Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Slifer]

Yes and when did Miller or Imran or any of the other so called great allrounders crack the top ten with their batting? Or as high as #4?

 

[Goughy]

Yes and when did Miller or Imran or any of the other so called great allrounders crack the top ten with their batting? Or as high as #4?

Well Ian Botham had a highest Test batting ranking of 3. You did ask

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Means nothing a couple of decent series when there were a number of less cricketers around could see that happen.

Lest we forget that Steve Harmison was #1 in the World which is a damn sight higher than 4 and few would consider him an alltime great.

Harmison's certainly not a great bowler, but if he could bat like Ponting he'd rival Bradman, and that's the point.

Anyway, I don't see why people put such unreasonable requirements on Sobers' bowling. He took over 200 wickets at a fairly unimpressive average, but guys like Imran and Botham average in the 30s with the bat. Why aren't they "great bowlers but decidedly mediocre batsmen", when that's what they would be if you judged them by the standards of a specialist, as people seem keen to judge Sobers? The fact is that no player has ever come as close as Sobers has to being world class in all fields of the game. He was hands down the best batsmen in the world in his era, one of the most successful and prolific bowlers and useful in multiple styles, albeit without a devastating record, and one of the best fielders. No, his bowling was not good enough to get him in an all-time XI or anything, but it was certainly every bit as good as Imran's batting IMO, as much as one can judge such a thing.

 

[Fiery]

Harmison's certainly not a great bowler, but if he could bat like Ponting he'd rival Bradman, and that's the point.

Anyway, I don't see why people put such unreasonable requirements on Sobers' bowling. He took over 200 wickets at a fairly unimpressive average, but guys like Imran and Botham average in the 30s with the bat. Why aren't they "great bowlers but decidedly mediocre batsmen", when that's what they would be if you judged them by the standards of a specialist, as people seem keen to judge Sobers? The fact is that no player has ever come as close as Sobers has to being world class in all fields of the game. He was hands down the best batsmen in the world in his era, one of the most successful and prolific bowlers and useful in multiple styles, albeit without a devastating record, and one of the best fielders. No, his bowling was not good enough to get him in an all-time XI or anything, but it was certainly every bit as good as Imran's batting IMO, as much as one can judge such a thing.

Correct. Sorry Goughy but imo you are plain wrong. I don't even know why we are arguing this as it's common knowledge among anyone who knows anything about cricket that Sobers is by far and away the greatest ever...end of story.

 

[Goughy]

Correct. Sorry Goughy but imo you are plain wrong. I don't even know why we are arguing this as it's common knowledge among anyone who knows anything about cricket that Sobers is by far and away the greatest ever...end of story.

Well I shall endevour to challenge such common knowledge. As much of it is lazy hand me down info that people just accept.

Sobers is for me ranked ahead of Lara as a West Indian batsman, but I shall repeat that I dont think his bowling was of a standard to make him such a run away winner.

 

[Richard]

I actually see what Kev's getting at here. Sobers as a bowler is overrated IMO. It's never been in doubt that he'd have made most of the West Indies sides he played in as a bowler, but equally it shouldn't be forgotten that many of those sides had bowlers of the class of John Shepherd and Grayson Shillingford in them.

Sobers' ability to bowl 3 different styles to a more-than-acceptible standard is what marks him out for me, not his sheer excellence at either.

Anyone prepared to mention the term "all-rounder" where Sobers is concerned without the prefix "batting" is out of their minds IMO.

Nonetheless, his place as the most well-rounded cricketer is beyond question. Not merely is he one of the finest batsmen in history, but he was one of the best catchers and a bowler of astonishing versatility.

As pure all-rounders, however, Miller and Imran trump him. Nonetheless, if you had to choose 1 of the 3, I doubt many would hesitate to pick Sobers.

 

[Slifer]

What do u mean by pure all arounders? because IMO Miller and Imran were no better with the bat than Sobers was with the ball

 

[Richard]

Pure all-rounder = near enough equal in ability with bat and ball. Miller was, Imran, well... his case was far from straightforward, but there were undoubtedly periods in his career where he was.

Sobers, simply, was always a magnificent batsman who also happened to bowl with extraordinarily versatility.

 

[marc71178]

Well Ian Botham had a highest Test batting ranking of 3. You did ask

Was he number 1 bowler at the same time then?

Nope he wasn't.

 

[Slifer]

Pure all-rounder = near enough equal in ability with bat and ball. Miller was, Imran, well... his case was far from straightforward, but there were undoubtedly periods in his career where he was.

Sobers, simply, was always a magnificent batsman who also happened to bowl with extraordinarily versatility.

My friend Imran averaged 37 with the bat and miller 36. Those figures are certainly far from being good enough to qualify into any teams as batsmen alone. Whatever shortcomings Sobers had with the ball and think Imran and Miller share the like when it comes to their batting. So basically they both were bowlers who could bat with "extraordinarily versatility"

 

[Richard]

My friend Imran averaged 37 with the bat and miller 36. Those figures are certainly far from being good enough to qualify into any teams as batsmen alone.

Eh? So? An all-rounder doesn't have to command a place in the side with the bat. In any case, Imran's Test batting average is not as simple as that - for more of his career than not he averaged 50-plus. That is certainly good enough to command a place as a specialist batsman.

Whatever shortcomings Sobers had with the ball and think Imran and Miller share the like when it comes to their batting. So basically they both were bowlers who could bat with "extraordinarily versatility"

No, because batting doesn't work like that. You either bat or you don't. With bowling there are 3 distinctively defined styles.

Of course, Imran and Miller weren't as good at batting as Sobers. So? Their batting and bowling were more close to the level of each other than Sobers' ever were.

 

[adharcric]

Means nothing a couple of decent series when there were a number of less cricketers around could see that happen.

Lest we forget that Steve Harmison was #1 in the World which is a damn sight higher than 4 and few would consider him an alltime great.

No one has argued that Sobers was an all-time great bowler. None of Imran, Miller or Botham are all-time great batsmen either. Sobers is the clear choice IMO.

 

[Slifer]

Eh? So? An all-rounder doesn't have to command a place in the side with the bat. In any case, Imran's Test batting average is not as simple as that - for more of his career than not he averaged 50-plus. That is certainly good enough to command a place as a specialist batsman.

No, because batting doesn't work like that. You either bat or you don't. With bowling there are 3 distinctively defined styles.

Of course, Imran and Miller weren't as good at batting as Sobers. So? Their batting and bowling were more close to the level of each other than Sobers' ever were.

ur argument makes very little sense because if u knew anything of Sobers' career u would know that when Sobers originally made the West indies team he was chosen as a bowler. And There were periods of his career where he averaged around 27 with the ball, while simultaneously averaging over 60 with the ball. And anyone with ne reasonable understanding of cricketing stats can clearly see that both Imrn and Miller were more bowling all rounders than ur so called true all rounders.

 

[J.J.B.Lewis]

ur argument makes very little sense because if u knew anything of Sobers' career u would know that when Sobers originally made the West indies team he was chosen as a bowler. And There were periods of his career where he averaged around 27 with the ball, while simultaneously averaging over 60 with the ball. And anyone with ne reasonable understanding of cricketing stats can clearly see that both Imrn and Miller were more bowling all rounders than ur so called true all rounders.

Quoting from first post of the thread

Imran Khan maintained an average of 50 with the bat for a period of over 10 years(1981-1992),if u guys think Sobers was better,point a 10 year period during his career over which he was averaging 25 or under with the ball.

Imran Khan's over 10 years(1982-1992) peak as an allrounder is the greatest peak of an allrounder ever during which he averaged 50 wth the bat & 20 with the ball.Whereas Sobers peak period was merely 5 years(1962-1966/67) during which he averaged around 60 with the bat & 27 with the ball.But overall, Sobers was very mediocre at bowling & doesn't deserve the title of greatest allrounder ever.

And the fact that Sobers originally made the West Indian team as a bowler doesn't hold any significance because Majid Khan,Ravi Shastri & Abdul Razzaq also originally made their respective sides as specialist bowlers but does it make them good or world class bowlers.

 

[Richard]

ur argument makes very little sense because if u knew anything of Sobers' career u would know that when Sobers originally made the West indies team he was chosen as a bowler. And There were periods of his career where he averaged around 27 with the ball, while simultaneously averaging over 60 with the ball.

I am well aware he was initially chosen as a bowler - indeed that he was a bowler more than a batsman in youth at his club.

Sobers, nonetheless, was always a batsman more than a bowler from his 365* onwards.

And anyone with ne reasonable understanding of cricketing stats can clearly see that both Imrn and Miller were more bowling all rounders than ur so called true all rounders.

No. If you take their records in context of the period Miller's career was played in it's clear his batting and bowling were roughly equal in quality. Imran, as I say, had many different phrases to his career where he filled just about every description an all-rounder can.

 

[Matt79]

Read the article

Is it the affect of some of his black magic spells or what that he is considered to the greatest allrounder ever despite having an extremly poor record as a bowler?

Why take the opinion of more than 10000 cricket fans worldwide when you have to make your own decision wit the courtesy of a few biased wirters & so called 'experts'?

Chosing Sobers as the greatest allrounder when Imran Khan won the poll by a convincing margin shows how biased a website Cricinfo is.


Being able to bowl wrist spin,finger spin & medium pace is hardly an achievment when you are averaging around 35 & have a wickets/match ratio of 2.56(yes even poor than Mohammad Sami who is the the most worst bowler in the world today).

Imran Khan could have been a much much better batsman if had decided to focus only on his batting.Garry Sobers batting equals Imran Khan's bowling but Imran Khan maintained an average of 50 with the bat for a period of over 10 years(1981-1992),if u guys think Sobers was better,point a 10 year period during his career over which he was averaging 25 or under with the ball.

Imran Khan's over 10 years(1982-1992) peak as an allrounder is the greatest peak of an allrounder ever during which he averaged 50 wth the bat & 20 with the ball.Whereas Sobers peak period was merely 5 years(1962-1966/67) during which he averaged around 60 with the bat & 27 with the ball.But overall, Sobers was very mediocre at bowling & doesn't deserve the title of greatest allrounder ever.

Biased writers & experts did try to hide the achievments of Imran Khan as an allrounder from common cricket fans for around 2 decades by portraying Sobers as the greatest allrounder ever because he is a ****** & a ********* but its not possible anymore in this global village& age of internet & technology and this poll of Cricinfo is merely a small example of it.

Ah Bhupinder, nothing gets you excited like the Sobers vs. Imran issue does it?

Sobers was a better batsman than Imran by a greater margin than Imran was better than Sobers as a bowler. And whether you like it or not, the fact that he could bowl spin as well as medium-fast stuff does play into people's opinion of his allround skills.

The huge majority of respondents to a poll on the CW front site said that India was going to win the 2007 WC. Are the members of staff here who said that they thought Australia would win therefore biased against India? The fact is that an Internet poll is hardly a good way to settle a complicated question.

Ultimately its a matter of opinion. And if somebody says that they think Sobers is the best, its hardly a sledge against Imran. Is saying that Bradman was the best a sledge against Tendulkar?

 

[Richard]

Ah Bhupinder, nothing gets you excited like the Sobers vs. Imran issue does it?

Bhupinder\Saurav\SA\Shoaib.

 

[Matt79]

Bhupinder\Saurav\SA\Shoaib.

You calling me obsessed?

 

[Richard]

No. I don't go in for that "obsessed about dual-accounts" lark.

(That isn't directed at you, BTW, just to absolutely clarify)

 

[Matt79]