Think we can assume that he was a team player and IF (and I agree it's a bigger if than most advancing that argument acknowledge) it were in the team's interests, he would possibly compromise his personal potential success to help the team succeed. Obviously it would be some pretty unusual and rare circumstances where it would be in the teams interests for him to do that.
I think you can not emphasize enough the IFness of that IF
so who is HBK then?
lol.. James as the evil owner Mr. McMahon then?
That's Mister Nixon to you.lol.. James as the evil owner Mr. McMahon then?
No Chance in Hell.
You're arguing something that is not in dispute from my end. It is the claim that he bowled the opposite of what the pitch demanded, and that it apparently affected his average negatively is what is in dispute.
I don't recall saying that. It doesn't affect him the wrong way at all. All bowlers are assessed on their performances in both helpful and unhelpful conditions. Sobers isn't a special case where one should discount his performances from his having to bowl in unhelpful conditions in the final assessment. It's ridiculous to do so.sorry abt my tone in that post. It was uncalled for and I apologize. But I hope you understand that was towards certain others than yourself.
And secondly, it is not about it being a mitigating circumstance in terms of performance overall. AS you said, individually it does affect him the wrong way.
The thing that maximises his chances of bowling most effectively is what means more to both him and his team. If such situations existed where the opposite held true, then elaboration is required of the rationale behind it, and of it being frequent enough to be used as a valid excuse.
Any and all of these changes are made with the rationale that making these changes will increase his chances of getting a breakthrough. Which implies that these instances do not affect his average negatively, and were not a handicap.
That's part and parcel of being an all-rounder, cutting back on the bowling workload if you've had a long innings with the bat. If Sobers bowled pace just so he felt like hitting someone on the head, he did so either because he felt it would fetch him a wicket sooner, or because he was a malicious character who got a kick out of it. I'm inclined to go with the former.
Agreed.
What do you consider him as a bowler, A better Spinner or a better pace bowler ?
It may not have necessarily been the only reason. Maybe he also felt he could do more with the bat when he had to bowl spin than pace, in which case it is beneficial to both him and his team if he were to bowl spin. And while there is no mandatory spin overs in cricket, most of the time you do need some variations to try and break the rhythm of the batsman. YOu may never know, being against a spinner in this end might juz end up lagging a batter's footwork by a microsecond which may be all that is needed for him to be dismissed, against the seamer at the other end.
There are so many IFs and BUTs here.........it would have been settled much easily had Sobers been a somewhat bowler. And it really doesn't make sense for Sobers to bowl that style of bowling which does not allow him or his team to pick up a wicket (i.e. something for which the pitch offers no assistance). It makes far more sense for him to bowl that style of bowling which the pitch supports.
And vice versa too. Having played the pacers all along, the batsman might give away his wicket to the spinner. So he benefits from bowling his spinners.
