Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[cnerd123]

*shrug*

Cricinfo seems to label him as one who mixed them both while he bowled spin. Never seen Sobers myself, so wouldn't know.

 

[Teja.]

Okay, if so, I apologize about the Akram thing. I honestly thought it was not the case. Still think it's the wrong decision but that's something else. Also, thanks Slog Sweep for pointing it out with such awesome class.

 

[bagapath]

imran bowling to sobers would have posed unique challenges to both of them. i am not sure if sobers faced a fast bowler of imran's caliber and pace in test cricket. he faced lillee in WSC series. trueman was as skillful as imran, but he was a tad slower and less than great outside england. john snow was probably as fast but was not as complete a bowler as imran. so it would have posed new challeges for sobers to face imran's rocket outswingers (for a left hander).

on the other hand i dont think imran bowled to any left hander as attacking as sobers. border, and - from a lower rung - gower were probably the two greatest left hand batters of his era. lara and gilchrist were in their high school while sanga and smith were still thinking girls were dirty while imran was a dominating force in tests. how he would have bowled to a left handed viv richards/ greg chappell is anybody's guess.

i am sure they would have come out even at the end of the day.

 

[hang on]

such a pity that miller lost some of his best years to the war.....otherwise it would be between sobers and miller. in anycase, miller's record is pretty much the same as imran's. in the spirit of revisionism that has pervaded this thread, i think that i will anoint miller as the greatest and bestest and most influentialest and pretty golly gosh darned perfectest cricketer to have ever donned whites.

 

[Teja.]

such a pity that miller lost some of his best years to the war.....otherwise it would be between sobers and miller. in anycase, miller's record is pretty much the same as imran's. in the spirit of revisionism that has pervaded this thread, i think that i will anoint miller as the greatest and bestest and most influentialest and pretty golly gosh darned perfectest cricketer to have ever donned whites.

Yep, Miller right up there for me. 4th best after Bradman, Imran and Sobers.

 

[slog sweep]

For Sobers there was a period in his career where he was a wonderful all-rounder and people respect that - pretty much forgetting the rest of his career where his stats are rubbish. Also, in his time wickets per match and average were probably looked at more than SR so his bowling gets a lot of leeway.

Essentially, for me the numbers show he was overrated. Over a 20 year career that kind of praise should be quite vivid - it isn't IMO.

Then again, I have to admit I am judging him by the numbers and not having seen him. Maybe I would think different if I had watched him but I think that is a bit of a remote possibility. I think a cricketer has to at least be in the statistical vicinity for the acclaim he is given to make sense. Sobers' bowling is so far off that, that I just can't accept this fascination with him.

.

I hate to break it to you champ, but you really don't know as much about the game of cricket, as you seem to think you do. After reading some of your incoherent ramblings, it's safe to conclude that you are totally clueless, and shamelessly ignorant. I have never seen anybody who thought so highly of his own opinion, and yet was wrong on nearly every topic.

If you were at a dinner table full of cricket legends, and said some of the things about Sobers in their company, that you say on this cricket forum, they would take one disdainful look at you, and abruptly ask you to leave. Put simply, there is no living cricketer who is as revered amongst past and present champions, as Garry Sobers.

There was a book recently released, called 'In a league of their own' by Richard Sydenham, where 100 cricket legends from every country, and every generation, named their All-time World XI. The man who received the most votes was none other than Garry Sobers, who was close to a unanimous selection. Interestingly enough, some of the all-rounders who are often compared to him on this cricket forum, were well off the pace.
Imran Khan received 21 votes, Keith Miller received 13 votes, and Jaques Kallis received all of 4 votes.

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.'


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.'


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.'


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.'


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.'


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?'


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.'


Pretty much every tribute to Sobers was equally glowing, and left do doubt about his pre-eminence.

Now, when I try and accurately assess the greatness of Garry Sobers the cricketer, who am I going to believe? Is it these countless cricket legends who are in complete awe of the man, and can provide me with first-hand accounts and testimonies, accurately describing the sheer genius of his play. Or is it some lightweight on a cricket forum, who has never played international cricket, never even seen Sobers play, and ignorantly chooses to completely ignore the overwhelming evidence declaring his pre-eminence.
Instead, he prefers to base his skepticism, on nothing more than his ability to analyze statistics.

Gee, that's a tough one.....

You must be seriously delusional, if you actually think that you know more about the game of cricket, than these countless legends who are in complete agreement, that Sobers is the best of the best. You are basically trying to argue, that the likes of Bradman, Benaud, Chappell, Miller, Gavaskar and the rest of them, essentially don't know what they are talking about, and that you do.

Like I said, delusional.


I noticed you said, that some of Sobers statistics were 'rubbish'. And, exactly which statistics would they be. Would it be his record in West Indian victories, where he averaged 77 with the bat, and 24 with the ball. Would it be the fact, that of the 26 centuries he made in Test cricket, his team lost only one of those matches. Or perhaps it's that he averaged over 70 with the bat, in seven calendar years.

Yes, these statistics do look quite 'rubbish'.

Garry Sobers was an all-round cricketing colossus, but he was first and foremost, a batting genius. Virtually everybody of that era, believes him to be the greatest batsman of his time. Both the Chappell brothers rate him as the best batsman they ever saw, and Dennis Lillee rated him along with Viv Richards, as the best batsman he ever bowled to. Sobers stands comfortably as one of the top three or four batsman of all time.

Now when you combine this with his versatile bowling, and his fielding genius, then you have the greatest all-rounder of them all. Sobers didn't just take basic catches, he took brilliant catches that won cricket matches. He was a game-changing fielder, the equal of anybody in the game's history. There are some brilliant reflex catches taken off Lance Gibbs at short leg, that illustrate this. They were completely instinctive, and only a
genius would have been able to pull them off. I think there is a clip of some of them, on You Tube.

There are certain things in life that become the gospel truth, because everybody who should know, is in total agreement. When you talk to historians, every authority figure on the subject believes that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are the two greatest presidents in American history. Likewise, every cricket authority believes that Don Bradman is the greatest batsman in cricket history, and that Sir Garfield Sobers is the
greatest all-rounder in the cricketing pantheon.

There is not a cricket legend, alive or dead, who would dispute that claim. Some of you people, who never even saw the man play, simply have to accept this fact, and quit trying to engage in some form of revisionist history. Once you have done that, then you can quietly move on with your lives, if you actually have one.

So, let me break it down for you champ: You know absolutely nothing about the game of cricket. Your opinions are nonsensical, and appear to be flying in the face of 50 years of conventional wisdom, while your arguments are embarrassingly flawed and illogical. There is a general expectation, that if you plan on sharing your opinion in a public discourse, that you at least have some command of the subject being discussed. You, quite clearly, do not. Until that day arrives, please refrain from embarrassing yourself, with your breathtaking ignorance, and your complete and utter cluelessness.

 

[cnerd123]

And oddly enough, Ikki was never heard of again on CW...

 

[bagapath]

that was gary sobers facing malcolm nash at swansea.

 

[smash84]

tremendous posts from Slog_Sweep (something that we have come to expect)

 

[hang on]

agree unreservedly with slog sweep on the cricketing points brought up, but there is a slight whiff of the ad hominem in his peroration. perhaps ikki deserves it, but still a mite unnecessary, methinks.

 

[Teja.]

there is a slight whiff of the ad hominem in his peroration.a mite unnecessary, methinks.

Yep, agreed.

 

[Teja.]

Heh, I use the same logic to arrive the complete opposite conclusion of not really caring about what people thought at the time. I regularly disagree with the general consensus about modern cricketers so there's every chance I would've disagreed back then too.

I mean, I don't think I've come across a cricketer regarded as world class who I thought was a actually a **** **** and should be dropped from his national team, but I don't think that about Sobers either. The rankings of the top twenty or so though differ greatly from my perspective, both in modern times of players I've followed closely and historically of players whose careers I've analysed.

This.

 

[GIMH]

I'm not concerned about one bad choice in an All-Time XI. I agree there were better candidates than Wasim for a Test bowling allrounder spot. Maybe they wanted the variety of a left-hander and the versatility that he brings.

I don't think there's a lot of difference between Tendulkar/Ponting and Kallis as "cricketers" (extremely nebulous concept that I'm not particularly fond of), especially when ODI prowess is taken into account. And then there are subtle things like game-changing impact, playing the game in a way it wasn't done before or pioneering a new facet (Sehwag/Jayasuriya for attacking opening, Gilchrist for keepers being expected to be competent batsmen) which aren't reflected in your stats. You can only pick up those things and weigh them against each other if you've followed a player's career in its entirety.

As it stands, I'd be more willing to believe Richie Benaud or Ian Chappell's opinion than someone who's formed an opinion on Imran/Sobers based on Statsguru filters.

Awesome post. Makes up for the ones you've been making in the footy thread

 

[Teja.]

I hate to break it to you champ, but you really don't know as much about the game of cricket, as you seem to think you do. After reading some of your incoherent ramblings, it's safe to conclude that you are totally clueless, and shamelessly ignorant. I have never seen anybody who thought so highly of his own opinion, and yet was wrong on nearly every topic.

If you were at a dinner table full of cricket legends, and said some of the things about Sobers in their company, that you say on this cricket forum, they would take one disdainful look at you, and abruptly ask you to leave. Put simply, there is no living cricketer who is as revered amongst past and present champions, as Garry Sobers.

There was a book recently released, called 'In a league of their own' by Richard Sydenham, where 100 cricket legends from every country, and every generation, named their All-time World XI. The man who received the most votes was none other than Garry Sobers, who was close to a unanimous selection. Interestingly enough, some of the all-rounders who are often compared to him on this cricket forum, were well off the pace.
Imran Khan received 21 votes, Keith Miller received 13 votes, and Jaques Kallis received all of 4 votes.

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.'


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.'


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.'


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.'


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.'


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?'


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.'


Pretty much every tribute to Sobers was equally glowing, and left do doubt about his pre-eminence.

Now, when I try and accurately assess the greatness of Garry Sobers the cricketer, who am I going to believe? Is it these countless cricket legends who are in complete awe of the man, and can provide me with first-hand accounts and testimonies, accurately describing the sheer genius of his play. Or is it some lightweight on a cricket forum, who has never played international cricket, never even seen Sobers play, and ignorantly chooses to completely ignore the overwhelming evidence declaring his pre-eminence.
Instead, he prefers to base his skepticism, on nothing more than his ability to analyze statistics.

Gee, that's a tough one.....

You must be seriously delusional, if you actually think that you know more about the game of cricket, than these countless legends who are in complete agreement, that Sobers is the best of the best. You are basically trying to argue, that the likes of Bradman, Benaud, Chappell, Miller, Gavaskar and the rest of them, essentially don't know what they are talking about, and that you do.

Like I said, delusional.


I noticed you said, that some of Sobers statistics were 'rubbish'. And, exactly which statistics would they be. Would it be his record in West Indian victories, where he averaged 77 with the bat, and 24 with the ball. Would it be the fact, that of the 26 centuries he made in Test cricket, his team lost only one of those matches. Or perhaps it's that he averaged over 70 with the bat, in seven calendar years.

Yes, these statistics do look quite 'rubbish'.

Garry Sobers was an all-round cricketing colossus, but he was first and foremost, a batting genius. Virtually everybody of that era, believes him to be the greatest batsman of his time. Both the Chappell brothers rate him as the best batsman they ever saw, and Dennis Lillee rated him along with Viv Richards, as the best batsman he ever bowled to. Sobers stands comfortably as one of the top three or four batsman of all time.

Now when you combine this with his versatile bowling, and his fielding genius, then you have the greatest all-rounder of them all. Sobers didn't just take basic catches, he took brilliant catches that won cricket matches. He was a game-changing fielder, the equal of anybody in the game's history. There are some brilliant reflex catches taken off Lance Gibbs at short leg, that illustrate this. They were completely instinctive, and only a
genius would have been able to pull them off. I think there is a clip of some of them, on You Tube.

There are certain things in life that become the gospel truth, because everybody who should know, is in total agreement. When you talk to historians, every authority figure on the subject believes that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are the two greatest presidents in American history. Likewise, every cricket authority believes that Don Bradman is the greatest batsman in cricket history, and that Sir Garfield Sobers is the
greatest all-rounder in the cricketing pantheon.

There is not a cricket legend, alive or dead, who would dispute that claim. Some of you people, who never even saw the man play, simply have to accept this fact, and quit trying to engage in some form of revisionist history. Once you have done that, then you can quietly move on with your lives, if you actually have one.

So, let me break it down for you champ: You know absolutely nothing about the game of cricket. Your opinions are nonsensical, and appear to be flying in the face of 50 years of conventional wisdom, while your arguments are embarrassingly flawed and illogical. There is a general expectation, that if you plan on sharing your opinion in a public discourse, that you at least have some command of the subject being discussed. You, quite clearly, do not. Until that day arrives, please refrain from embarrassing yourself, with your breathtaking ignorance, and your complete and utter cluelessness.

Basically, As you said, You and most people would rather believe opinions of great cricketers such as Benaud and Chappell than the **** spewed by clueless, breathtakingly ignorant, shamelessly brainless, embarrassingly flawed, illogical and oxygen stealing ****s such as yours' truly regarding who is better among the two. Definitely agreed. But such an opinion is not being pushed down your throat, There are simply people who opine that while Sobers was great, Imran actually might have been better by a small margin.

We might have our opinions based on our own readings, watching their games ourselves and god-forbid, properly analyzed statistics - even though these opinions might not be as great as your divine ones after seeing the game for many years. If you disagree with that, fine, but as seen by the poll, Atleast in CW demographics, It's a reasonably prevalent POV. It's not an outlandish claim like your making it to be. It's not like saying Ganguly was a better batsman than Hobbs. I highly doubt anyone would vote for Ganguly in such a poll.

Cheers.

 

[cnerd123]

A reasonably prevelant POV isn't neccesary a good one. Especially on an online forum. You'll get fanboys, people who want to appear smarter than they are siding with those who have tens of thousands of posts by voting alongside them, stat whores.

Very few of us know what it's like to see Sobers play in person. None of us have played cricket at that level. We may never be able to fully grasp what he meant on the field. To argue that we could is kinda bold.

How many cricket fans who've seen both Sobers and Imran at their peaks would pick Imran?
How many who've played with/against both, even at FC or Club level, would pick Imran?

Those are more telling questions that what a bunch of enthusiasts who have nothing else to base their opinions on except scorecards, anecdotes and youtube clips think.

 

[vcs]

Awesome post. Makes up for the ones you've been making in the footy thread

Give it some time, I'm only following football properly for a few years.

 

[vcs]

Imran batting = Daniel Vettori

Sobers bowling = Daniel Vettori

If Daniel Vettori bowls to Daniel Vettori Ireckon it will be an even contest. A lot of people afre underrating Imran as a bat he was a pretty good batsman under pressure stone walled atleast 2 drawn series vs the mighty Windies.

Sounds like a pretty fair assessment to me, statistically. I do feel however, that Sobers (atleast during his peak) must have been more of a "match-winner" than Vettori is or ever was, as the latter often struggles to bowl teams out on day 5 tracks and becomes pretty defensive. And then, there's the versatility and the balance that he brought to the team and other intangibles of his bowling that statistics don't reflect.

 

[vcs]

A reasonably prevelant POV isn't neccesary a good one. Especially on an online forum. You'll get fanboys, people who want to appear smarter than they are siding with those who have tens of thousands of posts by voting alongside them, stat whores.

Very few of us know what it's like to see Sobers play in person. None of us have played cricket at that level. We may never be able to fully grasp what he meant on the field. To argue that we could is kinda bold.

How many cricket fans who've seen both Sobers and Imran at their peaks would pick Imran?
How many who've played with/against both, even at FC or Club level, would pick Imran?

Those are more telling questions that what a bunch of enthusiasts who have nothing else to base their opinions on except scorecards, anecdotes and youtube clips think.

Very true, those are the opinions that really matter.. there will never be a clear answer though, because a.) they're apples and oranges and b.) they're both ATG cricketers and c.) this trend of obsessively identifying who was the best seems to be prevalent only after Internet fora became popular, so the oldies probably just don't care that much.

 

[honestbharani]

I hate to break it to you champ, but you really don't know as much about the game of cricket, as you seem to think you do. After reading some of your incoherent ramblings, it's safe to conclude that you are totally clueless, and shamelessly ignorant. I have never seen anybody who thought so highly of his own opinion, and yet was wrong on nearly every topic.

If you were at a dinner table full of cricket legends, and said some of the things about Sobers in their company, that you say on this cricket forum, they would take one disdainful look at you, and abruptly ask you to leave. Put simply, there is no living cricketer who is as revered amongst past and present champions, as Garry Sobers.

There was a book recently released, called 'In a league of their own' by Richard Sydenham, where 100 cricket legends from every country, and every generation, named their All-time World XI. The man who received the most votes was none other than Garry Sobers, who was close to a unanimous selection. Interestingly enough, some of the all-rounders who are often compared to him on this cricket forum, were well off the pace.
Imran Khan received 21 votes, Keith Miller received 13 votes, and Jaques Kallis received all of 4 votes.

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.'


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.'


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.'


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.'


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.'


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?'


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.'


Pretty much every tribute to Sobers was equally glowing, and left do doubt about his pre-eminence.

Now, when I try and accurately assess the greatness of Garry Sobers the cricketer, who am I going to believe? Is it these countless cricket legends who are in complete awe of the man, and can provide me with first-hand accounts and testimonies, accurately describing the sheer genius of his play. Or is it some lightweight on a cricket forum, who has never played international cricket, never even seen Sobers play, and ignorantly chooses to completely ignore the overwhelming evidence declaring his pre-eminence.
Instead, he prefers to base his skepticism, on nothing more than his ability to analyze statistics.

Gee, that's a tough one.....

You must be seriously delusional, if you actually think that you know more about the game of cricket, than these countless legends who are in complete agreement, that Sobers is the best of the best. You are basically trying to argue, that the likes of Bradman, Benaud, Chappell, Miller, Gavaskar and the rest of them, essentially don't know what they are talking about, and that you do.

Like I said, delusional.


I noticed you said, that some of Sobers statistics were 'rubbish'. And, exactly which statistics would they be. Would it be his record in West Indian victories, where he averaged 77 with the bat, and 24 with the ball. Would it be the fact, that of the 26 centuries he made in Test cricket, his team lost only one of those matches. Or perhaps it's that he averaged over 70 with the bat, in seven calendar years.

Yes, these statistics do look quite 'rubbish'.

Garry Sobers was an all-round cricketing colossus, but he was first and foremost, a batting genius. Virtually everybody of that era, believes him to be the greatest batsman of his time. Both the Chappell brothers rate him as the best batsman they ever saw, and Dennis Lillee rated him along with Viv Richards, as the best batsman he ever bowled to. Sobers stands comfortably as one of the top three or four batsman of all time.

Now when you combine this with his versatile bowling, and his fielding genius, then you have the greatest all-rounder of them all. Sobers didn't just take basic catches, he took brilliant catches that won cricket matches. He was a game-changing fielder, the equal of anybody in the game's history. There are some brilliant reflex catches taken off Lance Gibbs at short leg, that illustrate this. They were completely instinctive, and only a
genius would have been able to pull them off. I think there is a clip of some of them, on You Tube.

There are certain things in life that become the gospel truth, because everybody who should know, is in total agreement. When you talk to historians, every authority figure on the subject believes that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are the two greatest presidents in American history. Likewise, every cricket authority believes that Don Bradman is the greatest batsman in cricket history, and that Sir Garfield Sobers is the
greatest all-rounder in the cricketing pantheon.

There is not a cricket legend, alive or dead, who would dispute that claim. Some of you people, who never even saw the man play, simply have to accept this fact, and quit trying to engage in some form of revisionist history. Once you have done that, then you can quietly move on with your lives, if you actually have one.

So, let me break it down for you champ: You know absolutely nothing about the game of cricket. Your opinions are nonsensical, and appear to be flying in the face of 50 years of conventional wisdom, while your arguments are embarrassingly flawed and illogical. There is a general expectation, that if you plan on sharing your opinion in a public discourse, that you at least have some command of the subject being discussed. You, quite clearly, do not. Until that day arrives, please refrain from embarrassing yourself, with your breathtaking ignorance, and your complete and utter cluelessness.

I would love to say it is game,set, thread to slog_sweep but there might just be a statsguru filter yet to be applied or a spreadsheet yet to be attached..



slog_sweep.. :

 

[honestbharani]

Basically, As you said, You and most people would rather believe opinions of great cricketers such as Benaud and Chappell than the **** spewed by clueless, breathtakingly ignorant, shamelessly brainless, embarrassingly flawed, illogical and oxygen stealing ****s such as yours' truly regarding who is better among the two. Definitely agreed. But such an opinion is not being pushed down your throat, There are simply people who opine that while Sobers was great, Imran actually might have been better by a small margin.

We might have our opinions based on our own readings, watching their games ourselves and god-forbid, properly analyzed statistics - even though these opinions might not be as great as your divine ones after seeing the game for many years. If you disagree with that, fine, but as seen by the poll, Atleast in CW demographics, It's a reasonably prevalent POV. It's not an outlandish claim like your making it to be. It's not like saying Ganguly was a better batsman than Hobbs. I highly doubt anyone would vote for Ganguly in such a poll.

Cheers.

You try hard, Teja.. but that was really not necessary. There is no need to be apologetic about thinking Imran is better than Sobers based on what you have seen... But when you try to justify that with stats (in the process of which, people INVARIABLY end up pooh-poohing Sobers) is when the problem starts...