The Myths & The Truth

[Teja.]

Yeah, that gets trotted out a bit, and I can't recall seeing a reliable source for it, or a detailed analysis of when it took place, but the gist of it was that if the team had a selection choice to make between a specialist spinner and an extra quick, if the conditions looked favourable for quick bowling, they'd take the extra specialist quick and Sobers would play the role of the spinner as required, and if the conditions looked like it would take spin, they'd play the extra specialist spinner and Sobers would take the place of the missing quick. So if anything he gets credited for sacrificing his own potential output by being flexible to help the team get the best balanced attack in each situation. As I said, I haven't seen an analysis of how much that actually happened, but I've no doubt it did occur in some instances.

I don't get this. Surely, He should have bowled whatever discipline of bowling delivered best results? Wouldn't that be in the best interests of his team?

 

[Matt79]

I think this theory assumes that he wasn't as good a spinner as the specialist that might come in, and that he was no better a FM than the specialist who might come in. So if the conditions looked favourable to spin, it was better for the team to have the better spinner in the team, and have Sobers in the 'take the shine off the ball' role. If the conditions were looking good for the quicks, they would in theory go with the extra specialist quick, who would be as good as Sobers, and hence Garry probably wouldn't get many overs as a quick, but would get thrown the ball when the captain decided the quicks needed a rest while some spin was bowled.

Again, as I said, I don't know how often this theoretical situation played out, but that is what people are suggesting.

EDIT: There were also obviously matches when he bowled more than one style. If the ball was swinging, I'm sure he'd have a go at FM, regardless of whether he was the theoretical spinner or not.

 

[Jono]

Wasn't there a period in Sobers' career where he suffered from depression (or something similar, clinical depression very rarely pinpointed back then) due to a good friend of his dying in a car accident which he was involved in?

Is this very obvious in his stats?

 

[Matt79]

Wasn't there a period in Sobers' career where he suffered from depression (or something similar, clinical depression very rarely pinpointed back then) due to a good friend of his dying in a car accident which he was involved in?

Is this very obvious in his stats?

It was pretty early in his career, before he was established as an international. Whether today it would have been called clinical depression as opposed to the natural reaction of someone who lost a close friend in a car crash in which you were the driver, in his autobiog Sobers said he was very depressed for a while and began drinking too much and not taking care of himself, but that he did snap out of it. He says that the feeling of his friend's loss was a constant motivation to make the most out of himself and his opportunities.

EDIT: not suggesting that it would be anything negative if it was clinical depression, just that the term has a specific meaning and not everyone who is feeling depressed is necessarily suffering from clinical depression.

 

[Teja.]

I think this theory assumes that he wasn't as good a spinner as the specialist that might come in, and that he was no better a FM than the specialist who might come in. So if the conditions looked favourable to spin, it was better for the team to have the better spinner in the team, and have Sobers in the 'take the shine off the ball' role. If the conditions were looking good for the quicks, they would in theory go with the extra specialist quick, who would be as good as Sobers, and hence Garry probably wouldn't get many overs as a quick, but would get thrown the ball when the captain decided the quicks needed a rest while some spin was bowled.

Again, as I said, I don't know how often this theoretical situation played out, but that is what people are suggesting.

EDIT: There were also obviously matches when he bowled more than one style. If the ball was swinging, I'm sure he'd have a go at FM, regardless of whether he was the theoretical spinner or not.

Yeah, Cheers Matt.

 

[Jono]

It was pretty early in his career, before he was established as an international. Whether today it would have been called clinical depression as opposed to the natural reaction of someone who lost a close friend in a car crash in which you were the driver, in his autobiog Sobers said he was very depressed for a while and began drinking too much and not taking care of himself, but that he did snap out of it. He says that the feeling of his friend's loss was a constant motivation to make the most out of himself and his opportunities.

EDIT: not suggesting that it would be anything negative if it was clinical depression, just that the term has a specific meaning and not everyone who is feeling depressed is necessarily suffering from clinical depression.

Ah early in his career, I see. Had watched a bio on him many years back, so had a shaky memory on this.

Also yep agreed with your other points.

 

[fredfertang]

Presumably it refers to the accident in 1959 when Sobers was driving Collie Smith and Tom Dewdney to a charity match and Smith died as a result of the injuries he sustained - must have affected Sobers, obviously, but that winter of 1959/60 he averaged more than 100 with the bat in 5 tests against England so it seems not to have adversely affected his batting

 

[Jono]

Cheers boys. Good to know

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, that gets trotted out a bit, and I can't recall seeing a reliable source for it, or a detailed analysis of when it took place, but the gist of it was that if the team had a selection choice to make between a specialist spinner and an extra quick, if the conditions looked favourable for quick bowling, they'd take the extra specialist quick and Sobers would play the role of the spinner as required, and if the conditions looked like it would take spin, they'd play the extra specialist spinner and Sobers would take the place of the missing quick. So if anything he gets credited for sacrificing his own potential output by being flexible to help the team get the best balanced attack in each situation. As I said, I haven't seen an analysis of how much that actually happened, but I've no doubt it did occur in some instances.

I got that from some of the books SJS was kind enough to donate on the history of cricket.. Given that the books talk of cricket till about the 70s, I would thinkthe author knew not just of Sobers but of quite a few before him and he was pretty telling in his conclusion that Sobers was the best and that given he was the "bonus bowler" for his team, he always took on the type of bowling that was gonna be least successful as a way to rest the "main" bowlers and at the same time, do a decent job of it and allow the team to pick the specialists who are more likely to do the most damage with the ball...

 

[Matt79]

Not saying it's not true, just that I personally haven't seen an analysis, or even an account from a contemporary that details how often it happened. I'm not going to argue with SJS's library though!

 

[honestbharani]

Not saying it's not true, just that I personally haven't seen an analysis, or even an account from a contemporary that details how often it happened. I'm not going to argue with SJS's library though!

The other thing is, the role of a "stock" bowler was perhaps easier for Sobers given his batting duties than say that of a wicket taker.. Asking him to be a wicket taker or match winner would be akin to asking Imran or Botham or Dev or Hadlee to make 150s...

 

[Ikki]

According to Roland Perry he injured his back while wrestling with a mate during the war, and afterwards suffered pain from it that was quite fatiguing and distracting whenever his bowling workload got too heavy. Of course that's Perry talking, so he may well have just made that up.

I don't know I've heard that too. I also read somewhere he had a crash. The Sean would probably know better.

As I said, I haven't seen an analysis of how much that actually happened, but I've no doubt it did occur in some instances.

It probably did happen in some circumstances but I doubt enough so to justify revising his overall bowling stats. I remember looking at his career and he always seemed to be in an attack with one bonafide spinner and other all-rounders so I don't think the need to sacrifice himself came all that often as it is purported. I'd need more proof of match situations in which it occurred to start accepting that.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, I remember he did have a crash as well, but I think that re-aggravated the wrestling injury.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't know I've heard that too. I also read somewhere he had a crash. The Sean would probably know better.



It probably did happen in some circumstances but I doubt enough so to justify revising his overall bowling stats. I remember looking at his career and he always seemed to be in an attack with one bonafide spinner and other all-rounders so I don't think the need to sacrifice himself came all that often as it is purported. I'd need more proof of match situations in which it occurred to start accepting that.

lol... it is going to be hard to get that, Ikki.. We have enough trouble getting some consensus on what pitches are doing for matches happening right now.. It is gonna need SERIOUS luck to get any kind of general opinion on pitches which were played on 40 or 50 years ago.. It's impossible. We gotta go with opinions of people who were there..

 

[Matt79]

The other thing is, the role of a "stock" bowler was perhaps easier for Sobers given his batting duties than say that of a wicket taker.. Asking him to be a wicket taker or match winner would be akin to asking Imran or Botham or Dev or Hadlee to make 150s...

All depends how much 'stock' he was meant to produce as a 'stock bowler'.

 

[honestbharani]

All depends how much 'stock' he was meant to produce as a 'stock bowler'.

I dunno but given the scoring rate of those days, getting through 20 overs a day or so of spin wasn't so much of a toll for his body.. My guess.

 

[weldone]

I dunno but given the scoring rate of those days, getting through 20 overs a day or so of spin wasn't so much of a toll for his body.. My guess.

I'm not so sure about how the scoring rate and the toll on bowler's body are related in any way...20 overs were 120 balls then too, right?...spinning a ball and delivering it at a certain speed through 22 yards required same effort those days too, right?...maybe I'm missing some important point

 

[Sanz]

Following are the claims I want to know truth about.

"You Can't Handle the Truth"

 

[Uppercut]

72 wickets at 30.75, economy of 2.11, strike rate of 87 opening the bowling. Only 5 opening bowlers of the time took more wickets, with only John Snow and Garth McKenzie taking over 100 wickets between 1965 and '73. So, of his time you'd have to say he was one of the better opening bowlers. The difference between those 5 other opening bowlers and Garfield Sobers was that Sobers was not only one of the premier bowlers, but in that time period was the leading run scorer in the world. Between '65 and '73 he scored 3834 runs at 59.90 with 12 centuries. He was the leading run-scorer, had the best average and scored more hundreds than anyone else in the Top 10 of the time.

He did play in an utterly horrendous era for bowling. It's difficult to say to what extent this was down to conditions, quality batting or poor bowling.

In the end it doesn't really matter in the case of Sobers because he was an all-rounder. If you're going to conclude that the stats don't do his bowling justice because he played in a tough era for bowlers then there isn't really any way around concluding that his batting is a bit overrated for the same reason. Personally I don't think either are true, but you can't really have one without the other.

 

[JBH001]

To be fair to BS, no-one as yet, has answered these questions:

1."He used to bowl spin on pace friendly wickets & pace on spin friendly wickets".
2."He would hate to bowl to tailenders".(What percentage of lower order/tailender wickets did he take?)
3."He was a dangerous new-ball bowler"."(At what average & strike did he take top order wickets?)

And I have seen these trotted out from time to time on Sobers related discussions. It would be nice too, as BS asked, see the sources for these claims. It is something I have sometimes wondered myself.

Frankly, I think Sobers and Kallis the greatest of all-rounders (of their type). With Botham, Kapil, and Imran the greatest all-rounders of their type. Miller is a bit of a funny one; I think him over-rated, and I'd probably have him behind all of the above in my rankings list.