Celebrating Sir Garry Sobers - The Bowler

[SJS]

fabulous meaning, perhaps, fabulous when he bowled seam but not so great when he bowled spin as the conditions didn't aid that type????????

Well I was refering to his playing for a state side in the Sheffield Shield. I thought that was clear when I said when he started playing in Australia.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, during those three years he bowled at about his fastest and was second (after Davidson) in the Australian first class figures for those three years, leaving behind Australian bowlers like Benaud and Neil Hawke.

A lot was written in those days about Sobers' quick bowling, CLR James, the celebrated writer from the Caribbean, going to the extent of calling him the best new ball bowler in the world at that time.

One may disagree with James but there is no doubt that he was bowling magnificiently in the quick bowlers role at that time.

 

[SJS]

Sorry, but that's just a ridiculously ignorant comment to make.

No surprises there.

 

[Ikki]

fabulous meaning, perhaps, fabulous when he bowled seam but not so great when he bowled spin as the conditions didn't aid that type????????

AFAIK, Australia has always been generally seam friendly and Sydney better for spin.

Dear HB, his averages are a balancing act, either he was that poor of a spinner - which they say he wasn't - and very good as a medium pacer, but for some reason wouldn't take advantage of that ; or he was an average spinner and average medium pacer which means his exploits with pace may have been decent but not enough to turn his spin performance.

And even that's a stretch. We are talking about some horrible figures here. And you know what, this was in his "peak" period. This is the thing with subjective opinion that is dangerous. Cases don't get any clearer than this, but somehow we still have some denial. People don't remember how expensive Sobers was on the whole, they remember snippets they want to.

 

[Ikki]

when he started playing in Australia

That's very clear.

But as I thought, it was less likely to be about Test cricket...because it is less likely to exist.

 

[Ikki]

A lot was written in those days about Sobers' quick bowling, CLR James, the celebrated writer from the Caribbean, going to the extent of calling him the best new ball bowler in the world at that time.

One may disagree with James but there is no doubt that he was bowling magnificiently in the quick bowlers role at that time.

And why is it that he did so poorly then when it came to facing the Australian test side? Doesn't make sense. One of the best quick bowlers of that time, on pitches that were suited for it...yet he averaged 40, SR 95?

 

[Ikki]

As I have mentioned elsewhere, during those three years he bowled at about his fastest and was second (after Davidson) in the Australian first class figures for those three years, leaving behind Australian bowlers like Benaud and Neil Hawke.

I decided to check this out, and it's wrong. One of the better bowlers in the competition, but was really only better than Benaud in his last year where Benaud was out for half the games and averaged 44 - so gotta beware of what you're actually saying there.

Looking at the averages across those years: Davidson (who was clearly better), Benaud, Philpot, Connolly, an end of career Meckiff, Gallash, Bevan, Gaunt, Hoare, Sobers' buddy Hall, all guys as good or better than Sobers, in one or more years. Across all 3 years he places behind Davidson, Benaud, Connolly, Meckiff and is probably slightly ahead of Hall.

 

[Sanz]

West Indies in Australia, 1968–69 - Henry Blofeld

Australia 3 West Indies 1


"......The West Indies were also unfortunately handicapped by the piece of floating bone in Sobers' left shoulder which caused him a lot of discomfort and prevented him from bowling his back-of-the-hand, left-arm spin. Sobers also suffered from the effects for having played too much cricket over the previous eighteen months. All the same the more experienced batsmen all showed glimpses of their old form and if only they had had an example to follow they would surely have worked out their difficulties, as indeed they would have done ten years before with their reputations still to make.


In terms of figures Sobers himself had a good tour, though by his own standards not an outstanding one. The biggest success of all was Carew. He was lucky to win a place in the touring party and fortunate to be picked for the First Test, but once in the side he looked a better player each time he went to the wicket and vastly different from the man who toured England in 1963 and 1966. Fredericks also promised well for the future and when he learns to get his front foot nearer the ball he should become a regular member of the future West Indies sides. Findlay, from the Windward Islands, showed that he would in time make a worthy successor to Hendriks behind the stumps, but Camacho, who batted well against England the previous winter, lost form over Christmas and never had the chance to regain it thereafter. In the final analysis the West Indies failed to win the series because their bowling was not strong enough, but they lost it because their batting was so unreliable......."

Bowling         O     M   Runs  W   5WI 10WM BB    Avge
L.R.Gibbs       292.2 52  913   24  1   0    5-88  38.04
W.W.Hall        75.7  5   325   8   0   0    3-113 40.62
G.St A.Sobers   206.1 37  733   18  1   0    6-73  40.72
C.C.Griffith    104   8   430   8   0   0    3-175 53.75
D.A.J.Holford   72.5  8   290   4   0   0    2-88  72.50
M.C.Carew       59    9   238   3   0   0    1-30  79.33
R.M.Edwards     52    2   274   3   0   0    2-139 91.33

Despite the injury - One can see that Sobers' figures are comparable (if not better).

 

[Ikki]

"In terms of figures Sobers himself had a good tour" - let that just stick out showing what were considered good figures.

 

[Ikki]

Bowling         O     M   Runs  W   5WI 10WM BB    Avge
L.R.Gibbs       292.2 52  913   24  1   0    5-88  38.04
W.W.Hall        75.7  5   325   8   0   0    3-113 40.62
G.St A.Sobers   206.1 37  733   18  1   0    6-73  40.72
C.C.Griffith    104   8   430   8   0   0    3-175 53.75
D.A.J.Holford   72.5  8   290   4   0   0    2-88  72.50
M.C.Carew       59    9   238   3   0   0    1-30  79.33
R.M.Edwards     52    2   274   3   0   0    2-139 91.33

You should probably add the strike-rates.

Gibbs: 95.5
Hall: 75.8
Sobers: 91.6

Pretty disastrous when you look at how they fared in 61:

Bowling         O     M   R     W   5WI 10WM BB    Avge
L.R.Gibbs       192.2 65  395   19  2   0    5-97  20.79
W.W.Hall        142.6 14  616   21  1   0    5-63  29.33
F.M.M.Worrell   134   34  357   10  0   0    3-27  35.70
A.L.Valentine   170.4 42  533   14  0   0    4-67  38.07
G.St A.Sobers   191   27  588   15  1   0    5-120 39.20
S.Ramadhin      37    4   138   3   0   0    1-21  46.00

SR:
Gibbs: 80.9
Hall: 55.1
Worrell: 107.2
Valentine: 97.4
Sobers: 101.8

 

[Richard]

I take Sobers on his overall, not his peak. To judge him on his peak vs someone on near retirement or debut is pretty irrelevant comparison to me. If you are judging his peak, then judge them against the players at their peak.

Sobers would not walk into any of these sides, in fact it's debatable he'd get a look in them.

Thing is, though, your contention was that Sobers would never at any point have made any sides currently as a bowler, which is plain false. There are many players who are not on peak currently - and who knows, maybe many who never will be.

ADD: Johnson has not been poor at all. He's been average, but such is the standard in Australia that we need someone who can be world-class. Otherwise in comparison with many others around the world he's not doing too shabbily for a newbie.

Johnson has been poor so far, and Sobers of more of his career than not would've been a better bowler than he ever has been yet.

 

[Ikki]

Thing is, though, your contention was that Sobers would never at any point have made any sides currently as a bowler, which is plain false. There are many players who are not on peak currently - and who knows, maybe many who never will be.

Thing is, though, that wasn't my contention at all and something you've just made up.

Johnson has been poor so far, and Sobers of more of his career than not would've been a better bowler than he ever has been yet.

Why do you keep saying Mitchell Johnson has been poor so far? He's been anything but. He's been average when you look at his overall career but even at this stage sits better than Sobers did for most of his career. Comparing directly or era for era. Sobers for most of his career wasn't a good bowler, even most his fans acknowledge this. Apart from his 30 test peak, he's been averaging about 40 and striking incredibly slowly for the other 63 tests. Not only that, he has 8 4fers where Johnson has 3 having played 10 times many less matches.

Johnson as it stands has only 9 tests. Hold your horses. One is being picked to be a future leading specialist bowler. The other was a clear batting all-rounder. If Johnson was to be replaced it would never be for the caliber of someone like Sobers. Sobers would not get a look in at the Australia side.

 

[Sanz]

Assuming Sobers bowled as a fast bowler when he opened bowling for his team, Here are his stats as an opening bowler :-

Grouping Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI  BBM   Ave   Econ  SR   5

Overall  22   39  6275  2214  72  6/73  7/98 30.75 2.11  87.1 2 
v Aus     4    7  1235   490  17  6/73 7/103 28.82 2.38  72.6 1 
v Eng    11   20  3163  1127  32  5/42 7/110 35.21 2.13  98.8 1 
v Ind     2    4   623   210  10  4/56  7/98 21.00 2.02  62.3 0 
v NZ      5    8  1254   387  13  4/64  4/64 29.76 1.85  96.4 0 
in Aus    3    5  1049   413  13  6/73 7/103 31.76 2.36  80.6 1 
in Eng    7   14  2053   708  23  5/42 7/110 30.78 2.06  89 2 1 
in Ind    1    2   293    98   7  4/56  7/98 14.00 2.00  41.8 0 
in NZ     1    2   312    91   3  3/70  3/91 30.33 1.75 104.0 0  
in WI    10   16  2568   904  26  4/64 6/125 34.76 2.11  98.7 0

 

[Richard]

Thing is, though, that wasn't my contention at all and something you've just made up.

This was the quote this came from

The fact of the matter is that, purely on the basis of his bowling, Sobers would get into most test sides of today.

to which you basically said "no he wouldn't", with a slight paraphrase.

And, purely and simply, at the time he was a good bowler, he would. No, obviously he wouldn't have at the time he was averaging 50 with the ball. But that's so obvious it barely needs stating. You seem to have the misconception that others' careers went or are going up and down and Sobers' didn't. Sobers for a fair portion of his career was a better bowler than many going around currently are currently.

Why do you keep saying Mitchell Johnson has been poor so far? He's been anything but. He's been average when you look at his overall career but even at this stage sits better than Sobers did for most of his career. Comparing directly or era for era. Sobers for most of his career wasn't a good bowler, even most his fans acknowledge this. Apart from his 30 test peak, he's been averaging about 40 and striking incredibly slowly for the other 63 tests. Not only that, he has 8 4fers where Johnson has 3 having played 10 times many less matches.

Johnson as it stands has only 9 tests. Hold your horses. One is being picked to be a future leading specialist bowler. The other was a clear batting all-rounder. If Johnson was to be replaced it would never be for the caliber of someone like Sobers. Sobers would not get a look in at the Australia side.

Johnson has been poor to date, there's no guarantee he'll get any better, and if Sobers was bowling as he was in his time as a good bowler (however many Tests that was) he'd play ahead of Johnson, no questions asked.

 

[Sanz]

Pretty disastrous when you look at how they fared in 61:

Bowling         O     M   R     W   5WI 10WM BB    Avge
L.R.Gibbs       192.2 65  395   19  2   0    5-97  20.79
W.W.Hall        142.6 14  616   21  1   0    5-63  29.33
F.M.M.Worrell   134   34  357   10  0   0    3-27  35.70
A.L.Valentine   170.4 42  533   14  0   0    4-67  38.07
G.St A.Sobers   191   27  588   15  1   0    5-120 39.20
S.Ramadhin      37    4   138   3   0   0    1-21  46.00

SR:
Gibbs: 80.9
Hall: 55.1
Worrell: 107.2
Valentine: 97.4
Sobers: 101.8

Was going to post that as well. Now, take a look at the Sydney test where Valentine and Gibbs got almost half of their wickets and Sober bowled mainly as the fast bowler.

Stats on face value tell you that Sobers was not as good as Gibbs/Valentine in that series, yet his allround ability is clearly visible. Sobers would have better figure than all had he been bowling spinners @ Sydney in the 61 series.

 

[Sanz]

You should probably add the strike-rates.

Gibbs: 95.5
Hall: 75.8
Sobers: 91.6

And that argument goes in Sobers' favor too.

 

[Ikki]

This was the quote this came from to which you basically said "no he wouldn't", with a slight paraphrase.

I said he wouldn't, without paraphrase in this way:

Most of the weaker ones I think you mean.

The fact that people tout the aggregate amounts of wickets is not enough. Kapil Dev took 434 wickets. Judging by wickets taken, he is in the top handful of fast bowlers, ever - in fact, 3rd all-time, which he certainly is not.

So wickets have to be considered with how many runs were conceded for each wicket and how many balls/overs too.

That gives no indication what peroid I was talking about. Sorry, Richard, if you think I meant that - and I don't see how you thought that - then you were wrong.

And, purely and simply, at the time he was a good bowler, he would. No, obviously he wouldn't have at the time he was averaging 50 with the ball. But that's so obvious it barely needs stating. You seem to have the misconception that others' careers went or are going up and down and Sobers' didn't. Sobers for a fair portion of his career was a better bowler than many going around currently are currently.

Only Sobers at his best would qualify and even then it is still debatable considering even in his 'peak' period he only averaged sub 30 against India. He was also noticeably better in England.

I don't have the misconception you are attributing to me. In fact, I addressed this very point of "ups and downs" when I said you can only compare a new bowler or an old bowler with Sobers either some fair overall method or at that same stage of Sobers' own career.

How do you compare Sobers with players like Broad and Johnson who both have less than 10 Test matches each. You can't unless you are talking purely when Sobers was at the same age. There is a reason why their records aren't as good as they could be, and it has more to do with experience than talent. Whereas Sobers' talent and experience has started and ended already.

Johnson has been poor to date, there's no guarantee he'll get any better, and if Sobers was bowling as he was in his time as a good bowler (however many Tests that was) he'd play ahead of Johnson, no questions asked.

How has Johnson been poor to date? Averages low 30s and low 60s SR.

And the issue doesn't stop with simply replacing Johnson the bowler, but filling that gap for Australia. If Sobers was in contention he'd be in a long line behind many Australian domestic bowlers. End of story. Johnson is only being tried out, he isn't even established himself, whether he fails or succeeds is upto him, but he won't be replaced by someone of the caliber of Sobers.

 

[Ikki]

Was going to post that as well. Now, take a look at the Sydney test where Valentine and Gibbs got almost half of their wickets and Sober bowled mainly as the fast bowler.

Gibbs missed the first two tests. But, guess what, in the remaining 2 (there are 3, but excluding Sydney, of course) he still did better than Sobers. In the last 2 Tests alone Gibbs took 11 in 2 tests wickets where Sobers took 13 for the rest of 4 tests.

Tests played discounting 3rd Sydney Test

Stats on face value tell you that Sobers was not as good as Gibbs/Valentine in that series, yet his allround ability is clearly visible. Sobers would have better figure than all had he been bowling spinners @ Sydney in the 61 series.

The above clearly disputes this.

Actually, even without that match he is still clearly behind the others. And it's actually false to think he would have taken more wickets. Why? WIndies insisted on Valentine and Gibbs because they were getting the most out of the ground and taking wickets. Similarly, to Mendis and Murali against India. You don't take a hot attack out.

In that event, he still bowled more than Hall and Worrell. You don't build a very strong case.

And that argument goes in Sobers' favor too.

It wasn't to be in favour or not in favour of anyone. Just an accurate reflection of the events.

 

[Sanz]

Gibbs missed the first two tests. But, guess what, in the remaining 2 (there are 3, but excluding Sydney, of course) he still did better than Sobers. In the last 2 Tests alone Gibbs took 11 in 2 tests wickets where Sobers took 13 for the rest of 4 tests.

Tests played discounting 3rd Sydney Test

The above clearly disputes this.

Actually, even without that match he is still clearly behind the others. And it's actually false to think he would have taken more wickets. Why? WIndies insisted on Valentine and Gibbs because they were getting the most out of the ground and taking wickets. Similarly, to Mendis and Murali against India. You don't take a hot attack out.

In that event, he still bowled more than Hall and Worrell. You don't build a very strong case.

Duh..Sobers was alternating between Spin and pace bowling despite that In the two tests where he got to bowl lot of overs with Gibbs, he outbowled Gibbs (10 Wickets with a SR of 72) His average was higher because he was more expensive.

The only reason Valentine was included because Sober's ability to bowl quick allowed his captain to drop a quick bowler and use Sobers as one. Obviously It was not humanly possible for Sobers to bat and score a century, open the bowling and then again come back and bowl 50 overs as a spinner.

 

[zaremba]

... and still the thread "Celebrating Sir Garfield Sobers - The Bowler" continues to be hijacked in a wrist-slashingly tedious way...

 

[Sanz]

In the first two tests where Valentine played with Sobers, Sobers outbowled Valentine. Not saying that Sobers was better or worse than Valentine/Gibbs, but just that he was fairly comparable. So it is wrong to assume that he wouldn't have been successful with his spinners if he were to bowl spin @ Sydney.