From: mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Gary Sobers - the greatest allrounder?
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:50:18 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1993Jan7.161139.15093@schbbs.mot.com>, TUK067@maccvm.corp.mot.com (David Wheeler) writes:
> kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
> 
>>In <C0GsFJ.EL2@ns1.nodak.edu> ksrao@power.ee.ndsu.nodak.edu writes:
> 
>>: In yesterday's commentary showers of praise were given to Sobers, as the
>>: best cricketer the world has ever produced by Bill Lawry (it could have been
>>: one of the Chaapals (sic) though).
> 
>>I think that at various stages in the past couple of days almost all the
>>commentators priased Sobers as the best all round cricketer ever, which is
>>not really surprising, as there's not really anyone even close (he wouldn't
>>have been the best fast bowler, slow bowler, batsman, or even fielder, but
>>he did all of those remarkably well).
> 
> The argument about "greatest cricketer", "greatest allrounder" etc. could rage
> on and on for years without ever being resolved.  Sobers was one of the greats,
> no doubt about it; his test record speaks for itself.  His great strength was
> his batting, which would have earned him a place in the WI team even if he
> couldn't bowl; 8034 Test runs at an average of well over 50 is beyond reproach
> and puts him, without question, among the elite of Test batsmen.  Ally that to
> his skill with the ball (I don't remember how many Test wickets he took, but
> it was > 200, wasn't it?) and his agility in the field, and you have a player
> of unique ability who would have graced any team he played in.
> 
> But was he of more value to WI than Botham was :-( to England?  (I have to say
> "was", for reasons that will become apparent).  Or Hadlee to NZ?  Or Imran to
> Pakistan?  Or Kapil to India?  We have been extremely privileged over the last

It is interesting that none of the five allrounders mentioned managed to quite
help their respective teams establish a clear dominance in world cricket during
their respective eras.  Sobers probably came the closest fopr a couple years in
the 60's, and Imran had the misfortune to be contemporary with strong
Australian sides and the most ruthless team, Clive Lloyds WI.

In terms of their value, I think paradoxically, Sobers was the one who had the
least burden in propping up a team of non-performers (relatively speaking). 
Sobers' contemporaries included at one time or the other bowlers of the calibre
of Hall and Griffith, Lance Gibbs, Ramadhin and Valentine among others.  But it
is his batting contemporaries that make for an eye opener.  Here are some stats
(OK its 3am and my thesis is sending me crazy!)

Batsman             Tests  Inns   NO    HS    Runs    Avg    100s


Basil Butcher        44     78    6    209*   3104   43.11    7
Charles Davis        15     29    5    183    1301   54.20    4
Roy Fredericks       59    109    7    169    4334   42.49    8
Conrad Hunte         44     78    6    260    3245   45.06    8
Rohan Kanhai         79    137    6    256    6227   47.53   15
Clive Lloyd         110    175   14    242*   7515   46.67   19
Seymour Nurse        29     54    1    258    2523   47.60    6
Clyde Walcott        44     74    7    220    3798   56.68   15
Everton Weekes       48     81    5    207    4455   58.61   15
Frank Worrell        51     87    9    261    3860   49.48    9

(and the man himself)

Gary Sobers          93    160   21    365*   8032   57.78   26

So it's clear that he never was needed for batting the way Botham was at times
for England.  I would post the bowlers but I'll leave them for another time. 
He performed heroics in a team of talent.  The batting stats of Clyde Walcott
and Everton Weekes make awesome reading.  I wonder if they had played in 100
tests what their final aggregates and averages would have been?.  Of the list
above, Charles Davis is Trinidadian, Rohan Kanhai and Clive LLoyd are Guyanese
and the rest are all Barbadians!  Per capita the greatest producers of world
class cricketers in the world.

When you also consider that he batted for most of his career at #6, then this
puts Sobers's performance in even greater perspective.  His reasoning for
batting so low down was this.  If the people ahead of him scored runs then he
would not be required to do so, and if there was a collapse then he was the man
to turn things round.

> 
> And how would any of these four have compared to Sobers?  Let the arguments
> begin! :-)

It is fair to say that of the four, they were probably all better bowlers than
Sobers.  However in his defence, he had more high class bowling contemporaries
than any of the four, with Botham probably having the best backup of the rest.
Sobers also experimented with different forms of bowling and his whole attitude
seemed to be playing cricket for cricket's sake.  His 235 wickets would keep
him in any side as a bowler though.

His batting stands apart. (QED).  i think Imran sums it up well when he says
Sobers was the greatest allrounder, better than all of us by far.  Like Bradman 
in batting debates may rage, but at the end of the day their figures stare you
in the face.  They have no voice, but cast in bronze they dare you to find
their better.

McBean
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket