The CW50 - No.7

[Uppercut]

Sober's bowling was decidedly more than "part-time".

Imran's batting was decidedly more than part-time. You know what I'm getting at.

 

[Prince EWS]

I love Imran. Would've shoved him in the top four had I actually done a list.

 

[steve132]

Everyone have their own opinions and I respect them but If I was alone making this list,he would've been # 2.Only some of the longtime posters or who have thoroughly gone through my posts understand that I can argue as much(if not more) in favour Imran as the greatest allrounder ever as anyone on this forum can argue for Sobers or any other.Same stands true for Imran as the greatest bowler ever.For example,Sobers would not be amongst my top 10 ever because of him making truckloads of runs against the weakest attacks of his time and being an absolutely useless bowler for about half of his career.Yes,much worst than Samis and Agarkars and could've easily been worst bowler ever had he not improved.He was an average bowler at his best and thats why I can't have him amongst my top allrounders and cricketers.And he wasn't a great captain by any strech of imagination.Amongst others,Miller has a very poor wkts/match ratio and Botham doesn't have consistency or good enough record for it.Anyway my top 15:

1.Don Bradman
2.Imran Khan
3.Viv Richards
4.W.G.Grace
5.Jack Hobbs
6.Richard Hadlee
7.Muttiah Muralitharan
8.Brian Lara
9.Garry Sobers
10.Schin Tendulkar
11.Shane Warne
12.Brian Lara
13.Keith Miller
14.Sunil Gavaskar
15.Andy Flower

Imran was a great cricketer. I understand that you are a fan of his, but you do his legacy a great disservice by denigrating other cricketers in an attempt to show that Imran is the greatest all rounder of all time - a view that is not generally held among cricketers and cricket analysts.

To take your claims in turn:

1. Sobers did not (just) make "truckloads of runs against the weakest attacks of his time." Note that (a) he faced and scored runs against an outstanding array of bowlers, including Lindwall, Miller, Trueman, Statham, Davidson, McKenzie, Snow, Fazal Mahmood, Bedi, Benaud, Chandrasekhar, Gupte, Laker and Underwood; (b) his worst record was against the weakest team of his time (New Zealand) against whom he averaged just 23; and (c) a large number of cricketers, including Boycott, Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Griffith, Hall, Illingworth, Knott, Snow, Underwood, Wasim Bari and Weekes consider him to be the greatest batsman they have ever seen. These facts are not consistent with your thesis.

2. Sobers was a considerably more effective bowler than you suggest. He began his Test career in 1954 as a slow left arm bowler, but within two years became a batsman who bowled occasionally. He only became a true all-rounder in about 1960-61, when he emerged as a fast medium bowler. This type of sequencing is not uncommon for an all-rounder. You can see it very clearly in Wilfred Rhodes' career, and one could just as easily state that Imran was an absolutely useless batsman for half his career.

Once Sobers became an all-rounder he was an extraordinarily effective one for a long period. The list of bowlers who took the most Test wickets in the 1960's is as follows:

Player Span Mat Inns Balls Runs WktsDescending BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
GD McKenzie (Aus) 1961-1969 54 102 16132 6644 238 8/71 10/91 27.91 2.47 67.7 16 3
LR Gibbs (WI) 1961-1969 42 77 15483 5124 184 8/38 11/157 27.84 1.98 84.1 12 2
FS Trueman (Eng) 1960-1965 36 67 8978 3940 179 7/44 12/119 22.01 2.63 50.1 12 3
GS Sobers (WI) 1960-1969 49 89 13399 5232 162 6/73 8/80 32.29 2.34 82.7 6 0
WW Hall (WI) 1960-1969 40 76 8486 4249 146 7/69 9/105 29.10 3.00 58.1 6 0
FJ Titmus (Eng) 1962-1968 47 81 13941 4470 145 7/79 9/162 30.82 1.92 96.1 7 0
DA Allen (Eng) 1960-1966 39 65 11297 3779 122 5/30 9/162 30.97 2.00 92.5 4 0
EAS Prasanna (India) 1962-1969 22 40 7556 3057 113 6/74 10/174 27.05 2.42 66.8 8 1
PM Pollock (SA) 1961-1967 24 44 5832 2548 101 6/38 10/87 25.22 2.62 57.7 8 1
RC Motz (NZ) 1961-1969 32 55 7034 3148 100 6/63 8/113 31.48 2.68 70.3 5 0

Sobers, by common consent the best batsman of the decade, took more wickets than anyone other than McKenzie, Gibbs and Trueman. His other bowling statistics are not dramatically different from those of the other leading bowlers of his time. These are not the results of a cricketer who is "an average bowler at his best." I respectfully recommend that you familiarize yourself with these records before posting on the subject.

3. It is true that Sobers was not as effective a captain as Imran was. On the other hand, he was a much, much better fielder than Imran, who was almost certainly the weakest of all the great all rounders in this department - far less effective than men such as Botham, Miller and Sobers.

You are, of course, entitled to your view. It is not, however, one that is shared by the vast majority of cricketers and analysts. There is a reason, after all, why Sobers received 90 votes out of 100 in the Wisden cricketers of the century poll while Imran received just 13. The Sobers that you described could not have fooled so many of the judges, because most of them actually saw him play.

Next post: Miller and Botham

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think those figures are particularly convincing for extolling the merit of Sobers the bowler. I don't think figures in general are particularly kind to his bowling, however they're dressed up. They show that Sobers:

- In this period, picked up a wicket once every 14 overs. For his career the figure is over once every 15 overs.
- On average, picked up a wicket for every two hours of bowling from one end.
- Would, were he bowled from both ends, take just under five sessions on average to dismiss a batting lineup. Taking 20 wickets would consume two thirds of the test match.

The figures show his phenomenal longevity, the degree to which he carried his team and the difficulty of bowling during the era in which he played. But they don't show Sobers to be a particularly effective bowler- for evidence of that, we have to look elsewhere. The words of those who played with and watched him are more than enough to turn to, so if one wishes to speak highly of the man's bowling it's probably best to steer clear of his numbers altogether.

 

[subshakerz]

You have a right to your opinion about Botham being a better overall cricketer (if that’s what you’re in fact stating), but I would strongly disagree. First, I think you can make a legitimate argument that Botham was a better batsman at his peak. If you compare their entire careers though, you can make just as strong a case that Imran was a better batsman. Anyway, the difference there is not that great IMO. However Imran was a FAR greater bowler than Botham. Imran can legitimately be ranked in the top 10 greatest bowlers list; heck I can make a strong case for him to be in the top 5. Botham will struggle to make the top 20. So perhaps Botham > Imran in batting, but Imran >>>>Botham in bowling. As far as this “support” argument that you make, I don’t buy it. When Imran was truly at his peak and Pakistan’s main strike bowler, he hardly had any support from Sarfaraz and Wasim. In fact, during his legendary battles against the WI, he did it almost alone and with magnificent results as I demonstrated here. That’s another notch for Imran, his outstanding performances against the best team of his era. We all know how Botham fared in comparison. Add to the fact that Imran successfully Captained Pakistan to heights they had never achieved before while Botham flopped in that role (for a variety of reasons), and the scales tip even more in Imran’s favor. Sorry, I just don’t see a compeling argument to rank Botham greater than Imran as a cricketer.

Agree with this completely. Would also add that whereas Imran succeeded against the WI, Botham was a complete flop with both bat and ball, even during his peak (and no, captaincy is not an excuse).

 

[Ikki]

I'd actually have no problem with people rating Imran the greatest all-rounder ever. I consider him something of the bowling-allrounder equivalent to Sobers.

 

[steve132]

I don't think those figures are particularly convincing for extolling the merit of Sobers the bowler. I don't think figures in general are particularly kind to his bowling, however they're dressed up. They show that Sobers:

- In this period, picked up a wicket once every 14 overs. For his career the figure is over once every 15 overs.
- On average, picked up a wicket for every two hours of bowling from one end.
- Would, were he bowled from both ends, take just under five sessions on average to dismiss a batting lineup. Taking 20 wickets would consume two thirds of the test match.

The figures show his phenomenal longevity, the degree to which he carried his team and the difficulty of bowling during the era in which he played. But they don't show Sobers to be a particularly effective bowler- for evidence of that, we have to look elsewhere. The words of those who played with and watched him are more than enough to turn to, so if one wishes to speak highly of the man's bowling it's probably best to steer clear of his numbers altogether.

I disagree. All assessments of bowling efficacy are necessarily comparative, and these statistics show that Sobers' bowling performances were comparable to those of the other leading wicket takers of his era. You could, of course, deny that any of these bowlers (well, other than Trueman) were effective, but I would not recommend that approach. In any event, I have written a fair amount about Sobers' bowling elsewhere and did not want to repeat myself.

 

[Uppercut]

I disagree. All assessments of bowling efficacy are necessarily comparative, and these statistics show that Sobers' bowling performances were comparable to those of the other leading wicket takers of his era. You could, of course, deny that any of these bowlers (well, other than Trueman) were effective, but I would not recommend that approach. In any event, I have written a fair amount about Sobers' bowling elsewhere and did not want to repeat myself.

But bowlers in that era weren't very effective. 88 out of 186 tests- 47% of all matches- in the 60s ended in draws. Whether it was down to the pitches, the quality of batting, or a defensive culture in cricket at that time, they just weren't getting the job done.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Trueman's ability for that reason- only McGrath is comparable in terms of his ability to continue taking wickets when no one else could.

 

[Goughy]

But bowlers in that era weren't very effective. 88 out of 186 tests- 47% of all matches- in the 60s ended in draws. Whether it was down to the pitches, the quality of batting, or a defensive culture in cricket at that time, they just weren't getting the job done.
.

Interesting point, though clearly the batsmen were not getting their job done either by scoring too slowly to leave time to bowl the opposition out.

"The 1960- When Noone Got Their Job Done"

 

[Uppercut]

Haha indeed. Or "When only Fred Trueman got the job done" .