Top Five Most Underrated Cricketers Ever.

[viriya]

Based on your spreadsheets again no doubt.

I guess your old ass was around to watch Sobers bowl.

 

[viriya]

Explaining away Sobers' mediocre SR with the era he bowled in would make sense if he had a very good average or wkts/match.. Since that's not the case it's hard to consider him much more than a stock bowler similar to Kallis in effectiveness.

 

[akilana]

Explaining away Sobers' mediocre SR with the era he bowled in would make sense if he had a very good average or wkts/match.. Since that's not the case it's hard to consider him much more than a stock bowler similar to Kallis in effectiveness.

You are wasting your time arguing with them. They have already made up their mind. A bowler like Sobers being an opening bowler says a lot about the standard of bowling back then. As usual people started to attack you and tell you a SR of 91 is somehow better than 63. Lolworthy stuff.

 

[steve132]

Um... some of us actually saw Sobers play many times, and our assessment of his abilities is based on that experience. In fact, it's quite telling that few, if any, people who saw the man in action believe that he was overrated as a bowler or anything else. Bishan Bedi, Geoff Boycott, Ted Dexter, Barry Richards and others certainly don't.

Here's a challenge. Can anyone identify a cricketer, official or journalist of note who saw Sobers and considers him to be overrated?

 

[viriya]

It's kinda precisely for this reason why I consider him overrated.. Everyone rates him highly, when his record shouldn't merit that much respect. It doesn't matter how good you looked, how versatile you are, what matters is results.

 

[steve132]

But we need a rather more sophisticated and context-sensitive definition of "results" than you have provided to date.

I'm not opposed to statistical analysis. I'm a baseball fan, and sabermetricians such as Bill James conduct very sophisticated analyses for that sport, enabling us to evaluate players across several generations. There is, unfortunately, nothing comparable in cricket. In order to assess Sobers's abilities and achievements we need to understand his career trajectory, the way in which game was played in his time and his contemporaries' achievements. It's not enough to quote "striking rates" in a vacuum.

 

[viriya]

But we need a rather more sophisticated and context-sensitive definition of "results" than you have provided to date.

I'm not opposed to statistical analysis. I'm a baseball fan, and sabermetricians such as Bill James conduct very sophisticated analyses for that sport, enabling us to evaluate players across several generations. There is, unfortunately, nothing comparable in cricket. In order to assess Sobers's abilities and achievements we need to understand his career trajectory, the way in which game was played in his time and his contemporaries' achievements. It's not enough to quote "striking rates" in a vacuum.

Yes, even when you consider match status, era context, etc as you can with detailed scorecard data (as I do in my ratings), his bowling record isn't anything special.. there's nothing hidden in the numbers except that he became a better bowler through his career but still was a holding/stock-type bowler (an above average one at that).

For examples of hidden information in scorecards giving more clarity to basic stats you can take say Andy Caddick's example.. he has a very respectable record, but it looks much better considering he bowled so much to Australia's ATG team.. or Aravinda De Silva - he has a relatively modest Test batting record but it's underrated because most of the time he was the top scorer in a team that collapsed around him, so he had very little support.. etc etc.

 

[Red]

It's kinda precisely for this reason why I consider him overrated.. Everyone rates him highly, when his record shouldn't merit that much respect. It doesn't matter how good you looked, how versatile you are, what matters is results.

FFS. Everyone in the cricket world rates Sobers. He is pretty much the unanimous choice as the best batting all rounder of all time. Yes, his bowling SR was 90. So what? As people have explained, he was used as a stock bowler, not a strike bowler. Geddit?

Fwiw, Benaud was Sober's contemporary, and a highly regarded leg spinner. Benaud's SR was 77. Which means Sobers took about two more overs than Benaud for each of his wickets.

Sobers was arguably the second greatest batsman of all time, as well as being a very handy change bowler who was capable of winning a place in a test team on the strength of his bowling alone. Hence, the greatest batting AR of all time. He's not overrated at all. Read some pieces written by his contemporaries.

 

[viriya]

FFS. Everyone in the cricket world rates Sobers. He is pretty much the unanimous choice as the best batting all rounder of all time. Yes, his bowling SR was 90. So what? As people have explained, he was used as a stock bowler, not a strike bowler. Geddit?

Fwiw, Benaud was Sober's contemporary, and a highly regarded leg spinner. Benaud's SR was 77. Which means Sobers took about two more overs than Benaud for each of his wickets.

Sobers was arguably the second greatest batsman of all time, as well as being a very handy change bowler who was capable of winning a place in a test team on the strength of his bowling alone. Hence, the greatest batting AR of all time. He's not overrated at all. Read some pieces written by his contemporaries.

I'm not saying Sobers the batting all-rounder is overrated. In fact I believe he's pretty much the GOAT all-rounder. Just that his bowling is overrated because just pointing out everyone in his era had a higher strike rate doesn't explain the fact that he just got a couple wickets a game with just a reasonable average. He was a stock bowler precisely because he wasn't a strike bowler - it's not like people disallowed him from being more effective when bowling.

 

[kyear2]

FFS. Everyone in the cricket world rates Sobers. He is pretty much the unanimous choice as the best batting all rounder of all time. Yes, his bowling SR was 90. So what? As people have explained, he was used as a stock bowler, not a strike bowler. Geddit?

Fwiw, Benaud was Sober's contemporary, and a highly regarded leg spinner. Benaud's SR was 77. Which means Sobers took about two more overs than Benaud for each of his wickets.

Sobers was arguably the second greatest batsman of all time, as well as being a very handy change bowler who was capable of winning a place in a test team on the strength of his bowling alone. Hence, the greatest batting AR of all time. He's not overrated at all. Read some pieces written by his contemporaries.

Exactly this. He is almost universally seen as the second best cricketer of all time. No one is comparing him as a bowler to Lille or Marshall, he was a 4th or 5th bowler and he did it damn well.

He was a brilliant batsman, superb slip and close fielder and an excellent 5th bowler who could have made the team in that discipline alone as evidenced by the fact that he opened the bowling on multiple occasions.

One just can't look at the stats in isolation but rather in context of his era and opposition.

 

[Red]

So, isn't a couple of wickets per game at a decent average precisely what you want from someone batting at 6 and averaging nearly 60 with the bat?

No one claims Sobers was the greatest bowler ever, or anything like that. He was a good bowler though. I really don't think most people overrate his bowling.

 

[viriya]

I feel like the person pointing out that Bradman failed in his last innings while everyone else keeps saying he's the greatest batsman.. Can't they both be true?

 

[Red]

I feel like the person pointing out that Bradman failed in his last innings while everyone else keeps saying he's the greatest batsman.. Can't they both be true?

No, because you're saying people overrate Sobers' bowling. I think everyone else is saying that Sobers was a good bowler, but they don't overrate him.

 

[viriya]

No, because you're saying people overrate Sobers' bowling. I think everyone else is saying that Sobers was a good bowler, but they don't overrate him.

A lot of people say his record lies and he is a better bowler than that cos he could bowl anything and that he was "forced" to be a stock bowler.. that's why I say he is overrated. If you don't think he is more than a better than average 5th option, I agree.

 

[the big bambino]

No one says his record lies just that you don't understand it. Sobers being a new ball bowler says absolutely nothing about the bowling of the time. How could it? Hall and Griffith were in the same side. Gilchrist would've too except he was a mad arse. Eng had Trueman and Statham and Bailey (as well as others like Rhodes) Aus had Davo and McKenzie and SA Adcock and Heine. NZ had Bruce Taylor. You know some reading before posting would inform the latter; possibly even making it redundant.

 

[Red]

A lot of people say his record lies and he is a better bowler than that cos he could bowl anything and that he was "forced" to be a stock bowler.

Who says that?

 

[viriya]

Who says that?

I refer you to previous posts in this thread.

 

[Red]

I refer you to previous posts in this thread.

Which ones?

 

[cnerd123]

You said his bowling SR of 91 was terrible Virya, while we explained to you that it was at 91 due to his role as a stock bowler for large chunks of his career.

We also demonstrated his 8 year peak where he bowled mainly pace, and ended up with an average of 27.

Breaking down his stats by pace bowling and spin bowling would be more telling oh his abilities.

 

[viriya]

You said his bowling SR of 91 was terrible Virya, while we explained to you that it was at 91 due to his role as a stock bowler for large chunks of his career.

My point is he was a stock bowler because he wasn't as good as a strike bowler.. The "91 SR due to being a stock bowler" makes no sense. And yes, he might've been a better pacer than a spinner, but you have to evaluate the overall career at the end of the day.