Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[subshakerz]

Yes, there is a much larger disparity between Sobers batting and bowling in comparison to Miller but 'effectively' he is still a great all-rounder.

But for me, I can never rate Sobers ahead of Miller no matter how 'effective' Sobers is. His bowling, although being capable of coming up trumps and making a match-winning performance, is overall not strong at all. In fact, in another team he would have bowled much less and really could never influence a game with his bowling.

If I were picking an all-time XI, I would never pick Sobers as an all-rounder. I will never give Sobers the chance to bowl unless I was desperate and it was a "throw the kitchen sink" move. To let him bowl would be to really handicap my team. Whereas with Miller (and bowling all-rounders in general) he WILL have to bat anyway (everyone does, unlike bowling) and he is a pretty good considering his average and his place in the 'Invincibles' squad. His bowling, of course, is more than good. Takes more wickets while bowling less and conceding less runs. That's all you need from an all-rounder. I do not think giving an all-rounder almost 40 overs a test to take 2 wickets is justifiable unless you have pretty ordinary bowlers.

I wouldn't really pick Miller as the all-rounder in this XI as he wouldn't be considered be close to all-time great status as either a bowler or batsman, and would end up playing only supporting roles in both disciplines.

 

[archie mac]

Sobers but not by much, Miller if he had not gone to war may just have been the greatest AR of them all

 

[fredfertang]

He was picked as a bowler on debut. And I think before Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith came along he would've played a number of matches as a bowler as The West Indies fast bowling back then in the early to mid 1950's was pretty ordinary.

He did bat at 9 on his test debut and was selected as a replacement for Alf Valentine. Sobers was 17 on debut and had played only two previous first class games during which, for what it is worth, he had averaged 40 with the bat and taken 9 wickets. The second first class match he had played had been for Barbados against MCC shortly before his test debut in which he had batted at 5 and scored 73 runs in his two innings and taken two wickets - his first class debut, against the Indians the previous year had produced 7 wickets and 7* on his only visit to the crease.

As to batting at 9 it's difficult to see where else he would go - Holt and Stollmeyer opened followed by the 3 W's. 6,7 and 8 were Atkinson (ave 31) Gomez (ave 30) and McWatt (ave 28) so it was no reflection of lack of faith in his batting that had him at 9 - By his 4th test Sobers was to open the batting

Absent some contemporary writings from the WI selectors that I have not seen I still believe that he was picked as an allrounder

 

[sanga1337]

He did bat at 9 on his test debut and was selected as a replacement for Alf Valentine. Sobers was 17 on debut and had played only two previous first class games during which, for what it is worth, he had averaged 40 with the bat and taken 9 wickets. The second first class match he had played had been for Barbados against MCC shortly before his test debut in which he had batted at 5 and scored 73 runs in his two innings and taken two wickets - his first class debut, against the Indians the previous year had produced 7 wickets and 7* on his only visit to the crease.

As to batting at 9 it's difficult to see where else he would go - Holt and Stollmeyer opened followed by the 3 W's. 6,7 and 8 were Atkinson (ave 31) Gomez (ave 30) and McWatt (ave 28) so it was no reflection of lack of faith in his batting that had him at 9 - By his 4th test Sobers was to open the batting

Absent some contemporary writings from the WI selectors that I have not seen I still believe that he was picked as an allrounder

Well Sobers himself said in his autobiography that he believed he was picked as a bowler, even if in the programme he was described as a useful batsman. He also describes himself as a bowler with a little ability as a batsman and he believed he was elevated to opener to get the shine off the bowl and protect the 3 W's. As he was putting his pads on he kept telling himself that he was not an opening batsman and that he was a sacrifice for the team. I don't know about the selectors but it seems to me that Sobers thought that he was picked for his bowling.

 

[Richard]

There's no doubt Sobers was initially picked with bowling principally in mind, much more so than batting - however early in his career, his bowling was undeniably ineffective. In his first 21 Tests, he averaged just a tick under 52 with the ball. No amount of "it's not all about statistics"ism will change the fact that this = ineffective.

However, Sobers' batting wasn't of any particularly huge note early on either. As already noted, he was first picked at the age of 17. Few, even the very best, will be able to perform in Test cricket at this age. It took another 4 years until Sobers' batting begun to come-off. In his first 14 Tests over those 4 years he averaged just 30.54.

The true reflection of Sobers should only start in 1958. For the next 11 years and 56 Tests, he averaged 71 with the bat. This truly is mind-blowing. Virtually no-one has ever managed this. This is why Sobers has more than legitimate claim to being the second-greatest batsman after Bradman.

However, as a bowler, Sobers was still to start being effective. Even starting in 1958, he still retained an average of over 50 for his next 20 games. It was only midway through the famous 1960/61 series that Sobers finally began to show the bowling skill he had been selected for. For the next 8 years and 33 Tests, Sobers averaged 28 with the ball. Only midway through the next series in Australia did Sobers' bowling begin to decline again, and in his last 26 Tests he averaged 37 with the ball.

Only for a portion of his career was Sobers the phenomenal all-rounder we know him as - but this is still an achievement no-one else has come close to matching.

 

[weldone]

Who was more of a genuine alrounder? - Miller
Who was a better cricketer? - Sobers

 

[aussie]

Who was more of a genuine alrounder? - Miller
Who was a better cricketer? - Sobers

This is what i don't understand, how can people come to the conclusion that Sobers at his peak wasn't a genuine all-rounder?. Although i am not a stats man that is something that the stats would should you fairly clearly.

I see richard has pointed this out..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This is what i don't understand, how can people come to the conclusion that Sobers at his peak wasn't a genuine all-rounder?. Although i am not a stats man that is something that the stats would should you fairly clearly.

..

It's because his bowling average is 32 (or something like that) so some people look at that and think he couldn't bowl without taking into account circumstances which lead it to being that high.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

It's because his bowling average is 32 (or something like that) so some people look at that and think he couldn't bowl without taking into account circumstances which lead it to being that high.

34 actually.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

There's no doubt Sobers was initially picked with bowling principally in mind, much more so than batting - however early in his career, his bowling was undeniably ineffective. In his first 21 Tests, he averaged just a tick under 52 with the ball. No amount of "it's not all about statistics"ism will change the fact that this = ineffective.

However, Sobers' batting wasn't of any particularly huge note early on either. As already noted, he was first picked at the age of 17. Few, even the very best, will be able to perform in Test cricket at this age. It took another 4 years until Sobers' batting begun to come-off. In his first 14 Tests over those 4 years he averaged just 30.54.

The true reflection of Sobers should only start in 1958. For the next 11 years and 56 Tests, he averaged 71 with the bat. This truly is mind-blowing. Virtually no-one has ever managed this. This is why Sobers has more than legitimate claim to being the second-greatest batsman after Bradman.

However, as a bowler, Sobers was still to start being effective. Even starting in 1958, he still retained an average of over 50 for his next 20 games. It was only midway through the famous 1960/61 series that Sobers finally began to show the bowling skill he had been selected for. For the next 8 years and 33 Tests, Sobers averaged 28 with the ball. Only midway through the next series in Australia did Sobers' bowling begin to decline again, and in his last 26 Tests he averaged 37 with the ball.

Only for a portion of his career was Sobers the phenomenal all-rounder we know him as - but this is still an achievement no-one else has come close to matching.

Imran at his peak>>Sobers at his peak because Imran performed as an allrounder for much longer.The only guy who comes close to Imran in terms of peak period is Ian Botham but then Imran had a better peak than him also.

Sobers reemained a worst bowler roughly for 2/5th of his career,not half.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

It's because his bowling average is 32 (or something like that) so some people look at that and think he couldn't bowl without taking into account circumstances which lead it to being that high.

Those 'circumstances' things are all just myths because Sobers was both statistically & practically was a worst bowler for first 35-40 games of his career and then pretty ordinary for last few games of his career as well.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Those 'circumstances' thiongs are all just myths because Sobers was both statistically & practically was a worst bowler for first 35-40 games of his career and then pretty ordinary for last few games of his career as well.

Until you get over your doing down of every cricketer in the world in an attempt to prove that Imran Khan is the greatest living Human Being ever there's no point in any of this.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Until you get over your doing down of every cricketer in the world in an attempt to prove that Imran Khan is the greatest living Human Being ever there's no point in any of this.

I have fairly valid statistical piece of evidence to prove my claims,you don't.Whatever,I believe about Imran is based on facts,not myths(like you do).I invite you prove to me Sobers was a better allrounder statistically & non-statistically & I promise to be the biggest fan & advocate of Sobers but it should be without myths & things like "this" guy said this about him & "that" this rubbish.

 

[aussie]

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.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I have fairly valid statistical piece of evidence to prove my claims,you don't.Whatever,I believe about Imran is based on facts,not myths(like you do).I invite you prove to me Sobers was a better allrounder statistically & non-statistically & I promise to be the biggest fan & advocate of Sobers but it should be withput myths & things like "this" guy said this about him & "that" this rubbish.

Statistical analysis will inevitably show Sobers to be the better batsman and Imran the better bowler, there's no spreadsheet or StatsGuru that can weigh one discipline off against the other. I'm not sure what non-statistical analysis is if you blindly discount people who say them play. It's complete nonsense to bring up Sobers first 35 Tests and saw he can't bowl, for the first 10 years of his career Imran was a mediocre number 7 or 8 batsman who probably averaged in the low to mid 20's, but of course he mustn't be judged on that.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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.

Procter is the potential best allrounder ever but Rice wasn't anything special as he took only about 2(?) wickets per FC game

 

[fredfertang]

Presumably if we are taking the term allrounder literally then fielding becomes relevant - Sobers 109 catches in 93 tests and Imran 26 in 88 .....................................

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Presumably if we are taking the term allrounder literally then fielding becomes relevant - Sobers 109 catches in 93 tests and Imran 26 in 88 .....................................

Most people here consider only batting & bowling when talking of allrounders.Even if you want to include other disciplines then Imran's captaincy equals Sobers fielding.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Statistical analysis will inevitably show Sobers to be the better batsman and Imran the better bowler, there's no spreadsheet or StatsGuru that can weigh one discipline off against the other. I'm not sure what non-statistical analysis is if you blindly discount people who say them play. It's complete nonsense to bring up Sobers first 35 Tests and saw he can't bowl, for the first 10 years of his career Imran was a mediocre number 7 or 8 batsman who probably averaged in the low to mid 20's, but of course he mustn't be judged on that.

I respect Sobers and all I argue is that he is overrated as an allrounder and Imran & Miller were better allrounders than him.

 

[aussie]

Procter is thge potential best allrounder ever but Rice wasn't anything special as he took only about 2(?) wickets per FC game

Yea but based on what i read etc thats mainly because his career had two periods in the 70s he was just as good as Procter with bat & ball (probably a slightly better batsman while Procter being the better bowler). Then in the 80s when he captained Notts he bowled less..