Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[steve132]

Steve made a great argument and that pretty much sums of the opinion of those who voted for Sobers. A no. of solid arguments have been made in the past too but all useless :-

Sanz:

Thanks for re-posting the comments from the earlier thread. I think that we are in agreement here, and have covered all the points to be made.

 

[Ikki]

No he took more wickets than Miller who want to pick ahead of Sobers. He scored 5000 runs more than Miller. If Miller decided to go to the war, it was his decision to go, why should I assume that he was going to be as successful as Sobers.

Um, do you really need me to tell you that Miller played only about half the matches that Sobers did? As a batsman, it's no contest, but as a bowler, the fact that Sobers took more wickets than Miller does not put a dent on Miller as a bowler. Please, get a grip. This is like arguing Tendulkar was a better batsman than Bradman because he made more runs.

May be it was just not easy being a bowler. So you see longevity isn't enough to get you wickets, you have to be good at it to be asked to bowl.

What is your point? Of course you have to be good enough to ask to be bowled. However, there is a spectrum; from being good enough to bowl to being the undisputed all-rounder of all time based on one half of your efforts.

So,in your own words, Apart from being one of the greatest all time batsman of all time, Sobers, in one career, had the career of Three Bowlers, who could not, despite being better, have accumulated as many wickets as him.

And you still doubt his bowling ability ?

What? If anything the fact that he took 3 careers to take what a good bowler would do in 1 reflects on his bowling ability.

I dont think you understand the ROLE of an ALLROUNDER.

Please explain to me your opinion on what the role of an all-rounder is. Thanks.

 

[Ikki]

Statsguru fact. Here is another Statsguru fact Andy Ganteaume is a better batsman than Bradman.

Bradman's record is better only because of longevity.

Wrong. Ganteume has a better average and that is a numerical fact. The "fact", of superiority (which isn't a fact at all but an opinion), that he is better is not derived simply by an average, especially one from such a small sample.

So Was Imran for 67 of his test matches.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...iew=innings;wicketsmax1=2;wicketsval1=wickets

What you've done here is hand-pick stats. Imran Khan was never poor for 67 matches. You have put together his Test innings where he took 2 or less wickets. This is not what I have done. I have not put any qualification on Sobers' bowling and took what his own fans called his "peak" and and "other". I am happy enough to look at Sobers' career overall and judge it, just like Imran's.

 

[Ikki]

I think that we have reached the point of diminishing returns in this exchange. You insist - contrary to the views of every views of virtually everyone who actually saw him - that Sobers was a mediocre bowler, and reject all arguments to the contrary in favor of an exclusive focus on bowling averages.

Most of the people who voted for him here didn't see him and can't argue for why they rate him better. You're not doing much better, but let's see.

Time is short. I'll just make the following points in closing:

1. Although Sobers played Test cricket for 20 years he was not a great all-rounder for the entire period. In fact, NOBODY has ever been a great international all-rounder for such a period. Every all-rounder, including Rhodes, Miller, Imran and Botham has had periods when they focused more on one discipline than the other (or was mediocre at both batting and bowling). In Sobers' case, he began as a slow left arm bowler, became essentially a batsman and occasional bowler from 1956 to about 1961, and emerged as a great all-rounder only from 1962 onwards. He remained a great all-rounder until his knees and shoulder began to give him trouble in the early 70's, but enjoyed an 8 -10 year spell at the top. No on else has been as good for as long as he has.

Sobers doesn't have to be great for the entire period. That's not even a talking point. His record when he wasn't "peak" is too long for longevity to be an excuse. Only 30 of his 93 Tests range on what you would deem 'average' for a bowler and some instances 'good'. In fact, he does not average under 30 against England or Australia, just against India. For the rest of his career he averages 40 with the ball. Not only at the start of his career (where longevity is not yet an issue) but at the end.

There is a period in his career where it is an no-brainer why he is considered for the top mantle. But the rest of his career is so below-par as an all-rounder that it beggars belief why he is the undisputed great. And no amount of watching would make a bowler averaging 40+ look good. Especially since his SR was poor to match. As I said, there is a statistical boundary you keep so no one ever argues that a batsman averaging 10 is the greatest or a bowler averaging 50 is the greatest. His bowling output for most of his career just was not standard.

2. England was not the only country against which Sobers enjoyed success. If that were the case he would not enjoy the esteem of cricketers in all nations. He is, for example, the only man to complete the Australian double of 1,000 runs and 50 wickets in a season, a feat that he achieved twice and one that Miller never managed.

Are we talking Test cricket still? Sobers never took more than 25 wickets in a season and never scored 1000 runs in one either. If you are talking about FC cricket. I think Miller's average of 49 with the bat and 22 with the ball are probably the greatest FC figures of all time.

3. The bowling all rounders - Miller, Imran and Botham - do not have better batting statistics than Sobers' bowling record. They all average in the mid 30's as Test batsmen, which would not be enough to secure a place in a strong Test side. Take the West Indies, for example. The top of the order in the mid 1960's consisted of Hunte, Carew, Kanhai, Butcher, Nurse and Sobers. At the end of Sobers' career (1974) it was Fredericks, Rowe, Kanhai, Kallicharran, Lloyd and Sobers, and by 1980 it had become Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Kallicharran, Rowe and Lloyd. None of the bowling all rounders could have held a place solely as a batsman in any of those teams.

Whether they could or couldn't have is besides the point that those batting averages are relatively better than Sobers' bowling average.

This is also besides the point considering what I argue for a bowling all-rounder like Botham or Miller. Someone like Miller walks into a side as a bowler and we all know that he was more than a handy bat - this not being because of a certain peak, but regarding his whole career even. As you may know, every player bats but not every player bowls, so If you were picking an all-time XI tomorrow, why would you pick Sobers over Miller? Sobers gets into the team on his batting. But why would you give him a bowl?

4. Ultimately, it seems to me that if you are right all the cricketers and journalists who saw and assessed Sobers' bowling must be wrong. I see no evidence that you have any analytical ability, judgment or knowledge that the rest of the cricket world lacks. In fact, your argument shows little understanding or awareness of anything other than the crudest of statistics, and these are not generally considered sufficient by themselves for evaluating players. As such, yours is not an argument that I or most cricket lovers can take seriously.

To me, it seems, instead of trying to explain why someone would average 40 with the ball for most of their career, you are too busy aligning yourself with other people's opinions who aren't here to explain themselves.

You say I have no analytical ability yet you can not muster a point to downplay one of my criticisms.

Indeed, ask yourself, how can someone be so undisputedly supreme but be capable of attracting the simplest of criticisms? When you start directly answering my concerns, then the debate would have gone somewhere. I would have learned from your knowledge and/or you would have gained some perspective without the plaudits ringing in your ears.

 

[Ikki]

Per Inning Performance:

Batting
Sobers: 50 runs
Miller: 34 runs

Bowling
Sobers: 1.5 wickets for 51 runs and 138 balls
Miller: 1.8 wickets for 41 runs and 111 balls

Difference: 16 runs or 0.3 wickets 10 less runs and 27 less balls conceded.

 

[Jakester1288]

Put it this way:

Who would you rather have in your team?

 

[honestbharani]

Sobers, for me.

 

[Sanz]

What you've done here is hand-pick stats. Imran Khan was never poor for 67 matches. You have put together his Test innings where he took 2 or less wickets. This is not what I have done. I have not put any qualification on Sobers' bowling and took what his own fans called his "peak" and and "other". I am happy enough to look at Sobers' career overall and judge it, just like Imran's.

I was just showing that there are ways in Statsguru where a bowler like Imran can be made to look very mediocre which is what you have been doing with your pick and choose.

 

[Ikki]

I was just showing that there are ways in Statsguru where a bowler like Imran can be made to look very mediocre which is what you have been doing with your pick and choose.

I was aware of the fact that people can pick and choose and put ridiculous qualifications to make a player look bad. However, what you did with Imran's stats and what I did with Sobers' are completely different. You're being intellectually dishonest with your example.

I.E. Bradman in 29 matches averaging 12.

 

[Sanz]

To me, it seems, instead of trying to explain why someone would average 40 with the ball for most of their career, you are too busy aligning yourself with other people's opinions who aren't here to explain themselves.

See this is what I have been talking about. You manipulate the stats to make some really outlandish statements i.e. "average 40 with the ball for most of their career"

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...template=results;type=bowling;view=cumulative

 

[Ikki]

See this is what I have been talking about. You manipulate the stats to make some really outlandish statements i.e. "average 40 with the ball for most of their career"

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...template=results;type=bowling;view=cumulative

I didn't manipulate the stats. Sobers' fans came saying that for 30 Test matches Sobers averaged 27. Ok, that is 30 of his test matches, what about the other 63? Well he averages 40 for the other 63. No stupid qualifications put like "Only innings where he took 2 wickets or less". There is a great difference. Again you're being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Sanz]

I was aware of the fact that people can pick and choose and put ridiculous qualifications to make a player look bad. However, what you did with Imran's stats and what I did with Sobers' are completely different. You're being intellectually dishonest with your example.

I am not, I am fully aware of the fallacy in that argument. It was just an example of how you have been manipulating statsguru.

And speaking of intellectual Dishonesty - What can be more intellectually dishonest than saying :-
"Sobers was not near as good as Harmison is/was. That comparison isn't even apt."

..and then make the following argument in the support of above:-

"You don't need to have seen someone bowl when they average 50 to know they are crap. Likewise you don't have to have seen someone average 99.94 with the bat to know they were good."

So Harmison's bowling figures have been Bradman-like, isn't it ?

 

[Ikki]

I am not, I am fully aware of the fallacy in that argument. It was just an example of how you have been manipulating statsguru.

And speaking of intellectual Dishonesty - What can be more intellectually dishonest than saying :-
"Sobers was not near as good as Harmison is/was. That comparison isn't even apt."

..and then make the following argument in the support of above:-

"You don't need to have seen someone bowl when they average 50 to know they are crap. Likewise you don't have to have seen someone average 99.94 with the bat to know they were good."

So Harmison's bowling figures have been Bradman-like, isn't it ?

No, actually I meant that conversely. Sobers' figures have rarely been good. Usually not good enough to even qualify as average. Whereas Harmison, god bless his little weary soul, is still more of a bowler than Sobers was - regardless of Sobers' talents in many bowling styles. Harmison's bowling is not good, that is not the contention. Sobers' bowling is just not as good as Harmison's. This despite the fact that in general bowlers average higher due to a few hindering factors.

Maybe I should ask, do you think Sobers was as good of a bowler as Harmison?

 

[aussie]

I didn't manipulate the stats. Sobers' fans came saying that for 30 Test matches Sobers averaged 27. Ok, that is 30 of his test matches, what about the other 63? Well he averages 40 for the other 63. No stupid qualifications put like "Only innings where he took 2 wickets or less". There is a great difference. Again you're being intellectually dishonest.

Am i believe this is purely down to the fact that after his debut in 1954 for 6 years until the 1960/61 series in Australia where he fully developed his bowling repertoire so for the next 8 years until AUS 68/69 his legacy as a all-rounder was stamped. The final few years his wicket-taking ability died down but was still useful.

 

[Sanz]

I didn't manipulate the stats. Sobers' fans came saying that for 30 Test matches Sobers averaged 27. Ok, that is 30 of his test matches, what about the other 63? Well he averages 40 for the other 63. No stupid qualifications put like "Only innings where he took 2 wickets or less". There is a great difference. Again you're being intellectually dishonest.

So the qualification that doesn't support your argument becomes a stupid one and intellectually dishonest one ?

Imran's fans say the same thing that he averaged 50 with bat and 19 with ball in last 50 tests.Well In his first 49 tests Imran's batting Avg. was < 30. So 49 tests of pure mediocrity - Statsguru fact.

Manipulating Stats - Here is another - Miller was mediocre as batsman in 6 out of the 11 years of International Cricket where he ended up with < 30 average. That's 31 tests of mediocrity out of 55.

 

[Ikki]

Am i believe this is purely down to the fact that after his debut in 1954 for 6 years until the 1960/61 series in Australia where he fully developed his bowling repertoire so for the next 8 years until AUS 68/69 his legacy as a all-rounder was stamped. The final few years his wicket-taking ability died down but was still useful.

My friend, again, we've split his career in 3, done some stuff his fans wanted to make it look better but in the end, he was an average bowler even if you ignore his initial years. Which you shouldn't. This is like ignoring Ricky Ponting's batting record in the 90s because he only starting coming into his own post 2000. Why do you ignore his earlier phase anyway? Because he didn't bowl enough? He bowled plenty, he bowled about 25 overs a test IIRC.

If anything, what we're being asked to ignore is the real picking and choosing. Do you hear Warne fans say completely ignore the period where he was injured/unfit and only look at the periods where he was good? Warne couldn't bowl a flipper and was still taking wickets like it was nothing, then what would you call that effort? Imran Khan only really became an all-rounder whose batting was reliable towards the end of his career, do we ignore the parts where he wasn't any good? And the problem is, what people are asking to omit is actually the lion's share of his career, it is more than 2/3rds of it.

 

[Sanz]

Maybe I should ask, do you think Sobers was as good of a bowler as Harmison?

According to the Cricket History - It does appear to be better, so YES. Sobers was every bit as good as Someonelike Harmison, if not better.

Statistically - Dont know. There is little difference,. How do you measure the intangibles ?

 

[Ikki]

So the qualification that doesn't support your argument becomes a stupid one and intellectually dishonest one ?

Imran's fans say the same thing that he averaged 50 with bat and 19 with ball in last 50 tests.Well In his first 49 tests Imran's batting Avg. was < 30. So 49 tests of pure mediocrity - Statsguru fact.

Manipulating Stats - Here is another - Miller was mediocre as batsman in 6 out of the 11 years of International Cricket where he ended up with < 30 average. That's 31 tests of mediocrity out of 55.

You seem to be missing the point entirely. If what I did is being intellectually dishonest, then what was said about him averaging 27 for 30 tests is also intellectually dishonest. There are no qualifications placed on Sobers, it's just separated by dates - where his own fans asked me to separate him from.

YOU however, are ONLY counting when Imran takes 2 or less wickets. So you are in effect guaranteeing he has poor stats. This is being intellectually dishonest. You are providing some sort of information knowing it is false and misleading.

 

[Ikki]

According to the Cricket History - It does appear to be better, so YES. Sobers was every bit as good as Someonelike Harmison, if not better.

Statistically - Dont know. There is little difference,. How do you measure the intangibles ?

According to cricket history?

Which intangibles are we talking about here? Harmison averages less, strikes almost 6 overs earlier per wicket and this despite the fact that this era is routinely touted as one where batsmen are advantaged. This is what I mean when I say some things are beyond reasonable argument. The difference between the players is too large.

 

[honestbharani]

According to cricket history?

Which intangibles are we talking about here? Harmison averages less, strikes almost 6 overs earlier per wicket and this despite the fact that this era is routinely touted as one where batsmen are advantaged. This is what I mean when I say some things are beyond reasonable argument. The difference between the players is too large.

of course, you are ignoring the very simple facts like Harmison has played so much more home than away and that his stats are greatly biased because of matches in favourable conditions..... Also the fact that he has always had an attacking role as a bowler as compared to Sobers who often got the role of the stock bowler so that the others could take up the attacking role...


Anyways, I dunno abt the conditions and pitches where Sobers was most successful but I guess they won't be so skewed as Harmison's are...