cricketing mythbusters

[puddleduck]

That's got nothing to do with it, which was the point I was making I've seen it mentioned in various places that India can't produce fast bowlers etc...

 

[AngryPixel]

Who said it was genetics? They share the same gene pool as Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Akhtar, Asif, Aamir etc.

More than culture, if anything. All want to be the next Tendulkar.

So its all Tendulkar's fault isn't it . Damn, thats why there are no fast bowlers in India.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

This is not so much a myth as an over-looked fact. YES we know garry sobers was not a great bowler, or even in league with good ones of his era, some where between average and good, maybe an ashley giles. We know that makes the all-rounder debate vaguely interesting in some ways but here's the thing he was the best batsman the west indies produced. yes, better than headley, viv richards and lara, and if we're placing him on bat skill you're probably looking at a more realistic contender to the #2 behind bradman than tendulkar.

AND he bowled pretty damn well. which is why people rate him so highly, would have been quite handy if england could have picked Giles for the ashes and played him at 3 or 4 and seen him hit triple centuries yeah? yeah.

 

[sifter132]

Yeah I think Sobers has a great claim as the #2 batsmen of all-time, and to be honest it sometimes annoys me a lot that he gets classed as an all-rounder. I mean he obviously is an all-rounder, I just mean there should be a lot more focus on just how good a batsman he was.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I think what bugs me most is in all-time XIs, which are pretty ubiquitous in cricket talk, he often gets dumped at 6 because of lazy thinking. anyone that would put sobers down the order to pinch some runs at the end is a plonker.

 

[puddleduck]

Please don't ever compare Sobers bowling with Ashley Giles ever again

 

[Keeper]

I imagine many of us who weren't watching cricket in that era have been through a similar journey of hearing about Sobers' all-round prowess and, when we see his stats, being surprised at how good his batting looks in comparison to a pretty mediocre set of bowling figures.

If I was to speculate his all-rounder credentials could be based on a mixture of...

1. A better First Class bowling record that belongs more to a true all-rounder

2. Admiration for the skill involved in bowling with such a variety of bowling styles - and the tactical options it gave his team

3. He bowled a lot - average of 22 overs per innings, which meant he was involved a lot and probably performed an important function for the team. He was also very economical. The overall effect comes over a pretty attritional (especially with a strike rate of 90 odd), a far call from the image of the attacking, flamboyant all-rounder.

4. If memory serves wasn't he also an excellent fielder, which maybe added to the perception of him as a supreme cricketer full stop who could do anything.

All very mysterious. What is interesting is how many players did bowl in many of the Windies teams he was in.

One thing the stats don't tell us is whether he was a much better bowler in one style than the others...

 

[sifter132]

Yeah that sounds pretty right, and I think particularly points 2 and 4 tend to get emphasised a little more than they should to the point his bowling gets overrated a fair bit.

I think what bugs me most is in all-time XIs, which are pretty ubiquitous in cricket talk, he often gets dumped at 6 because of lazy thinking. anyone that would put sobers down the order to pinch some runs at the end is a plonker.

Well that's another of my problems with Sobers . He played a heck of a lot at #5 and #6. Cricinfo tells me he played 57 innings at #6 and 37 at #5, 15 innings at #7 or lower - so 109 of his 160 Test innings were at #5 or lower. My question is why? He was usually the clear best bat in the team after the Ws retired and only really Kanhai could rival him for that title. Was he really that fatigued from bowling all those overs that he couldn't bat at #3 or #4? Why did he bat up there in some series, do well, and then go back down the order again for the next one? It's a little mysterious to me.

 

[Keeper]

In the '58 tour of India he scored 142* batting at 3 in the first test, 198 batting at 4 in the second test and 106* batting at 6 in the third test

Maybe he was too accommodating to his skippers for his own good?

 

[puddleduck]

It's because his first 15 tests or so he didn't really score any runs, and was picked primarily as a bowler.

He was a bowler who bats. I've mentioned this once or twice I think

 

[Keeper]

I'm going to stop staring at stats now, but never realised his first test ton was 365*. He must have been gutted afterwards, knowing that his career had peaked so early