Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[Ikki]

Well you're a beaut aren't you? You're the one who tried to make a specious comparison based on Strike rates and wickets per match with bowlers from a modern era (Sami and Salisbury). Well on your insistence someone can raise economy rates as a valid and obvious counter. So you'll have to accept the cross era comparison I'm afraid, bcos you introduced it.

The problem is that Sobers' avg and SR aren't even average for his own era. The ERs during Sobers' era were very slow compared to ERs now because the game has changed, with special consideration to how fast the batsmen score and the desirability of getting a result in a game.

Someone said Sobers is similar to Chris Martin. Maybe for about 7 years of his career. But he played for 20...so for about 13 years he has a record which would pit him against the worst that have ever bowled in Test cricket. It is somewhat akin to saying someone with Marcus North's batting record should be considered similar to Ponting.

When it comes to statistical arguments, you can often make a case that the batsman that averages 50 is better than the one which averages 55. The bowler that strikes at 60, is better than the one that strikes at 55. There are factors such as the pitch and opponent quality that make that a reasonable claim. These are estimations within reason.

For Sobers, those things just don't wash and its a mystery why a record that is so beyond the commentary it has garnered still gets lauded by fans. Even those that never witnessed him bat.

 

[the big bambino]

You see I just don't understand ikki. I'm not overly worried if his stats are below the average for his era. He was, after all, primarily a batsman. So the comparison should be with other batting allrounder's bowling figures. Or a comparison weighting batting and bowling with other all rounders generally. In a comparsion with Kallis he is even at least on bowling. I haven't checked Kallis to his era's ave but he too would stand a chance of being over par as a bowler. Maybe you can tell me otherwise.

I'm actually looking at Sobers' test bowling record season by season. I cant see this 13 year drought you are talking about. In every season from 58-74 he's taken atleast 10 wkts a season in 13 out of 17 times. One other occasion he took 9. The averages bump around from 20 to 43. 7 of the seasons he averages under 30. In his last series he averaged 30 with 14 wkts.

Well thats damn good for a batting allrounder and shows he was a valuable contributor with the ball from 58-74.

 

[fredfertang]

The trouble with Sobers is that 95% of the members of this forum never saw him play, so all the poor bastards can do is pick over the bare bones of his career on statsguru - on the other hand those few of us who were lucky enough to see him can remember the way he played the game, steely-eyed and determined, but always with a smile on his face and intent on enjoying himself - a brilliant, brilliant cricketer

 

[watson]

Best Cricketer: Gary Sobers
Best Batsman: Don Bradman
Greatest Cricketer (most influential): WG Grace/Don Bradman

I am happy to defend any of those assertions - with relative ease I think.


Here is some really nice footage of Sobers bowling in 1973;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z58B2X9OhUk

And batting;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXhubJHUiZA

 

[the big bambino]

Stats are very important as they definately are linked to quality. However i think they are misleading in a comparsion btwn Sobers and Kallis. Both have comparable averages and a credit to both. However the trend line of a graph tends to obscure the peaks Sobers could hit that were perhaps beyond Kallis.

If asked I'd say the difference is fear. As an Aussie supporter I feared Sobers for what he was capable of doing. For all his fine record I never feared what Kallis might do. I saw Sobers play though nowhere near enough. What i did see was spoilt by that fear so I didn't appreciate it at the time. For those who didn't see Sobers but have Lara then that might pass as a fair analogy as to the difference between Sobers and Kallis. Lara's ave is similar to Kallis' as well. But if I were a bowler I know who I'd fear ripping me up.

 

[akilana]

As a south arican supporter I never feared Lara because Donald and co had his number and he was'nt all that great against genuine pace. On the other hand, I feared S Waugh and Sachin.

 

[fredfertang]

If asked I'd say the difference is fear. As an Aussie supporter I feared Sobers for what he was capable of doing. For all his fine record I never feared what Kallis might do. I saw Sobers play though nowhere near enough. What i did see was spoilt by that fear so I didn't appreciate it at the time. For those who didn't see Sobers but have Lara then that might pass as a fair analogy as to the difference between Sobers and Kallis. Lara's ave is similar to Kallis' as well. But if I were a bowler I know who I'd fear ripping me up.

The perils of being one-eyed mate!

I too didn't see as much of Sobers as I'd have liked but I always wanted to see him do well even if it was at England's expense, and he usually did - I think most of the country felt the same - especially in his final test here at Lord's in '73 when he said goodbye with an unbeaten 150

 

[akilana]

KP, Amla and Clarke have similar averages and only 1 player is capable of creating fear in the opposition camp but the other two are better batsmen.

 

[the big bambino]

KP, Amla and Clarke have similar averages and only 1 player is capable of creating fear in the opposition camp but the other two are better batsmen.

Well thats gotta be Amla right? I think he's the best player and the one to fear.

But nothing like Lara.

Or Sobers.

 

[the big bambino]

The perils of being one-eyed mate!

I too didn't see as much of Sobers as I'd have liked but I always wanted to see him do well even if it was at England's expense, and he usually did - I think most of the country felt the same - especially in his final test here at Lord's in '73 when he said goodbye with an unbeaten 150

True enough. Though I tend not to be anywhere near as parochial as far as the game's past goes. When they retire and can't do anymore damage I just look at them as men who have made cricket a great game

 

[akilana]

Well thats gotta be Amla right? I think he's the best player and the one to fear.

But nothing like Lara.

Or Sobers.

I thought KP was the Sobers/Lara in the comparision.

 

[harsh.ag]

The trouble with Sobers is that 95% of the members of this forum never saw him play, so all the poor bastards can do is pick over the bare bones of his career on statsguru - on the other hand those few of us who were lucky enough to see him can remember the way he played the game, steely-eyed and determined, but always with a smile on his face and intent on enjoying himself - a brilliant, brilliant cricketer

The same was ingrained into me by uncles who spoke in the same vein about him. Honestly, the only thing that I have a gripe about is that some experts I have read rate Sobers the third best left arm pacer they have seen after Wasim and Davidson. Like Bruce Reid, Gary Gilmour, and William Voce (if those experts saw him) never existed.

 

[akilana]

My top 3.
Don
Imran
Kallis

 

[Ikki]

You see I just don't understand ikki. I'm not overly worried if his stats are below the average for his era. He was, after all, primarily a batsman. So the comparison should be with other batting allrounder's bowling figures. Or a comparison weighting batting and bowling with other all rounders generally. In a comparsion with Kallis he is even at least on bowling. I haven't checked Kallis to his era's ave but he too would stand a chance of being over par as a bowler. Maybe you can tell me otherwise.

He's not Kallis' equal IMO.

Kallis: avg. 32.43 sr. 68.8
Kallis era: 33.49 sr. 66.4

Sobers: avg. 34.03 sr. 91.9
Sobers era: avg. 31.18 sr 79.8

Who is closer to the average bowler's ratios during their respective eras? Clearly, Kallis.

I don't really have a problem with someone saying Sobers is the best all-rounder (although I'd disagree a lot). My main gripe is that people say he was unquestionably better than the other all-rounders. Miller and Imran, for instance, were better than the average batsmen (their weaker discipline). For me, the hype doesn't match the facts. And I've heard the arguments to defend his record, which make even less sense (e.g. bowling spin when pace was preferably...irrespective of the fact that WI always had one specialist spinner and usually several all-rounders in a bowling line-up).

And if people are going to claim that Sobers was a better cricketer overall than Bradman because he could bowl; then they're saying the same thing about guys like Miller, Imran, Botham, etc, who they'd never say that about. If Bradman bowled and averaged even poorly he'd still be the best cricketer ever because he was just that far ahead in batting.

I'm actually looking at Sobers' test bowling record season by season. I cant see this 13 year drought you are talking about. In every season from 58-74 he's taken atleast 10 wkts a season in 13 out of 17 times. One other occasion he took 9. The averages bump around from 20 to 43. 7 of the seasons he averages under 30. In his last series he averaged 30 with 14 wkts.

Well thats damn good for a batting allrounder and shows he was a valuable contributor with the ball from 58-74.

Because I am referring to the years that aren't his peak bowling years in the 60s (61-68), which are his spin-years. Combine his record of the 50s and the latter part of his career when he stopped bowling pace until retirement and you have a bowler averaging in the 40s and striking in the 100s.

And FTR, I don't consider averaging 24.50 and striking 140.5 (Sobers in 56) any better than someone averaging 45 and striking at 50. Wickets per test aren't a good gauge of a bowler seen in that fashion. But it makes sense as to why Sobers was lauded so much. I remember SJS posting pieces/articles about great all-round feats of Sobers which concentrated on wickets per test. In their view, scoring 100 and taking 3 wickets in a match is great. But if the wickets cost you 40 runs and 15 overs a piece then that's not good at all.

 

[kyear2]

He's not Kallis' equal IMO.

Kallis: avg. 32.43 sr. 68.8
Kallis era: 33.49 sr. 66.4

Sobers: avg. 34.03 sr. 91.9
Sobers era: avg. 31.18 sr 79.8

Who is closer to the average bowler's ratios during their respective eras? Clearly, Kallis.

I don't really have a problem with someone saying Sobers is the best all-rounder (although I'd disagree a lot). My main gripe is that people say he was unquestionably better than the other all-rounders. Miller and Imran, for instance, were better than the average batsmen (their weaker discipline). For me, the hype doesn't match the facts. And I've heard the arguments to defend his record, which make even less sense (e.g. bowling spin when pace was preferably...irrespective of the fact that WI always had one specialist spinner and usually several all-rounders in a bowling line-up).

And if people are going to claim that Sobers was a better cricketer overall than Bradman because he could bowl; then they're saying the same thing about guys like Miller, Imran, Botham, etc, who they'd never say that about. If Bradman bowled and averaged even poorly he'd still be the best cricketer ever because he was just that far ahead in batting.



Because I am referring to the years that aren't his peak bowling years in the 60s (61-68), which are his spin-years. Combine his record of the 50s and the latter part of his career when he stopped bowling pace until retirement and you have a bowler averaging in the 40s and striking in the 100s.

And FTR, I don't consider averaging 24.50 and striking 140.5 (Sobers in 56) any better than someone averaging 45 and striking at 50. Wickets per test aren't a good gauge of a bowler seen in that fashion. But it makes sense as to why Sobers was lauded so much. I remember SJS posting pieces/articles about great all-round feats of Sobers which concentrated on wickets per test. In their view, scoring 100 and taking 3 wickets in a match is great. But if the wickets cost you 40 runs and 15 overs a piece then that's not good at all.

Yet you would staunchly argue that Warne and Lillee are the greatest ever based primarily on peer and historical analysis even though they numbers are matched or surpassed, in the case of Warne by Murali and For Lillee quite a few from his own era, you also defend the fact that he never sucessfully played in the sub continent, the toughest test for fast bowlers. Yet now you would use statistice to tear down the only player (along with Bradman) ranked even higher than even Warne and Lillee by peers and historians alike. It was the same Keith Miller you are referencing who himself said that Sobers is no doubt the best All Rounder to have played the game.
If you are going to trust the Benuads, Bradman's ect regarding Lillee and Warne dispite the fact that they are bowlers with better statistics than them, why do you refuse to trust them regarding Sobers?

 

[kyear2]

My top 3.
Don
Imran
Kallis

And you are entitled.

 

[watson]

If Sobers is playing in my ATG XI then it will be the Sobers from 1961-1968.

For that lengthy period of 7 years he maintained a bowling average of 27.93 (Strike Rate 62.90), which incidently was good enough to make him the 4th best bowler in the World at the time. Only Trueman, Gibbs, and P.Pollock had better Averages.

From 1958 till his retirement he averaged 62.90 with the bat, so any Sobers other than a 'novice Sobers' will do as far as scoring runs for my ATG XI is concerned.

Also, few players have impacted an entire Test series with BOTH bat and ball better than Sobers. Please see the following article;

Stats analysis: Garry Sobers

An allrounder like no other

By S. Rajesh (2010)

.....As a bowler, Sobers' stats aren't as stunning, but he was more than handy with his ability to bowl various styles. His peak period as a bowler was understandably much shorter, but during the eight years between 1961 and 1968, he was quite a handful, averaging less than 28 and taking almost four wickets per Test.

In fact, his bowling career can be divided into three distinct parts: till 1960, he bowled quite sparingly, taking only 43 wickets in 34 matches, without a single five-for. Then came the best passage for him as a bowler, during which period he delivered two of his most incisive performances: at Headingley in 1966 he returned figures of 5 for 41 and 3 for 39 to help West Indies win by an innings; at the Gabba a couple of years later, his orthodox left-arm spin was good enough to give him a second-innings haul of 6 for 73 and bundle Australia out for 240 as they chased 366 for victory.

More than most other cricketers, Sobers was able to, on more than one occasion, deliver his excellence with bat and ball in the same series. Scoring 300 runs and taking 20 wickets in a series is no mean feat - it's only been achieved 15 times in the entire history of Test cricket - but Sobers managed it three times on his own, twice against England, and once against India. The Australian allrounder Keith Miller did it twice, but no one else has achieved it more than once. Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee and Shaun Pollock were among those who did it once each, while Imran Khan didn't even achieve it once.....

Stats analysis: Garry Sobers: An allrounder like no other | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Note: As an aside, Imran never achieved the double of 300 runs and 20 wickets in a single series according to the above article. I find this a little surprising and disappointing.

 

[the big bambino]

I thought KP was the Sobers/Lara in the comparision.

Sorry if I'm not following but I don't think KP is as good as Lara. Therefore he can't stand in his stead as a modern day player who is analogous to Sobers.

 

[kyear2]

Best Cricketer: Gary Sobers
Best Batsman: Don Bradman
Greatest Cricketer (most influential): WG Grace/Don Bradman

I am happy to defend any of those assertions - with relative ease I think.


Here is some really nice footage of Sobers bowling in 1973;

Gary Sobers, Keith Boyce, Bernard Julien great bowling, 1973 1st Test - YouTube

And batting;

Sir Gary Sobers 150* vs England 1973 - YouTube

Fully agree on all counts.

Don't understand why we are comparing Sobers to full out specialist bowlers when he is a specialist batsman who is a fantastic fifth bowler. Sobers has won matches with bat and ball, and on occasion in the same game. In 93 tests he has 6 fifers and 8 four wicket hauls, more than Kallis has achieved in 162 tests, and thats not a problem, because they play different roles and the W.I were much more dependent on Sobers and particularily as a stock bowler.
Besides Botham and Miller no other All Rounder has performed with the bat and ball and in the field consistently at the same time like Garry has, and Botham had a very short peak (regrettably) and half of Miller's hundreds came in one series vs us in '55 (but his bowling performance was even more impresive considering the flat pitches and batting attack he faced). Imran's batting and bowling peaks were at different ends of his career and the batting didn't come on until he couldn't bowl and started focusing on it. Sobers in the mid '60's was at his batting and bowling peak and his All Rounder combined rating both for peak and career are unbeliveable.

I.Khan - Batting - highest rating: 650 V SL 1991. spent 2 of his 88 Tests (2.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 922 V Ind 1983. spent 71 of his 88 Tests (80.7%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1483 v Ind 1983. (Batting-562, Bowling-921).
K.Miller - Batting - highest rating: 681 V WI 1952. spent 4 of his 55 Tests (7.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 862 V SA 1953. spent 35 of his 55 Tests (63.6%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1522 v WI 1952. (Batting-681, Bowling-841).
G.Sobers - Batting - highest rating: 938 V Ind 1967. spent 77 of his 93 Tests (82.8%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 715 V Ind 1966. spent 19 of his 93 Tests (20.4%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1651 v Ind 1966. (Batting-936, Bowling-715).

Batting AR - J.Kallis - Batting - highest rating: 896 V Eng 2005. spent 78 of his 107 Tests (72.9%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 742 V Eng 2003. spent 21 of his 107 Tests (19.6%) rated above 650. *
Best Simultaneous rating: 1574 v Pak 2002. (Batting-848, Bowling-726).
Bowling AR - I.Botham - Batting - highest rating: 811 V Ind 1982. spent 35 of his 102 Tests (34.3%) rated above 650.
Bowling - highest rating: 911 V Ind 1980. spent 55 of his 102 Tests (53.9%) rated above 650.
Best Simultaneous rating: 1620 v Ind 1980. (Batting-709, Bowling-911).

Kallis's numbers needs to be redone as these numbers are circa 2007. That being said, there are no perfect All Rounders (save Botham) but I belive Sober's came the closest and numbers alone cannot be compared to watching the grrat man teaing up at attack in full flow. I may be a bit bias, as Sober's in Barbados is literally a National Hero and in school we actually watched clips and highlighs of the man's exploits, but from watching him on your own you can see the magic that he brought to the field especially with the bat and in the field. To me as a total cricketer the man was in comparable and from the eye ball test after watching Kallis (and by far his best performances have come againts us, batting wise at least) there is for me no comparrison. He is great and he is ireplaceable for S.A, no doubt, but I would take Sobers.

Apologies for the ramble.

 

[the big bambino]

Agree with harsh.skm that the overpraising of Sobers' seam bowling is ott. I kind of feel that critics who saw him allow their admiration for his batting exaggerate their opinion of his bowling.

Ikki. I'm looking at Sobers' record again. This time from 69 to retirement. I've done so bcos it is part of the timeframe when you say he was ineffective with the ball. Actually his average for his 53 wkts is 30.96 and better than his overall average. His SR is a just a tad higher though. This leads me to think that he was an effective bowler from 58-74; a far greater period than the 7 yrs btwn 61-68 which were his peak years.

Sobers early career is unimpressive. Even his batting. It took him a few series and atleast 14 tests before he established himself as the great player we know in 1958 v Pakistan. That is the only part of his career that could be described as modest and in that regard he is not unlike many great players.

Thankyou for the statistical comparison with Kallis. I place most importance on a bowler's ave. and think SR and ER secondary. Especially in tests. If a bowler's ave is acceptable but his SR high that infers his ER must be good. If his economy is poor, no matter, his SR is acceptable. Its a trade off and tells you what role your bowler plays.

I think ER is over rated as a stat. Cricket is a game played over time. Spinners bowl their overs quicker than fast bowlers. I will qualify that by saying they used to. (They seem to employed now to waste time as much as take wickets). Therefore they can afford to have higher SRs. I think a more meaningful stat would be to time a bowler's occupation of the bowling crease and divide it by the no. of wickets. In that regard someone getting through their overs faster maybe striking just as quickly as someone who takes almost twice as long to bowl his overs.