Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[Satyanash89]

Also found this on his Cricinfo page. "While Bradman's status as the greatest batsman is increasingly under threat, no one raises an eyebrow at Garry Sobers being called the greatest allrounder."

It's the other way around, honestly...

 

[H4G]

But in spite of all these so call flaws, he's still the best all rounder in history by a country mile.

You have made my day!

 

[H4G]

I agree with marc 100%, but the real problem with Sobers is that to properly appreciate him you really need to have seen him - he was a fantastic batsman, and of those I've seen only Barry Richards was better, and by the time I saw Sobers he was undoubtedly past his best - he wasn't the same thing as a bowler, but on a greenish English wicket he could be, as I have already said, be lethal

I've seen Sobers he is one of the greatest batsmen ever but also a crap bowler who was mediocre at his best.

 

[H4G]

It was games like this which didn't help Sobers strike rate, but surely showed how economical he was.

5th Test: England v West Indies at The Oval, Aug 18-22, 1966 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Wonder why he would have bolwed himself so much, with Griffith, Hall and Gibbs in the side? Could only think that he played the role of stop bolwer while the others attacked from the other end. We could only wonder how much bettter his numbers would have been if he didn't have to shoulder the load of bowling so much overs.

Such economy rates are hardly an achievement considering the era Sobers played in.

 

[H4G]

My point was, no one had disregarded Imran's batting on stats. The opposite in fact. He did average 50ish for a decade or something, but still wasn't really a top 6 batsman because he was limited in a lot of ways.

What limitations, would you like to elaborate? He had a solid defense, could hit clean & flat sixes when on attack & could play almost every shot in the textbook superbly.

 

[H4G]

It was games like this which didn't help Sobers strike rate, but surely showed how economical he was.

5th Test: England v West Indies at The Oval, Aug 18-22, 1966 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Wonder why he would have bolwed himself so much, with Griffith, Hall and Gibbs in the side? Could only think that he played the role of stop bolwer while the others attacked from the other end. We could only wonder how much bettter his numbers would have been if he didn't have to shoulder the load of bowling so much overs.

Why do people's ifs & could'ves apply only to their favorite players only?I can also say Imran would have much better record if Pakistan didn't have batsmen like Zaheer, Miandad, Malik etc during his time because he would bat up in the order then.
And as a bowler he could have taken much more wickets if he had not injured his back during his prime in 1983 & also if Pakistan didn't have such pathetic fielders.

 

[H4G]

Those who are saying Imran couldn't bat in the middle order or at fault.He averages 62@ Number 6 in 20 odd innings.So he was fairly capable of batting in middle order it was just that Pakistan had players like Miandad,Zaheer,Malik,Shoaib etc during his career.

 

[akilana]

Still regarded as the best.

In the pecking order of the game there will always be disputes regarding #3 down, but the top two is with out question Sobers and Bradman. Wisden's top 50 only had two unqueationable slots with Bradman receiving 100 votes to Sober's 90.
Cricinfo had three players who were unanimous selections, Warne, Sobers, Bradman. These guys place in the history of the game is indisputable.

Regarding the back ground noise, wouldn't expect anything less.

Hate to break it to you that Only Don's place is indisputable. Even his place and average have been questioned by a few. There are many players vying for the second place and there is no right answer. But if one feels insecure about it, it's not wrong to repeat hiself.

 

[Red]

What limitations, would you like to elaborate? He had a solid defense, could hit clean & flat sixes when on attack & could play almost every shot in the textbook superbly.

He did have a solid defence, and he could hit clean and flat sixes, you're correct. He didn't have much in the middle of these two skills though.

I don't want to be critical of Imran as a cricketer, because I think he was brilliant. I pick him in my ATG team almost every time.

My initial point was- Imran was a brilliant bowler, as well as being a very handy batsman, while Sobers was a brilliant batsman, as well as being a very handy bowler. I think it was made in response to you saying Sobers was a "crap" bowler.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

If we were to compare Imran the batsman against someone playing atm, who would people pick?

Same question for Sobers as a Bowler.

 

[Plumbinfront]

Sobers as a bowler would be a mix of Jimmy Anderson and Monty Panesar. Imran as a batsman would be Steve Smith.

 

[Plumbinfront]

As for Kallis and Sobers...I am astounded at how people scoff at the comparison as if one were comparing Jimmy Anderson to Glenn McGrath. Kallis and Sobers are equals...just that Kallis has done it for a lot longer. And no, I don't measure longevity by how many years a player plays for as seems to be the norm for some posters when it comes to discussing players they consider to be great. I am talking about number of matches and by that measure he has done it for a lot longer than Sobers. Not Sobers' fault of course but let us stop pretending that Kallis doesn't belong in the conversation. Kallis as a cricketer is a combination of Tendulkar and Jimmy Anderson. You thrown in fielding where his slip catching has been top notch...you have a winner. And he has excelled in ODIs too.

 

[Plumbinfront]

H4G please don't make **** arguments mate. Imran khan was an okayish bat when he wasn't being a **** but he was far from what you are making him out to be. He was easily the worst out of the great all rounders despite what numbers say. Only Hadlee was worse with the bat.

 

[Satyanash89]

H4G please don't make **** arguments mate. Imran khan was an okayish bat when he wasn't being a **** but he was far from what you are making him out to be. He was easily the worst out of the great all rounders despite what numbers say. Only Hadlee was worse with the bat.

Haha wtf... had a good lol here

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Sobers as a bowler would be a mix of Jimmy Anderson and Monty Panesar. Imran as a batsman would be Steve Smith.

Jimmy Anderson as a bowler is way better than Smith as batsman. But to call Sobers being similar to Anderson is basically saying Sobers would be ranked the second best fast bowler after Steyn today.

And have you seen both play to come to this conclusion (Sobers and Imran)?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Don't know what a Randwa is but certainly do know what a **** is.

 

[Satyanash89]

Yeah, Anderson is being grossly underrated there... he's a far,far better bowler than Sobers

I'd say as a batsman, Suresh Raina would be like Imran, and as a bowler, Chris Martin is Sobers... pretty similar stats I would think, with both only really doing very well against one team (SA for Martin, England for Sobers)...

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Both Imran and Sobers are comparable to Andrew Symonds.

 

[kyear2]

As for Kallis and Sobers...I am astounded at how people scoff at the comparison as if one were comparing Jimmy Anderson to Glenn McGrath. Kallis and Sobers are equals...just that Kallis has done it for a lot longer. And no, I don't measure longevity by how many years a player plays for as seems to be the norm for some posters when it comes to discussing players they consider to be great. I am talking about number of matches and by that measure he has done it for a lot longer than Sobers. Not Sobers' fault of course but let us stop pretending that Kallis doesn't belong in the conversation. Kallis as a cricketer is a combination of Tendulkar and Jimmy Anderson. You thrown in fielding where his slip catching has been top notch...you have a winner. And he has excelled in ODIs too.

Kallis and Sobers are not equals as batsmen, no where close. Kallis batted for Kallis and his average (evidenced in his 46 career strike rate). Kallis is rated by most to be the 4th best batsman of his own era behind Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting far less a serious contender for the second best bat ever.
As bowlers it is closer with Kallis statistically ahead, but they played different roles in different eras and Sobers with his variety and stop or stike bowler capabilities brought more to the table as a 5th bowler, but is can be seen as equal.
As good a slipper as Kallis is, he doesn't quite compare to the slip or overall fielding ability of Sobers who is seen as being among if not the greatest ever.

All this is not to say that Kallis wasn't arguably the second best All Rounder to play the game and whose aptitude in all three aspects of the game can only be equalled by Miller, Botham and probably Hammond (Chappell comes close) and is indeed an ATG.
For me though the second best All Rounder has to be Gilchrist who was not only a match winner with bat and gloves, but changed the game in the process.

 

[DDP]

Kallis and Sobers are not equals as batsmen, no where close. Kallis batted for Kallis and his average (evidenced in his 46 career strike rate).

Since when did batting strike rates matter greatly in tests? And how does this measure directly imply selfishness?

For all the talk about cricinfo profiles, have a look at the last paragraph for Kallis's one. Certainly not selfish.