First and foremost, Sobers is entitled to his opinion and I for one have great regard for his opinions even if they are not always the same as oneself.
Secondly, Sobers is not alone in rating Gavaskar that high many others have done the same. Hutton may have written before the modern day greats but he did, during Gavaskar's playing days compare him with Don Bradman.
Finally, Sobers is indeed a very modest man but I dont see how that is relevant for this debate. What may be relevant (and that maybe should be in bold capitals) is his apparent disillusionment with West Indies cricket in the last 20-30 years. He has often expressed his concern about Lara's problems and even offered his advise and from his last book one can see that he was disappointed that no one seemed to be interested in taking it or involving him in West Indies cricket's problems. Again, this may not have anything to do with the opinion he has expressed about Gavaskar but there is a tendency, amongst all of us, to form an opinion about cricketers with whom one has found faults (rightly in the case of Lara from Sobers) more than once.
On people who think Gavaskar is boring or not even worth comparison with the modern day greats let me just say that people, including great cricketers, look at different aspects of a cricketers skill sets to form their opinions about them. There are clearly aspects of Gavaskar's batting that make him superior to, say, Tendulkar, in those aspects of batting. Just as there are aspects of Tendulkar's batting that show him to be better. If one cant even see this much then we do not have Sir Garfield to blame for that.
Please also remember that the context has changed since the 70's and 80's, when Gavaskar played, to the 90's and 2000's when Sachin, Lara etc did. The strike rates around the world have sky-rocketted overall. Batsmen, including openers, are not recognisable from those of 20-30 years before. The reasons for the same are well known and have been discussed threadbare here in the past and still are.
Last but not least Gavaskar came in to open the batting for a country that was one of the weakest batting sides in the world throughout its cricketing history till then. Even its most prolific batsmen were considered 'rabbits' by the fast bowlers around the world. India could not find two openers of any class to play in Tests let alone get a world class pair. All types of people were asked to open the batting because the seniors would **** in their pants at the sight of a fast bowler. And, of course, we hardly won anything.
It is in this context that Gavaskar made his debut as an Indian opener. That context never left him as a batsman or as captain of India. He made it a point to bat to ensure, to the extent he alone could do so, that his country did not lose. Those of us who saw him bat for his University and those lucky enough to see him bat in that West Indies tour will tell you of what a fabulous stroke player he was in his younger days. He hooked beautifully for those who may not know that. He continued to be a great stroke player but he changed his attitude to bowling. Gavaskar became one of the best spotters of a lose ball and I do not know of another batsman with a better judgement in this regard. He could receive an hour or two of accurate good bowling and defend everything in copybook style and yet the single half volley or short-pitched ball would be hit with pin point precision through the fielders. It was uncanny.
As the Indian batting, so soon after his fabulous debut, came to rely so heavily on him he cut out his hooking and stopped hitting the good deliveries which we today see from the top batsmen. But his context was different as were his times.
I have written on this forum of Gavaskar not having always faced the best fast bowlers in the world but I do not, as some for who everything is black and white think, for a second consider Gavaskar to be anything but one of the greatest openers of all time. If that does not put him in contention for comparison with all time greats one doesn't know what does.
To appreciate batsmen like Gavaskar (and Hanif Mohammad before him) we need to have better points of reference than Hayden and Sehwag or fast bowling of the type that exists today not to speak of the protection that is available to all batsmen today.
To dismiss someone like Gavaskar as a boring batsman is... (let it be unsaid) but let me tell you that I would any day wish to watch Gavaskar playing Imran, Lillee or Andy Roberts and scoring a century in two sessions than watch Sehwag score a triple century in three. If you were able to do that you too would learn more about batting (and great bowling) than by watching the latter.
