Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[Jono]

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

I never understand how people can speak with such certainty like this.

 

[Uppercut]

On the contrary, stats aggregate those and many other factors that may be important but our limited minds will neither recognize nor aggregate. And I hate, literally hate, when the term stats is used as pejorative. I like to call it "facts" more broadly, rather than just stats . It's almost as if for many people any argument not backed by stats/facts is better than one that is backed by stats/facts. Huh!



Funny. Because to me it's the anti-stats, or rather anti-facts brigade that spreads it's self-righteous smugness all over the forum.

May be it's got to do with my training and profession, but any argument not backed by facts is a non-argument. If I was sitting in a meeting with senior executives and present my conclusions on a business problem based on my subjective perceptions without presenting the facts behind, I will lose my job tomorrow.

Look, noone is saying that 'stats', the easily *visible* ones, answer all question. In context of cricket, batting average is not all that stats-suckers or fact-suckers are basing their opinion on. There's argument for Viv Richards for example to be regarded as a better test batsman than many with averages in high 50s. But the argument comes from his dominant and destructive batting, and not batting average. And sure enough, his SR (another stat/fact) brings it out. See, stats/facts din't fail you here. So what the **** is it you are cribbing about?

There can be right and wrong ways of looking at stats/facts. But those who totally dismiss stats/facts are perhaps imbecile.

* I don't use "you" for anyone in particular here

Haha, nice!

I suggested renaming "stats" as "runs and wickets" before. The line about cricket not being about numbers always makes me laugh- of course it's about numbers! That's how they decide who wins.

 

[honestbharani]

On the contrary, stats aggregate those and many other factors that may be important but our limited minds will neither recognize nor aggregate. And I hate, literally hate, when the term stats is used as pejorative. I like to call it "facts" more broadly, rather than just stats . It's almost as if for many people any argument not backed by stats/facts is better than one that is backed by stats/facts. Huh!



Funny. Because to me it's the anti-stats, or rather anti-facts brigade that spreads it's self-righteous smugness all over the forum.

May be it's got to do with my training and profession, but any argument not backed by facts is a non-argument. If I was sitting in a meeting with senior executives and present my conclusions on a business problem based on my subjective perceptions without presenting the facts behind, I will lose my job tomorrow.

Look, noone is saying that 'stats', the easily *visible* ones, answer all question. In context of cricket, batting average is not all that stats-suckers or fact-suckers are basing their opinion on. There's argument for Viv Richards for example to be regarded as a better test batsman than many with averages in high 50s. But the argument comes from his dominant and destructive batting, and not batting average. And sure enough, his SR (another stat/fact) brings it out. See, stats/facts din't fail you here. So what the **** is it you are cribbing about?

There can be right and wrong ways of looking at stats/facts. But those who totally dismiss stats/facts are perhaps imbecile.

* I don't use "you" for anyone in particular here

Do you understand when I said "opinions are just as right/wrong as stats based conclusions in such VS threads" or do you juz wanna ignore the facts/stats that are so dear to you juz so that you could rant over here?

 

[honestbharani]

So people don't get me wrong, I'll put it this way: I care about contemporary opinion and it does sway me in judging players - especially ones that were outside my watching time.

It's why I rate Lillee ahead of his peers and Viv ahead of his peers. These guys, though, are in the statistical ball-park for someone to accept their superiority, regardless if they are a point or two (or more) behind some of their rivals. Not all things are statistically calculable but at the same time will play a great impact on the game. Anyone denying this, to my mind, hasn't watched cricket or experienced competitive sport. And whilst these things aren't calculable in stats, they often get passed on through commentary of other players and professionals in the sport and helps aid the reflections on a certain player. They can be invaluable.

But we're talking about a player whose bowling average is 34 and strikes at 92 - that's not good even for his time. It's not good for a spinner or a pacer. He has 8 4fers and 5 6fers in 159 innings - and this is a bowler who bowled ~39 overs a match (quite a lot). And this still hides the history of his bowling wherein, as I have mentioned a few times now, outside of the period where he was a genuinely good bowler we are talking about figures of averaging 40+ and at striking like 100 balls per wicket for the majority of his 20 year career. I don't care how naturally talented you are, that just isn't very good. He's not in the statistical ball-park for the kind of praises he receives to begin to make sense.

So relying on commentaries like the ones slog sweep mentioned are a waste of time. I am more interested in why these kinds of figures deserved that kind of praise.

The problem is you seem more interested in "dissing" any reason that might be given than actually trying to figure out the fact that praise, in most cases is earned after a LOT of hard work... Folks like Bradman did not go around praising people every other day...

 

[honestbharani]

Haha, nice!

I suggested renaming "stats" as "runs and wickets" before. The line about cricket not being about numbers always makes me laugh- of course it's about numbers! That's how they decide who wins.

Not as laughable as thinking that cricket is NOT about humans, coz that is who play the game...

 

[honestbharani]

I never understand how people can speak with such certainty like this.

coz the stats..oops.. facts or runs/wickets apparently back this up..

 

[vcs]

Vote then.

You're certainly not old enough to...

 

[ankitj]

Do you understand when I said "opinions are just as right/wrong as stats based conclusions in such VS threads" or do you juz wanna ignore the facts/stats that are so dear to you juz so that you could rant over here?

I didn't mean to be rude. If that is how it came out, I apologize. As I said I didn't mean you by you in all of my post.

 

[akilana]

You're certainly not old enough to...

 

[honestbharani]

I didn't mean to be rude. If that is how it came out, I apologize. As I said I didn't mean you by you in all of my post.

I agree that there were quite a few who would diss "contrary to popular" sorta opinions earlier.. But of late, I feel the whole "he was never good coz his numbers are not good" gang have been the more predominant one and that is why I have been responding in this manner..

 

[Blaze 18]

You're certainly not old enough to...

 

[Maximus0723]

I don't think Sobers inspired as much confidence and the ability to raise the game in people as much as Imran did. As far as leadership is concerned I think that even though Sobers might be considered as Imran's equal tactically the ability to raise his team to another level is not present in Sobers to a level that Imran had.

True.

 

[Flem274*]

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.

Vettori would have no issues against his own bowling tbh. He should take the hint.

Incidentally, I've just noticed Vettori has a better strike rate (77) than Sobers.

Vettori>Sobers as a bowler.

 

[marc71178]

I have to say Imran probably is the most complete all-rounder.

Depends what you term an all rounder, but I would go for one who performs with bat AND ball at the same time rather than one or the other.

 

[MrIncredible]

Right and as much as some here seem to take issue with Sobers' less than impressive bowling

average, a batting average of 37 (or whatever it is) has never been good enough for a test level batsman

either. Imran had his moments with both bat and ball but so too did Sobers

 

[Flem274*]

a batting average of 37 (or whatever it is) has never been good enough for a test level batsman either.

Wrong. Before the 2000s, 37 was perfectly acceptable. Even in the 2000s, 37 is not terrible.

 

[cnerd123]

37 with the bat is about on par with 34 with the ball don't you think?


And I don't understand the logic behind removing Sobers' best years with the ball and comparing the rest. Why not do the same to Imran for his batting? You'll probably end up with an average of late-20s, which is mediocre, dire, and all those adjectives Ikki used.

 

[cnerd123]

I would say Sobers bowling stats are under par and were poor for the majority of his career. This with respect to what he bowled, when he bowled and his varying success.

If they disagreed, then they're the ignorants. I'm not interested in glowing observations backed on little statistical backbone.

See, what I don't like is you believing that you're in enlightened one, and every great cricketer out there who has actually seen Sobers bowl AND who have played alongside him are the ones ignorant. Sounds quite far-fetched from the start.

But pretty much every tribute falls short of assessing how poor his bowling is statistically for the duration of his career. And for that, no matter how glowing, he will continue to have detractors. Just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it true. At the risk of putting this thread off course...lots of people believe in a man in the sky.

Because it's a non issue. They don't asses it because they know he's better than the stats. You just don't get that.

And for the latter part, are you seriously comparing cricketer who rate Sobers highly to people who worship God? If Sobers is the mythical cricket God, then it must be said he has far more evidence to back him up than the real God, because all these tributes come from people who have SEEN him play and played alongside him, and not those who come to their conclusions based on stats or anecdotes.

You can believe what you like...that's the beauty about opinions. The reality about his bowling - i.e. his stats - are facts. It has little to do with opinions. Facts show he was a crap bowler for the majority of his career. Bar the period in the 60s when he was a genuine pace bowler, for most of his career he was averaging 40+ and striking near 100 balls per wicket. That's just embarrassing.

a) I hate the logic of removing the good years of a cricketer to diminish their performances. As I said, why don't we remove Imran's best years as a batsman either?
b) Stats without context are meaningless, not facts. And what's worse is you're trying to heavily imply that your opinion = fact and that anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded, which is quite an outrageous claim to begin with since the people who would disagree with you are legends such as Benaud, Chappel, Gavaskar, Bradman, etc. It's so outrageous it's bordering on trolling; if you were here with less than a 100 posts I probably would have called you a troll and laughed your arguments off.



I'll address the rest of the post later, got to run now.

 

[smash84]

37 with the bat is about on par with 34 with the ball don't you think?


.

That is a good question. Before the 2000s an average of >40 with the bat and less than 30 with the ball was considered decent IIRC. I am not sure though.

 

[Burgey]

I don't think Sobers inspired as much confidence and the ability to raise the game in people as much as Imran did. As far as leadership is concerned I think that even though Sobers might be considered as Imran's equal tactically the ability to raise his team to another level is not present in Sobers to a level that Imran had.

Imran stands out as a leader, from an historical perspective, as he got so much out of the previously disfunctional Pakistan set up. He was a great captain. In the sense of man management he seems to be overtly the best, or close to it.

It's a very noticable thing too, because what went before and after was so mud.

By the same token, you look at someone like Sobers, who isn't known so much for his captaincy skills. He seemed to more or less go about things as captain without the legendary tales of inspired leadership. Yet in the mid-60s he was the best batsman in the world, captain of the best side, the best fielder and an important part of the attack too.

Captaincy is a very hard thing to quantify. It's like comparing fielders who are each good or excellent. How one can definitvely say one is plainly superior to another is very difficult to justify. I would have Imran as the better captain, but I don't think Sobers' efforts should be under sold. The authoritarian style of Imran, and the way he led Pakistan may not have worked witht he WI side Sobers, or indeed Lloyd, led. And vice versa.

As for this overall thread, the point I was trying to make in the thread that's now been closed, albeit in a less than eloquent way, is that despite these two blokes being "all rounders", they are manifestly different cricketers. If you want to emphasise the bowling side of things, then Imran will win. If you want to emphasise the batting side, Sobers will.

There isn't a right and wrong here. It's not like you're comparing Merv Hughes to Imran Khan, or Graeme Wood to Sobers. They are two amazing cricketers, who each have the same label attached to them, but who were really very, very different players altogether.