History that speaks very highly of Sobers bowling and that includes, those who played with him, against him, watched him and covered him as sportsmen.According to cricket history?
Really can't see how this is possible.
Well yes, because before Trent Bridge 2001 when he was nowhere near the same batsman back in the 90s.
Because he was nowhere near good a bowler as he was from 60/61 to 68/69 again it is called the peak period in which all great players remember for & judged by..
No. We are judging the players at their peaks.
One is one of the few players in history i would think that was excellent for almost his entire career in his art.
Yes, because again you are judging him at the height of his powers where he was remembered as a great all-rounder. Pretty simple dawg..
And you are the one who talks about "Intellectual Dishonesty" in my arguments (despite the fact that I fully am aware of the flaw and using it only to show stats can be misused and misled). So there are no intangibles apart from "Average", "Strike Rate" ?
No, my rolleyes alludes to the fact that if I was so convinced by cricketing history that I wouldn't be in this argument to begin with.
The fact that you post what you do knowing it is incorrect is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.
So you are not a fan of Sobers ?
I didn't know that Imran's stats were so poor where he takes 2 or less wickets. It was a revealing information to me. Besides you are doing the same thing taking the tests out where Sobers didn't perform well enough,statistically - just that the criteria is different
I already said, I just picked the criteria - to know how it looked like and to my surprise, it was crap. So I posted to show how stats can be manipulated.
Depends, there is no fixed answer to this. Besides let me ask you this ; Do you always take Stats at the face value and if the stats are better the bowler is better ?
Ignoring his initial years and taking into account the rest of his career, once he was a 'real' all-rounder:
Really? Ponting averages about 67 from that moment on. So in actuality, Ponting should be given the acclaim he would get had he gotten that in his overall career?
That may be what you judge a player by, solely by their peaks. But, I can speak for myself and many others that we judge a cricket on their whole career. Peaks are usually short and do not last long. When in the peak of a cricketer their average is 27 and the rest of their career is 40, I think it is quite misleading to judge a cricketer solely on 5-6 series of cricket in a career of 20+ series. But that's me.
A lot of people aren't, and if they are they haven't been doing as such in other comparisons.
That's great. What if Warne had no problem and this period was 2/3rds of his career?
Disagree. There is no use judging player's simply by their peaks. I am quite sure Wasim Akram never had a peak like Waqar Younis but few would argue that Waqar was better than Wasim. There was also a time where Jeff Thomson was unstoppable, but few would say he is a match for Lillee.
Apparently, not as good as some others here. I am the one who is being lambasted for "belittling" him. I like Sobers as much as someone who wasn't around when he played likes him. But the reason I pointed out his "fans" was to show that his admirers chose the criteria.
Really? Pardon, but that's incredibly naive. How could you not know that by limiting Imran to only 2 wickets per test his record would not suffer? As I showed you in a previous post, if you count only innings where Bradman scored 30 or less runs (thus limiting him) he averages 12 over 29 of his 52 tests. Of course, this is intellectually dishonest.
Exactly, there is no fixed answer to intangibles. This is precisely the kind of thing I was looking for. Intangibles that are not there in the stats and cannot be thought up even with reasonable logic because it requires extrinsic evidence. I am interested in this kind of argument so I can at least appreciate what others are saying, even if I still do not agree with it.
Cricket History isn't a small piece of paper, it is hard to not take it seriously when it unequivocally supports Sobers' greatness as a bowler.
That's precisely the reason why I am very willing to change my stance and willing to accept intangible things that will not be apparent to me. However, I do need a high standard of proof to sway me. Something that cannot be easily challenged.
So why look at the stats @ Face value in Sobers Vs. Harmison's case and decide that Harmi is such a better bowler that its not even an apt comparison.
You missed this part of the post it seems:
The difference is, Bradman didn't stay on the wicket to score those runs, he was out and back into the pavilion. Whereas Imran was still in the middle bowling overs after over, getting opportunities after opportunities to take wickets, but didn't get them.
No, it's slightly different but just as bad. You included only matches where he took 2 or less wickets. Someone else can take 2 wickets and have a good average because that is all they are expected to get. But Imran is going to bowl a long haul regardless - he doesn't know how much he is going to average at the end of the day, he is only going to keep bowling.
There we go again, so you define the criteria again according to what(or rather who) you want to argue in favor of
And the difference between Harmison and Sobers' average is 100 runs ?
Or may be Imran bowled as much as he did in other tests, just that the outcome wasn't as favorable.
Oh, but there is a huge one in their strike rates. Again, in another era Harmison would probably be averaging slightly under 30.
Example:
Of course, that's a given.
No, the problem is you seem to miss the bigger picture. We are trying to reason out WHY someone like Imran can have such terrible figures over 67 test matches, was it? He wouldn't be the bowler he is if he was routinely poor, would he? So it's attributed to the scenarios I mentioned moreso than anything else.
And Sobers wouldn't be the bowler and bowling 21599 deliveries if he was as crap as you are making out to be. So please do not talk about 'Bigger Picture' and seek out the reasons when your statsguru facts are macking a mockery of your arguments.