIncredible]

oh! that reminds me.... that i would have them both in any set up.... there is no way anyone can ever come up with better options for a batting allrounder - bowling allrounder combo than these two; even hammond-miller or kallis - botham would be significantly inferior to the sobers - imran combo.

ikki.... global batting average stat is an ass. it includes the averages of tailenders also. the global bowling average is a reliable stat because it is derived from the numbers of 4 or 5 bowlers in each innings. the batting stat, OTOH, is made up of all 11 batsmen. from imran's era, for example, it would include chandra and walsh's averages too. if i extend your logic i will have to conclude that marshall who averaged 10 runs below the global bowling average of 31 was roughly as good with the ball as aravinda de silva was with the bat, who averaged 10 more than the global batting average. see how silly it is?

let us stick to calling 30 as a good bowling average and 40 for batting. that makes better sense to me.

Im of the exact same school of thought TBH

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, comparing Imran's batting average to the global batting average of his time is a good starting point if you want to compare to him other batsmen of different eras, but looking looking at it as an index and then comparing it to someone's standardised bowling average index is inherently flawed due to the nature of cricket.

That said, it does (in a way) show why bowling allrounders are naturally more useful than batting allrounders from the start - batting allrounders can in theory just take overs away from the better bowlers at times, while bowling allrounders just contribute to the lower order as they have to bat anyway. Obviously that's a very simplistic way of looking at bowling and the partnerships such a player can form and the rest he can give the strike bowlers will usually outweigh that phenomena, but it's still worth considering to some degree IMO. It's a theory Goughy has always been a big advocate of.

 

[Ikki]

I take the critique for the method, but one must also consider that Imran himself was a tailender.

Nevertheless, here are the global batting averages since 1950, decade on decade, for batsmens 1-7 - Link.

In only the 2000s and the 2010s are the global batting averages higher than Imran's average, and only slightly in the 2000s. For his own time, Imran was higher than the global batting average.

So, in the end; the point stands. Imran was the average, or slightly better, Test batsman with respect to non-tailenders in pretty much every era. Sobers' bowling, however, is way below par. He is 3 points inferior on average and 12 points on SR in his own era. In fact, even if we only talk about the average spinner in Sobers' time, he is still inferior to the global average - which is quite bad considering he spent many years as a pacer.

 

[cnerd123]

@***** :- I advise you that you leave that job for someone with CW experience .

I nominate Migara.

I've got 18K posts on PC.

I reckon I could handle the task.

 

[benchmark00]

Posts on Planet Cricket are like making runs against Bangladesh.

Sure, they are included in your stats, but you know they don't mean anything.

 

[bagapath]

I take the critique for the method, but one must also consider that Imran himself was a tailender.

Nevertheless, here are the global batting averages since 1950, decade on decade, for batsmens 1-7 - Link.

In only the 2000s and the 2010s are the global batting averages higher than Imran's average, and only slightly in the 2000s. For his own time, Imran was higher than the global batting average.

So, in the end; the point stands. Imran was the average, or slightly better, Test batsman with respect to non-tailenders in pretty much every era. Sobers' bowling, however, is way below par. He is 3 points inferior on average and 12 points on SR in his own era. In fact, even if we only talk about the average spinner in Sobers' time, he is still inferior to the global average - which is quite bad considering he spent many years as a pacer.

during the career span of imran khan he batted predominantly between no.s 6 and 8. (116 innings out of 126 times in his entire career). he averaged 37 in these positions when the global average for anyone with more than 2000 runs batting between 6 and 8 is 27. that makes him 10 points better than the rest of the world as a batsman.

in the same time frame, for all those bowlers who took 50 or more wickets, the global bowling average stands at 32. imran got his wickets at 22. again making him 10 points better than the rest of the world as a bowler.

so by your logic imran was as good a bowler as he was as a batsman. that is not true. even imran wont agree with that. so please stop comparing global batting and bowling averages and close those spread sheets.

 

[salman85]

No, Pakistan cricket was highly dysfunctional before Imran took over. Javed always gave his best, but he couldn't control the massive egos and individualistic behavior. In short, he (or other captains before Imran), couldn't get the players to function as a team. There were many player revolts against Javed and others. Now, to the discredit of Imran, he did give his tacit approval to the last player revolt that finally forced Javed to relinquish the captaincy. But the brutal fact is that Javed just didn't have the charisma and the leadership to control the wild bunch. Imran did. Once he took control, no one dared to attempt a player revolt. He demanded that everyone played for the good of the team or they would be kicked out. He demanded, and received, the best from each person by the sheer power of his personality. His brilliant leadership of this highly violatile bunch we call Pakistani players cannot be understated. Just look at the **** we've had to deal with since he left. Remember that ATG's like Javed, Wasim, and Waqar became captains after Imran and never matched his achievements nor his ability to unite/lead the team. I suppose Inzi came the closest, but we can all agree that even he had daylight to catch before matching Imran in the captaincy department. It's no coincidence that the match fixing scandal truly hit Pakistan after Imran retired. Can you imagine any of those players from the '90's, or the disgraced trio from today, getting away with it if Imran was captain? Do you think that Shoaib or Asif would've pulled all their disgraceful stunts under Imran? I can't. One can debate whether he's the best AR ever, or the best bowler, or heck even the most handsome cricketer ever if you want. But I don't think there should be any debate that he was the best Captain and leader that Pakistan ever had.

I agree with the rest.But your valuation of Javed as a captain is someway off the mark.Javed is regarded,by many people,to be better tactically than Imran.However,Javed was too brash in terms of personality which is why he was never going to get along with others.Imran on the other hand,was a brilliant man manager and knew how,when and where to talk to a person.

 

[archie mac]

I came back on to read the views of others, but here we are with another stats Vs experts opinons, no wonder people like SJS no longer post in CC

 

[shivfan]

When assessing allrounders, some of us subtract the bowling average away from the batting average, and the score that remains tells us how good he was. On that basis, Sobers beats Imran....

However, I'm of the view that there are two types of allrounders - batting allrounders and bowling allrounders. IMHO, Sobers is the best-ever batting allrounder, though Kallis is running him close, while Imran is the best-ever bowling allrounder.

 

[hang on]

right u are, shivfan. of course, miller runs imran even closer than kallis runs sobers.

 

[smash84]

While Imran was a great captain, it is often brought into discussion that Pakistan Cricket was highly dysfunctional before he came and this theory gets accepted as some sort of gospel mainly because of the current state of Pakistan Cricket.

Since you have brought up the historical perspective into it, From what I remember, Pakistan Cricket before and during Imran was not dysfunctional at all, yes it had its internal politics but so did India. It had its explosive character in Miandad, but Javed always gave his best for Pakistan regardless of the internal politics. Pakistan Cricket was still progressing before Imran became captain.

No. You might want to read the book Imran Khan by Christopher Sandford. At one point in time Imran was leading a team with 5 or 6 ex-captains. The turmoil in Pak cricket has been there before as well as after Imran. Please don't start revising history over here. Imran was far and away the best captain Pak ever had.

No, Pakistan cricket was highly dysfunctional before Imran took over. Javed always gave his best, but he couldn't control the massive egos and individualistic behavior. In short, he (or other captains before Imran), couldn't get the players to function as a team. There were many player revolts against Javed and others. Now, to the discredit of Imran, he did give his tacit approval to the last player revolt that finally forced Javed to relinquish the captaincy. But the brutal fact is that Javed just didn't have the charisma and the leadership to control the wild bunch. Imran did. Once he took control, no one dared to attempt a player revolt. He demanded that everyone played for the good of the team or they would be kicked out. He demanded, and received, the best from each person by the sheer power of his personality. His brilliant leadership of this highly violatile bunch we call Pakistani players cannot be understated. Just look at the **** we've had to deal with since he left. Remember that ATG's like Javed, Wasim, and Waqar became captains after Imran and never matched his achievements nor his ability to unite/lead the team. I suppose Inzi came the closest, but we can all agree that even he had daylight to catch before matching Imran in the captaincy department. It's no coincidence that the match fixing scandal truly hit Pakistan after Imran retired. Can you imagine any of those players from the '90's, or the disgraced trio from today, getting away with it if Imran was captain? Do you think that Shoaib or Asif would've pulled all their disgraceful stunts under Imran? I can't. One can debate whether he's the best AR ever, or the best bowler, or heck even the most handsome cricketer ever if you want. But I don't think there should be any debate that he was the best Captain and leader that Pakistan ever had.

This

Yeah, comparing Imran's batting average to the global batting average of his time is a good starting point if you want to compare to him other batsmen of different eras, but looking looking at it as an index and then comparing it to someone's standardised bowling average index is inherently flawed due to the nature of cricket.

That said, it does (in a way) show why bowling allrounders are naturally more useful than batting allrounders from the start - batting allrounders can in theory just take overs away from the better bowlers at times, while bowling allrounders just contribute to the lower order as they have to bat anyway. Obviously that's a very simplistic way of looking at bowling and the partnerships such a player can form and the rest he can give the strike bowlers will usually outweigh that phenomena, but it's still worth considering to some degree IMO. It's a theory Goughy has always been a big advocate of.

I do find bowling all rounders more useful too.

right u are, shivfan. of course, miller runs imran even closer than kallis runs sobers.

How come?

 

[Ikki]

during the career span of imran khan he batted predominantly between no.s 6 and 8. (116 innings out of 126 times in his entire career). he averaged 37 in these positions when the global average for anyone with more than 2000 runs batting between 6 and 8 is 27. that makes him 10 points better than the rest of the world as a batsman.

in the same time frame, for all those bowlers who took 50 or more wickets, the global bowling average stands at 32. imran got his wickets at 22. again making him 10 points better than the rest of the world as a bowler.

so by your logic imran was as good a bowler as he was as a batsman. that is not true. even imran wont agree with that. so please stop comparing global batting and bowling averages and close those spread sheets.

No, that is not my logic, that is you twisting my logic...with all due respect, the above makes little sense. He is not 10 points better than other batsmen, he is 10 better than other batsmen batting between 6-8.

We are not saying "Imran was as good as other batsmen 6-8" we are saying Imran was as good as the average batsman that wasn't a tailender. Furthermore, a bowler averaging 5 less than another bowler is a different thing to a batsman averaging 5 less than another batsman.

Also as a bowler, it goes without saying that he is far ahead of the average bowler.

 

[cnerd123]

Quick nitpick on this:

So..."they're right because they're right". It's really an insult to intelligence now.

No. They're right because their combined knowledge of the game, through watching and playing it, is unparalleled and unmatched by anyone in this world, especially a stats nut on a forum.

Stat analysis later.


And @Benchmark - Lol, fair enough.