Garry Sobers vs Imran Khan

[smash84]

The more I look at Sobers' record closely, the worse it seems to get. It is an outrageously bad record statistically.

A case where I have a hard time reconciling people who saw him and his actual record.

 

[subshakerz]

@kyear2 this is Imran's batting peak which is 63 out of 88 test.

Averages 46 and scores all of his tons in this period.

Averages 50 in Australia, 50 in England, 58 in India and 140 in NZ. Was MOS twice based on just batting.

Give whatever excuses you want on not outs or output, but put your hand on heart and tell me that you sincerely consider Sobers overall a better bowler than Imran the bat.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[smash84]

Can someone take a look at his record and tell me why his bowling is rated so highly? For some reason I used to think he has more 5fers, but he has 6 of them in 93 matches. Ok, maybe he played in an era of high SR for bowlers but all the main bowlers in that era seem to have significantly better SRs than him. So he was just a bowler good enough to hold an end economically and take the occasional wickets?

 

[capt_Luffy]

One player averages 135 in a test series

The other averages 100, takes 20 wickets and snares 10 catches.

Which is more valuable.

Again, Don is better, there's a discussion there and not backing down from that.

I wonder where this argument goes for bowling all-rounders......

But you are going at it completely wrong by the way. Those numbers are off.

One averages 85 in a test series.

Another averages 52, takes 12 wickets at 33 runs a piece and snares 8 catches (which btw were directed towards him as he stood in a catching position).

 

[kyear2]

I especially hate the Richards (Barry not Viv) > Gavaskar. Had he seen Barry like peterhrt or Fredfertang, I would had understood. Not when he didn't and one of his primary argument being Barry was World's best from 70-75. But still, forced to choose, I would take it over Sobers>Don.

Have you seen Ranji bat? Even better, have you seen Barnes bowl?

Let's go a little further, you're 20 years old, you've barely seen Tendulkar, far less McGrath, Viv, Imran etc. Not to mention you're favorite target Ponting and his comp to Kallis.

We can read, and listen. I've spoken to players who's batted with Barry, I've listened to the guys here that's watched Barry. I've watched clips of Barry, there's vids of WSC, and there's the peer ratings and the such, that's btw, off the charts.

Your argument is that I didn't see him so I can't rate him.
I watched Ponting, you didn't, does that then make my argument for him take precedence over yours?

Not to mention that you believe Barry is good enough to make the SA all time team, but not eligible for the world one? That makes no sense.

His quality, skill and talent are undeniable and were more that sufficiently displayed. He's made Cricinfo's second team along with Sunny and have seen commentators rank him along with Sunny as the best ever.

In quality and resume he more than qualifies. And just like Subz makes the argument for reverse being a plus and I having Wasim for that, his peer rating and left arm variety, Barry's unequalled ability to score quickly at the top, and against quality bowlers in helpful conditions, equally puts him ahead from that perspective as well.

Not to mention they are similarly ranked at 9 and 10, and Barry was very very arguably better vs pace in quick conditions than Sunny. That's the no. 1 requirement for an opener, like literally their primary job.

 

[subshakerz]

It's very much both.

But you Subz, Smali and some others thinks his bowling alone is good enough to make such a team and vote accordingly. Most don't share that view.

I have Immy as an ATG, he was spectacular. I also think he was the 8th best bowler ever, closer to the 9th than the 7th, but that's besides the point.

Subz has argued consistently that Wasim and Steyn are both better than Kallis, because the gaps in their primary is too much for his catching and bowling to over come.
I see the gap between his bowling and that of the top 3 guys to be larger than the gap between Wasim's bowling and Kallis's batting. I, and you would very obviously disagree, can't place the 8th best bowler (who I rate along very esteemed guys like Lillee, Donald and Wasim) as the 3rd best player ever. The batting isn't nearly enough to jump, not only the top 3 elite tier bowlers, but Sobers and the rest of the elite tier batsmen.
I know you disagree, but doesn't that make the slightest sense to you? The same holds for Kallis who I don't think I have even top 15.

But back to the original question, yes it's also based on team composition.

But I don't think that there's anyone on this forum who believe that he's a top 3 bowler, also don't think that anyone believes he's in that tier or discussion as the greatest bowler is all time. That alone slightly puts him behind the 8 ball for selection. And a discussion then occurs that wouldn't if he was undisputably the 3rd greatest player to have ever played the game.

I personally don't think there's an inarguable 3rd best player ever and there's a select few in that argument. But that also proves the initial premise of the poll. There's no one close to the top two.

Imran gets in for me on merit because of reverse.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Have you seen Ranji bat? Even better, have you seen Barnes bowl?

Let's go a little further, you're 20 years old, you've barely seen Tendulkar, far less McGrath, Viv, Imran etc. Not to mention you're favorite target Ponting and his comp to Kallis.

We can read, and listen. I've spoken to players who's batted with Barry, I've listened to the guys where that's watched Barry. I've watched clips of Barry, there's vids of WSC, and there's the peer ratings and the such, that's off the charts.

Your argument is that I didn't see him so I can't rate him.
I watched Ponting, you didn't, does that then make my argument for him take precedence over yours?

Not to mention that you believe Barry is good enough to make the SA team, but not eligible for the world one? That makes no sense.

His quality, skill and talent are undeniable and we're more that sufficiently displayed. He's made Cricinfo's second team along with Sunny and have seen commentators rank him along with Sunny as the best ever.

In quality and resume he more than qualifies. And just like Subz makes the argument for reverse being a plus and I having Wasim for that, his peer rating and left arm variety, Barry's unequalled ability to score quickly at the top, and against quality bowlers in helpful conditions, equally puts him ahead from that perspective as well.

Not to mention they are similarly ranked at 9 and 10, and Barry was very arguably better vs pace in quick conditions than Sunny. That's the no. 1 requirement for an opener, like literally their job.

I have their averages here my boi. They performed at the top level, Barry didn't. (No, 4 matches doesn't counts and even including WSC, still less than 10).
The difference is simply the ones who rate Barry don't necessarily have stats backing them. They go more of vibe. That works only by eye Test. I am not out there rating Archie Jackson over Wally Hammond.

 

[kyear2]

Can you try your own arguments rather than relying on others'?

We're having a wide discussion and I've more than made my own arguments.

But there's also an outside perspective that more than relevant and the only reason you would want it dismissed is because it's very much against the argument that you're trying to make.

 

[kyear2]

No the rest aren't locks generally. I can find ATG XIs where the rest don't feature. I can't find one where Bradman and Sobers aren't there.

Don't skip the part where you said that Bradman and Sobers are well ahead of the line.

 

[subshakerz]

Don't skip the part where you said that Bradman and Sobers are well ahead of the line.

But I have always held that position

 

[kyear2]

The point is the peak period you give for Sobers is a small fraction of his career. Imran's batting peak is the majority.


It's absolute BS to say Logie with 2 tons and a 35 average was better than Imran. You know that and this is just desperation.

Yet Logie played a full career in the best side in the world. Even if we accept that he wasn't test standard, that means that batting standards were so low that Imran surely makes the cut in that era.

Bringing fielding is irrelevant, we are talking batting here.


The rest is irrelevant since I always rated Sobers ahead of Imran.

Sobers averaged 27 for about 7 years under 30 for I believe the decade. I can't recall how long Imran averaged over 50, but it included a retirement and years when he didn't bowl. It was again, soft af.

Logie was a better batsman than Imran. Even last the not outs, many of the runs were in "let's load up" situations. And again, Logie wasn't good enough a batsman to keep his place in the team. Don't run last that point, and while there he was the weak link. The one we wanted to find a replacement for, he wasn't established nor heralded.

Why is fielding irrelevant, it was part of the reason he (and later Hooper) played so many games.

Yes Imran was the best ever lower order bat, but he was by no means a world class performer.

 

[kyear2]

I called it a bad argument bro.


I don't mind nor do I think he does.

Sobers faced

Trueman, Snow, Underwood, Willis, Lindwall, Miller, Benaud, Lillee, Davidson, the quartet, Fazal and names I've no doubt forgot. He also played them all over the world.

Hammond went to WI and struggled, but he went, and took in the best pacers if their day. He also faced O'Reilly and Grimmett.

Headley only played against the best two teams of his time and travelled to both.

Hutton faced Lindwall, Miller, O'Reilly and travelled the world, post war.

Bradman faced who and where?

Yes, in those 10 years, where he played very briefly after the war and the vast majority of said career occured prior to the 2nd war, there was a shift towards the faster men, and in explosion of quality and quantity of them as well.

Anyone who thinks Bradman is averaging 100 anywhere from the 50's with the shift in pitches and emergence of pacers, I have a bridge to sell them.

 

[kyear2]

I have their averages here my boi. They performed at the top level, Barry didn't. (No, 4 matches doesn't counts and even including WSC, still less than 10).
The difference is simply the ones who rate Barry don't necessarily have stats backing them. They go more of vibe. That works only by eye Test. I am not out there rating Archie Jackson over Wally Hammond.

I know you didn't call me boy.

Raji played in the emerging arena of test cricket which was narrow in scope and opposition. Barry faced better completion than he did and it wasn't close.
Barnes record is exceptionally average, with a health amount of minnow bashing to shine it up.
If Barry is eligible for an SA XI, he's eligible for a world one. And yes kid, don't think I noticed that you ignored the rest of the well laid out argument, not least of which that he was better than Sunny vs pace when the pitches were giving any level of assistance.

 

[subshakerz]

Sobers faced

Trueman, Snow, Underwood, Willis, Lindwall, Miller, Benaud, Lillee, Davidson, the quartet, Fazal and names I've no doubt forgot. He also played them all over the world.

Hammond went to WI and struggled, but he went, and took in the best pacers if their day. He also faced O'Reilly and Grimmett.

Headley only played against the best two teams of his time and travelled to both.

Hutton faced Lindwall, Miller, O'Reilly and travelled the world, post war.

Bradman faced who and where?

Yes, in those 10 years, where he played very briefly after the war and the vast majority of said career occured prior to the 2nd war, there was a shift towards the faster men, and in explosion of quality and quantity of them as well.

Anyone who thinks Bradman is averaging 100 anywhere from the 50's with the shift in pitches and emergence of pacers, I have a bridge to sell them.

I actually don't think it's crazy that he could have averaged 70 or so nowadays. But I think it's ultimately unprovable.

 

[kyear2]

But I have always held that position

So how is this comparison close then?

 

[capt_Luffy]

I know you didn't call me boy.

Raji played in the emerging arena of test cricket which was narrow in scope and opposition. Barry faced better completion than he did and it wasn't close.
Barnes record is exceptionally average, with a health amount of minnow bashing to shine it up.
If Barry is eligible for an SA XI, he's eligible for a world one. And yes kid, don't think I noticed that you ignored the rest of the well laid out argument, not least of which that he was better than Sunny vs pace when the pitches were giving any level of assistance.

Wrong and wrong. Ranji averaged 57 in FC cricket, when 30 was considered good. Mind you, FC was the predominant game. Calling Barnes' record average just makes the rest of this discussion way too futile.

 

[kyear2]

I actually don't think it's crazy that he could have averaged 70 or so nowadays. But I think it's ultimately unprovable.

Well, as I've said on multiple occasions, for batsmen in similar tiers, I rate them by who they faced. Nothing has to be proveable, but I do rate them by who they batted against, and in what conditions, and there's no comparison between the two.

There's a reason why sane observers would rate Viv over Kallis despite the averages.

 

[subshakerz]

Sobers averaged 27 for about 7 years under 30 for I believe the decade. I can't recall how long Imran averaged over 50, but it included a retirement and years when he didn't bowl. It was again, soft af.

7 years bowling peak out of a 20 year career for Sobers. Meanwhile Imran had a 13 year batting peak out of 21 years. Anyways you cut it, Imran is better.

Logie was a better batsman than Imran. Even last the not outs, many of the runs were in "let's load up" situations. And again, Logie wasn't good enough a batsman to keep his place in the team. Don't run last that point, and while there he was the weak link. The one we wanted to find a replacement for, he wasn't established nor heralded.

How freaking desperate man. Looks at Imran's numbers from the 80s onwards. How can you consider Logie better?

And Logie played over 50 tests in the best team.

Bottomline, by his eras standards, Imran was a regular specialist lower order bat level. WI was the best team but look at other teams.

Yes Imran was the best ever lower order bat, but he was by no means a world class performer.

That wasn't our argument.

 

[kyear2]

Wrong and wrong. Ranji averaged 57 in FC cricket, when 30 was considered good. Mind you, FC was the predominant game. Calling Barnes' record average just makes the rest of this discussion way too futile.

His record vs Australia is exceptional for the early 20th century? Not saying he was horrible, but based on that alone he's not in this conversation.

Two teams and no where near the talent we had even during the interwar periods.

Not to mention you can't remotely, with any level of certainty tell me how he bowled.

So for this you didn't see Barry, argument is nonsense. I've seen considerably more if him, and against quality opposition, than I've seen of either those two.

 

[subshakerz]

So how is this comparison close then?

I am arguing Imran's batting is better than Sobers bowling. Not as cricketers.