Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[Fusion]

^ Best Post.

 

[smash84]

Imran stands out as a leader, from an historical perspective, as he got so much out of the previously disfunctional Pakistan set up. He was a great captain. In the sense of man management he seems to be overtly the best, or close to it.

It's a very noticable thing too, because what went before and after was so mud.

By the same token, you look at someone like Sobers, who isn't known so much for his captaincy skills. He seemed to more or less go about things as captain without the legendary tales of inspired leadership. Yet in the mid-60s he was the best batsman in the world, captain of the best side, the best fielder and an important part of the attack too.

Captaincy is a very hard thing to quantify. It's like comparing fielders who are each good or excellent. How one can definitvely say one is plainly superior to another is very difficult to justify. I would have Imran as the better captain, but I don't think Sobers' efforts should be under sold. The authoritarian style of Imran, and the way he led Pakistan may not have worked witht he WI side Sobers, or indeed Lloyd, led. And vice versa.

As for this overall thread, the point I was trying to make in the thread that's now been closed, albeit in a less than eloquent way, is that despite these two blokes being "all rounders", they are manifestly different cricketers. If you want to emphasise the bowling side of things, then Imran will win. If you want to emphasise the batting side, Sobers will.

There isn't a right and wrong here. It's not like you're comparing Merv Hughes to Imran Khan, or Graeme Wood to Sobers. They are two amazing cricketers, who each have the same label attached to them, but who were really very, very different players altogether.

well said........

loln.....at the closed thread

 

[Jono]

Prefer Burgey's irrational rants to those posts tbph

 

[Teja.]

Imran stands out as a leader, from an historical perspective, as he got so much out of the previously disfunctional Pakistan set up. He was a great captain. In the sense of man management he seems to be overtly the best, or close to it.

It's a very noticable thing too, because what went before and after was so mud.

By the same token, you look at someone like Sobers, who isn't known so much for his captaincy skills. He seemed to more or less go about things as captain without the legendary tales of inspired leadership. Yet in the mid-60s he was the best batsman in the world, captain of the best side, the best fielder and an important part of the attack too.

Captaincy is a very hard thing to quantify. It's like comparing fielders who are each good or excellent. How one can definitvely say one is plainly superior to another is very difficult to justify. I would have Imran as the better captain, but I don't think Sobers' efforts should be under sold. The authoritarian style of Imran, and the way he led Pakistan may not have worked witht he WI side Sobers, or indeed Lloyd, led. And vice versa.

As for this overall thread, the point I was trying to make in the thread that's now been closed, albeit in a less than eloquent way, is that despite these two blokes being "all rounders", they are manifestly different cricketers. If you want to emphasise the bowling side of things, then Imran will win. If you want to emphasise the batting side, Sobers will.

There isn't a right and wrong here. It's not like you're comparing Merv Hughes to Imran Khan, or Graeme Wood to Sobers. They are two amazing cricketers, who each have the same label attached to them, but who were really very, very different players altogether.

Awesome post. However, I'd say it was an alright discussion until slog_sweep came in and absued Ikki for going against the gospel.

 

[Teja.]

I never understand how people can speak with such certainty like this.

I said 'for me' mate. I'm having just as much certainity as millions of people(and experts) in world who make lists. Should've clarified the list was from the Bradman and post-Bradman era too as I have nfi of what happeened before that period.

@hb, Yeah go on, assume all my opinions are based purely on statistics take every oppurtunity to or at me. What you're doing is no worse than people posting 'back it up with stats ' everytime someone posts an opinion.

@Everyone, It's a discussion people, not a warfield, Let's spread the love 'kay?

Cheers.

 

[Ikki]

See, what I don't like is you believing that you're in enlightened one, and every great cricketer out there who has actually seen Sobers bowl AND who have played alongside him are the ones ignorant. Sounds quite far-fetched from the start.

Because it isn't a matter of my personal perception really. Average 34, SR 92 = not good. With respect to the glorification of his bowling, then they are ignorant. Some things are too far-fetched (like saying a batsman who averages 30 in the 2000s can get into any team on his batting alone) to be rational.

Because it's a non issue. They don't asses it because they know he's better than the stats. You just don't get that.

And for the latter part, are you seriously comparing cricketer who rate Sobers highly to people who worship God? If Sobers is the mythical cricket God, then it must be said he has far more evidence to back him up than the real God, because all these tributes come from people who have SEEN him play and played alongside him, and not those who come to their conclusions based on stats or anecdotes

.

No, it's completely an issue. As I was trying to show with regards to stats and the praise he is given, it is not close enough to be true. One can say Martin Crowe is a better batsman than his stats imply. In that case, it could mean he is one of the best batsmen in the world at his time. It's not that far-fetched because he is statistically very good.

On the other hand, just how much better do you think Sobers' bowling could be? All else being equal, someone who averages 34, strikes at 92, does not deserve the same kind of recognition as someone who averages 30 and struck at 80, even. Saying Sobers was better than his stats suggest is plausible, but it still falls far short of the praise he is given.

The point re God is that people tend to believe in something without a completely rational reason to. It's not a strange phenomena. It can make sense not to rate Sobers. The validity of a subject is not reliant on how many people believe it to be true, but rather if it is provable. In this case, it is to an unhealthily degree reliant on hearsay.

a) I hate the logic of removing the good years of a cricketer to diminish their performances. As I said, why don't we remove Imran's best years as a batsman either?
b) Stats without context are meaningless, not facts. And what's worse is you're trying to heavily imply that your opinion = fact and that anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded, which is quite an outrageous claim to begin with since the people who would disagree with you are legends such as Benaud, Chappel, Gavaskar, Bradman, etc. It's so outrageous it's bordering on trolling; if you were here with less than a 100 posts I probably would have called you a troll and laughed your arguments off.

I'll address the rest of the post later, got to run now.

The good part of his career in this case is 6-7 years in a 20 year career. Even then, he was merely only "good". For the grand majority of his career he was crap. Taking it overall (34, 92) it is still not good enough. Alf Valentine who, in the scheme of things, is an ordinary spinner and he has a better average and SR than Sobers - who was ALSO a pace bowler.

If someone wants to try to make out that averages 34 and striking 92 is good, then the onus is on them to prove it. It is about as clearcut and as close as a fact as you can get that these kinds of figures are not good.

37 with the bat is about on par with 34 with the ball don't you think?


And I don't understand the logic behind removing Sobers' best years with the ball and comparing the rest. Why not do the same to Imran for his batting? You'll probably end up with an average of late-20s, which is mediocre, dire, and all those adjectives Ikki used.

No, it's not. Even for the last decade 37 is above the average batsman's average. 34 with the ball and striking 92 is not average for any decade, as far as I know. It is not even good for a spinner - in an era of less than notable spinners and full of part-timers.

The problem is you're using your subjective perception and failing to actually look into what the average batsman averaged or what the average bowler did to then gauge what is good/average/bad, etc.

 

[cnerd123]

So, what did some of these men, have to say about Sobers:

Richie Benaud, p 36:

'He was the greatest all-rounder the world has ever seen. He also finished up being one of the greatest batsman the world has seen.'

Tells us nothing about why.

Quote:
Geoff Boycott, p 41:

'Blessed with so much natural talent, gifted beyond imagination, a natural genius, he allied all that to concentration, determination, and great stamina, which allowed him to play long innings and make big scores. If you're picking any side he's got to be number one, because he can win you games with either his batting or bowling.'

One can be blessed with the world's total in natural talent...unless the result justifies the praise then natural talent is all that is there. His bowling will rarely win you games. Anyone who suggests his bowling would do such a thing, with regularity, is taking the piss.

Quote:
Sir Donald Bradman, p 42:

'Garry would be in my team for his batting alone....Garry was by far the best player of short pitched fast bowlers I ever saw. He was absolutely murderous, miraculous.... If you consider that he bowled left-hand fast-medium and spin with equal facility and great effect, he would also make any team as a bowler.'

Gary: great batsman and could bowl different ways.

However, he couldn't bowl very well for much of a period in his career.

Quote:
Greg Chappell, p 47:

'He was the greatest all-round cricketer that I have ever seen, and am ever likely to see. He could have played in any team as a fast bowler or as a batsman alone. Garry would walk into any side and be the outstanding player. He is the best batsman I have ever seen.'

Again, opinion based on subjective perception. He could play on any team as a fast bowler? Hah.

Quote:
Sunil Gavaskar, p 65:

'The greatest cricketer ever - he could do anything. He could bat, bowl fast, bowl spin and was a great fielder anywhere....You couldn't find a better all-round cricketer than him.'

He could do everything...but only some of them to a high degree.

Quote:
Sir Richard Hadlee, p 81:

'Sir Garfield would have to be the best all-rounder in the history of the game....He was a natural timer of the ball with all the shots: cuts, pulls, hooks and had the ability to be dynamic and explosive with sheer brilliance. He was a lively new ball swing bowler and if conditions suited, he could bowl left-arm orthodox spin. Add his athletic fielding and superb close-in catching, is there anyone better?'

Lively pace bowler when the conditions suited...apparently they didn't suit him often enough. Bowled left-arm orthodox...not to much success.

Quote:
Hanif Mohammed, p 83:

'The best player I ever played with or against. He was a four-in-one package of excellence. As a batsman he was sheer grace, as a new ball bowler he was very hostile in his first few overs, also a useful left-arm orthodox leg break, chinaman and googly bowler, and an excellent close-in fielder. There hasn't been another cricketer of comparable greatness to Garry Sobers.'

By that outline Andrew Symonds was a 4-in-one cricketer too.

1) Richie Benaud doesn't need to justify himself to you.
2) Yea, I'm sure Geoff Boycott was taking the piss
3) Bradman just said that he could bowl left arm spin and pace as well as he could bat. Bradman ffs. He actually batted against him. I can't believe you think you know more than Bradman about Sobers bowling just based on stats
4) Greg Chappell is one of Australia's best batsmen ever. He clearly rates Sobers higher. And quick reality check, Chappell > You. Hah.
5)
6)
7) So much fail in that statement. Symonds was never hostile with the new ball, a batsman of sheer grace.

Let me break it down for you, in case you think I care about your opinion: I don't. I might be inclined to if you actually have proper evidence to persuade me. Your opinion being based on another opinion is not an intelligent argument. When your argument is down to merely the perceptions of others - other than cold hard facts - that shows you have no real argument.

Let me break this down for you. What your whole post is saying is that basically:

a) You believe you know more about Sobers' talents than those who have played alongside him and seen him play, because you have stats
b) You liken those who put Sobers on a pedestal -after having seen him with their own eyes- as religious fanatics who worship an imaginary God
c) Therefore you believe anyone who thinks like them is being delusional or irrational, and that in this case the tiny minority who thinks otherwise is supposedly right
d) You believe that Stats > First Hand Experience when it comes to judging a cricketer.


I'm sorry, but you have no real argument. At all. You're passing off statistics that have no context as facts. Those aren't facts. What a fact is is that Sobers often had a brilliant bowling attack supporting him, and as such, played the role of the 4th or 5th Supporting bowler rather than the strike wicket taking bowler, whose role was to build pressure from one end and keep things tight, which he did phenomenally. When the mood struck him or the occasion called for it, he had the ability to take wickets.

I'll explore the stats later, and odds are they will prove as much.

 

[Sanz]

Imran stands out as a leader, from an historical perspective, as he got so much out of the previously disfunctional Pakistan set up. He was a great captain. In the sense of man management he seems to be overtly the best, or close to it.
.

While Imran was a great captain, it is often brought into discussion that Pakistan Cricket was highly dysfunctional before he came and this theory gets accepted as some sort of gospel mainly because of the current state of Pakistan Cricket.

Since you have brought up the historical perspective into it, From what I remember, Pakistan Cricket before and during Imran was not dysfunctional at all, yes it had its internal politics but so did India. It had its explosive character in Miandad, but Javed always gave his best for Pakistan regardless of the internal politics. Pakistan Cricket was still progressing before Imran became captain.

 

[Ikki]

1) Richie Benaud doesn't need to justify himself to you.
2) Yea, I'm sure Geoff Boycott was taking the piss
3) Bradman just said that he could bowl left arm spin and pace as well as he could bat. Bradman ffs. He actually batted against him. I can't believe you think you know more than Bradman about Sobers bowling just based on stats
4) Greg Chappell is one of Australia's best batsmen ever. He clearly rates Sobers higher. And quick reality check, Chappell > You. Hah.
5)
6)
7) So much fail in that statement. Symonds was never hostile with the new ball, a batsman of sheer grace.

So..."they're right because they're right". It's really an insult to intelligence now.

Let me break this down for you. What your whole post is saying is that basically:

a) You believe you know more about Sobers' talents than those who have played alongside him and seen him play, because you have stats
b) You liken those who put Sobers on a pedestal -after having seen him with their own eyes- as religious fanatics who worship an imaginary God
c) Therefore you believe anyone who thinks like them is being delusional or irrational, and that in this case the tiny minority who thinks otherwise is supposedly right
d) You believe that Stats > First Hand Experience when it comes to judging a cricketer.


I'm sorry, but you have no real argument. At all. You're passing off statistics that have no context as facts. Those aren't facts. What a fact is is that Sobers often had a brilliant bowling attack supporting him, and as such, played the role of the 4th or 5th Supporting bowler rather than the strike wicket taking bowler, whose role was to build pressure from one end and keep things tight, which he did phenomenally. When the mood struck him or the occasion called for it, he had the ability to take wickets.

I'll explore the stats later, and odds are they will prove as much.

I'm sorry, you haven't actually put forth any argument for me to debate you with.

 

[Burgey]

While Imran was a great captain, it is often brought into discussion that Pakistan Cricket was highly dysfunctional before he came and this theory gets accepted as some sort of gospel mainly because of the current state of Pakistan Cricket.

Since you have brought up the historical perspective into it, From what I remember, Pakistan Cricket before and during Imran was not dysfunctional at all, yes it had its internal politics but so did India. It had its explosive character in Miandad, but Javed always gave his best for Pakistan regardless of the internal politics. Pakistan Cricket was still progressing before Imran became captain.

Yeah this may well be right mate. I confess to having read about it with a fair bit of revisionism.

 

[cnerd123]

I have. My argument is that These Experts > You in actually cricket watching and playing experience and that These Experts > You in knowledge of Sobers through seeing or playing with him. Therefore, their Opinion > Yours. And you've not brought about any substantial argument apart from Statistics without Context. And as I said, Stats without any context behind them = rubbish. And what's worse is that you've removed Sober's best years from those stats, which makes them even more meaningless than they already are.

But if you want to debate on a statistical level, I'll provide the stats for you later on, and prove my argument of Sobers being a supporting bowler rather than strike bowler for majority of his career, thus explaining his stats.

 

[Top_Cat]

Imran definitely had the better all-round game.

 

[Sanz]

@***** :- I advise you that you leave that job for someone with CW experience .

I nominate Migara.

 

[Ikki]

I have. My argument is that These Experts > You in actually cricket watching and playing experience and that These Experts > You in knowledge of Sobers through seeing or playing with him. Therefore, their Opinion > Yours. And you've not brought about any substantial argument apart from Statistics without Context. And as I said, Stats without any context behind them = rubbish. And what's worse is that you've removed Sober's best years from those stats, which makes them even more meaningless than they already are.

But if you want to debate on a statistical level, I'll provide the stats for you later on, and prove my argument of Sobers being a supporting bowler rather than strike bowler for majority of his career, thus explaining his stats.

Gavaskar said Tendulkar is better than Bradman. I believe the opposite. Is his opinion correct too now?

Again, you are hiding behind opinions of others who can't begin to explain away his bowling record. Stats have to have context, sure. But 34,92 is not good in a 20 year career and especially during Sobers'. It is not good enough for the average bowler, spinner or otherwise. The amount of 4fer/5fers he has is not large enough to show he was a reliable match-winner with the ball. The onus is on you to show why averaging 34 and striking at 92 is good...show the context. Stop harping about how things "could" be different. Show it.

FTR, I have not removed Sobers' best years. His overall record is him averaging 34 and striking at 92. If I removed his few best years it really wouldn't be an argument. You'd be telling me an average of 40+ and striking at 100 is good. His stats aren't good even for a supporting bowler - one who bowled 39 overs a match.

For your interest; 1954-1974, bowling:

Sobers: avg. 34, sr. 92
Global: avg. 31, sr 80

 

[Jono]

Just to be fair, I don't mind people who rate Imran higher, but let's not paint it as if one or two people think Sobers was better. It is pretty much the opinion of almost every expert, commentator and player who watched or played against both those players.

It's fine if you think they are wrong, but don't pretend like it's only the view of a few.

 

[bagapath]

ikki.... i have only one issue with your argument.... that you dont equate, purely in terms of numbers, sobers' bowling average with imran's batting average. 34 with the ball and 37 with the bat mean the same to me. they are the equivalent of danish kaneria's bowling and atherton's batting. they carry the same weight from a team's persective.

since we dont have an issue in agreeing that sobers' batting and imran's bowling are of the highest caliber and roughly carry equal weight, i have taken my decision based on their relative strengths in their weaker departments.

i think statistically sobers' bowling = imran's batting. contextually, as sobers' bowling has contributed more to his team's cause that imran's batting, i happily hand him the winner's medal. as fielders, gary is miles ahead of imran anyway. that has also helped my decision significantly.

as test captains, there is not much between them. even if we think imran was ahead of gary in this respect, it doesnt change my decision because a) i didnt consider the captaincy factor b) even if i consider the advantage imran enjoys, if at all he has any, it wont off set the lead sobers has over him otherwise.

 

[Ikki]

There is a reason I don't equate. What is good, bad or average is relative. One has to look at an era's bowling or batting to see what the norm was. As I listed above:

For your interest; 1954-1974, bowling:

Sobers: avg. 34, sr. 92
Global: avg. 31, sr 80

Even during the 00s, a decade of high run scoring, the average batsman's average was 32 IIRC - compared to Imran's 37. It shows one was woefully below the average in his weaker discipline during his career, and the other was higher. Therefore they don't equate.

 

[Burgey]

But they're different cricketers FFS. If I have a team which is lacking in a new ball bowler, I'll have Imran. If I have a team that's light on for a top order batsman, I'll have Sobers.

That doesn't mean Sobers couldn't take new rock, nor does it mean Imran couldn't bat in the top order.

But they have different strengths.

If I was the current Australian set up, I'd have both.

 

[bagapath]

If I was the current Australian set up, I'd have both.

oh! that reminds me.... that i would have them both in any set up.... there is no way anyone can ever come up with better options for a batting allrounder - bowling allrounder combo than these two; even hammond-miller or kallis - botham would be significantly inferior to the sobers - imran combo.

ikki.... global batting average stat is an ass. it includes the averages of tailenders also. the global bowling average is a reliable stat because it is derived from the numbers of 4 or 5 bowlers in each innings. the batting stat, OTOH, is made up of all 11 batsmen. from imran's era, for example, it would include chandra and walsh's averages too. if i extend your logic i will have to conclude that marshall who averaged 10 runs below the global bowling average of 31 was roughly as good with the ball as aravinda de silva was with the bat, who averaged 10 more than the global batting average. see how silly it is?

let us stick to calling 30 as a good bowling average and 40 for batting. that makes better sense to me.

 

[Fusion]

While Imran was a great captain, it is often brought into discussion that Pakistan Cricket was highly dysfunctional before he came and this theory gets accepted as some sort of gospel mainly because of the current state of Pakistan Cricket.

Since you have brought up the historical perspective into it, From what I remember, Pakistan Cricket before and during Imran was not dysfunctional at all, yes it had its internal politics but so did India. It had its explosive character in Miandad, but Javed always gave his best for Pakistan regardless of the internal politics. Pakistan Cricket was still progressing before Imran became captain.

Yeah this may well be right mate. I confess to having read about it with a fair bit of revisionism.

No, Pakistan cricket was highly dysfunctional before Imran took over. Javed always gave his best, but he couldn't control the massive egos and individualistic behavior. In short, he (or other captains before Imran), couldn't get the players to function as a team. There were many player revolts against Javed and others. Now, to the discredit of Imran, he did give his tacit approval to the last player revolt that finally forced Javed to relinquish the captaincy. But the brutal fact is that Javed just didn't have the charisma and the leadership to control the wild bunch. Imran did. Once he took control, no one dared to attempt a player revolt. He demanded that everyone played for the good of the team or they would be kicked out. He demanded, and received, the best from each person by the sheer power of his personality. His brilliant leadership of this highly violatile bunch we call Pakistani players cannot be understated. Just look at the **** we've had to deal with since he left. Remember that ATG's like Javed, Wasim, and Waqar became captains after Imran and never matched his achievements nor his ability to unite/lead the team. I suppose Inzi came the closest, but we can all agree that even he had daylight to catch before matching Imran in the captaincy department. It's no coincidence that the match fixing scandal truly hit Pakistan after Imran retired. Can you imagine any of those players from the '90's, or the disgraced trio from today, getting away with it if Imran was captain? Do you think that Shoaib or Asif would've pulled all their disgraceful stunts under Imran? I can't. One can debate whether he's the best AR ever, or the best bowler, or heck even the most handsome cricketer ever if you want. But I don't think there should be any debate that he was the best Captain and leader that Pakistan ever had.