Celebrating Sir Garry Sobers - The Bowler

[adharcric]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I do find the denigration of "statistical crap" as compared to personal memories rather annoying. Everyone talks about the potential problems of statistics but equally there are all sorts of problems with personal evaluations: rose-tinted memories, a tendency to be over-generous to friends and admired colleagues, a tendency to judge players at their peak rather than their whole careers etc. Ultimately judging a player predominantly through personal opinions is pretty silly; ideally you should look at statistics, personal opinions and video and form your own judgment.

As for Sober's bowing, statistics would indicate that he was very good for around half a dozen series against England and India but mediocre for most of his career. Nothing in the articles that have been posted, interesting as they are, contradicts this. Incidentally I would also note that the Cardus article is full of statistics; contrary to what some people seem to imagine "statistical crap" has long been an important part of cricket writing.

Top post. Good work Sanz and I agree that some of the statistical analysis we've seen on this subject has been pathetic, but you can't just ignore the statistics. This thread was turning into a bit of an overreaction to some crappy stats until the previous post. That said, I also rate Sobers quite highly as a bowler but I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable with him as the lone fifth bowling option in an all-time side.

 

[Ikki]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I do find the denigration of "statistical crap" as compared to personal memories rather annoying. Everyone talks about the potential problems of statistics but equally there are all sorts of problems with personal evaluations: rose-tinted memories, a tendency to be over-generous to friends and admired colleagues, a tendency to judge players at their peak rather than their whole careers etc. Ultimately judging a player predominantly through personal opinions is pretty silly; ideally you should look at statistics, personal opinions and video and form your own judgment.

As for Sober's bowing, statistics would indicate that he was very good for around half a dozen series against England and India but mediocre for most of his career. Nothing in the articles that have been posted, interesting as they are, contradicts this. Incidentally I would also note that the Cardus article is full of statistics; contrary to what some people seem to imagine "statistical crap" has long been an important part of cricket writing.

Yes, and even the statistics that Cardus posts are the same but he puts them in a different light. 5/161, 3/94, 3/104...

I appreciate the reading and effort people have done posting here, but it just seems to confirm my own assertions. Sobers was undeniably versatile - he could do everything. But, for me at least, one has to be good at what they are doing. Not merely good enough to bowl it, but to take wickets well. What good is it if one can open the bowling, then swing it, then spin it all in the same match while taking so long to take a wicket and conceding that many runs?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I've genuinely learned something new about the great man after having read that: that he was initially selected as a specialist SLA bowler. I'm slightly surprised inasmuch as his spinning is generally held in much less regard than his batting, seam-up bowling or even slip-catching.

Fascinating stuff. Good work chaps.

 

[Swervy]

I do find it hard to beleive (or maybe I shouldn't) that people on this forum seem to not even consider Sobers to be a true allrounder, because he averaged 34 or whatever with the ball.

If people use this logic, then why not dismiss Imran Khan, Botham, Dev, Hadlee, because all of these guys had lowish batting averages, or only had relatively brief spells of batting prowess.

Good work Sanz

 

[SJS]

In his lovely book Cricket, the incomparable C L R James has written probably the finest piece on Sobers that at least I have ever read. For those who may not have access to James's book. the same artcile can be read in Ramachandra Guha's anthology The Picador Book of Cricket under the heading, A Representative Man (1969).

Excerpts.

For Sobers the title of all rounder has always seemed to me a circumspection. The Sobers of 1966 was not something new: that Sobers of 1966 had been there for a long time. The truth is that Sobers for years now has had no superior in the world as an opening fast bowler.

Here are some facts to substantiate this apparently extravagant claim. which even today many of the scribes (and there are among them undoubted Pharises) do not know yet.

It is the business of a fast bowler, opening the innings, to dismiss for small scores two or three of the first-line batsmen of the opposing side. If he does this, and does it dramatically, then good captaincy will keep him in trim to make short work of the last two or three on the side, so ending with five or six wickets.

In 1964, his last season with South Australia, Sobers against Western Australia

- bowled batsman No. 1 for 12 and
- had batsman number 2 caught by keeper Jarman for 2​

Against Queensland

- wicket keeperJarman caught number 2 off Sobers for 5 and
- Sobers bowled number 3 foe 1​

Against the history making NSW side,

- Sobers had Thomas, Number 1 caught by Lill for 0
- He had number 2, Simpson, caught by Jarman for 0
- He then had Booth, number 4, caught by Jarman fpr 0​

He thus had the first three Australian Test players, for 0 each. In the second innings

- he bowled Thomas for 3​

South Australia's last match was against the strong Victoria side. Sobers had

- Lawry (number 1) caught by Jarman for 4
- Potter (number 3) caught by Lill for 0
- Stackpole (number 5) caught by Lill for 5​

In the second innings

- Redpath (number 2) caught by Jarman for 0
- Cowler (number 4) caught by Hearne for 0
- Lawry (number 1) caught by Jarman for 22​

Let us note in the passing that in this match against Victoria. Sobers scored 124 and had also scored 124 in the game against NSW in which he dismissed the three Test batsmen for 0.

It is impossible to find within recent years another fast bowler who in big cricket so regularly dismissed for little or 0 the opening batsmen on either side.

His action as a pace bowler is the most orthodox that I know. It is not the classical perfection, above all the ease, of E A McDonald. Sobers gathers himself together and is obviously sparing no effort (a rare thing with cricket) to put his whole body into the delivery. With the result that the ball leaves the ground at a pace quite inconsistent with what is a fast-medium run-up and delivery. It would be worthwhile to get the pace of the delivery mechanically timed at different stages, as well as the testimony of observant batsmen and observant wicket keepers.​

to be continued...

 

[Ikki]

I do find it hard to beleive (or maybe I shouldn't) that people on this forum seem to not even consider Sobers to be a true allrounder, because he averaged 34 or whatever with the ball.

If people use this logic, then why not dismiss Imran Khan, Botham, Dev, Hadlee, because all of these guys had lowish batting averages, or only had relatively brief spells of batting prowess.

Good work Sanz

I think some people - I include myself in this - have a problem with the fact that he is put up above all others in such an undisputed fashion. Nothing posted by anyone seems to assuage those doubts. In reality, it cant. It's cold hard numbers that he really is not above the pack and really amidst it. As a test cricketer his record is there for public scrutiny and it is not above criticism. His fans take this criticism personally and appear to be inconsiderate towards the questions posed by others.

 

[Richard]

Said it many times before - Sobers may have been first selected as a bowler but he could not justify the tag for some time. Given he was just 17 years old at the start of his career, initially this is hardly surprising. However, eventually he did, and with versitility that most could only dream of.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I do find the denigration of "statistical crap" as compared to personal memories rather annoying. Everyone talks about the potential problems of statistics but equally there are all sorts of problems with personal evaluations: rose-tinted memories, a tendency to be over-generous to friends and admired colleagues, a tendency to judge players at their peak rather than their whole careers etc. Ultimately judging a player predominantly through personal opinions is pretty silly; ideally you should look at statistics, personal opinions and video and form your own judgment.

As for Sober's bowing, statistics would indicate that he was very good for around half a dozen series against England and India but mediocre for most of his career. Nothing in the articles that have been posted, interesting as they are, contradicts this. Incidentally I would also note that the Cardus article is full of statistics; contrary to what some people seem to imagine "statistical crap" has long been an important part of cricket writing.

statistics is not crap... But it becomes crap when it is used in such a stupid manner to denigrate a great player whom most of us have not even seen...

Statistics are always useful because they represent part of the fact, like runs scored, wickets taken, averages, strike rates etc.. But they NEVER represent the whole fact and that is why it irritates so many of us here at CW when people start using the stats as the lone FACT when trying to judge a player, esp. when the player in question is from a previous era...

 

[Sanz]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I do find the denigration of "statistical crap" as compared to personal memories rather annoying. Everyone talks about the potential problems of statistics but equally there are all sorts of problems with personal evaluations: rose-tinted memories, a tendency to be over-generous to friends and admired colleagues, a tendency to judge players at their peak rather than their whole careers etc. Ultimately judging a player predominantly through personal opinions is pretty silly; ideally you should look at statistics, personal opinions and video and form your own judgment.

I knew this would come up and I do not disagree with the sentiment. What I dislike is manipulating statistics (using Statsguru) with ignorant assumptions to denigrate great cricketers. Any counter argument, disagreement with those ignorant assumptions is mocked, attacked and laughed at and you are presented with a new set of manipulated statistics with another set of ignorant assumptions.

I If you disagree with the purpose of this thread, fine. You are free to continue with the discussion in the Sobers Vs.Miller thread.

 

[ret]

you can't take 235 test wickets without being good with the ball

 

[Sanz]

As for Sober's bowing, statistics would indicate that he was very good for around half a dozen series against England and India but mediocre for most of his career. Nothing in the articles that have been posted, interesting as they are, contradicts this. Incidentally I would also note that the Cardus article is full of statistics; contrary to what some people seem to imagine "statistical crap" has long been an important part of cricket writing.

Cardus makes following assessments about Sobers's bowling :-

"... two bowlers in one, fastish left-arm, seaming the new ball, and slow to medium back-of-the-hand spinner with the old ball..."

"....His fastest ball -- and it can be very fast -- is bowled as though he could, with physical pressure, have bowled it a shade faster....."


He does not manipulate statistics and wrongly inform us that Sobers was a 'Crap' bowler.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

ideally you should look at statistics, personal opinions and video and form your own judgment.

.............and that's exactly what most of us have done over a number of years........and exactly what the computer generation statsguru people haven't done.

 

[ret]

on the thread, celebrating someone's bowling is a good idea .... starting a thread to counter those who used stats is a bad one. clearly, if some guys are formulating their opinion on stats alone then some are formulating their opinion based on articles alone [by the looks of this thread]

and it's difficult to see a difference between the two .... more than celebrating the cricketer as a bowler, unfortunately [seems] this is another thread where someone is making an attempt to shove his opinion down ppl's throats this time using 'articles' [opinions] instead of 'stats'

imo, those who rely too much on just stats or just opinions are like the two sides of a coin and it makes it difficult to see one having a higher moral ground than the other

clearly, those ppl who are better able to strike a balance b/w the two and thus form a well informed opinion are the ones whose opinion would get respected

in the end, this is another of those threads trying to show that xyz cricketer is the best and ofc the difference is that this relies on just opinions .... what a differentiation

 

[Sanz]

I apologize if this thread comes across as an attempt to shove my opinion on others. If it wasn't already obvious, I formally encourage forum members to read the articles and form their own opinion on Sobers' bowling using it in conjunction with statistics as they are.

Members are also encouraged to post articles, reports, excerpts from books that describe Sobers' true worth as a bowler.

As for my opinion of Sobers as a bowler, So far this research has been a very educational experience and has reaffirmed my belief that he was indeed an exceptional bowler. I look forward to continue my research in whatever limited time I have got and also look forward to contribution from other members as well.

 

[Jono]

His front teeth are a bit too far apart for my liking

My only real criticism of the legend.

 

[Top_Cat]

His front teeth are a bit too far apart for my liking

My only real criticism of the legend.

You're nuts, Sobers was pimp.

Kaz, have to say I think you're off-base on this one. As has been said, Sobers started his career as a left-arm spinners, developed into a wristie then finally fast-medium pacer. As far as Sobers goes, I think it's pretty fair to say a few things;

1) He was 'good' at all styles of bowling. Had he picked and stuck to one, everyone who saw him bowl and noticed his 'nothing he can't do' attitude would say he probably could have been a great with the ball. That's actually tough to disagree with when you consider the sheer physical ability required to bowl all of those styles of bowling he did to barely Test standard, let alone to take 235 wickets. In no small way that's related to;

2) A bloke who averages damn-near 60 for 90-odd Tests obviously has chosen to give a crap about his batting over and above all else. His bowling was definitely secondary, especially since the WI weren't short of top-class bowlers until late in his career. His primary aim seemed pretty conclusively to be a decent 4th or 5th option behind Griffiths/Hall and Ramadhin/Valentine and others. 20 overs a day in a 4/5 man attack is about right. Andy Symonds gets about as many these days.

If you judge someone purely on the available numbers, Sobers isn't far and away above all other all-rounders. What's clear here is that people often judge Sobers the batsman by numbers but when it comes to bowling, take into account what he could have been had he really put as much effort into his bowling as he did his batting or picked one style and stuck to it. His numbers suffered as a result but just knowing he could do anything makes him a pretty valued member of the attack.

Of course, it then comes down to personal values then; if you value what he 'did' and assume completeness of data collected, then you're not going to rate him as highly as others. If you're the person who values your perception of levels of talent over and above the raw numbers, you're going to rate him highly based on what he did as well as what you think he could have done. It's why so many people rate Mark Waugh as more talented (and a better player) than Steve Waugh despite a rather large gap between their Test averages.

It's just different, not wrong unless you believe stats are the only measure of a player's performance because they're apparently objective. Without going into detail (it's a long discussion......) if you're on that side of the fence, well there's inherent problems which you'd either need to deal with or ignore. I, personally, believe the data collected about the performance of cricketers is smoothed over far too many variables to be a complete measure and use them as more of a guide than anything, hence why arguments about whether a player who has an average of a couple of runs more than another player is better is essentially useless. From that perspective, anyone who uses averages and so forth as their bargaining chip is really making almost as many assumptions about their 'data' as those who go on what they see in a player and perceived levels of talent.

 

[Ikki]

TC, I think you've made fair points and I agree with them. Where I differ is exactly how much leniency I will give towards "what he could have been" and what he actually was.

I take out this from what you said:

I, personally, believe the data collected about the performance of cricketers is smoothed over far too many variables to be a complete measure and use them as more of a guide than anything, hence why arguments about whether a player who has an average of a couple of runs more than another player is better is essentially useless.

You have no idea how much I agree with that statement. However, do I think it applies to Sobers? Not really, or at all. It's not about a few runs here or there, for me the gap is so sizable it goes beyond one run or two. Maybe had he stuck to one discipline he would have been better. Indeed, it could have helped his team even more if he did. But he didn't. Had Miller took cricket seriously or not had the back injury, he could have been even better, but it didn't happen. People seem to confuse the two as if what could have happened did happen. For Sobers, at least for me, what is being touted of him is a far stretch to what is reality.

 

[Manee]

Unfortunately, my cricket history is not great, but I offer a couple of points.
- Sobers must have been extraordinarily talented to bowl all different styles of bowling to Test standard, but...
- Does this not mean that he always bowled something which the pitch supported, and for this reason, wouldn't his bowling average be seen as 'lower' than a bowler who had one art of Sobers' ability.

 

[Ikki]

Unfortunately, my cricket history is not great, but I offer a couple of points.
- Sobers must have been extraordinarily talented to bowl all different styles of bowling to Test standard, but...
- Does this not mean that he always bowled something which the pitch supported, and for this reason, wouldn't his bowling average be seen as 'lower' than a bowler who had one art of Sobers' ability.

You should probably check the Keith Miller v Gary Sobers thread where I raised that question, had it replied and rebutted the reply... and so forth.

 

[Manee]

It is a shame that it sunk into that from people so keen to rate a player that they won't listen to what is a valid point. Did not see it soundly replied to either, but what are you going to do, eH?