Garry Sobers, The Bowler?

[Ikki]

The point hasn't been that he wasn't an all-time great bowler. It's that bar a few years in his career he hasn't even been an average one.

Yes, it has been discussed to death.

 

[Teja.]

Seriously, hasnt this argument been done to death? So Sobers wasnt an all time great bowler, no AR in history was great at both disciplines. No doubt a bowling all rounder is of greater value to a team (Imo) than a batting allrounder. But in an all time team Sobers moon walks his way in because (Bradman apart) he is as good/better or negligibly inferiror to ne other great batsman, but a much better fielder than most and he can bowl too.

Mate,

1. I wouldn't know of those great debates, because I'm new(Atleast until Ikki linked me to one)

2. I'm not comparing him to other all-rounders at all.

3. He walks into my team too, because of his non-bowling skills.

However, the point of the thread was to know why a bowler who is generally considered to be a very good bowler has poor statistics? Does he suffer due to his longevity, or lack of support et al.? And also to find out if people were really willing to bowl Sobers as a fifth bowler in their AT XI instead of five specialist ATG bowlers?

 

[Slifer]

Oh well my bad then. I personally wouldnt bowl Sobers as a frontline bowler in general, although as a paceman I would. Thats y the bowling attack of the so called all time Wi attack picked by the so called criicinfo experts makes no sense whatsoever. Lance gibbs is negligibly better than Sobers s a spinner (diff of 5 runs), which means that if WI really needed a spinner they could use Sobers as such and replace Gibbs with ne other pacemen (particularly Joel Garner -the most underrated paceman ever) who were infinitely better than Gibbs

 

[Teja.]

Oh well my bad then. I personally wouldnt bowl Sobers as a frontline bowler in general, although as a paceman I would. Thats y the bowling attack of the so called all time Wi attack picked by the so called criicinfo experts makes no sense whatsoever. Lance gibbs is negligibly better than Sobers s a spinner (diff of 5 runs), which means that if WI really needed a spinner they could use Sobers as such and replace Gibbs with ne other pacemen (particularly Joel Garner -the most underrated paceman ever) who were infinitely better than Gibbs

Yeah, That XI was a complete joke. I would have picked Garner right after Marshall tbh.

 

[smash84]

This one has been debated a lot.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/23849-garry-sobers-master-black-magic.html

Thanks for the link

The point hasn't been that he wasn't an all-time great bowler. It's that bar a few years in his career he hasn't even been an average one.

Yes, it has been discussed to death.

Ikki.....like Imran said to Miandad after the 1988 series against WI that he handed it to him as a batsman from that series.......after reading your arguments in that thread I must hand it to you as a debater ..........(not that you need my certification .....)

You were by far the best debater in that thread IMO...... and I would now have to put your argument skills somewhere near the top of the pile on the CW pantheon of posters.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah he's a great debater when it comes to taking a piss on ne one else's greats while defending his precious Aussies. Nothing wrong with that of course Australia have produced some of the greatest cricketers of all time. But I think sometimes he needs to just accept that other countries have produced greats as well, some of whom match and even outplayed his idols.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

If an AT side has Hadlee,Imran,Wasim,Warne and Murali(or any 5 ATG bowlers),then Sobers' bowling wouldn't be needed.Therefore the fact that he can bowl shouldn't give him extra points if it came down to him and say,Lara or Richards.If there are only 4 regular bowlers then Sobers' bowling comes into the equation.

Btw,IK averaged 50 with the bat and 19(?) with the ball over a 50 test period,so the statement that there hasn't been an all rounder great at both disciplines is very debatable.

 

[Ikki]

Above the belt please, but not in the face . Actually, when I first joined here I was less statistically inclined and was just like everyone else - considered Sobers the greatest all-rounder without a thought. Now, I'd put Miller and Imran ahead of him. Wouldn't give him a bowl in my all-time XI side unless it was some really desperate move - so he gets into my side for the fantastic batsman/fielder he was and not anything else.

I just think Sobers is so far out statistically as a bowler it's not even logical when you look at the praise they give him as a bowler.

Some things stats can't describe and are flawed enough for there to be doubt...but if a batsman is considered a great averaging 30 when every other great is averaging 50...then those kind of stats are pretty damning. Anyway, all my arguments about it are in that thread. I've probably changed my stance on a few of the points in that thread but more or less the same overall opinion.

 

[zaremba]

A thread worth reading to answer the question posted by the original post.

 

[Ikki]

I think there was also a good thread where we compared him to Kallis questioning why Kallis is so underrated when his stats are up there with Sobers'.

 

[zaremba]

Yep. But I loved the "celebration" thread because it largely avoided getting side-tracked into an endless hideous stats meltdown like most threads, but instead concentrated on what was good about Sobers' bowling. CW at its best.

 

[Slifer]

If an AT side has Hadlee,Imran,Wasim,Warne and Murali(or any 5 ATG bowlers),then Sobers' bowling wouldn't be needed.Therefore the fact that he can bowl shouldn't give him extra points if it came down to him and say,Lara or Richards.If there are only 4 regular bowlers then Sobers' bowling comes into the equation.

Btw,IK averaged 50 with the bat and 19(?) with the ball over a 50 test period,so the statement that there hasn't been an all rounder great at both disciplines is very debatable.

I know that but I meant over a career not over a particluar period. He did that in 50 tests which implies he was next to rubbish in the other 38 odd tests.

 

[smash84]

Above the belt please, but not in the face . Actually, when I first joined here I was less statistically inclined and was just like everyone else - considered Sobers the greatest all-rounder without a thought. Now, I'd put Miller and Imran ahead of him. Wouldn't give him a bowl in my all-time XI side unless it was some really desperate move - so he gets into my side for the fantastic batsman/fielder he was and not anything else.

I just think Sobers is so far out statistically as a bowler it's not even logical when you look at the praise they give him as a bowler.

Some things stats can't describe and are flawed enough for there to be doubt...but if a batsman is considered a great averaging 30 when every other great is averaging 50...then those kind of stats are pretty damning. Anyway, all my arguments about it are in that thread. I've probably changed my stance on a few of the points in that thread but more or less the same overall opinion.

Well...to be honest I too rated Sobers as the best ever all rounder without thinking BEFORE I read your arguments.....you make some convincing arguments in your favor and throw the challenge at some of the other posters who are not able to bring very strong arguments to back their claim.

One of the best debates I have seen on CW so far (if not the best. TBH I am very new here). For once someone almost changed my mind. I say almost because my head is still reeling with all the stats and arguments that everyone put into that thread and that despite such convincing arguments from you my heart still finds it difficult to accept that Sobers can't be all that great as a rounded all-rounder as some of the others who succeed him.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's hard to word what I'm about to say without sounding like the worst kind of patronising **** (plus ca change and all that) and I'll preface it by saying the great man's test career was over before I was even born, but for the most part it does seem to be chaps who've seen only the barest glimpses of Sir Garfield's bowling who talk it down. People who saw him in action contemporaneously and those he actually bowled to seem more inclined pay it its full due.

Sobers, by most accounts, seems to have been the opposite of Kallis as a bowler. Jacques is only too glad to turn his arm over when faced with swinging conditions or a green seamer (or poo opposition) but rather less so when conditions are less clement. Sir Garfield seems to have been more prepared to do the hard yakka.

 

[smash84]

I know that but I meant over a career not over a particluar period. He did that in 50 tests which implies he was next to rubbish in the other 38 odd tests.

I wouldn't say he was rubbish in the other 38 as a bowler. His bowling average was around 25 before he became captain I think. Batting might be rubbish though.

 

[Slifer]

Above the belt please, but not in the face . Actually, when I first joined here I was less statistically inclined and was just like everyone else - considered Sobers the greatest all-rounder without a thought. Now, I'd put Miller and Imran ahead of him. Wouldn't give him a bowl in my all-time XI side unless it was some really desperate move - so he gets into my side for the fantastic batsman/fielder he was and not anything else.

I just think Sobers is so far out statistically as a bowler it's not even logical when you look at the praise they give him as a bowler.

Some things stats can't describe and are flawed enough for there to be doubt...but if a batsman is considered a great averaging 30 when every other great is averaging 50...then those kind of stats are pretty damning. Anyway, all my arguments about it are in that thread. I've probably changed my stance on a few of the points in that thread but more or less the same overall opinion.

Nice try Ikki but I distinctly remember u also calling into question Sobers' status as an all time great batsmen. Sumthing along the lines of: he plundered runs vs the minnows of his time (Pak and Ind) who were both on the same level as Zimbabwe of the 90s.

Ps its worth noting that Keith Miller himself once hailed that Bradman was the greatest batsman of all time but that Sobers was the best cricketer. (not that i agree but that does say sumthng)

 

[smash84]

A thread worth reading to answer the question posted by the original post.

Thanks for this thread. I should take time out to read it after reading so much of bad things that Ikki has said about the bowling of one of my favorite ever cricketers.

 

[Slifer]

I wouldn't say he was rubbish in the other 38 as a bowler. His bowling average was around 25 before he became captain I think. Batting might be rubbish though.

Please note that I rate Imran very highly. In fact all things considered he may very well be the best all rounder (i think he is 2nd only to Sobers) and certainly the 3rd best cricketer of all.

 

[smash84]

Please note that I rate Imran very highly. In fact all things considered he may very well be the best all rounder (i think he is 2nd only to Sobers) and certainly the 3rd best cricketer of all.

I know you rate him pretty highly but "certainly the 3rd best cricketer"..........Slifer do you always make statements that are difficult to defend ...........a case can be made but to say that with certainty might be stretching it IMO.

 

[Ikki]

Nice try Ikki but I distinctly remember u also calling into question Sobers' status as an all time great batsmen. Sumthing along the lines of: he plundered runs vs the minnows of his time (Pak and Ind) who were both on the same level as Zimbabwe of the 90s.

Ps its worth noting that Keith Miller himself once hailed that Bradman was the greatest batsman of all time but that Sobers was the best cricketer. (not that i agree but that does say sumthng)

IIRC, that was due to someone saying some other batsman/batsmen scored against minnows when I said his average is probably higher than it should be. India, Pakistan and NZ were much weaker at that time and there was a difference between those 3 and Aus, Eng and Sobers' own WI. I don't think that's controversial actually. I'd still consider him the greatest #6 ever.

I had heard that by Miller actually. Personally, I am big on looking at contemporary or historical rating by other players. But that is usually when a player is in the statistical vicinity - as I do with Viv v Chappell and Lillee v Hadlee/Marshall.

It's probably my own tragedy that I'll never get to glimpse what some people have said about Sobers because looking back at the records it doesn't really make sense to me.