Sobers rates Gavaskar as the greatest batsman

[wfdu_ben91]

Comparing Sobers to Bradman is borderline stupidity. What Sobers did as a cricketer was nothing compared to what Bradman did. Kallis accomplished identical stats over a longer period of time; noone has gotten anywhere near what Bradman done.

 

[Burgey]

Comparing Sobers to Bradman is borderline stupidity. What Sobers did as a cricketer was nothing compared to what Bradman did. Kallis accomplished identical stats over a longer period of time; noone has gotten anywhere near what Bradman done.

Well, Kallis has done it in more tests - Sobers played what, mid to late 50s to early-mid 70s?

 

[Ikki]

He actually averages 49.60 against roberts,Marshall and Holding in 7 matches.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

And he averages 53.07 in 9 matches against both Holding and Roberts-

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Many of those matches include when only one of the aforementioned was in the attack - hence not very strong.

Probably worth commenting that, growing up in the 70s and 80s, if you averaged 40 plus, you were generally considered a very good Test player.

Well in the company of greats at least, it's average. Regardless, calling him the greatest batsman for it is quite silly. One can only imagine Sobers had looked at Sunil's average against the WIndies and thought that it was accomplished against the best attacks - as he explicitly mentions it as the reason why he rates Sunil so highly.

 

[Sir Alex]

Many of those matches include when only one of the aforementioned was in the attack - hence not very strong.



Well in the company of greats at least, it's average. Regardless, calling him the greatest batsman for it is quite silly. One can only imagine Sobers had looked at Sunil's average against the WIndies and thought that it was accomplished against the best attacks - as he explicitly mentions it as the reason why he rates Sunil so highly.

So what were the comparitive figures for openers during his period against the same attack? Please don't include 1 or 2 test players but a decent sample.

 

[Richard]

Gavaskar was on record that he regards Rohan Kanhai the greatest batsman he had ever seen. Even named his son after him, so it couldn't be lost on any one. This statement was made when he was still a player (i.e. did not include players from the current period), so it does include Sobers.

Rohan Kanhai is possibly the most under-rewarded cricketer in history. On the exceptionally rare occasions he is discussed, everyone partaking discusses how good he was, but the number of occasions he comes-up for discussion are infinitessimal.

He wasn't as good a batsman as Sobers, whose career ran almost directly concurrently, but he wasn't a million miles behind.

 

[Ikki]

I don't know. I'll check when I am home. Although it doesn't matter since we don't care for only openers. Seriously, you and Cevno are a tag-team full of crap.

 

[Streetwise]

Link? I don't know what Gavaskar said on that occasion, but he has rated Sobers as the greatest cricketer he has seen because he also wins games with the ball. (As Jono said).

Sathasivam is the greatest batsman according to Sobers when he is not visiting India.

 

[jeevan]

Sathasivam is the greatest batsman according to Sobers when he is not visiting India.

It's fine to insinuate Sobers & Gavaskar to be audience pandering fools (though, that's a very common human behavior colloquially, for any of us who've said to our mates "you're the best") as long as you can at least supply a shred of evidence of any sort. So don't be cute, just supply a darn hyperlink to Gavaskar's statement so we can judge the context.

Gavaskar shoots his mouth of many times, but he is serious about cricket. (probably ditto Sobers).

 

[jeevan]

Here's what we know these people have said, and their proper context:

- Sobers , very recently, rated Gavaskar the best batsman he's seen. Which presumable excludes Bradman but deliberately includes SRT, Lara,Viv Richards.
There is a very proper questioning of modesty (or literally not being able to see oneself in the usual sense) if Sobers counted himself. Beyond this, it is a bold opinion for sure but not outside the realms of subjective preference. Gavaskar might just make the top 5 of other people's lists of the period (not slam-bam-thank you ma'am T20 types of commentators, perhaps).

- Gavaskar up to his playing days rated Rohan Kanhai as the best batsman he had seen. This includes Sobers as he almost couldn't have seen Kanhai without seeing Sobers. It is a bold opinion for sure to rate Kanhai over Sobers, don't know if Sobers was in relative decline or what, as Gavaskar debuted in the last phase of Sobers' career .

- Gavaskar has rated Sobers to be the greatest cricketer he has seen. Definitely excludes Bradman by this criterion, but includes Kallis.
And for winning games with bat and ball. Kallis is terribly under-rated (see CW thread on all rounders ffs! didn't make top 4 of many of CW folks), but Gavaskar wouldn't be in a minority in rating Sobers over Kallis. And in this context this is hardly a radical notion.

- Gavaskar has recently rated Tendulkar to be the greatest batsman he has seen. Tendulkar was either a little boy or perhaps not even born when Gavaskar had made the pronouncement regarding Kanhai (Gavaskar's son is about the same age as SRT). So this is no contradiction to the previous statement.
Given how Don Bradman has rated SRT, this is not a completely radical notion either though possibly a bit bold. SRT, Sobers, Lara, Viv Richards - in no order - make many of these people's lists for 1971-present. Clearly Gavaskar excludes himself for he has rated Vishy higher than himself more than once and perhaps not flippantly either. ( I don't want to stir up the Ponting ****, please go somewhere else for that).

Knocking down the best players, and even commentators, of the game with one liners (streetwise) and rejoinders to one liners (wdf_ben) is amongst the worst behaviors for a cricketing discussion. Probably amongst the biggest reason for forum decline, this is worse than even 15 pages of selective statistics and multi-quoted responses.

 

[Cevno]

Many of those matches include when only one of the aforementioned was in the attack - hence not very strong.


.

No they do not.They include only matches when they all played.
I think the Cricinfo STATS filter when it is mentioned all of the above players,means that.And similar for when any one of these is selected.

 

[Cevno]

I don't know. I'll check when I am home. Although it doesn't matter since we don't care for only openers. Seriously, you and Cevno are a tag-team full of crap.

No need to resort to insults.

 

[Ikki]

No they do not.They include only matches when they all played.
I think the Cricinfo STATS filter when it is mentioned all of the above players,means that.And similar for when any one of these is selected.

Apologies, you're right. I read the filter having OR between the players and thought it was one or many of the others.

Having said that, and I hope this doesn't seem like nitpicking, other than his two hundreds he only passed 20 once in the other 10 innings. Healthy average, although I wouldn't say he was overly successful against them - he pretty much failed 10/12.

Also it should be noted that Roberts was on his last legs so it's still not the infamous WIndies attack but much better than what I thought it was though ITBT.

For interest's sake, vs. Marshall, Holding, Garner and Roberts: 36.83.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...7;team=8;team=9;template=results;type=batting

 

[Sanz]

It is sad and funny both.

 

[vcs]

Apologies if it seems like I'm jumping in without reading the whole thread, but does this level of stat nit-picking really yield much information? I mean, some of these filters are looking at samples of 3 or 4 matches..there's a reason why we look at career averages - or at the very least - a career average against a particular opponent assuming at least 10 matches have been played. You simply cannot draw any conclusion out of a sample of 3 or 4 matches - luck, batting conditions, umpiring decisions, temporary lack of form/fitness or any number of factors may affect the results.

 

[andyc]

Apologies if it seems like I'm jumping in without reading the whole thread, but does this level of stat nit-picking really yield much information? I mean, some of these filters are looking at samples of 3 or 4 matches..there's a reason why we look at career averages - or at the very least - a career average against a particular opponent assuming at least 10 matches have been played. You simply cannot draw any conclusion out of a sample of 3 or 4 matches - luck, batting conditions, umpiring decisions, temporary lack of form/fitness or any number of factors may affect the results.

Top post, definitely agreed. Welcome to CW as well (even though you joined a year ago).

 

[vcs]

Top post, definitely agreed. Welcome to CW as well (even though you joined a year ago).

Thank you, I read quite often but post very rarely.

 

[honestbharani]

Thank you, I read quite often but post very rarely.

I can see why


EDIT: Before I get misunderstood, I meant you are perhaps afraid and tired of the stats wars and the denigration of players that goes on here..

 

[vcs]

I can see why


EDIT: Before I get misunderstood, I meant you are perhaps afraid and tired of the stats wars and the denigration of players that goes on here..

Well, yes, partly that (though I find them morbidly fascinating to read at times ) but mainly because of laziness.

 

[Richard]

Apologies if it seems like I'm jumping in without reading the whole thread, but does this level of stat nit-picking really yield much information? I mean, some of these filters are looking at samples of 3 or 4 matches..there's a reason why we look at career averages - or at the very least - a career average against a particular opponent assuming at least 10 matches have been played. You simply cannot draw any conclusion out of a sample of 3 or 4 matches - luck, batting conditions, umpiring decisions, temporary lack of form/fitness or any number of factors may affect the results.

Been said so many times. McNamara's comment summed it up best, IMO, and probably always will:

In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.

 

[L Trumper]

Kallis is terribly under-rated (see CW thread on all rounders ffs! didn't make top 4 of many of CW folks)

That may be true. But idea of him in top 4 all rounders is a stretch.

Considering he is instinctively defensive player (although he is getting better) and not a kind of player whom you banks on turning the game on its head. He might have similar records with sobers, but he never dominated the entire series with both bat and ball in a way sobers did in 66. And also there is an entertainment factor, flamboyant and larger than life characters associated with all rounders and kallis doesn't fit that bill either. So yeah he might be in 5 to 10 rather 1 to 5. All though by the time he hangs his boots he might well end up in top 5.