kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
Haven't bothered to read through again past the first page, but this isn't close from any perspective.
One is a top 5 batsman of all time, the equal of Hobbs, Tendulkar or Richards in any measure. He has iconic innings vs the greatest bowlers of his era, and had success in every position from 3 to 6.
He was a top 5 slip catcher of all time, the equal of Hammond, Simpson and Waugh (I include Hooper in that group and as per @peter_hrt , Barlow). What sets him apart though, is that he was equally brilliant in least 3 other positions.
Over the history of the game, there may have been many better, but none as versatile as he was with the ball. At his peak he was arguably a top 5 bowler, especially after taking up his most effective form of bowling. But even then he would bowl spin in the later overs.
He retired as the leading run scorer in tests, 3rd in catches and 2nd among west Indian wicket takers and I believe somewhere around 7th overall(?).
As a result he's widely and all but unanimously recognized as one of the two greatest players in the history of the game.
In the pantheon of our sport, there exists 3 names, Grace, Bradman and Sobers, if we restrict it to tests, it shrinks further to two.
When Wisden gathered to choose the top 5 players of the century, only two garnered enough votes to place their selection beyond dispute or even discussion. Among toss ups and partisan votes, the two giants stood above. It's hard to argue with 100 votes and 90 votes respectively.
It was once pointed out that if Sobers never bowled a ball in test cricket that he would still be a lock for an AT XI (in 2001 EW Swanton proved this further by selecting him to his squad purely as a batsman), that stands in contrast to his competition where even with his full repertoire, it's still in the minority of scenarios that he makes same.
In a rare head to head in the Cricinfo exercise, the vote (including that of the Pakistani judge), was a clear unanimous 60 points to 0 for the all rounder spot.
There was a comment on the fist page, that such selections has little bearing on on ranking or greatness, but if you're making claim to be the 2nd greatest player of all time in the history of the sport, surely it factors in. Also all pro selections are quite a huge part in the legacies of players in professional leagues as well as all time selections.
Sobers was better in his primary discipline, and I would strenuously argue, even if we disagree on impact of same, that Sobers was better in both his auxiliary disciplines as well. He was certainly more highly rated a catcher than any bowling all rounder's batting, we can argue impactful as well. And he peaked simultaneously in all his skills.
To close, Sobers is closer to Bradman than any other cricketer is close to him (not factoring Grace into this comparison), and I don't believe there's any literature, interview, popular respected opinion that would say or suggest otherwise. He and Bradman are the pantheon of test cricket, to suggest otherwise isn't something primarily based in reality.
One is a top 5 batsman of all time, the equal of Hobbs, Tendulkar or Richards in any measure. He has iconic innings vs the greatest bowlers of his era, and had success in every position from 3 to 6.
He was a top 5 slip catcher of all time, the equal of Hammond, Simpson and Waugh (I include Hooper in that group and as per @peter_hrt , Barlow). What sets him apart though, is that he was equally brilliant in least 3 other positions.
Over the history of the game, there may have been many better, but none as versatile as he was with the ball. At his peak he was arguably a top 5 bowler, especially after taking up his most effective form of bowling. But even then he would bowl spin in the later overs.
He retired as the leading run scorer in tests, 3rd in catches and 2nd among west Indian wicket takers and I believe somewhere around 7th overall(?).
As a result he's widely and all but unanimously recognized as one of the two greatest players in the history of the game.
In the pantheon of our sport, there exists 3 names, Grace, Bradman and Sobers, if we restrict it to tests, it shrinks further to two.
When Wisden gathered to choose the top 5 players of the century, only two garnered enough votes to place their selection beyond dispute or even discussion. Among toss ups and partisan votes, the two giants stood above. It's hard to argue with 100 votes and 90 votes respectively.
It was once pointed out that if Sobers never bowled a ball in test cricket that he would still be a lock for an AT XI (in 2001 EW Swanton proved this further by selecting him to his squad purely as a batsman), that stands in contrast to his competition where even with his full repertoire, it's still in the minority of scenarios that he makes same.
In a rare head to head in the Cricinfo exercise, the vote (including that of the Pakistani judge), was a clear unanimous 60 points to 0 for the all rounder spot.
There was a comment on the fist page, that such selections has little bearing on on ranking or greatness, but if you're making claim to be the 2nd greatest player of all time in the history of the sport, surely it factors in. Also all pro selections are quite a huge part in the legacies of players in professional leagues as well as all time selections.
Sobers was better in his primary discipline, and I would strenuously argue, even if we disagree on impact of same, that Sobers was better in both his auxiliary disciplines as well. He was certainly more highly rated a catcher than any bowling all rounder's batting, we can argue impactful as well. And he peaked simultaneously in all his skills.
To close, Sobers is closer to Bradman than any other cricketer is close to him (not factoring Grace into this comparison), and I don't believe there's any literature, interview, popular respected opinion that would say or suggest otherwise. He and Bradman are the pantheon of test cricket, to suggest otherwise isn't something primarily based in reality.
Last edited:
