Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[smash84]

These are their batting averages without considering not outs :

Imran ---------->30.2 (Had become decent batsman only by start of 1980s
Miller ---------->34.0 (Played on flattest wickets ever)
Botham ---------->32.2 (Had become "Hit &Miss" batsman by later half of his career)
Kapil ---------->28.5 (Average speaks itself how good a batsman he was)

My Points:

1.Once Imran became a complete batsman by early 1980s he averages 40 without considering not outs & his skills never declined.That shows how much better bastman he was than like Miller & Botham. Plus credit goes to Imran because he always batted in more pressure playing at 7 for most his career but 6 or lower during last few matches of his career.Getting that sort of performance by playing with tailenders at other end is a great achievemnt.And his so many not outs withh thatt good an show good he was to get out even being a lower order batsman & having to play with tailenders most of the time.

2.If you're so concerned about Imran's not outs then you should also consider Miller's wickets/match ratio of 3.0 which is far from being that of a good bowler, let alone an alltime great.He lacked stamina & would always give up after bowling a few overs.

3.If Sobers is a good bowler just because he was originally picked as a bowler then by that logic Imran is an alltime great batsman too as he originally made the Pakistan purely on his batting capabilities too.

4.Sobers averaged around 50 as a bowler in his first 30 tests.No bowler would ever be given a chance to bowl again after that sort of performance but he got which means he was always hugely overrated despite being a worst bowler.Then he became a mediocre bowler in 2nd half of his career & crap again in the last.Seriously any club or even lower than that level cricketer can take 235 wickets if he plays 93 matches & gets to bowl as many overs as Sobers did.

Would agree with some of your points but As big an Imran fanboy as I am but it is probably easier to imagine him playing on flatter wickets than Keith Miller

 

[Viscount Tom]

If you take out the not outs you open the chance for removing excellent innings by the players.

 

[Red]

These are their batting averages without considering not outs :
Imran ---------->30.2 (Had become decent batsman only by start of 1980s
Miller ---------->34.0 (Played on flattest wickets ever)
Botham ---------->32.2 (Had become "Hit &Miss" batsman by later half of his career)
Kapil ---------->28.5 (Average speaks itself how good a batsman he was)

So it's fine for us to only look at the second half of Imran's career when he "had become a decent batsman", but you pull the **** out of Sobers' bowling career to prove your point?

Miller played "on flattest wickets ever"? Really? Elevates him further above Imran as a bowler then, imo. Probably also means Lindwall is the greatest bowling AR ever....

Botham and Kapil (and Miller) were both capable of batting top 6 comfortably.

 

[kyear2]

So it's fine for us to only look at the second half of Imran's career when he "had become a decent batsman", but you pull the **** out of Sobers' bowling career to prove your point?

Miller played "on flattest wickets ever"? Really? Elevates him further above Imran as a bowler then, imo. Probably also means Lindwall is the greatest bowling AR ever....

Botham and Kapil (and Miller) were both capable of batting top 6 comfortably.

Agreed, while Miller is to be over rated by some here, especially as a batsman, as the total package he was better than Imran, who only improved his batting after his injury stopped him from bowling for that period and his peak in bowling was long gone by the time he reached his batting peak. Also batting at 7 is a whole lot easier than batting at 4 or 5. For Imran the question is do you use the young opening fast bowler who was only adequate as a lower order batsman, or the first or second change Imran who was the more accomplished batsman. I choose the former, but one can't have it both ways.

The great thing with Sobers is that he reached his batting and bowling peak around the same time around the middle of his career and he was truely something, especially when factoring in his fielding and catching. Besides Miller for some the only one who could match that all round ability is Botham during his too short but Brilliant peak.
If anyone he probably deserves a though in the first XI if Barnes is to be included as he was the more accomplished batsman compared to Miller, though that is not my preferred format.
Just a though.

The reason I do choose Imran for the first team though is that Imran was the better bowler (and that would be his primary responsibility) and brings reverse swing to the team as the first change bowler and his batting is less important and just to add some batting depth along with Marshall and Warne.

 

[the big bambino]

Oh I missed that point about Miller playing on flat tracks. That is completely wrong. The 50s pitches were universally a load of old **** as reflected in the decade,s batting average which fell to levels not seen since before the 1st war.

 

[Ikki]

Sobers' bowling wasn't crap. His stats are very similar to someone like Alf Valentine's, and other guys like Bishen Bedi etc.. No one is saying he was a truly great bowler, but as a 5th bowling option he is exceptional

I'm not sure where this opinion that Sobers' bowling was "crap" comes from.

No, they're crap. Alf Valentine wasn't a very remarkable spinner and he still has better stats than Sobers' overall figures.

Now keep in mind...Alf Valentine was a spinner his whole career. Sobers' record consists most of the 60s as a pace bowler where both his strike rate and his average were much lower than his career figures. The beginning and end of his career (basically, the periods bar the one where he bowled pace) he has garbage figures...averages in the 40s and strikes well over 100 IIRC. That is much worse than Valentine's.

The problem with Sobers' bowling record is that he wasn't being bowled as a 5th bowler...he was getting 1st/2nd bowler quotas.

You have a perfectly valid point Ikki, not for the first time, but you don't help yourself in terms of putting it forward by dressing it up in such polemic language

Sobers plainly had some poor series as a bowler, 1957 in England in a series when the West Indian bowling generally was wholly undistinguished being a very good example, and he had some distinctly ordinary series elsewhere as well, but as I have already pointed out in England in particular, that first series apart, he was a highly effective and thoroughly decent bowler and he usually did a job - no Lillee or Imran I grant you, but well worth his place - tbh as a fellow lawyer I am always surprised that you don't choose your words more carefully.

Mate, the problem is that the irreverance that Sobers' is held in doesn't allow for a proper gauge of his record. When you are averaging in the 40s and striking in the 100s for the majority of your career...what would you call that other than garbage?

I've tried to be a bit more measured in choosing the words in the past...but I have to honestly ask myself...if X bowler had those figures what would I call them? What would you call it? For the sake of consistency and clarity, one has to be honest.

 

[Coronis]

Calling his bowling garbage will definitely help your cause.

 

[Ikki]

Calling his bowling garbage will definitely help your cause.

His, X, Y, Z's...it doesn't matter. I am calling someone who for the majority of their career averaged upwards of 40 runs per wicket and struck them at upwards of 100 balls for those wickets as garbage. Whether it is Sobers' or Mick Lewis'...it doesn't matter. A fair standard should apply for all.

Below are figures during Sobers' career. Keep in mind that Sobers' combined record of bowling pace and spin is still poorer than the average bowler who bowled just spin.

[B]Overall              AVG       SR
[/B]Sobers:             34.03     91.9
World avg:          31.18     79.8
Spinner avg:        32.71     88.9

 

[Red]

I'm not trying to argue Sobers was a great bowler, but as a batsman who averages high 50s, as a fifth bowling option he is very good.

And here's a few thoughts on that...

His average and SR are fairly poor, I'd agree. But they do compare with others who are considered decent bowlers, such as Warwick Armstrong, Trevor Hohns, Ken McKay, Dan Vettori and Tim May. So really, he is a batsman who averages high 50s, while also being comparable to some other bowlers who were selected on bowling alone.

Just as a couple of examples, here are some test records that show the role Sobers had to play in the WI's team (stock bowler bowling a lot of overs)...

1st Test: England v West Indies at Manchester, Jun 2-4, 1966 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

4th Test: West Indies v Australia at Bridgetown, May 5-11, 1965 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

3rd Test: West Indies v India at Georgetown, Mar 19-24, 1971 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

His role probably wasn't to be a strike bowler, but to bowl a heap of economical overs with Hall/Griffith/Gibbs bowled the rest.

Just as a side note, check out the last test there. Sobers bowled 43 overs (3 wickets), then came out and made 108* with the bat. Oh Shane Watson, why can't you?

 

[Ikki]

It's the same thing as the Alf Valentine example: those bowlers are spinners who have comparable records to Sobers who bowled spin and pace. Pace bowling, on the whole, is a far more effective bowling tool. So that despite the dilution, which worse in his favour, his record is only just comparable. This is not a strong point, it's a bad thing for Sobers. When, like those bowlers, Sobers' was bowling spin, he was averaging in the 40s and striking over 100...so much worse than those "decent" spinners.

Between 61-68 when he was bowling pace, he averaged 27.93 @ 76.3. The average pacer of that time averaged 30.80 @ 72.6. Now this is his peak period and he is barely over average.

So when one wants to credit Sobers, they really have to be specific about what they're really praising because on the whole it wasn't good, and the best thing they can say is that during his peak he was slightly better than the average pacer of his time. The rest of his career he was, well...

 

[kyear2]

He is a BATSMAN, chosen in the team as a batsman who can help out with the ball as the 5th bowler, he not expected to be a great bowler and to average 27 as a pacer is pretty good for your 5th bowler. He never went for heaps of runs, so at worst he can keep an end quiet while the strike bowlers take a rest. He was a specialst batsman who was a pretty good fifth bowler who is seen by ALL as the Greatest All Rounder to play the game. What is the problem, no one is asking him to open the bowling and he probably wouldn't bowl that many over to begin with, mainly stand at second slip and snare anything that comes remotely close, just there cathing flies. Don't know how one can go wrong.

 

[akilana]

It's the same thing as the Alf Valentine example: those bowlers are spinners who have comparable records to Sobers who bowled spin and pace. Pace bowling, on the whole, is a far more effective bowling tool. So that despite the dilution, which worse in his favour, his record is only just comparable. This is not a strong point, it's a bad thing for Sobers. When, like those bowlers, Sobers' was bowling spin, he was averaging in the 40s and striking over 100...so much worse than those "decent" spinners.

Between 61-68 when he was bowling pace, he averaged 27.93 @ 76.3. The average pacer of that time averaged 30.80 @ 72.6. Now this is his peak period and he is barely over average.

So when one wants to credit Sobers, they really have to be specific about what they're really praising because on the whole it wasn't good, and the best thing they can say is that during his peak he was slightly better than the average pacer of his time. The rest of his career he was, well...

Sobers is untouchable here so save your energy

 

[kyear2]

Sobers is untouchable here so save your energy

He is. Just like Kallis

 

[smash84]

It's the same thing as the Alf Valentine example: those bowlers are spinners who have comparable records to Sobers who bowled spin and pace. Pace bowling, on the whole, is a far more effective bowling tool. So that despite the dilution, which worse in his favour, his record is only just comparable. This is not a strong point, it's a bad thing for Sobers. When, like those bowlers, Sobers' was bowling spin, he was averaging in the 40s and striking over 100...so much worse than those "decent" spinners.

Between 61-68 when he was bowling pace, he averaged 27.93 @ 76.3. The average pacer of that time averaged 30.80 @ 72.6. Now this is his peak period and he is barely over average.

So when one wants to credit Sobers, they really have to be specific about what they're really praising because on the whole it wasn't good, and the best thing they can say is that during his peak he was slightly better than the average pacer of his time. The rest of his career he was, well...

And even between 61-68 in his peak his stats look good because he was feasting on the minnows. His record against England is ok and against Aus it is bad.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Red]

Sobers is untouchable here so save your energy

Welcome to the conversation. What do you have to add?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Personally would take Kallis over Sobers as a bowler.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm not trying to argue Sobers was a great bowler, but as a batsman who averages high 50s, as a fifth bowling option he is very good.

And here's a few thoughts on that...

His average and SR are fairly poor, I'd agree. But they do compare with others who are considered decent bowlers, such as Warwick Armstrong, Trevor Hohns, Ken McKay, Dan Vettori and Tim May. So really, he is a batsman who averages high 50s, while also being comparable to some other bowlers who were selected on bowling alone.

Just as a couple of examples, here are some test records that show the role Sobers had to play in the WI's team (stock bowler bowling a lot of overs)...

1st Test: England v West Indies at Manchester, Jun 2-4, 1966 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

4th Test: West Indies v Australia at Bridgetown, May 5-11, 1965 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

3rd Test: West Indies v India at Georgetown, Mar 19-24, 1971 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

His role probably wasn't to be a strike bowler, but to bowl a heap of economical overs with Hall/Griffith/Gibbs bowled the rest.

Just as a side note, check out the last test there. Sobers bowled 43 overs (3 wickets), then came out and made 108* with the bat. Oh Shane Watson, why can't you?

It was matches like this 1st Test: Pakistan v West Indies at Karachi, Feb 20-25, 1959 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo when the West Indies had been bowled out cheaply and he was asked to fire the ball in at leg stump over after over to keep the runs down that was a contributory factor to his high strike rate. Being able to bowl 40 overs at little more than 1 run an over actually takes a great deal of skill no matter how negatively you're bowling. It might be "garbage" cricket that helps to make a bowler's strike rate "garbage" but it was what he was often asked to do, albeit not always in such long spells that jump off the Guru.

 

[akilana]

Welcome to the conversation. What do you have to add?

Just like you, nothing.

 

[smash84]

Welcome to the conversation. What do you have to add?

Just like you, nothing.

 

[Red]

Just like you, nothing.

Tough **** eh?