I'm not comparing the 90s - Marshall isn't from that era. It's clear that the batting attacks were much better in the 00s than the 80s.
This is getting silly. Should I report posts such as the one claiming I tried to make Sobers look less than a great?
The only aspect of Sobers that I do not rate is his bowling and it doesn't take 'stat picking' to establish that. He gets in my all-time XI on his batting alone.
FTR Lillee rated McGrath as the best too
. This is just a digression tactic by Slifer.
That has 0 to do with the post you quoted as we are comparing the batting line ups from the 90s and 00s. FTR, removing Aus doesn't change the figures much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikki
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.
