Kallis Vs Sobers

[Ikki]

Strike Rate on it's own is no more helpful in isolation than any stat - to take two (almost) contemporaries Frank Tyson had a strike rate of 45 and Alec Bedser 67 but I doubt many will dispute that Bedser were the better bowler

That reason doesn't relate to their SRs. It relates to the fact that Tyson didn't play near enough. Had he, it'd be pretty hard to argue otherwise. Because not only was Tyson better in SR, he had a better average, and well...everything.

I agree; you have to look at the whole. And that's why Sobers' figures aren't impressive.

Yes indeedy. But if you fancy taking a ****tail of indicators to analyse bowlers you'd be kidding yourself if you left out strike rate.

Precisely. It would be akin to studying a bowler's figures and ignoring their average.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

But their job is still to take wickets. Whether that's by frustrating the batsman into a mistake with a defensive line or trying to bowl wicket-taking deliveries, their job is still the same, and taking wickets sooner is pretty much always better than taking wickets later (assuming it's done so while conceding the same number of runs).

It doesn't reflect well on Sobers' ability if he was constantly doing the defensive bowling anyway.

Get back to me when you've sat through whole sessions of spinners firing the ball in at leg stump with no close catchers and seven fielders on the boundary.

 

[Uppercut]

Get back to me when you've sat through whole sessions of spinners firing the ball in at leg stump with no close catchers and seven fielders on the boundary.

Good spinners don't need to do that

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Good spinners don't need to do that

They've all done it on flat pitches so I suppose that must prove the CW idea that there's no such thing as a good spinner.

 

[Uppercut]

They've all done it on flat pitches so I suppose that must prove the CW idea that there's no such thing as a good spinner.

Nah but bad ones do it more often. You may as well say Ashley Giles's abysmal strike rate (still far better than Sobers's incidentally) is due to the fact that he always bowled a defensive line. Err, yes, he always bowled a defensive line because he was a bit useless.

 

[fredfertang]

Bowling defensively is part of the finger spinner's craft isn't it?

 

[Ikki]

Without Sobers' pace period, his spinning figures would also be below the standard of a spinner at his time.

And if you are arguing that his role was that of a finger spinner, holding onto an end and nothing more, then that also speaks volumes about him as an all-rounder. Either way, it brings him down from the pedastal on which he stands.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Bowling defensively is part of the finger spinner's craft isn't it?

Of course, but it doesn't show up on Statsguru.

 

[Uppercut]

Bowling defensively is part of the finger spinner's craft isn't it?

Yep. But decent ones take wickets through bowling defensively. If you want, you can compare Sobers's strike rate to only other finger-spinners (and he'd be at a massive advantage because he sometimes bowled pace). It's still pretty atrocious.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Yep. But decent ones take wickets through bowling defensively.

Kinda defeats the purpose of bowling defensively, right? Especially wouldn't expect him to have the onus on him when he bowls with the likes of Hall, Griffith and Gibbs.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yep. But decent ones take wickets through bowling defensively. If you want, you can compare Sobers's strike rate to only other finger-spinners (and he'd be at a massive advantage because he sometimes bowled pace). It's still pretty atrocious.

Actually it's probably not massively different to Lance Gibbs who was the top spinner of the era and one time world record holder.

 

[Ikki]

Actually it's probably not massively different to Lance Gibbs who was the top spinner of the era and one time world record holder.

Except that it is massively different. Taking into account the fact that for a good 6-7 years (more than that actually) he was bowling pace, his overall record is still not affected enough to be close to Gibbs. He is 5 points off on average and 5 off on strike-rate.

 

[Ikki]

Kinda defeats the purpose of bowling defensively, right? Especially wouldn't expect him to have the onus on him when he bowls with the likes of Hall, Griffith and Gibbs.

What about the likes of Ramadhin and Valentine?

I think the point was that Sobers, even with his pace bowling included, doesn't even beat the bowlers who were primarily finger-spinners with similar defensive roles. Which makes his exoneration based on that defense pretty meaningless. It also means, that as a bowler for most his career he was a great batsman and a mere finger-spinner. Hardly someone you would consider the greatest all-rounder by far.

Also, this isn't ODIs, you need to take wickets to win matches. That's what all bowlers hope to do.

 

[Uppercut]

Kinda defeats the purpose of bowling defensively, right? Especially wouldn't expect him to have the onus on him when he bowls with the likes of Hall, Griffith and Gibbs.

Defeats the purpose? But the purpose of all bowling is to take wickets. Taking wickets is always better than not taking wickets. The idea could be to strangle the batsman into a mistake, or build pressure, or simply wait for him to do something wrong. But it's all still a means to an end. Good bowlers take wickets.

 

[Uppercut]

Of course, but it doesn't show up on Statsguru.

It's mildly irritating how you turn every point i make into "stats tell the whole story, Sobers was crap lolz". All I said was that if you wanted to do statistical analysis, strike rate's not one you can just ignore.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's mildly irritating how you turn every point i make into "stats tell the whole story, Sobers was crap lolz". All I said was that if you wanted to do statistical analysis, strike rate's not one you can just ignore.

I didn't even read your post, I was responding to Fred's accurate description of the finger spinner's role.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha, but when you make passive-aggressive posts they're obviously not intended towards the person you're replying to. Although they might not have been intended towards me, so never mind.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Haha, but when you make passive-aggressive posts they're obviously not intended towards the person you're replying to. Although they might not have been intended towards me, so never mind.

I have now read your post. It was a bit silly but as you used the words "Ashley Giles" and "useless" in the same sentence I'll let the rest pass.

 

[Evermind]

The theory that Sobers was tight and "tied up one end" doesn't hold much water considering the fact that his overall ER is 2.22, and the ER of all bowlers in the 1950s, for example, was 2.30. Hardly a Bracken of the Windies.

Hell this part timer who played with him had an ER of 1.90:

Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Denis Atkinson

Lance Gibbs of course had a far superior ER, SR and AVG.

Hell, Frank Worrell had a similar record as Sobers and he was decidedly part-time.

Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Sir Frank Worrell

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The theory that Sobers was tight and "tied up one end" doesn't hold much water considering the fact that his overall ER is 2.22, and the ER of all bowlers in the 1950s, for example, was 2.30. Hardly a Bracken of the Windies.

Hell this part timer who played with him had an ER of 1.90:

Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Denis Atkinson

Lance Gibbs of course had a far superior ER, SR and AVG.

Hell, Frank Worrell had a similar record as Sobers and he was decidedly part-time.

Cricinfo - Players and Officials - Sir Frank Worrell

When originally mentioned it was one minor point that helped to inflate his strike rate. If Doby Gillis hadn't claimed it was something that has never happened in cricket it would have just been accepted as such and forgotten.