Ignoring his initial years and taking into account the rest of his career, once he was a 'real' all-rounder:
Do you see a huge difference between his overall and filtered figures? I don't.
No (although you need to cut off his period as an complete all-rounder @ Aus 68/69). What will be interesting is what you have derive from that statistical information?
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?.
Well yes given that he finally was allowed to bat in a more comfortable #3 role & just took it to the next level since then.
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. Peaks are usually short and do not last long.
Not just any player "The Great players" of game who may have who great overall records but that may have some statistical inbalances that those like us who have not seen them may want to question.
This is where regardless of what the stats say unless you saw them at their best we could never understand.
i.e up until now i can't understand how so much Pakistan & Asian fans who saw Waqar at his peak claim he was easily better than Shoaib and even watching video's & a few clips i don't see how given that in my time of watching cricket Shoaib has easily been the most destructive bowler when on form. But i'm more than willing to accept that given i didn't see him live i'll never understand how truly superb Waqar was at his peak.
When the peak of a cricketer their average 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.
I think the mistake you are making in that you are placing too much emphasis on Sobers bowling (while previously under-rating it) in that you are probably comparing his peak period as a bowler with Imran, Miller or Botham.
If one is to judge the main candidate for the greatest test all-rounder of all-time in Sobers, Imran, Miller at their peaks as all-rounders Sobers was clearly the superior batsman to them all followed by Miller/Imran/Botham while with the ball Imran was superior followed by Miller & Botham probably on with the ball at their peaks then Sobers. But ot of the three only Miller was a complete all-rounder from game 1 to retirement.
So basically as i've said before In comparison of Imran & Sobers i'd basically conclude that as great all-rounders at their peaks Sobers was obviously the most complete batsman while Imran the opposite on the bowling front.
The only all-rounder really who played test cricket that was a true all-rounder from test 1 to retirement (not having strank transformations & peak periods i.e Sobers & Imran or gradual declines i.e Botham) was Miller & yet many historians reckon some of his best years were lost to the war.
Its disappointing Procter & Rice didn't play test cricket since they potentially would have fit this criteria also.
And in reality, what would you call Miller's form where for about half his career he was averaging 45 with the bat and 22 with the ball?.
Did Miller actually do this or are you just suggesting a scenario?
Or Imran's 50+ with the bat and 19 with the ball? At least Imran's certainly is more impressive than Sobers'. And at the LEAST it should be recognised as close - if judged solely by peaks. But it isn't and what is worse is that the #1 is undisputed.
Actually based on what i read, video's & what people who have seen the great man have concluded Imran as an all-rounder where he combined solid batting ability with fast bowling of 90+ was from
Karachi 1980 to Bridgetwon 1988, averaging 40 with the bat & 17 with the ball. After the WI series i read that Imran had lost his pace while his batting went to a new gear after then but it was not combined with destructive bowling any longer.
I personally though have never claimed Sobers is the undisputed # 1, as i just mentioned to you i give it to both Sobers & Imran at their best but with being the more dominant in one discipline than the other.
That's great. What if Warne had no problem and this period was 2/3rds of his career?.
I don't quite catch your drift here son, run that by me again playa..
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.
As I mentioned at the top:
"Not just any player "The Great players" of game who may have who great overall records but that may have some statistical inbalances that those like us who have not seen them may want to question."