Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[subshakerz]

You seem to be suggesting that having even a single good player in a team means that they are not minnows. Which is not the case.

Having a worldclass bowler in your attack means it is not minnow class bowling overall.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

I don’t think Sobers being weak against the Kiwis or having a poor record in Pak, is indicative of being weak in any conditions, but at the same time, players like Viv and Sachin have clearly more well rounded records, as they succeeded in more countries. So you won’t use Sobers home/away record as a point in his favour when comparing him against other greats, or against him.

 

[subshakerz]

I don’t think Sobers being weak against the Kiwis or having a poor record in Pak, is indicative of being weak in any conditions, but at the same time, players like Viv and Sachin have clearly more well rounded records, as they succeeded in more countries. So you won’t use Sobers home/away record as a point in his favour when comparing him against other greats, or against him.

Yes. I wouldn't put the point in their favor being more well rounded but being better tested.

 

[kyear2]

I don’t think Sobers being weak against the Kiwis or having a poor record in Pak, is indicative of being weak in any conditions, but at the same time, players like Viv and Sachin have clearly more well rounded records, as they succeeded in more countries. So you won’t use Sobers home/away record as a point in his favour when comparing him against other greats, or against him.

In my mind there's three maybe four contenders for the best after Bradman, Sachin, Sobers, Viv, Smith. Sachin. Could probably add Lara to that list, but that's more contentious.

Sachin was probably the most consistent and technically sound, Smith has the highest average and ridiculous appetite, Lara (in my mind) had the highest peaks and most memorable innings and Richards was the most dominating against some of the greatest quicks.... But was Sobers possibly second in most of those areas?

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

In my mind there's three maybe four contenders for the best after Bradman, Sachin, Sobers, Viv, Smith. Sachin. Could probably add Lara to that list, but that's more contentious.

Sachin was probably the most consistent and technically sound, Smith has the highest average and ridiculous appetite, Lara (in my mind) had the highest peaks and most memorable innings and Richards was the most dominating against some of the greatest quicks.... But was Sobers possibly second in most of those areas?

I’d add Jack Hobbs to that list.
Not sure. In terms of a long term peak, I’d rate Sobers and Hobbs alike, behind Tendulkar, but ahead of Lara and Viv(not sure where I’d rank Smith here). In terms of short term peaks, Viv is by far number one, but Sobers is pretty good here too(but I don’t think he did anything here that can clear cut separate him from the others). And Sobers did dominate some ATGs like Trueman. But then so did Sachin(Steyn, Warne and has a very good record against Murali, Ambrose). Where Sobers and Lara fall behind the others is, in being better tested, Viv, Sachin and Smith have great records across more countries, and Hobbs performed across the greatest extremities of conditions(opening on sticky wickets at home, bouncy wickets in Aus, and sometimes insane conditions like those gluepot like wickets in Aus, and matted pitches in SA).

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Hobbs should definitely be in the list.

 

[kyear2]

Hobbs should definitely be in the list.

Frim multiple perspectives, yes.

 

[subshakerz]

After Bradman, you can pick one of Hobbs, Sobers, Viv, Tendulkar and Smith as second best and none will be the wrong answer. All are essentially 'complete' batsmen and best of their eras.

Lara, almost but not there.

 

[kyear2]

After Bradman, you can pick one of Hobbs, Sobers, Viv, Tendulkar and Smith as second best and none will be the wrong answer. All are essentially 'complete' batsmen and best of their eras.

Lara, almost but not there.

Lara is the best batsman I've ever seen. I wouldn't argue however that he was greater than Sachin, he was a hair behind. But if you're a hair behind the leading contender for greatest of all time in your own era, doesn't that put you in a similar tier?

Re Hobbs, great within his time, yes, greatest even. However I can't rate 1920's batsmen with the batsman ship and level of competition seen from just before the war and especially there after. It's just a different game. But again, that's just my opinion and don't expect anyone to agree.
Can we point to the bowlers he faced or specific innings he played where we can see what he was capable of.
Not stating up an argument, just staying my opinion.

 

[subshakerz]

Lara is the best batsman I've ever seen. I wouldn't argue however that he was greater than Sachin, he was a hair behind. But if you're a hair behind the leading contender for greatest of all time in your own era, doesn't that put you in a similar tier?

Re Hobbs, great within his time, yes, greatest even. However I can't rate 1920's batsmen with the batsman ship and level of competition seen from just before the war and especially there after. It's just a different game. But again, that's just my opinion and don't expect anyone to agree.
Can we point to the bowlers he faced or specific innings he played where we can see what he was capable of.
Not stating up an argument, just staying my opinion.

Lara was missing something IMO. He just didn't give off the greatness vibes that Tendulkar did. That phase of 96 to 2000 and the level of weakness he showed at times would keep him from top of the tree. Tendulkar didn't look that bad even in his dip whereas Lara at one point was looking like he would retire below ATG level.

Hobbs breadth of career and conditions and unquestioned status gives him the nod. But I see your point.

 

[honestbharani]

wouldn't argue however that he was greater than Sachin

I would. He was better as a test batsman.

 

[subshakerz]

I would. He was better as a test batsman.

He was at times which is enough to convince some people that he was overall. But let's not go there.

 

[Coronis]

Can we point to the bowlers he faced or specific innings he played where we can see what he was capable of.

First innings that comes to mind is 2nd innings at the Oval in 1926, Ashes decider on what has been described as initially one of the worst stickys turning into one of the worst gluepots.

Bowlers that come to mind are Grimmett, Mailey, Gregory, Faulkner, Vogler.

Ranji Horden a notable forgotten great bowler too.

No doubt he didn’t face as high quality bowling perhaps as some of the others on the list, but his outstanding pre-war record compared to his peers, as well as a post-war record equal to any of the great 1920’s batsmen whilst in his 40’s thoroughly makes up for that for me.

 

[kyear2]

Lara was missing something IMO. He just didn't give off the greatness vibes that Tendulkar did. That phase of 96 to 2000 and the level of weakness he showed at times would keep him from top of the tree. Tendulkar didn't look that bad even in his dip whereas Lara at one point was looking like he would retire below ATG level.

Hobbs breadth of career and conditions and unquestioned status gives him the nod. But I see your point.

I will respectfully disagree with the greatness vibes part, I will agree he did have some valleys that were worse than the others in the group. I too though he would retire with an average around 48 or so.

But what he did vs 3 of the 7 or 8 greatest bowlers of all time can not be diminished.

 

[kyear2]

He was at times which is enough to convince some people that he was overall. But let's not go there.

If he was at times, even though he didn't end that way, doesn't mean he's not in the same class.

 

[kyear2]

First innings that comes to mind is 2nd innings at the Oval in 1926, Ashes decider on what has been described as initially one of the worst stickys turning into one of the worst gluepots.

Bowlers that come to mind are Grimmett, Mailey, Gregory, Faulkner, Vogler.

Ranji Horden a notable forgotten great bowler too.

No doubt he didn’t face as high quality bowling perhaps as some of the others on the list, but his outstanding pre-war record compared to his peers, as well as a post-war record equal to any of the great 1920’s batsmen whilst in his 40’s thoroughly makes up for that for me.

I fully understand and respect everything you're saying, I just respectfully disagree.

Not from the standpoint that he was the unquestioned greatest of his era, but whether the era and level of competition were sufficient for me to compare to the later greats.

 

[Coronis]

I fully understand and respect everything you're saying, I just respectfully disagree.

Not from the standpoint that he was the unquestioned greatest of his era, but whether the era and level of competition were sufficient for me to compare to the later greats.

So I guess you discount Bradman’s 1930 series and Hammond’s 28-29 series and most of Sutcliffe’s career then?

 

[kyear2]

So I guess you discount Bradman’s 1930 series and Hammond’s 28-29 series and most of Sutcliffe’s career then?

Definitely..... though I had made all that clear previously.

Thought I was especially clear on Sutcliffe at least.

 

[subshakerz]

If he was at times, even though he didn't end that way, doesn't mean he's not in the same class.

Lara is easily in the top ten batters of all time for me.

 

[Slifer]

Lara was missing something IMO. He just didn't give off the greatness vibes that Tendulkar did. That phase of 96 to 2000 and the level of weakness he showed at times would keep him from top of the tree. Tendulkar didn't look that bad even in his dip whereas Lara at one point was looking like he would retire below ATG level.

Hobbs breadth of career and conditions and unquestioned status gives him the nod. But I see your point.

I absolutely and completely disagree with the above. If anything, it's the opposite. Lara exuded greatness and class. Don't know which other Brian Lara you were watching with all due respect. And Lara's so called dip coincided with one of the greatest series of all time ie the 1999 Frank Worrell series. Lara dipped to levels lower than Sachin but he also reached heights that none of his contemporaries did (including Sachin). Compared to Sachin, the only area for me where Lara falls short is his away average period.