Garry Sobers, The Bowler?

[honestbharani]

Well that is my point. Garry might be another waterboy or Raina with the ball

Just about the entire cricketing world might disagree with you then.

 

[G.I.Joe]

record you deserve? I don't really see who said he was better than what his numbers suggest. I am only saying see the numbers of others around the same time to see the real meaning of those numbers. And yes he deserves the record he has but I don't see how it actually makes him a lesser player if he did that... He was still doing a job for his team and that is all that matters, and I still think as a combination, he was so good and better than any other allrounder to have played the game.

I'm not saying it makes him a lesser player if he did that, where do you get that from? Questioning dubious claims does not equate to suggesting that he was a lesser player. I'm saying he was a player who averaged 34 with the ball, and that is an excellent bonus for a player who already is an all time great with the bat. However people still seem to want to make dubious claims to 'explain' his relatively modest bowling record, and those claims don't validate.

 

[aussie]

I'm not saying it makes him a lesser player if he did that, where do you get that from? Questioning dubious claims does not equate to suggesting that he was a lesser player. I'm saying he was a player who averaged 34 with the ball, and that is an excellent bonus for a player who already is an all time great with the bat. However people still seem to want to make dubious claims to 'explain' his relatively modest bowling record, and those claims don't validate.

Sobers peak as complete all-rounder was between Australia 60/61 to ENG 1969 in tests averaged 31 with the ball actually. Once could include the Rest of World vs England matches in 1970 as well here, which would have made his bowling & all-rounder peak record even better.

 

[smash84]

Well that is my point. Garry might be another waterboy or Raina with the ball

Well.....of course he was never this bad......quite decent really with an average of 34......but his strike rate of around mid 90s reminds me of somebody like Tendulkar really (incidentally even Tendulkar has a strike rate of 91 ).....and mind you Tendulkar used to be a very versatile bowler.............he could bowl pretty much all that Garry could bowl (except for seam bowling) and with bowlers like Sami, and Kuruvilla as examples of people who have led bowling attacks in the sub-continent Sachin doesn't look so bad. I can only imagine later generations coming up and saying......."Just look at Tendulkar he was such a versatile bowler, and would break partnerships so often...he would bowl medium pace, and leg spin, and could throw googlies and on top of that he was the rated by many to be the best batsman after Bradman.....and you know what he even has a better strike rate than that man Garry Sobers.......Sachin has got to be the greatest all rounder ever"......but most of us do know that Sachin is not really a great bowler....

And all your hypothetical situations happening frequently over the length and breadth of his career might explain his modest record but the situations that you mention seem quite out of the ordinary really.

 

[Sanz]

Well.....of course he was never this bad......quite decent really with an average of 34......but his strike rate of around mid 90s reminds me of somebody like Tendulkar really (incidentally even Tendulkar has a strike rate of 91 ).....and mind you Tendulkar used to be a very versatile bowler.............he could bowl pretty much all that Garry could bowl (except for seam bowling) and with bowlers like Sami, and Kuruvilla as examples of people who have led bowling attacks in the sub-continent Sachin doesn't look so bad. I can only imagine later generations coming up and saying......."Just look at Tendulkar he was such a versatile bowler, and would break partnerships so often...he would bowl medium pace, and leg spin, and could throw googlies and on top of that he was the rated by many to be the best batsman after Bradman.....and you know what he even has a better strike rate than that man Garry Sobers.......Sachin has got to be the greatest all rounder ever"......but most of us do know that Sachin is not really a great bowler....

And all your hypothetical situations happening frequently over the length and breadth of his career might explain his modest record but the situations that you mention seem quite out of the ordinary really.

This has got to be the most silly post in the thread. So on what basis the future generations going to claim Sachin as the greatest allrounder ?

No. Of wickets ?
No. of overs bowled ?
Bowling Average ?
Quality of Bowling ?
Historical evidence ?
Variety of Bowling ?
Scorecards ?
Could make in to his team on his bowling alone ?
Tendulkar's contemporaries praising his bowling skill during/after his career ?

In Sobers case, all of the above applies.

 

[smash84]

This has got to be the most silly post in the thread. So on what basis the future generations going to claim Sachin as the greatest allrounder ?

No. Of wickets ?
No. of overs bowled ?
Bowling Average ?
Quality of Bowling ?
Historical evidence ?
Variety of Bowling ?
Scorecards ?
Could make in to his team on his bowling alone ?
Tendulkar's contemporaries praising his bowling skill during/after his career ?

In Sobers case, all of the above applies.

On economy, variety, and SR

 

[Sanz]

Yeah the smiley says it all.

 

[Maximus0723]

lol post that is

Sobers was just an average bowler who bowled alot. Record is nothing special for pitches of those times.

 

[weldone]

YouTube - Sir Gary Sobers: 254 against Australia

Seen this video before. Ian Chappell says "Garry Sobers is ahead of the next best alrounder by as much as Donald Bradman is ahead of the next best batsman. Garry Sobers is also the best batsman I've ever seen play." He also insists on keeping in mind the quality of the bowling attack those runs were scored against while judging that inning. Bradman thought that was the best inning he has seen in Australia.

However, I find one thing very interesting in Bradman's assessment of Sobers. He considered Sobers the best cricketer to have lived ever (Yes, he considered Sobers to be a better cricketer than himself and that was not due to his humility, as humility wasn't Bradman's favorite word really). Still, he ranked Sobers only 2nd among all left-handed batsmen he saw playing (after Graeme Pollock). That, in itself, shows how he rated Sobers' bowling.

 

[smash84]

lol post that is

Sobers was just an average bowler who bowled alot. Record is nothing special for pitches of those times.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not saying it makes him a lesser player if he did that, where do you get that from? Questioning dubious claims does not equate to suggesting that he was a lesser player. I'm saying he was a player who averaged 34 with the ball, and that is an excellent bonus for a player who already is an all time great with the bat. However people still seem to want to make dubious claims to 'explain' his relatively modest bowling record, and those claims don't validate.

I don't see any result here.. we are obviously arguing in circles... "explain" his record would be to see it in the perspective of his time, NOT make outlandish claims on what "could" have been, because honestly, that could be said about MOST players.