Garry Sobers, The Bowler?

[thierry henry]

My impression was that Sobers was a very SKILLFUL bowler, but not particularly effective. In other words, pleasing to the eye (nice action, able to swing it), and versatile too being able to bowl different ways. But being pleasing to the eye and versatile does not make you a great bowler. So I think Sobers was an underachiever with the ball given his skillset, but gets overrated historically because of his style and versatility. You can argue his role in the team made him underachieve, whatever, but I think the stats speak for themselves. Rarely did Sobers get results with the ball. His opposite would be a guy like Kallis or maybe Watson. Guys who trudge in unathlectically, yet are often quite effective - more than you would think if you were watching them bowl for the first time.

This is to me almost like the Wasim Akram argument, who I think gets overrated a lot. Given his skills Wasim should have been the best bowler of all time, but he wasn't - just very, very good. Yet he becomes more of a legend with each year because people remember his awesome performances and deliveries more than his career as a whole.

YES YES YES YES YES *splooge*

So much better than the "you didn't see him bowl so you don't know the talent he had" argument

I don't GAF how talented he was, cricket is about results.

 

[smash84]

Bowl the least effective style at all times. Pure cricketing genius.

 

[kingkallis]

My impression was that Sobers was a very SKILLFUL bowler, but not particularly effective. In other words, pleasing to the eye (nice action, able to swing it), and versatile too being able to bowl different ways. But being pleasing to the eye and versatile does not make you a great bowler. So I think Sobers was an underachiever with the ball given his skillset, but gets overrated historically because of his style and versatility. You can argue his role in the team made him underachieve, whatever, but I think the stats speak for themselves. Rarely did Sobers get results with the ball. His opposite would be a guy like Kallis or maybe Watson. Guys who trudge in unathlectically, yet are often quite effective - more than you would think if you were watching them bowl for the first time.

This is to me almost like the Wasim Akram argument, who I think gets overrated a lot. Given his skills Wasim should have been the best bowler of all time, but he wasn't - just very, very good. Yet he becomes more of a legend with each year because people remember his awesome performances and deliveries more than his career as a whole.

Very well written mate.

 

[Teja.]

With no disrespect to Sobers, I think the entire 'you-had-to-see-him-bowl' argument is not valid at all. This is a bit like showing videos of Ishant Sharma on song on responsive wickets and saying he was a great bowler despite his bowling average of 40 just because he could seam that much, and that his career was only ruined by bowling against the wind on flat wickets.

 

[smash84]

With no disrespect to Sobers, I think the entire 'you-had-to-see-him-bowl' argument is not valid at all. This is a bit like showing videos of Ishant Sharma on song on responsive wickets and saying he was a great bowler despite his bowling average of 40 just because he could seam that much, and that his career was only ruined by bowling against the wind on flat wickets.

LOL......good analogy

 

[weldone]

With no disrespect to Sobers, I think the entire 'you-had-to-see-him-bowl' argument is not valid at all. This is a bit like showing videos of Ishant Sharma on song on responsive wickets and saying he was a great bowler despite his bowling average of 40 just because he could seam that much, and that his career was only ruined by bowling against the wind on flat wickets.

Nobody is saying (at least shouldn't) that Sobers is an all-time great bowler or something like that. The thing is that he's a good bowler for a batting alrounder. Zaheer Khan isn't an ATG bowler, neither is Vettori. Sobers was probably a combination of the two, which combined with his ATG batsmanship makes him an enormous name in world cricket history.

You shouldn't judge a bowler by counting the number of overs he will bowl in an all-time XI. Let us put it this way, Sobers' bowling was as important for his WI side as Imran's batting was for his Pakistan side. An average of 33 in test cricket is nothing to be ashamed of, especially for a batting alrounder.

 

[smash84]

Nobody is saying (at least shouldn't) that Sobers is an all-time great bowler or something like that. The thing is that he's a good bowler for a batting alrounder. Zaheer Khan isn't an ATG bowler, neither is Vettori. Sobers was probably a combination of the two, which combined with his ATG batsmanship makes him an enormous name in world cricket history.

You shouldn't judge a bowler by counting the number of overs he will bowl in an all-time XI. Let us put it this way, Sobers' bowling was as important for his WI side as Imran's batting was for his Pakistan side. An average of 33 in test cricket is nothing to be ashamed of, especially for a batting alrounder.

Fair enough.

 

[Teja.]

Nobody is saying (at least shouldn't) that Sobers is an all-time great bowler or something like that. The thing is that he's a good bowler for a batting alrounder. Zaheer Khan isn't an ATG bowler, neither is Vettori. Sobers was probably a combination of the two, which combined with his ATG batsmanship makes him an enormous name in world cricket history.

You shouldn't judge a bowler by counting the number of overs he will bowl in an all-time XI. Let us put it this way, Sobers' bowling was as important for his WI side as Imran's batting was for his Pakistan side. An average of 33 in test cricket is nothing to be ashamed of, especially for a batting alrounder.

Nah, Post was more in response to people saying he was extremely skilled et al. As Ralph Waldo Emerson would have perhaps said, Skill without performance is like the hook without the bait.

I'd disagree that he was as good a bowler as Zaheer Khan tbh. Particularly considering the wpm with which Zaheer has picked his wickets and the context of his wickets. I reckon the Ishant Sharma of today is a better comparison, 2-3 wickets a game, averaging about 35, having occasional match-winning spells.

 

[GotSpin]

Nah, Post was more in response to people saying he was extremely skilled et al. As Ralph Waldo Emerson would have perhaps said, Skill without performance is like the hook without the bait.

I'd disagree that he was as good a bowler as Zaheer Khan tbh. Particularly considering the wpm with which Zaheer has picked his wickets and the context of his wickets. I reckon the Ishant Sharma of today is a better comparison, 2-3 wickets a game, averaging about 35, having occasional match-winning spells.

Sharma is pretty atrocious most of the time though

 

[smash84]

Nah, Post was more in response to people saying he was extremely skilled et al. As Ralph Waldo Emerson would have perhaps said, Skill without performance is like the hook without the bait.

I'd disagree that he was as good a bowler as Zaheer Khan tbh. Particularly considering the wpm with which Zaheer has picked his wickets and the context of his wickets. I reckon the Ishant Sharma of today is a better comparison, 2-3 wickets a game, averaging about 35, having occasional match-winning spells.

Good quote.....quite apt

well to quote Got_Spin Sharma does seem to be quite "atrocious" most of the time. An interesting choice of words I should say.

 

[Teja.]

Sharma is pretty atrocious most of the time though

He has the usual one spell a series where he picks three in quick succession and sets up the Innings/Game, averages about 2.5 wickets a game @ 35-37(which standardized would be pretty close to Sobers'), and is not a particularly good bowler outside of that Innings and has a very bad SR.

 

[weldone]

I'd disagree that he was as good a bowler as Zaheer Khan tbh. Particularly considering the wpm with which Zaheer has picked his wickets and the context of his wickets. I reckon the Ishant Sharma of today is a better comparison, 2-3 wickets a game, averaging about 35, having occasional match-winning spells.

These kind of comparisons are pointless, actually. Where would Imran Khan be had he been 'only' a batsman in India today? Could he compete with a Suresh Raina or a Cheteshwar Pujara for a place in the side as a batsman?

 

[smash84]

These kind of comparisons are pointless, actually. Where would Imran Khan be had he been 'only' a batsman in India today? Could he compete with a Suresh Raina or a Cheteshwar Pujara for a place in the side as a batsman?

I think what Teja is trying to say is that having Gary Sobers as a bowler in your team is pretty much the same as having Ishant Sharma in your attack. The attack would be pretty toothless in any case.

Who is saying anything about competing to get in the side for that??? It is just that Sharma's bowling and Sobers bowling are comparable and nothing great about both.

 

[weldone]

I think what Teja is trying to say is that having Gary Sobers as a bowler in your team is pretty much the same as having Ishant Sharma in your attack. The attack would be pretty toothless in any case.

Who is saying anything about competing to get in the side for that??? It is just that Sharma's bowling and Sobers bowling are comparable and nothing great about both.

They aren't. As per my knowledge, Sobers' bowling average as a fast bowler is near Zaheer's, not Sharma's.

However, if we are comparing Sobers' bowling stats with pure bowlers, then Imran's average as a batsman is comparable to which pure batsman, tbh?

 

[honestbharani]

Corresponding to his era SR of 92 is not "horrendous". Even better spinners of his time has SRs of closer to 70. His average of 34 is acceptable and is a clear underestimate of his performance. Sobers bowled pace on spinning wickets, so an additional spinner can be added to the lineup. And he bowled spin on green wickets so a pacer can be added in extra. His Avg of 34 comprised of bowling done under the worst possible conditions. If he did it the other way round, I'd expect him to average 29 - 31 range because then he'll get the best conditions possible.

Also add in the fact, he, like say a Watson of today, was only used as the last resort when he had to bowl and therefore, it was more than probable that he came MOSTLY when batsmen were set and a partnership was going on. Let's face it, if my main bowlers did not get the job done, that is when I will go to my allrounder who also happens to be the premier batsman not just in my side but in the entire world....

 

[smash84]

They aren't. As per my knowledge, Sobers' bowling average as a fast bowler is near Zaheer's, not Sharma's.

However, if we are comparing Sobers' bowling stats with pure bowlers, then Imran's average as a batsman is comparable to which pure batsman, tbh?

Well.....Aamir Sohail wasn't a great batsman but he was ok. The best opening pair for Pakistan was when he would open with Saeed Anwar (I know Pakistan's batting is a joke but it wasn't so bad in the 90s). His career average is 35. So Imran beats him comfortably. An average near 40 wasn't supposed to be so bad in the 80s and 90s. And Micheal Atherton has a batting average of 37.

 

[Prince EWS]

Also add in the fact, he, like say a Watson of today, was only used as the last resort when he had to bowl and therefore, it was more than probable that he came MOSTLY when batsmen were set and a partnership was going on. Let's face it, if my main bowlers did not get the job done, that is when I will go to my allrounder who also happens to be the premier batsman not just in my side but in the entire world....

So what you're saying is - Shane Watson's a much better bowler than his Test average of 28 actually suggests?

 

[honestbharani]

Nah, Post was more in response to people saying he was extremely skilled et al. As Ralph Waldo Emerson would have perhaps said, Skill without performance is like the hook without the bait.

I'd disagree that he was as good a bowler as Zaheer Khan tbh. Particularly considering the wpm with which Zaheer has picked his wickets and the context of his wickets. I reckon the Ishant Sharma of today is a better comparison, 2-3 wickets a game, averaging about 35, having occasional match-winning spells.

Really gotta watch to see how the skill was applied too, tbh.. As I said, if his main aim was to be the "break" bowler and he DID bowl a lot though which sorta goes against this theory but if that was the main aim, then it would be foolish to just look at averages and SRs coz it is very possible that you are playing a vital role in the bowling attack even with bad numbers for those two stats..


BTW, mods, there was an excellent thread about Sobers' bowling and there have been a NUMBER of threads reg. his merits as an allrounder compared to say an Imran Khan. Maybe a merge is better?

 

[smash84]

Also add in the fact, he, like say a Watson of today, was only used as the last resort when he had to bowl and therefore, it was more than probable that he came MOSTLY when batsmen were set and a partnership was going on. Let's face it, if my main bowlers did not get the job done, that is when I will go to my allrounder who also happens to be the premier batsman not just in my side but in the entire world....

You mean he was like Tendulkar as a bowler??? Tendulkar's bowling average is 52 but his strike rate isn't too bad then. His strike rate is 91. And not to forget he was a very versatile bowler. Leg breaks, off-breaks, googlies, medium pace, he could bowl them all. And he was a pretty decent partnership breaker.

 

[honestbharani]

So what you're saying is - Shane Watson's a much better bowler than his Test average of 28 actually suggests?

No, I am just saying his bowling average or SR will not be a fair reflection of his abilities, and it could go either way.


The point is, as an allrounder and esp. with your batting being such an important suite, you won't get to bowl in the best conditions most of the time.. That is my view on the matter. And it seems to be corroborated in just about every chapter touching on Sobers in those excellent books SJS was kind enough to gift me.