Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[akilana]

Okay, what would you say to a person if he/she said that Chanderpaul (wonderful batsman though he has been, god bless his soul!) is a better batsman than Viv as per the statistically equal argument, since Shiv has a better average after more matches, more runs and more centuries?

This is just stupid. Why does it have to be Chander? Get Sachin in for Chander because even Sachin has more hundreds, runs etc and I will say Sachin is better.

 

[Satyanash89]

This is just stupid. Why does it have to be Chander? Get Sachin in for Chander because even Sachin has more hundreds, runs etc and I will say Sachin is better.

Difference being that Shiv, unlike Sachin is not in the same class as Viv Richards

 

[harsh.ag]

This is just stupid. Why does it have to be Chander? Get Sachin in for Chander because even Sachin has more hundreds, runs etc and I will say Sachin is better.

I actually owe you an apology. Seems like trolling, you are right. But there are many people who see no reason not to rate a batsman higher if he has consistently better stats (and even though I don't agree with those people, I still think their point of view has some merit). I was just wondering if you thought the same way. Clearly you don't. So why is it that you think Kallis is a better batsman than Sobers, who was brilliant, I hope you agree.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Oe that Ken Barrington is a better batsman than Tendulkar, Richards, Lara and Chappell.

Did you forget to read the part where he mentioned Shiv playing more matches and having more 100's before making this comment.

 

[kyear2]

Both would struggle a lot to make my All-Time XI as allrounders though Sobers is always welcome as a batsman as I simply don't consider him an allrounder but an alltime great bastman who could bowl a bit.

So what is your definition of an All Rounder?

 

[the big bambino]

Sami & Agarkar also played as frontliners,does it make a difference?Statistically & realistically Sobers as bowler was a combination of Mohammad Sami & Ian Salisbury.

Why do people say such stupid things? The above is worth 5 facepalms at least. Do you know that it would be easy to access the stats to check how fallacious your point is? Statistically he is obviously much better than both so your point has no value even as an exaggeration.

I'm at a loss to understand why some people are so determined to talk down great players like Sobers. So may I ask: Do you think you being clever? Or controversial? Do you think you are a maverick playing by your own rules? I'd like to know how you perceive yourself.

And then inform you that everyone else thinks you're a tit.

 

[Gowza]

the allrounder issue is also going to be a very subjective one when it comes to all time XIs, personally i only see their use as being thereas a bowling allrounder. this isn't to put down batting allrounders, and they very well may get some overs if they're in the team but there really aren't any genuine allrounders who have the statistics to back them up to bat top 6 and bowl as a genuine frontline bowler.

for that you would need to look at guys like miller, procter, imran, gregory. all great allrounders and useful to any team but in an all time team who is going to pick them in their top 6 when they didn't even average over 40? most would want their all time top 6 to average 50+ for consistency reasons.

personally for me sobers makes an all time team purely on his batting so really this issue with his bowling doesn't make a change with him for me when picking an all time team. similarly if i was to pick kallis it would be as a batsman.

i'd rather have my top 6 as genuine batsman, then gilchrist would be my keeper, then my bowlers. you already have a strong batting line up there so don't need allrounders but can still easily pick guys like imran, hadlee and even miller without losing much in the bowling but adding a lot to the batting whereas if you were to pick them as a top 6 batsman you'd be losing probably more from the batting.

i honestly doubt sobers was a horrible bowler otherwise he wouldn't be considered the best allrounder ever and by a lot of people the best cricketer ever. i haven't seen his bowling but from people i know who have they all say he was a very good bowler. as for kallis, he isn't an all time great bowler either but having seen him bowl is can be very effective, he's actually quite decent so i'd have no trouble wanting him to bowl a few overs even in an all time XI.

 

[Red]

That's all true Gowzer.

The fact is you only really need 4 bowlers when they're greats. Australia during their dominant period only generally used McGrath, Gillespie, Lee/Kaspa & Warne/Macgill. There was never really a need for a fifth option.

In actual fact, Sobers probably wouldn't even bowl much if the frontline attack was something like Lillee, Marshall, Imran and Warne (or whatever variation you prefer). Apart from possibly a few overs before a new ball to get the quicks fresh. Sobers is selected in my team because he's the best number 6 batsman.

I'm more inclined to select a bowling allrounder specifically. Having someone like Imran or Hadlee at number 8 (Warne at #9) makes the impact of Gilchrist at 7 more pronounced. I do like a longer tail when possible.

 

[Ikki]

These numbers are meaningless without context. You seem to place too much emphasis on numbers and stats (when out of context and when they are distorted to support your viewpoint). If you haven't seen the legend in action you might want to just not post on the matter at all because you are denigrating one of the game's greatest players. Someone posted stats of McGill and Warne when their careers overlapped and the former had better numbers. Strictly by numbers that would seem to suggest that Warne's bowling was garbage relative to Stuart's but that would be incorrect. Stats would show that pointing was garbage in India compared to even some tail end batsmen. Stats would show that ponting's average away from home is comparable to known flat pitch bullies like Sehwag and Sanga, that does not mean they were even remotely comparable away from home. Stats would show that Ponting averaged ZERO whenever he played Wasim and Waqar together in a test. Should we jump to conclusions from it? No I am not going off topic, I am just trying to tell you that stats are never the be all and end all. Ever. Period. Please stop posting ridiculous arguments when you do not have any valid points to make.

Give me a bit of credit, I know when and how I have to weigh certain considerations. This isn't a small sample consideration like your MacGill or Ponting examples. No one here is saying, for instance, that Ganteaume is better than Bradman because he averaged more because he only played 1 inning.

The stats I've presented don't have those problems. We are talking about 20 years worth of cricket and the smallest subset of stats I've used encapsulate at least 8 years worth of bowling performances. So for you to even write the bolded at the end is comedy and only illustrates your ignorance of the stats.

 

[akilana]

Difference being that Shiv, unlike Sachin is not in the same class as Viv Richards

Exactly my point. I didn't compare Sachin to Bradmon or Chanders to Sachin.
Would it be outrageous to say Sachin is a better batsman the Sobers?

 

[Prince EWS]

Why do people say such stupid things? The above is worth 5 facepalms at least. Do you know that it would be easy to access the stats to check how fallacious your point is? Statistically he is obviously much better than both so your point has no value even as an exaggeration.

I'm at a loss to understand why some people are so determined to talk down great players like Sobers. So may I ask: Do you think you being clever? Or controversial? Do you think you are a maverick playing by your own rules? I'd like to know how you perceive yourself.

And then inform you that everyone else thinks you're a tit.

A combination of Chaminda Vaas and Ashley Giles is probably a more accurate call, and as a fifth bowler in a side certainly useful enough.

 

[the big bambino]

Not a bad analogy. I'd give him a tad more than a Giles rating. He could bowl wristies as well. Maybe a poor man's Johnny Wardle

 

[benchmark00]

Jono is the forum authority on wristies. Should run it past him.

 

[harsh.ag]

Responding to a request on the graphs thread for a Sobers-Kallis comaprison:

Nothing between them (in this respect), I think. This also confirms, it seems, that Sobers was used as a strike bowler more often than Kallis, since he has taken a much higher percentage of top-order wickets, and Kallis, as a change bowler, has a much higher percentage of middle-order wickets.

 

[watson]

Responding to a request on the graphs thread for a Sobers-Kallis comaprison:.....


Nothing between them (in this respect), I think. This also confirms, it seems, that Sobers was used as a strike bowler more often than Kallis, since he has taken a much higher percentage of top-order wickets, and Kallis, as a change bowler, has a much higher percentage of middle-order wickets.

I think that's a fair assumption.

 

[smash84]

yeah....a fair analysis I think

 

[Ikki]

Kallis played alongside formidable opening partnerships for basically his whole career. For much of Sobers' career the team composition, in terms of bowling, carried a lot of all-rounders.

 

[Red]

Nothing between them (in this respect), I think. This also confirms, it seems, that Sobers was used as a strike bowler more often than Kallis, since he has taken a much higher percentage of top-order wickets, and Kallis, as a change bowler, has a much higher percentage of middle-order wickets.

I think that's a fair assumption.

yeah....a fair analysis I think

Kallis played alongside formidable opening partnerships for basically his whole career. For much of Sobers' career the team composition, in terms of bowling, carried a lot of all-rounders.

Sobers only bowled with the new ball in 38 innings (compared to 120 when he bowled first change or lower)

 

[H4G]

Why do people say such stupid things? The above is worth 5 facepalms at least. Do you know that it would be easy to access the stats to check how fallacious your point is? Statistically he is obviously much better than both so your point has no value even as an exaggeration.

I'm at a loss to understand why some people are so determined to talk down great players like Sobers. So may I ask: Do you think you being clever? Or controversial? Do you think you are a maverick playing by your own rules? I'd like to know how you perceive yourself.

And then inform you that everyone else thinks you're a tit.

Sobers has same strike rate & wickets/match as Sami & Agarkar. Not to mention his career average was around 50 with 1.0 wickets per match (quite Salisburyish) in first 30 odd tests of his career when he bowled spin only after that he did bowl spin but very little.All my opinions are based on what I saw + stats.

Wickets per match :

Sami------->2.4
Agarkar------>2.3
Sobers------->2.5

Strike Rates :
Sami-------->88
Agarkar------>84
Sobers------->92

So what was Sobers really as a bowler? Most realistic & honest description would be a combination of Sami/Agarkar + Salisbury.

 

[H4G]

A combination of Chaminda Vaas and Ashley Giles is probably a more accurate call, and as a fifth bowler in a side certainly useful enough.

Sir, you're insulting Vaas by comparing his bowling to Sobers