Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[Ikki]

Another example of looking blindly at stats and jumping to conclusions. A one-sided poll doesn't mean that at all. You could have a 100-0 result but that doesn't mean that all or any of the 100 don't think it's close between the two.

Show where blind use of stats was used.

LT, you pout crap like that out and it's tiresome. The fact that you have done more whining than actually stating a cogent case for Sobers is really sticking out sorely here. You can't prove it, fine. Don't resent those who can prove what they are saying.

And no, I know that a poll can be 100-0 and be "close" but I am talking about more than just this poll. I said this poll reflects the notion that Sobers' should be generally regarded the greatest all-rounder without much argument. The intro to his cricinfo profile says that:

"Garry Sobers excelled at all aspects of the game, and few would argue his claim as the finest allround player in modern cricket."

You say yourself that most of the people say he is the best, so what is your point? My point is that too many people repeat this without much thought. We have intelligent members here saying basically, "well if all these pros and other people said it, I'll just agree". That's as misguided as only using stats and at face value.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Show where blind use of stats was used.

LT, you pout crap like that out and it's tiresome. The fact that you have done more whining than actually stating a cogent case for Sobers is really sticking out sorely here. You can't prove it, fine. Don't resent those who can prove what they are saying.

And no, I know that a poll can be 100-0 and be "close" but I am talking about more than just this poll. I said this poll reflects the notion that Sobers' should be generally regarded the greatest all-rounder without much argument. The intro to his cricinfo profile says that:

"Garry Sobers excelled at all aspects of the game, and few would argue his claim as the finest allround player in modern cricket."

You say yourself that most of the people say he is the best, so what is your point? My point is that too many people repeat this without much thought. We have intelligent members here saying basically, "well if all these pros and other people said it, I'll just agree". That's as misguided as only using stats and at face value.

The poll result 28-4 is a stat. You said "Look at this poll itself as evidence of that misconception." Where's the evidence in the poll of the preceived misconception? No where. Now there is a fact for you.

 

[Ikki]

The poll result 28-4 is a stat. You said "Look at this poll itself as evidence of that misconception." Where's the evidence in the poll of the preceived misconception? No where. Now there is a fact for you.

Um, what are you talking about? The fact that almost everyone here who argues for him resorts to "everybody knows he is the best, what are you talking about". Are you paying attention? Do you think I am just talking about numbers again?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Um, what are you talking about? The fact that almost everyone here who argues for him resorts to "everybody knows he is the best, what are you talking about". Are you paying attention? Do you think I am just talking about numbers again?

Are you paying to your own posts? You said "But you know what? I say, okay, even if Miller is ahead like this, it is still very close. But do you know what the populous likes to believe? That Sobers is beyond dispute the greatest. That it is a foregone conclusion. Look at this poll itself as evidence of that misconception."

All I'm asking is where is the evidence in the poll that anyone thinks that Sober's is beyond dispute the greatest? There is nothing in the poll that can possibly say that people who voted for Sobers think it's any less close than people who voted for Miller. Not many who voted have actually expressed a strong opinion.

 

[steve132]

Also, whether you think his 34 is better than other 34s is one thing, but his batting average is higher than what would really seem accurate. He belted the crap out of Pakistan and India who at that time were not really strong bowling sides. His era of batting is also one of the higher averaging eras.

So now you're challenging Sobers' ability as a batsman? Which of his contemporaries matched his average over a comparable number of Tests?

I don't what Sobers did to incur your hatred, but I recommend that you get a grip on yourself and THINK before submitting another of your innumerable, incoherent and uninformed rants. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the history of the game knows that New Zealand, not India or Pakistan, were the weakest team in international cricket during the Sobers era. New Zealand were also the team against which Sobers posted, by a substantial margin, his worst results.

 

[Ikki]

Are you paying to your own posts? You said "But you know what? I say, okay, even if Miller is ahead like this, it is still very close. But do you know what the populous likes to believe? That Sobers is beyond dispute the greatest. That it is a foregone conclusion. Look at this poll itself as evidence of that misconception."

All I'm asking is where is the evidence in the poll that anyone thinks that Sober's is beyond dispute the greatest? There is nothing in the poll that can possibly say that people who voted for Sobers think it's any less close than people who voted for Miller. Not many who voted have actually expressed a strong opinion.

What do you mean? This may be the most obvious thing in the thread. How many times did you read "Sobers is the best because x said so" or some variant? Quite a few right? I am saying the general consensus is that a lot of people thought Sobers was the best without much dispute. Yes, maybe the gap is not THAT large but it's been made out to be large enough that Sobers clearly is the better one.

I'll give you and example of what I am talking about:

McGrath is a great bowler and Hadlee is a great bowler and between them the polls seem to be split.

Between Sobers and Miller however, even though they are just as close, the historical comparison has actually said Sobers is better.

Rarely do you even hear "arguably the greatest" but things like "few would dispute"...

The same way people write about Hobbs, as if it's a foregone conclusion, disregarding the fact that Hobbs and Sutcliffe ARE close.

My gripe is, why do so many people automatically put that name down without knowing so much of what has been said here. Don't tell me they did know it and they still put Sobers because with the small exchanges I've had with many people in this thread I am clearly informing them of what DID happen and what things they thought about Miller/Sobers was wrong. There have been many misconceptions.

I mean, look at your own behaviour. How many pages has it taken me to write about Sobers yet in the end say they are close? How many times did you say what I was saying was either false or not worth arguing. In effect "beyond dispute".

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What do you mean? This may be the most obvious thing in the thread. How many times did you read "Sobers is the best because x said so" or some variant? Quite a few right? I am saying the general consensus is that a lot of people thought Sobers was the best without much dispute. Yes, maybe the gap is not THAT large but it's been made out to be large enough that Sobers clearly is the better one.

I'll give you and example of what I am talking about:

McGrath is a great bowler and Hadlee is a great bowler and between them the polls seem to be split.

Between Sobers and Miller however, even though they are just as close, the historical comparison has actually said Sobers is better.

Rarely do you even hear "arguably the greatest" but things like "few would dispute"...

The same way people write about Hobbs, as if it's a foregone conclusion, disregarding the fact that Hobbs and Sutcliffe ARE close.

My gripe is, why do so many people automatically put that name down without knowing so much of what has been said here. Don't tell me they did know it and they still put Sobers because with the small exchanges I've had with many people in this thread I am clearly informing them of what DID happen and what things they thought about Miller/Sobers was wrong. There have been many misconceptions.

I mean, look at your own behaviour. How many pages has it taken me to write about Sobers yet in the end say they are close? How many times did you say what I was saying was either false or not worth arguing. In effect "beyond dispute".

That's all very interesting but it doesn't alter the fact that you said look at the poll as evidence that people think Sobers is beyond dispute the greatest, there is no evidence in the poll to say that and the voters who voted for Sobers have not said it except maybe a very small minority.

 

[Ikki]

So now you're challenging Sobers' ability as a batsman? Which of his contemporaries matched his average over a comparable number of Tests?

Barrington, Walcott, Pollock, Davis, Gavaskar (averaged 57, whilst Sobers was playing). Comparable number of Tests? That shouldn't matter. Because then the only person who can compare with Sobers is someone who started playing when Sobers did and stopped when he did AND was of the same calibre as him. Quite a stretch there. I mentioned batsmen that also played in other periods (as well as Sobers) and those who had their entire career inside this period, even if they didn't play as many games as Sobers. But Barrington is the closest one to match your criteria.

And no, it isn't a challenge but if someone wants to be picky over his bowling average because he bowled spin and medium pace then something like this is likely to have equal importance.

I don't what Sobers did to incur your hatred, but I recommend that you get a grip on yourself and THINK before submitting another of your innumerable, incoherent and uninformed rants. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the history of the game knows that New Zealand, not India or Pakistan, were the weakest team in international cricket during the Sobers era. New Zealand were also the team against which Sobers posted, by a substantial margin, his worst results.

I don't have any hatred for Sobers. The irony of extreme feelings is that you only seem to show up when Sobers is talked about. Maybe you should get over your over-zealous love for Sobers?

Anyone who also knows anything about the game knows during this time the difference between a New Zealand and an India was very small. Considering your lack of appreciation for facts and figures, I doubt you know how many times each team won during this era and who they beat, etc.

 

[Ikki]

That's all very interesting but it doesn't alter the fact that you said look at the poll as evidence that people think Sobers is beyond dispute the greatest, there is no evidence in the poll to say that and the voters who voted for Sobers have not said it except maybe a very small minority.

I am not sure how many times I can repeat what I just said. Do you think it has to be explicitly mentioned to apply as evidence or is implicit enough?

 

[zaremba]

On this thread, and a few others, perhaps the antagonists should draw breath and stop flinging insults around. It really does get you nowhere, and it makes this messageboard a more tiresome place.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I am not sure how many times I can repeat what I just said. Do you think it has to be explicitly mentioned to apply as evidence or is implicit enough?

By saying it's evidence you're just passing an opinion based on numbers with little to back it up..................that sounds familiar.

 

[Ikki]

By saying it's evidence you're just passing an opinion based on numbers with little to back it up..................that sounds familiar.

Well, of course, it is my opinion that people think this way about Sobers. Didn't say it's a fact.

But I mean, look at this entire thread. I try to take another look at Sobers' bowling to show he wasn't the all-rounder he is constantly touted to be and I am harassed for trying to prove otherwise. In that sense, I think it's quite clear that it's 'beyond' dispute.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well, of course, it is my opinion that people think this way about Sobers. Didn't say it's a fact.

But I mean, look at this entire thread. I try to take another look at Sobers' bowling to show he wasn't the all-rounder he is constantly touted to be and I am harassed for trying to prove otherwise. In that sense, I think it's quite clear that it's 'beyond' dispute.

It's a very small number who can be bothered with the argument though and considering early on you claimed there was no such thing as a bowler bowling to tie up an end I'm not too surprised.

 

[Ikki]

It's a very small number who can be bothered with the argument though and considering early on you claimed there was no such thing as a bowler bowling to tie up an end I'm not too surprised.

I still maintain that. No one is given the ball to bowl long spells just not to concede a lot of runs. That may happen in some instances, but it is not the defining job of a bowler throughout his career to do that. At least, I have never heard of that and never so regarding a "good" bowler.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I still maintain that. No one is given the ball to bowl long spells just not to concede a lot of runs. That may happen in some instances, but it is not the defining job of a bowler throughout his career to do that. At least, I have never heard of that and never so regarding a "good" bowler.

Well that is where you're wrong. No one said it's the defining job of a bowler throughout their career, just that Sobers did it for long spells that inflated his strike rate. Derek Underwood did it for long spells, but perhaps he can't bowl either.

 

[Ikki]

Well that is where you're wrong. No one said it's the defining job of a bowler throughout their career, just that Sobers did it for long spells that inflated his strike rate. Derek Underwood did it for long spells, but perhaps he can't bowl either.

Yet Derek has a massively better SR?

My point wasn't that it didn't inflate his statistics, but by how much do you think? Obviously not that much to matter as Sobers is so far off that it's not a talking point. Even if you improve his SR by a FULL 10 points it doesn't change the outlook of his bowling by enough for me to change my stance or change my points.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yet Derek has a massively better SR?

My point wasn't that it didn't inflate his statistics, but by how much do you think? Obviously not that much to matter as Sobers is so far off that it's not a talking point. Even if you improve his SR by a FULL 10 points it doesn't change the outlook of his bowling by enough for me to change my stance or change my points.

Underwood was also a specialist spinner who bowled on uncovered wickets in England.

It doesn't matter by how much it inflated it. It was a tiny point when it was made but the fact that you claimed something as basic as that didn't even happen doesn't give the reader much confidence in anything else you try to claim.

 

[zaremba]

Does either of you expect to change the other's mind?

 

[steve132]

Barrington, Walcott, Pollock, Davis, Gavaskar (averaged 57, whilst Sobers was playing). Comparable number of Tests? That shouldn't matter. Because then the only person who can compare with Sobers is someone who started playing when Sobers did and stopped when he did AND was of the same calibre as him. Quite a stretch there. I mentioned batsmen that also played in other periods (as well as Sobers) and those who had their entire career inside this period, even if they didn't play as many games as Sobers. But Barrington is the closest one to match your criteria.

And no, it isn't a challenge but if someone wants to be picky over his bowling average because he bowled spin and medium pace then something like this is likely to have equal importance.

Sobers was born in 1936, and there are scores of Test cricketers who are born within a decade or so of his birth, including such celebrated batsmen as Graveney, Harvey, May, Cowdrey, Barrington, Dexter, Kanhai, Boycott, Ian Chappell and Lloyd. Barrington is the ONLY player with a comparable average over a significant number of Tests. The number of Tests matters, because there is a considerable difference between maintaining a high average over 80-100 Tests and maintaining it over 20 or 25 Tests. For example, Pollock played only 23 Tests, and his average drops significantly if you include the Rest of the World Series against England and Australia in 1970 and 1972. These matches - like the Packer series in the late 70's - were played at a higher level of quality and intensity than most of Test cricket then or now. Likewise, Davis played only 15 Test matches (averaging 54) and could not hold a place in a strong West Indies team after that.

Walcott ended his Test career in 1960, and Gavaskar averaged 51, not 57, over his. If you want to select only a part of Gavaskar's career you must do the same for Sobers, who began his Test career as a bowler, at the tender age of 17. In summary, your claim that this was a period of unusually high batting averages is not supported by the available evidence.

I don't have any hatred for Sobers. The irony of extreme feelings is that you only seem to show up when Sobers is talked about. Maybe you should get over your over-zealous love for Sobers?

You have submitted far more posts to this thread than I or anyone else has. Most of your "contributions" have been repetitive, tendentious and designed to denigrate Sobers' record as much as you possibly can.

Anyone who also knows anything about the game knows during this time the difference between a New Zealand and an India was very small. Considering your lack of appreciation for facts and figures, I doubt you know how many times each team won during this era and who they beat, etc.

This is a prime example of your bias. You claim that Sobers scored most of his runs against India and Pakistan, but conveniently neglect to mention that his WORST record is against the worst team of the era, New Zealand.

India and New Zealand played four Test series during Sobers' career. India won three of these, and the other one was drawn. The overall record in Tests won was 7-2 in India's favor. Is this your idea of a "very small" difference?

 

[weldone]

In summary, your claim that this was a period of unusually high batting averages is not supported by the available evidence.

I don't know whether Kazo has made such a claim...But if he has done, then he has made a very wrong claim...On comparative basis, in Sobers' era, averages used to be slightly (yes, slightly) lesser than in Bradman's or Hobbs' or Sachin's era...At least by no means Sobers enjoyed some considerable advantage for batting due to the era in which he played...