Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[pup11]

Nobody is saying Sobers was a great bowler but still he was good bowler, his stats might not say that but still his bowling + his batting easily makes him the best all-rounder the game has ever seen.

 

[Fiery]

Nobody is saying Sobers was a great bowler but still he was good bowler, his stats might not say that but still his bowling + his batting easily makes him the best all-rounder the game has ever seen.

Correctamonda pup!

 

[Ikki]

Nobody is saying Sobers was a great bowler but still he was good bowler, his stats might not say that but still his bowling + his batting easily makes him the best all-rounder the game has ever seen.

But that's the point, he wasn't such a good bowler at all. Even Kallis has a better bowling record. What's apparent is that people prop up Sober's batting to compensate for his bowling. And I agree with Goughy in that it's akin to naming Bradman the best all-rounder because his batting certainly makes up for any bowling deficiancy.

Sober's has a poor bowling record for Test standard. There is no other way of saying this. The only thing that would make sense is if WI used him to slow the run rate, and occasionally pick up a wicket off his bowling. But they bowled him far more than that kind of bowler, yet he was still only in that calibre of bowlers.

In an all-time XI side, it would be waste to bowl him at all - costs too much and takes too long to pick up a wicket. He gets into the side as a batsmen and IF, very big IF, the others couldn't handle the load he'd get some overs.

I'm sorry that this seems to be so brutal, but Sobers was an excellent fielder, one of the best batsmen, but not a bowler of any real merit. It would be like saying Steve Waugh is the greatest all-rounder ever. His bowling record is actually similar to Sober's except that whilst both being really part-time calibre bowlers, Sobers bowled as a full-time bowler.

 

[Richard]

I just don't think that almost 98% of the cricket world can be wrong in rating this guy this high. I can understand some cricketers rating some more than others, but every contemporary player and contemporary writer puts Sobers in such a huge pedastal and I just don't see how it could be false.

They're not wrong in rating him so high - he could do things that no-one else has ever come remotely close to doing.

All some people (myself included) are saying is that Sobers' bowling is slightly overrated.

 

[pup11]

Sobers might have done black magic on all those people who say that he is the best all-rounder ever.

 

[Fiery]

Sobers might have done black magic on all those people who say that he is the best all-rounder ever.

wise man our pup. Sobers best by far. Same distance between him and the next guy as there is between Hayden and Hussain

 

[Richard]

 

[roseboy64]

But that's the point, he wasn't such a good bowler at all. Even Kallis has a better bowling record. What's apparent is that people prop up Sober's batting to compensate for his bowling. And I agree with Goughy in that it's akin to naming Bradman the best all-rounder because his batting certainly makes up for any bowling deficiancy.

Sober's has a poor bowling record for Test standard. There is no other way of saying this. The only thing that would make sense is if WI used him to slow the run rate, and occasionally pick up a wicket off his bowling. But they bowled him far more than that kind of bowler, yet he was still only in that calibre of bowlers.

In an all-time XI side, it would be waste to bowl him at all - costs too much and takes too long to pick up a wicket. He gets into the side as a batsmen and IF, very big IF, the others couldn't handle the load he'd get some overs.

I'm sorry that this seems to be so brutal, but Sobers was an excellent fielder, one of the best batsmen, but not a bowler of any real merit. It would be like saying Steve Waugh is the greatest all-rounder ever. His bowling record is actually similar to Sober's except that whilst both being really part-time calibre bowlers, Sobers bowled as a full-time bowler.

There's more to life than stats. Going by stats Courtney Walsh is infinitely better than Michael Holding was but that's not necessarily the case.

 

[Richard]

Eh? Yer 'avin a laugh, yes?

Holding's record's waaaaaaay better than Walsh's - this is the significant part of his career, and this Walsh's.

Holding's stats reflect the fact he was the superior bowler from where I'm standing.

 

[open365]

I guess it boils down to the never ending question of how you rate all rounders.

Imo, Khan is the greatest all-rounder as in he was the best at being an all rounder(being equaly great at both).

But, i would say of people that could be classed as all rounders, Sober's beats Imran for his superior batting.

If that makes any sense.

 

[roseboy64]

Eh? Yer 'avin a laugh, yes?

Holding's record's waaaaaaay better than Walsh's - this is the significant part of his career, and this Walsh's.

Holding's stats reflect the fact he was the superior bowler from where I'm standing.

Based on their entire careers Walsh has the better record.

 

[Richard]

Even discounting the fact that you need to look beyond the obvious for the statistical truth, Holding's simplistic overall career average is still better than Walsh's - 23.68 to 24.22.

And as I say - Holding's overall career average takes account of the frankly fairly irrelevant matches in Australia in 1975\76 when he was not yet the bowler he was for most of his career, and the final (wicketless) Test which he should never, ever have played (he wanted to retire but was talked out for one last tour, and he's always said he wished he hadn't been - same with Thomson and the 1985 Ashes tour).

 

[Swervy]

Even discounting the fact that you need to look beyond the obvious for the statistical truth, Holding's simplistic overall career average is still better than Walsh's - 23.68 to 24.22.

And as I say - Holding's overall career average takes account of the frankly fairly irrelevant matches in Australia in 1975\76 when he was not yet the bowler he was for most of his career, and the final (wicketless) Test which he should never, ever have played (he wanted to retire but was talked out for one last tour, and he's always said he wished he hadn't been - same with Thomson and the 1985 Ashes tour).

look I am with you on the Holding over Walsh anyday of the week, but Holding wasnt far off the finished article in 75/76, only six months away from one of the great fast bowling performamces of all time vs England

 

[Richard]

Oh, indeed (and against India beforehand, too...), but Clive Lloyd took him to Australia with the intention of having him "around the scene", not actually playing. Whether close or not, he was clearly not quite there yet, as an average of 50-odd for the series suggests (not that too many of the WIndians fared that much better).

 

[marc71178]

'What they actually did?' It is all about what they actually did. You can't deny such glaring facts. Those numbers really speak for themself. Sober's bowling isn't even average - may have been for a time, but as a whole it certainly wasn't.

Just looked a bit more at it. Sober's bowling got worse and worse - averaging even in the 50s - until it starts getting better about his 37-38th test match in where he keeps slightly improving. In that period - which is his best - here are his figures:

At his best, he was mediocre - I am not talking about a single test or series here - but taking into account a fair amount of tests.

So yes, you're relying 100% on numbers and ignoring what produced those numbers.

Thought as much.

 

[marc71178]

I don't know mate, but I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone could say Sobers was a good bowler. Even calling him average would be a compliment.

So explain please how he got up to number 4 in the world with the ball, and tell us where any other player has done the same (since at the time he was number 1 with the bat)

If that's average, I doubt there's been to manby above-average bowlers in your history...

 

[marc71178]

Imo, Khan is the greatest all-rounder as in he was the best at being an all rounder(being equaly great at both).

When exactly was this then?

If he was equally great at both, how come he never managed 250 runs and 15 wickets in the same series (a feat that Sobers did 4 times and even the likes of Kapil Dev and Andrew Flintoff have managed once)

 

[Richard]

So explain please how he got up to number 4 in the world with the ball, and tell us where any other player has done the same (since at the time he was number 1 with the bat)

If that's average, I doubt there's been to manby above-average bowlers in your history...

Being number-X in The World has an amount to do with rivals, don't let us forget.

After all, Stephen Harmison once managed it and however bad Sobers might have been, he can't possibly ever have been that bad...

 

[Richard]

When exactly was this then?

If he was equally great at both, how come he never managed 250 runs and 15 wickets in the same series (a feat that Sobers did 4 times and even the likes of Kapil Dev and Andrew Flintoff have managed once)

It might possibly have something to do with the number of short and long series the respective sides play (recently at least Pakistan have always played shorter series than England, India and West Indies), though I'd not be 100% sure about that.

 

[Slifer]

For all thoe people who rate Imran over Sobers please tell me y u all r castigating Sobers the bowler when Imran the bastman was mediocre as well? I just dont get that logic