Sir Garfield Sobers's bowling ability - Opinions vs Stats

[ZoraxDoom]

To be fair, I'd rate Kallis almost as high as Sobers. They were different types of batsmen, but their records show them to be about the same skill wise. And Sobers has the edge for his fielding and being able to bowl Pace and Spin at test match quality, with Kallis only bowling pace.


Oh, and I think Sober's action is fairly ugly too TBH. Although I guess it grows on you the more you watch it.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

To be fair, I'd rate Kallis almost as high as Sobers. They were different types of batsmen, but their records show them to be about the same skill wise. And Sobers has the edge for his fielding and being able to bowl Pace and Spin at test match quality, with Kallis only bowling pace.


Oh, and I think Sober's action is fairly ugly too TBH. Although I guess it grows on you the more you watch it.

actually I would call it completely differently. For me Sobers is comfortably a better bat, skill wise, he hit a 364, this was way before racking up such high scores was normal. the six sixes is also a good indicatort of his talent along with the massive average.

Bowling wise I'd go for Kallis though. Kallis generates swing and is genuinely nippy when he wants to be. for a large chunk of his career he would have played for south africa (and a few other countries) on the strength of his bowling.

 

[Robelinda]

Of all batsman averaging 50 Kallis would be the worst to watch. Sometimes when he is playing more aggressively he is good to watch, but he so rarely does it for SA which is a shame. Has always played like the pitch is a minefield, overly defensive. His strokeplay is great, much like Atherton, Boycott, or Hussain- you just dont see it often enough, only in the IPL.

 

[pcfan123]

Bit of a moot point but I think people who playing in a time of no helmets/visors deserve a lot more respect than modern day batsman. See the quote in Dare's sig.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Cons of batting in the past:

- Uncovered wickets
- Lack of safety equipment
- Poorer bats and/or longer boundaries


Pros of batting in the past:

- Lower fielding standards
- Less video footage available (so bowlers can't plan in advance)


Yea, batting in the past seems harder.

 

[War]

Of all batsman averaging 50 Kallis would be the worst to watch. Sometimes when he is playing more aggressively he is good to watch, but he so rarely does it for SA which is a shame. Has always played like the pitch is a minefield, overly defensive. His strokeplay is great, much like Atherton, Boycott, or Hussain- you just dont see it often enough, only in the IPL.

The unfortunate truth about Kallis.

 

[War]

If that's the case, then Sobers mightn't be the greatest complete all-rounder then.
Here's a table of players who made a century and took a 5fer IN THE SAME SERIES It's happened 81 times. Sobers has 5 of those.
Other guys who did it more than once:
Ian Botham - 10
Garfield Sobers - 5
Imran Khan - 3
Keith Miller - 3
Wasim Akram - 3
A bunch of others did it twice including Flintoff, Tony Greig, Kallis and Shaun Pollock.
And for those interested, Kapil Dev and Richard Hadlee only had 1 series each.

Also, there has only been 3 series ever where a player has taken at least 2 5fers and made at least 2 centuries:
Richie Benaud 57/58 v South Africa - 2 centuries, 4 5fers
Tony Greig 73/74 v West Indies - 2 centuries, 3 5fers
Ian Botham the legendary 1981 Ashes - 2 centuries, 3 5fers

When i say an all-rounder @ his peak as a "complete all-rounder", who is able to take a 5-wicket haul & score a century consistently. It does't necessarily have to be during a single series.

It just means during that all-rounders peak, he can be depended on over a period of time, whether its 2 years, 3 years, 5 years or 10 years. To score hundreds & take 5 wicket hauls on a consistent basis.

Instead being a batting-allrounder, whose batting in the main-stenght & bowling just chips in with a few wickets here or there (Kallis, Greig). Or a bowling all-rounder (Hadlee or S Pollock) who bowling where their strenght - but could contribute with the bat every now & again.

Plus even using that list as you can see their Kallis none of the times he scored a hundred a took a 5 wicket haul was againts top quality opposition. Windies & Bangladesh where the teams..

I can remember two series off by head. South Africa vs Windies 2000/01 & SA vs ENG 2008. Where as his bowling stepped up in the absense of Donald (in 2001) & Steyn (2009) his batting during those respective series declined.

There's a very simple reason Kallis hasn't taken many 5fers - he didn't bowl near as much as Sobers. To get a 5fer you probably need to bowl 20 or more overs in an innings.
Sobers bowled 20 overs in an innings (or 15x8 ball overs) 92 times for 8 career 5fers
:
Kallis has bowled 20 overs 37 times for 5 career 5fers (2 v Bangladesh)
It's not Kallis' fault he's had to wait behind Donald, Steyn, Pollock and Ntini.

I dont buy & nver have bought the reasoning that Kallis hasn't taken more 5 wickets hauls just because he has had to bowl behind Donald, Pollock, Steyn & Ntini at various points.

Yea sure between 95-2001 when Donald/Pollock where at their peaks as new-ball pair, they most likely would have got alot of new-ball wickets etc. But at the same time if Kallis was good enough 3rd seamer South Africa could have structured their team different (i.e pick an extra batsman & make Kallis one of the 4 main bowlers). They never did & Kallis was always a 5th bowler in tests. While Sobers at his peak as bowler was part of a 4-man attack along with Hall/Griffith/Gibbs.


Also if Kallis bowling was really that good as a bowler. When the Donald/Pollock combo began to decline circa 2001. South Africa went through a strong transition period after the 2003 WC when Grame Smith became skipper. Between 2003-2006 SA where not playing good test cricket, that was the period for Kallis to step up as bowler - but he didn't. His batting is what took off in tests.

I can play with Statsguru too. How about Kallis' almost 10 year slab from 1998 England series to 2007/08? averaging 63 with bat, 31 with ball
If I play fair and take Bangladesh and Zimbabwe out that time period becomes:average of 58.6 with bat, 33.4 with ball And given the recent trend of better batting pitches probably adding to averages by a couple, then the records are virtually identical.

Good discussions people

Haa no my friend. That period if highlighted via statsguru was not one i just picked out of the air. I limited to Sobers peak as an "all-rounder" to AUS 60/61 to ENG 1969 based on what i've read about his career. What you have done with Kallis is indeed "playing stats guru".

As you may know Sobers made his debut in 1954 vs ENG as a left-arm spinner batting @ 8. Then between 1954 to 1957 he didn't do much in tests, but many saw his talent.

His career took that massive turn in Kingston 1957 when he broke the world record. Then between that 365* innings in 1957 to 59/60 vs England his batting took off, while his bowling took a back-seat.

He went to AUS as the best batsman in the world & based on what i've read. It was in that 60/61 series is when he began to show his true colours as an complete all-rounder. Then for the entire 1960s his efforts as an all-rounder where superb.

As i mentioned before his peformances as an all-orunder vs England in 1966 is arguably the greatest individual series performance by a player outside Bradman 974 runs in Ashes 1930. Kallis has never had a series as an all-rounder remotely comparable to that.

 

[sifter132]

When i say an all-rounder @ his peak as a "complete all-rounder", who is able to take a 5-wicket haul & score a century consistently. It does't necessarily have to be during a single series...

That's cool. I was just trying to illustrate what my opinion of consistently getting 100s and 5fers is. To me Botham was better than Sobers at that and Sobers was better than Kallis at that. I'm not trying to argue Botham was the better allrounder, his performances weren't consistent enough.

I dont buy & nver have bought the reasoning that Kallis hasn't taken more 5 wickets hauls just because he has had to bowl behind Donald, Pollock, Steyn & Ntini at various points...

Fair enough. I'm merely pointing out that he's bowled far less overs than Sobers so you can't expect him to get as many 5fers. Why he's bowled less overs is another question. One theory is the Donald, Pollock, Steyn 'not enough wickets to go around' theory, another is the 'he just wasn't that good' theory. Believe what you like - I don't mind. I'm not pushing Kallis as some awesome bowler, I'm just saying it's hard to get 5fers when you don't bowl as much.

Haa no my friend. That period if highlighted via statsguru was not one i just picked out of the air. I limited to Sobers peak as an "all-rounder" to AUS 60/61 to ENG 1969 based on what i've read about his career. What you have done with Kallis is indeed "playing stats guru".

Look, I can justify my date selection for Kallis just as well as you have for Sobers. What's your problem? Have I cut off bits of his career that you think should have been counted? Well you've done the same for Sobers date range, in fact you've cut off MORE of his career. Personally, I think a selection of almost 10 years in a 14.5 year career for Kallis is more impressive than a Sobers selection of almost 10 years in a 20 year career even when factoring his first 3-4 years that emphasised bowling. Have I picked end points immediately before and after which he didn't do that well? Yes. Same as you did for your Sobers date range. Only difference being you've justified/excused them with a few flowery statements based on what you've read. Fact is he wasn't as good before and after the 60s and that's why you didn't include those years. So please don't act like you've used career splits in some 'right' way and I've used them in a 'wrong' way.

As i mentioned before his peformances as an all-orunder vs England in 1966 is arguably the greatest individual series performance by a player outside Bradman 974 runs in Ashes 1930. Kallis has never had a series as an all-rounder remotely comparable to that.

Yes agree. Kallis has never had a series like that.

 

[kirby]

While Sobers at his peak as bowler was part of a 4-man attack along with Hall/Griffith/Gibbs.

There were two points of Sobers' career. First, he was the 4th man of a 4-man attack, meaning that when he was bowling his pace he was always the bloke who got shoved into the wind, or was asked to bowl when Hall and Griffith were tired. When he was bowling his spin, Gibbs always got preference to bowl into the wind.

Then in the latter part of his career, he really had to carry his team's pace bowling, meaning he had to bowl a lot more overs and often had to bowl a lot more defensively because of what was going on at the other end.

 

[War]

That's cool. I was just trying to illustrate what my opinion of consistently getting 100s and 5fers is. To me Botham was better than Sobers at that and Sobers was better than Kallis at that. I'm not trying to argue Botham was the better allrounder, his performances weren't consistent enough.

Sir Botham's peak as a all-rounder from 1977-84 was indeed the most dynamic peak period for any all-rounder in history. But what makes the likes of Sobers, Imran & Hadlee better than him overall was that they started off like caterpillars & turned into butterfiles. While Botham started off like a train & crashed (his injury around 1982/83) after 1984.

So its a case of longevity beating extrordinary peak.

Fair enough. I'm merely pointing out that he's bowled far less overs than Sobers so you can't expect him to get as many 5fers. Why he's bowled less overs is another question. One theory is the Donald, Pollock, Steyn 'not enough wickets to go around' theory, another is the 'he just wasn't that good' theory. Believe what you like - I don't mind. I'm not pushing Kallis as some awesome bowler, I'm just saying it's hard to get 5fers when you don't bowl as much.

Well they "why" is what i answered in the post based on watching Kallis' career as bowler. Which is as you mentioned "he wasn't that good of to be part of a 4-man attack".

Even if Kallis were to end up or had bowled as much 20 over per innings like Sobers i just can't see how he would have taken as many 5 wicket hauls. Since his bowling repotorire is so limited.

Kallis strenght as a bowler especially in his early days is ability to swing the ball (conventional swing) - which would make him pretty effective in English conditons. He never could reverse-swing the ball which makes him pretty useless on flat pitches of the sub-continent.

Sobers on a flat pitch could resort to his spin bowling, plus coild reverse-swing the ball when he bowled pace. Which increased his changes of taking big-hauls/5 wicket hauls. As it indeed did prove in his career.

Look, I can justify my date selection for Kallis just as well as you have for Sobers. What's your problem? Have I cut off bits of his career that you think should have been counted? Well you've done the same for Sobers date range, in fact you've cut off MORE of his career. Personally, I think a selection of almost 10 years in a 14.5 year career for Kallis is more impressive than a Sobers selection of almost 10 years in a 20 year career even when factoring his first 3-4 years that emphasised bowling. Have I picked end points immediately before and after which he didn't do that well? Yes. Same as you did for your Sobers date range. Only difference being you've justified/excused them with a few flowery statements based on what you've read. Fact is he wasn't as good before and after the 60s and that's why you didn't include those years. So please don't act like you've used career splits in some 'right' way and I've used them in a 'wrong' way.

Ha no my friend i didn't include his bowling performances before the 60s because Sobers in his early years as player between 54-60 was either a nothing player or just a batsman.

Its all about understanding how a players career worked. Steve Waugh, Allan Davidson & Richie Benaud career evolved similarly to Sobers.

Waugh between 85/86 to 92/93 (when he scored his that MCG hundred vs Windies). Wasn't much of cricketer as you may know. Started off an all-rounder of sorts, got dropped & was in & out of the teams. It was after that MCG hundred that Waugh blosommed into a world-class middleorder batsman for the next decade.

Benaud & Davidson for the first 6 years of their careers didn't to anything of note in test. The talent was their to see so AUS persisted with them. It wasn't until that 56/57 tour to South Africa where bot their careers took off.

So when judging Waugh as batsman you can't take his entire career into context. You have to judge from 92/93 onwards, it would be incorrect to start from 85/86. Same thing with Davo & Beanuad from 56/57 onwards. That why with Sobers peak as an all-rounder you really have to start from 60/61.

Yes agree. Kallis has never had a series like that.

Well if you agree with this. That series alone proves why Sobers>>>>Kallis as an all-rounder.

 

[aussie1st]

The Channel 9 team showed some of his deliveries, he certainly could get the ball to move around in the right conditions. His swing is up there with the best swing bowlers we have currently. Never saw his spin bowling but it must have been pretty handy.

 

[Kenway]

Like many, I too rate Sir Garfield Sobers as the greatest cricketer to have ever lived. Let's face it, he is widely regarded as the greatest ever all rounder.

The point I'm about to raise is his bowling ability. Here's a paragraph from Wikipedia (Sir Garfield Sobers's page) -




Let's look at Sobers's career bowling figures -

235 wickets @ 34.03, SR 91.9


It's true that stats don't give us the complete picture. It's quite true that someone like Viv Richards with an average lower than all of his contemporaries of his era is still considered far better than each one of them. It's also true that despite there being a huge gap in the average between Tendulkar and Lara all throughout their careers, the latter was always considered in the same league as Sachin.

But having said that, how can a player with a very mediocre bowling average of 34.03 and a pathetic strike rate of 91.9 be considered as 'a bowler of extraordinary skill'? It's just irrational.

What's the opinion of the rest of you guys on the issue?

Bradman will always be the GOAT of this sport. That's the only GENERAL consensus. He made it a batsman's game, in an era where the sport was dominated by the bowlers. Even to this day, even in this super batsman favored era.. no one still could even come close to Bradman's batting prowess, and especially that unrealistically high batting average.

He only needed 4 runs in his final game to retire with an batting average of a full 100! But got out first ball with a duck. That's even more absurd, and quite hilarious.




But yes, Sobers is considered the Greatest All Rounder, by a LOT of people. But realistically, , Keith Miller, Ian Botham (peak), Imran Khan and even modern day great Gary Sobers.. are all considered far superior by millions.

Sobers was a world class batsman, probably the 2nd greatest after Bradman. But he was a mediocre bowler. He just bowled a lot, with different styles of bowling.

But "wickets per match" means more as a bowler, than just "bowling different shit"..


So there's been some superior players who was world class with BOTH the bat and ball. Hence, it makes it kind of delusional to say Sobers as the "greatest all rounder". Unless that's just what you want to believe

 

[blockerdave]

I think some posters are missing the point. We all know that he is an all time great batsman, and along with that he also took 250 wickets which is sufficient to rank him as one of the best all rounders ever. With his exceptional batting career, he need not have an equally great bowling career alongside to lay his claim as one of the top all rounders.

The point however is that how can someone with an average of above 34 with the ball be described as 'a bowler of extra ordinary skill'? That's what baffles me. It would be like calling a batsman with an average of below 40 as a batsman of extra ordinary skill.

Because he could bowl various types and was test-standard in every single one. That takes extraordinary skill.

There is generally a compromise in the numbers of all all-rounders, some have great bowling stats and lesser batting stats, some have great batting stats and lesser bowling stats.

Imran Khan (37.69 batting and 22.81 bowling) is probably the only one where both stats are closer to what might be termed “specialist” stats in both disciplines.

 

[Yash.]

Because he could bowl various types and was test-standard in every single one. That takes extraordinary skill.

There is generally a compromise in the numbers of all all-rounders, some have great bowling stats and lesser batting stats, some have great batting stats and lesser bowling stats.

Imran Khan (37.69 batting and 22.81 bowling) is probably the only one where both stats are closer to what might be termed “specialist” stats in both disciplines.

IMO, Kallis was also close to a specialist in both. His bowling was still effective with a bowling average of 32.

 

[blockerdave]

IMO, Kallis was also close to a specialist in both. His bowling was still effective with a bowling average of 32.

yes, but his averages - 55/32 are more or less interchangeable with Sobers - 57/34

In the era of the 70s/80s, to be genuinely worth your place as a specialist, you'd need to average 35+ with the bat (40+ being the benchmark of world class), and <30 with the ball (<25 being the world class benchmark).

Imran is the only one who manages that.

One can argue that any all-rounder has compromises cuz of their workload - Kallis was a good enough bowler that if he had been a crap batsman and only bowled, he'd likely have had a far better average. Probably the same with all the others. (Or vice versa, if they'd been pure batsmen they may have scored more heavily.) But that's all a bit speculative: Imran is the only one who actually posted the numbers.