Garry Sobers-A master of black magic?

[Richard]

Obviously, but the individuals within a team do not have to perform the same way for a team to be just as successful. In SL the batsman and spinners might to better, whereas in NZ the fast bowlers would do better and even though the 'team' performs similarly, the individual components do not have to.

And that's why you cannot compare players like you are doing. You changed the debate from a player to a team, which is incorrect.

Obviously there are variables (as there are in Test cricket), which will most obviously apply to spinners. Nonetheless, a good batsman will have a good First-Class average. And most batsmen who play any amount of international cricket will play First-Class cricket in a wide variety of countries.

 

[silentstriker]

Nonetheless, a good batsman will have a good First-Class average.

What the heck does this have to do with the debate? I am saying that the FC average is irrelevant once you have a sufficient amount of Test match statistics, because Tests are the highest level of competition and if an FC average is significantly higher, the only thing that signifies is that they are better at beating sub-par competition, or are only good in specific regions that they've played in.

 

[J.J.B.Lewis]

Miller was undoubtedly the better batsman, Imran the better bowler, yes. But the difference was probably greater in Miller's batting.

IMO,the difference between their bowling was more than their batting(I also don't a crap to FC averages).

Imran Khan>>Keith Miller

 

[Matt79]

So why is the FC average of players worth considering, when you've shown a marked readiness to disregard Test records because the standard was not high enough, in your opinion? Even in the days of weaker test bowling attacks that are sometimes mentioned here, those attacks were considerably better than the vast majority of FC attacks...

 

[Richard]

What the heck does this have to do with the debate? I am saying that the FC average is irrelevant once you have a sufficient amount of Test match statistics, because Tests are the highest level of competition and if an FC average is significantly higher, the only thing that signifies is that they are better at beating sub-par competition, or are only good in specific regions that they've played in.

The simple point I am alluding to is that saying, for instance, "John Crawley wasn't that good because by-and-large he was a Test failure". That ignores the fact that he was an excellent batsman at a certain level.

 

[Richard]

So why is the FC average of players worth considering, when you've shown a marked readiness to disregard Test records because the standard was not high enough, in your opinion? Even in the days of weaker test bowling attacks that are sometimes mentioned here, those attacks were considerably better than the vast majority of FC attacks...

As many people have done in the past (Fuller when I praise Craig White and talk down Glenn McGrath, for instance) you're applying context to where it is not applicable.

Those two are completely separate issues, as are my comments on White and McGrath in that other example. I've never once said White was a better bowler than McGrath.

 

[silentstriker]

The simple point I am alluding to is that saying, for instance, "John Crawley wasn't that good because by-and-large he was a Test failure". That ignores the fact that he was an excellent batsman at a certain level.

When someone says John Crawley wasn't that good because by and large he was a Test failure, they always mean 'John Crawley wasn't good at the Test level by the standards of other Test batsmen'. They do not mean 'John Crawley was so bad that even I could bat better than him.'

 

[Richard]

Not everyone does, you see. Some would have you believe that the fact that someone failed at the Test level means that everything else is totally irrelevant and that player is very mediocre.

 

[silentstriker]

Not everyone does, you see. Some would have you believe that the fact that someone failed at the Test level means that everything else is totally irrelevant and that player is very mediocre.

They are mediocre, by the standard of Tests. No one on this forum, nor anyone that I have ever talked to means anything else by it. And unless you want everyone to start saying 'relatively crap', I think it is pretty much understood that when I say 'Symonds is crap', I mean 'Symonds batting is not Test quality'. It does not mean 'If I were in place of Symonds in the Australian Test team, I'd do better or that I could get him out if he faced me.'

 

[Matt79]

As many people have done in the past (Fuller when I praise Craig White and talk down Glenn McGrath, for instance) you're applying context to where it is not applicable.

Those two are completely separate issues, as are my comments on White and McGrath in that other example. I've never once said White was a better bowler than McGrath.

Just as I never accused you of saying that. You are applying a context where it is not applicable tbh...

You seem to be saying that while some test performances are irrelevant because the standard is not high enough, in other instances FC performances where the standard was in fact lower than the aforementioned test matches ARE relevant. If so, I don't see how my question to you isn't applicable, from a consistency point of view.

 

[Richard]

Just as I never accused you of saying that. You are applying a context where it is not applicable tbh...

You seem to be saying that while some test performances are irrelevant because the standard is not high enough, in other instances FC performances where the standard was in fact lower than the aforementioned test matches ARE relevant. If so, I don't see how my question to you isn't applicable, from a consistency point of view.

But I'm never saying anything is irrelevant - just saying different things have different values.

Never have I said domestic-First-Class runs are worth more than Test runs in, say, 2003.

 

[Richard]

They are mediocre, by the standard of Tests. No one on this forum, nor anyone that I have ever talked to means anything else by it. And unless you want everyone to start saying 'relatively crap', I think it is pretty much understood that when I say 'Symonds is crap', I mean 'Symonds batting is not Test quality'. It does not mean 'If I were in place of Symonds in the Australian Test team, I'd do better or that I could get him out if he faced me.'

Judging everything by the standards of Tests pisses me off, frankly - and using the Test level as the standard yardstick. Almost everyone will never get remotely close to that level.

 

[silentstriker]

Judging everything by the standards of Tests pisses me off, frankly - and using the Test level as the standard yardstick. Almost everyone will never get remotely close to that level.

But we aren't judging 'everyone'. Generally speaking, we talk about players who are Test players or in contention for a Test spot. We are not having a debate on whether Neil Pickup would be a good wicketkeeper for England, or whether silentstriker can bounce out Sehwag. So when judging Test players, or those in contention for those spots, Test standard should be the only standard used.

 

[marc71178]

Except that no one has made an argument based on a single statistic. They're based on ALL the available bowling statistics. Only his economy is worthy of note, otherwise all else - average, strike-rate, 4-fer/5-fer - point to him being average at best.

Same could be said about Imran's batting.

 

[silentstriker]

Same could be said about Imran's batting.

But no one is claiming that Imran was a great batsman.

 

[Anil]

There aren't "plenty" of giants, there are a few.

don't quibble about the choice of words, there are enough for it not to be an exception...

There are some succcessful players who can't bridge the gap, yes.

if they can't bridge the gap, that means they aren't successful at least at international level...

For some the gap is large, for some it's small.

don't know what you mean with this, the gap is the same for everyone, it's the ease with which they move across the gap that's different, maybe you don't get that concept...

Mostly the failures to step-up are due to technical shortcomings.

of course, that's obvious...

 

[roseboy64]

But no one is claiming that Imran was a great batsman.

No one's saying Sobers was a great bowler either, just not as bad as some make him out to have been.

 

[silentstriker]

No one's saying Sobers was a great bowler either, just not as bad as some make him out to have been.

I never said anyone was. I argued for Sobers in the best ever stakes in fact .

 

[roseboy64]

That's so but some are making Imran out to be a 3-6 position batsman.

 

[silentstriker]

That's so but some are making Imran out to be a 3-6 position batsman.

In 20 matches at #6, he averages 61.86, and in 4 matches at #5, he averages 54.66. So he certainly was, once in a while, a very good #3-#6 batsman for Pakistan. No one is claiming he'd be #3-#6 in an all time side. Just like Sobers was a very good opening bowler for WI for a while, but no one is claiming he'd open the bowling in an all time side.