Garry Sobers vs Imran Khan - Who was the better cricketer?

[Chrish]

I must say when comparing two players , I can normally determine who is better after analyzing stats..Not on this occasion.

Sobers batting daylight > Imran's

Imran' bowling daylight > Sobers'

Honestly it's a coin toss situation. What's ur take?

 

[Buffet]

Sobers has influenced more series with his weaker skill set. He did it at the same time when he influenced it with his stronger skill set. Sobers was a brilliant fielder, who could field at multiple positions. IK was at best an average fielder.

Sobers for me. Majority hold that view for one reason or another but I gave my reasons.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

You my friend may have created one fine blockbuster thread.

Going by general opinion, Sobers is considered the greatest by most.

Like Don for batting.
Malcolm Marshall for bowling.
Sobers for AR.

I haven't broken down Sobers vs Imran to know for certainty who is better but expert and neutral opinion is very strong in this case.
In fact Sobers vs SRT/Lara in batting too - There is a good chance Sobers may win the neutral polls (judging by what I hear).

Hopefully the last line doesn't derail the thread. I mentioned it to point out how highly Sobers is rated.

 

[Chrish]

Sobers has influenced more series with his weaker skill set. He did it at the same time when he influenced it with his stronger skill set. Sobers was a brilliant fielder, who could field at multiple positions. IK was at best an average fielder.

Sobers for me. Majority hold that view for one reason or another but I gave my reasons.

I have been little skeptical about Sobers' batting.. Always felt he benefited from weaker bowling units.. He "peaked" after the retirement of Trueman, Tyson, Laker, Statham, Lindwall, Milker etc. In short, once Oz and Eng bowling became weaker

Imran on the other hand has a very balanced record.. Although one can certainly argue he was way better at home than away

 

[Chrish]

You my friend may have created one fine blockbuster thread.

Going by general opinion, Sobers is considered the greatest by most.

Like Don for batting.
Malcolm Marshall for bowling.
Sobers for AR.

I haven't broken down Sobers vs Imran to know for certainty who is better but expert and neutral opinion is very strong in this case.
In fact Sobers vs SRT/Lara in batting too - There is a good chance Sobers may win the neutral polls (judging by what I hear).

Hopefully the last line doesn't derail the thread. I mentioned it to point out how highly Sobers is rated.

Yeah the general opinion is in Sobers' favor but honestly the gap here is not as big as some cricket fans would like to believe

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Yeah the general opinion is in Sobers' favor but honestly the gap here is not as big as some cricket fans would like to believe

True.

Someone needs to break down Sober's stats and we need to analyze.

People get too seduced by who is more awesome in full flight while forgetting who was more effective across the whole career (which is what really matters). Just commenting on the general state of how things are viewed.

 

[Buffet]

I have been little skeptical about Sobers' batting.. Always felt he benefited from weaker bowling units.. He "peaked" after the retirement of Trueman, Tyson, Laker, Statham, Lindwall, Milker etc. In short, once Oz and Eng bowling became weaker

Imran on the other hand has a very balanced record.. Although one can certainly argue he was way better at home than away

I don't see Sobers in the same batting league as Viv/SRT/Greg etc anyway but as an all rounder, he was a top dog.

 

[Junaids]

True.

Someone needs to break down Sober's stats and we need to analyze.

People get too seduced by who is more awesome in full flight while forgetting who was more effective across the whole career (which is what really matters). Just commenting on the general state of how things are viewed.

It's actually impossible: records don't survive of which overs he bowled pace, swing, left-arm orthodox or chinamen.

And it's not a like-for-like comparison: Sobers was a batting all-rounder whereas Imran was a balanced one (and Hadlee was a bowling one like Benaud).

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

It's actually impossible: records don't survive of which overs he bowled pace, swing, left-arm orthodox or chinamen.

And it's not a like-for-like comparison: Sobers was a batting all-rounder whereas Imran was a balanced one (and Hadlee was a bowling one like Benaud).

Agreed that Sobers was a batting AR while Imran was more of a balanced one.

I was talking about breakdown of performance against different sides, context, consistency, clutch performance, overall consistency (all factors come in play).

 

[Buffet]

Agreed that Sobers was a batting AR while Imran was more of a balanced one.

.

Sobers had more frequent contributions with ball and bat in multiple series.

Not sure how IK was a balanced one when majority of his batting came in later part of his career when he bowled a lot less. Not talking about average etc here simply how much he contributed with bat and ball in comparison to early first half of Botham or Sobers.

 

[corneredtiger85292]

As one poster mentioned above, the gap is not as big as people think.

One was a better bowler, one a better batsmen, Imran was certainly the more balanced all rounder in my opinion. In fact, call it being biased or whatever, I'd pick Imran any day of the week, it's his leadership qualities that win it for me.

 

[Junaids]

I think that Sobers can only be compared with batting all-rounders who bat in the Top Four in Tests - Jacques Kallis, Clive Rice and, ahem, Ravi Shastri or Mohammad Hafeez!

Imran has to be compared with balanced all-rounders who batted at 6-8 and bowled 40+ overs per Test: Botham, Kapil Dev, Procter and Shaun Pollock.

The third group would be bowling all-rounders who average less than 30 with the bat but bowl 60+ overs per Test: Richard Hadlee, Wasim Akram, Mitchell Johnson and Alan Davidson.

I think it's impossible to compare subjectively and even more so "objectively" between those separate categories.

 

[Buffet]

I think that Sobers can only be compared with batting all-rounders who bat in the Top Four in Tests - Jacques Kallis, Clive Rice and, ahem, Ravi Shastri or Mohammad Hafeez!

Imran has to be compared with balanced all-rounders who batted at 6-8 and bowled 40+ overs per Test: Botham, Kapil Dev, Procter and Shaun Pollock.

The third group would be bowling all-rounders who average less than 30 with the bat but bowl 60+ overs per Test: Richard Hadlee, Wasim Akram, Mitchell Johnson and Alan Davidson.

I think it's impossible to compare subjectively and even more so "objectively" between those separate categories.

So is it work load of bowling 40+ overs in Tests or Batting position?

To put it in context - Sobers has around 48% of Tests with less than 40 overs. IK has around 49% of Tests with less than 40 overs. Both of them have not bowled more than 50% of tests with 40+ overs. Just rough numbers but it should be not way off target.

 

[Chrish]

Sobers was actually a "regular" bowler like Buffet suggests. People rate him as a batting all rounder due to his relatively weaker bowling stats..

 

[Junaids]

So is it work load of bowling 40+ overs in Tests or Batting position?

To put it in context - Sobers has around 48% of Tests with less than 40 overs. IK has around 49% of Tests with less than 40 overs. Both of them have not bowled more than 50% of tests with 40+ overs. Just rough numbers but it should be not way off target.

Good point!

Maybe a batting all-rounder bats 150+ balls per Test, a balanced all-rounder bats 100+ balls per Test and a bowling all-rounder bats 75+ balls per Test?

 

[zulfiqar]

To call Imran a "balanced" all-rounder with some of the definitions used above is to suggest that he is "good" in both batting and bowling. This is slightly misleading because Imran Khan -- the bowler -- is better than some of the bowlers mentioned above. So Imran's stats suggest that he is a BOWLING all-rounder, as in, someone who will be the team's first pick as a bowler alone, but can bat too. This is what makes Imran extremely special.

Of all the bowling all rounders, the separation between Imran Khan and the rest is ENORMOUS. You will fail to find a single world class fast bowler (someone who averages at most 25 in tests) who batted as well as Imran did! This makes Imran more valuable to me (because there is no one quite like him).

Sobers is also very unique. And if we were going just by numbers, Sobers has a better statistical record than Imran (arguably). But there is one man who is at least in the same category as Sobers. A world class batsman (who averages at least 50 in tests) who can bowl as well as Sobers? Jacques Kallis. In fact, these two have similar records and similar roles in their respective teams as well. They are players who are expected to be the lynchpin batsmen and also bowl a healthy amount of overs to help their other star bowlers to take wickets or tie an end down.

I agree with one of the posters above who said it's impossible to compare them because they have different roles. Even though the two are classified as all-rounders, their primary skillset is different. Comparing Imran and Sobers is closer to comparing someone like Wasim Akram to Yuvraj Singh. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

 

[zulfiqar]

Having said that, if I had to select one of Sobers or Imran as the first pick in an XI, I will pick Imran Khan.

 

[Madplayer]

If i bowl at the international level , i might end up with a better test bowling strike rate than sobers.

 

[Justcrazy]

A fast bowling all rounder is like gold dust.

I would pick Imran in my XI .

 

[rhony]

Imran's leadership probably moves the needle towards him slightly. If that's not taken into consideration, then it's Sobers. Sobers is one of the top 5 batsmen and all rounders that ever played the game. Imran's definitely in the top 5 all rounders but is not a top 5 batter or bowler.

 

[Slog]

Tough one.

Sobers is an ATG batsman whereas Imran is an ATG bowler.

Though in their relative greatness over their primary skill Sobers is probably the better one ie his batting is superior.

However Imran's batting definitely is good but nowhere near great category. He would do his job down the order in tests though.

The problem I have with Sobers bowling is the Strike Rate of 92 which in any era is very very poor. Its not even the relatively mediocre bowling average which is the killer here but the SR for me. He has a decent overall wickets tally.

But its hard to make a decision because for Sobers you can go on stats alone. For guys like Kapil Dev, Hadlee, Botham, IK I have watched enough highlights and replays of their matches to be able to come to a decision but with little beyond numbers to go for Sobers it is hard for me to give a nod to either.

 

[Robert]

I think that Sobers can only be compared with batting all-rounders who bat in the Top Four in Tests - Jacques Kallis, Clive Rice and, ahem, Ravi Shastri or Mohammad Hafeez!

Imran has to be compared with balanced all-rounders who batted at 6-8 and bowled 40+ overs per Test: Botham, Kapil Dev, Procter and Shaun Pollock.

The third group would be bowling all-rounders who average less than 30 with the bat but bowl 60+ overs per Test: Richard Hadlee, Wasim Akram, Mitchell Johnson and Alan Davidson.

I think it's impossible to compare subjectively and even more so "objectively" between those separate categories.

This. Sobers is more appropriately compared to Wally Hammond and Kallis.

I'd pick Sir Garry because you get arguably the second-best batsmen in history behind Sir Donald, plus a test-class left-arm quick capable of opening the bowling with Hall, plus arguably the best ever slip catcher.

Imran said "The man who stands head and shoulders above us all is Garry Sobers."

 

[Scrolln]

Imran faced stronger opponents.

Sobers faced Trueman, Laker and Davidson (briefly) but the Indian and Pakistani teams he faced were weak. Also his high average is down to how beastly he was at home against all kinds of attacks. He did not set the world on fire when he faced Trueman/Laker in England, i read.

Having one of the worst SR's in bowling history does not help either.

I would go with Imran, by a fair way.

 

[Hawkeye]

Sobers has influenced more series with his weaker skill set. He did it at the same time when he influenced it with his stronger skill set. Sobers was a brilliant fielder, who could field at multiple positions. IK was at best an average fielder.

Sobers for me. Majority hold that view for one reason or another but I gave my reasons.

Buffet, you're usually good with stats but many a times like this one, your posts do lack context and logical meaning. Don't know how you came up with "more series wins"? What's the absolute criteria to judge this and how come Imran the destroyer with bowling, one of the best captaincy/tactics in cricket history and excellent batting falls behind. It's not possible. Not a logical and fair argument, just because you want to put Sobers ahead.

As others have mentioned, Imran performed excellent against far more tougher oppositions. Funny how you mentioned "Fielding" but where did Imran's brilliant captaincy go which is.far more important? And Imran wasn't a bad fielder at all lol.


As someone else mentioned, Imran the bowler is so good that some even put him above Wasim/Waqar. That's why his batting looks decent, which was rather in itself excellent, just dwarfed by AMAZING strike bowling. You want him if you want to win Tests.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Buffet, you're usually good with stats but many a times like this one, your posts do lack context and logical meaning. Don't know how you came up with "more series wins"? What's the absolute criteria to judge this and how come Imran the destroyer with bowling, one of the best captaincy/tactics in cricket history and excellent batting falls behind. It's not possible. Not a logical and fair argument, just because you want to put Sobers ahead.

As others have mentioned, Imran performed excellent against far more tougher oppositions. Funny how you mentioned "Fielding" but where did Imran's brilliant captaincy go which is.far more important? And Imran wasn't a bad fielder at all lol.


As someone else mentioned, Imran the bowler is so good that some even put him above Wasim/Waqar. That's why his batting looks decent, which was rather in itself excellent, just dwarfed by AMAZING strike bowling. You want him if you want to win Tests.

Imran was better, he was legendry fast bowler and if you look in modern era he is easily top five. Performed everywhere and against everyone. He was better fast bowler than Waqar Waseem , Ambrose, Walsh, Pollock and Headly . I will only put Maco, Pigeon, Donald and Steyn above him after 1980 fast bowlers.
Sobers average either bowling or be batting is inflatedby playing weak Pak and India .

 

[IndianWillow]

Different eras and some what different kinds of players, so they are obviously difficult to compare. For me, the pros and cons are:

Sobers:
Pros:
*Exceptional batsman, one of the greatest of all times.
*He was a full time bowler, unlike the likes of Kallis - so he was more than a batting all rounder. He was a balanced all rounder, though the stats don't show that because his strong performances as a pacer was masked by his weaker performances as a spinner.
*Sobers won matches with both bat and ball, and often won matches with the ball which was considered his weaker suite.
Cons:
*Sober's era was probably not as competitive like Imran's, so direct stats comparison may not be give the best results. Teams like NZ, Pakistan and India were a lot more competitive during Imran's era compared to Sober's era. Sobers had to contend only with two strong opponents in Australia and England. The Kiwi side of the 70s/80s was as strong as the Pakistani side of the 50s/60s, just for the context.

Imran:
Pros:
* Exceptional bowler, one of the greatest of all times.
* Exceptional leader and manager - singly responsible for the continuous flow of world class bowlers from Pakistan for many years.
* Played in a tough competitive era and brought out his best against the best teams.
Cons:
* Was rarely good with the bat and ball at the same time. He was either very good with the ball (early half) or good with the bat(later half) but he didn't match Sober's level in being able to excel simultaneously with bat and ball in any part of his career.

Sobers as batsman >> Imran
Imran as bowler >> Sobers
Imran as cricketer > Sobers

If I want to win a match, I would opt for both players, but I had only one pick I would choose Imran ahead of Sobers as better bowlers win you more test matches.

 

[junaid.ahmed]

Different eras and some what different kinds of players, so they are obviously difficult to compare. For me, the pros and cons are:

Sobers:
Pros:
*Exceptional batsman, one of the greatest of all times.
*He was a full time bowler, unlike the likes of Kallis - so he was more than a batting all rounder. He was a balanced all rounder, though the stats don't show that because his strong performances as a pacer was masked by his weaker performances as a spinner.
*Sobers won matches with both bat and ball, and often won matches with the ball which was considered his weaker suite.
Cons:
*Sober's era was probably not as competitive like Imran's, so direct stats comparison may not be give the best results. Teams like NZ, Pakistan and India were a lot more competitive during Imran's era compared to Sober's era. Sobers had to contend only with two strong opponents in Australia and England. The Kiwi side of the 70s/80s was as strong as the Pakistani side of the 50s/60s, just for the context.

Imran:
Pros:
* Exceptional bowler, one of the greatest of all times.
* Exceptional leader and manager - singly responsible for the continuous flow of world class bowlers from Pakistan for many years.
* Played in a tough competitive era and brought out his best against the best teams.
Cons:
* Was rarely good with the bat and ball at the same time. He was either very good with the ball (early half) or good with the bat(later half) but he didn't match Sober's level in being able to excel simultaneously with bat and ball in any part of his career.

Sobers as batsman >> Imran
Imran as bowler >> Sobers
Imran as cricketer > Sobers

If I want to win a match, I would opt for both players, but I had only one pick I would choose Imran ahead of Sobers as better bowlers win you more test matches.

Brilliant post!

 

[Stallion__]

Difficult to compare.

By nomenclature, they both are allrounders, but its like comparing a bowler with a batsman, since their primary skills were different.

Since bowlers are the one who mostly control test matches, they are the ones who possess greater match-winning abilities. But that shouldn't necessarily or by default make them a better player.

One thing I have noticed that people raise doubts over Sobers bowling ability because of his bowling SR, but don't take into consideration the time in which he played.

Those were the days, when batsmen don't used to attack spinners like today and spinners do rely on batsman making mistakes for their wickets. Hence bowling strike rates of spinners used to be much higher as compared to today, particularly the finger spinners.

Just see what used to be the strike rate of common spinner during Sober's period.

And that consists of mostly full time spinners. I am sure, if we further dissect it into finger and wrist spinners, it will increase even further for finger spinners.

Even if we look spinners of that era individually, their strike rates were

Gibbs : 88
Nadkarni : 104
Venkat : 95
Valentine : 93
Ramadhin : 88
Illingworth : 98
Bedi : 80

Only Underwood, Prassana and Lock have less than 80 strike rate during that time. (Sobers bowling SR too was less than 80 during 8 year period in 60s).

So Sobers by any means was barely lesser than a typical full time finger spinner of his era.


Sobers fulfills the definition of word 'allrounder' better than anyone else. Was a brilliant fielder and could bowl 3 different varieties with the ball and was captain in 30+ matches. He was most natural cricketer ever, could do anything on cricket field, a cricket is expected to do. As mentioned earlier, Sobers used to perform both with the bat and ball simultaneously while Imran, apart from that 82 series, mostly gave performance in either of the departments.

Excluding Imran's captaincy, purely as a cricketer, Sobers is better for me, not by much, but he is better!

 

[saadsahabjee]

Different eras and some what different kinds of players, so they are obviously difficult to compare. For me, the pros and cons are:

Sobers:
Pros:
*Exceptional batsman, one of the greatest of all times.
*He was a full time bowler, unlike the likes of Kallis - so he was more than a batting all rounder. He was a balanced all rounder, though the stats don't show that because his strong performances as a pacer was masked by his weaker performances as a spinner.
*Sobers won matches with both bat and ball, and often won matches with the ball which was considered his weaker suite.
Cons:
*Sober's era was probably not as competitive like Imran's, so direct stats comparison may not be give the best results. Teams like NZ, Pakistan and India were a lot more competitive during Imran's era compared to Sober's era. Sobers had to contend only with two strong opponents in Australia and England. The Kiwi side of the 70s/80s was as strong as the Pakistani side of the 50s/60s, just for the context.

Imran:
Pros:
* Exceptional bowler, one of the greatest of all times.
* Exceptional leader and manager - singly responsible for the continuous flow of world class bowlers from Pakistan for many years.
* Played in a tough competitive era and brought out his best against the best teams.
Cons:
* Was rarely good with the bat and ball at the same time. He was either very good with the ball (early half) or good with the bat(later half) but he didn't match Sober's level in being able to excel simultaneously with bat and ball in any part of his career.

Sobers as batsman >> Imran
Imran as bowler >> Sobers
Imran as cricketer > Sobers

If I want to win a match, I would opt for both players, but I had only one pick I would choose Imran ahead of Sobers as better bowlers win you more test matches.

In his last 10 years of international cricket he played 51 Tests, averaging a sensational 50 with the bat and 19 with the ball.

 

[Robert]

In his last 10 years of international cricket he played 51 Tests, averaging a sensational 50 with the bat and 19 with the ball.

This nonsense again How many not outs in those 51 tests?

 

[Indian_Supporter]

Sir Garyfield Sobers is considered by most experts unanimonously as the 'Greatest All Rounder Ever'.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[IndianWillow]

In his last 10 years of international cricket he played 51 Tests, averaging a sensational 50 with the bat and 19 with the ball.

So that 50 average makes him equal to a Gavaskar or Richards is it? How many hundreds and fifties in there, and how does it compare to top batsmen who averaged 50 in that era? In how many matches did he score a 50 as well take a 4 or 5 wicket haul in the same match?

 

[saadsahabjee]

Top bowlers in the world between 1980 and 1988 (Qual: 150 wickets)
Bowler Tests Wickets Average Strike rate 5WI/ 10WM
Imran Khan 48 236 17.77 43.6 18/ 5

Richard Hadlee 51 284 19.03 47.0 28/ 7

Malcolm Marshall 58 297 20.20 44.7 18/ 3

Joel Garner 49 210 20.62 51.8 7/ 0

Michael Holding 45 184 23.38 50.3 9/ 1

Dennis Lillee 35 171 24.07 52.3 11/ 3

 

[saadsahabjee]

So that 50 average makes him equal to a Gavaskar or Richards is it? How many hundreds and fifties in there, and how does it compare to top batsmen who averaged 50 in that era? In how many matches did he score a 50 as well take a 4 or 5 wicket haul in the same match?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

 

[saadsahabjee]

between 1980 to 88 he averaged 40 with the bat and 17 with the ball .

 

[Bilal7]

Was Sobers the bowler, as good as Imran the batsman? I don't think so. Then you have to take Imran's leadership into account as well. By being the better bowler and a fantastic captain, Imran Khan should be rated higher than Sobers.

This nonsense again How many not outs in those 51 tests?

We discussed this, right? Why are not-outs a bad thing? An average of 50 is an average of 50 even if Imran wasn't in the league of guys like Viv and Gavasker.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

Everything aside, Sobers never managed to take a wicket in Pakistan and only averages a measly 32 in batting when he played here.

And despite the fact that he scored a 365* against us in West Indies, the cumulative difference between Batting and Bowling averages, he has a cumulative negative difference of almost 24 against us.

Batting average 89 and Bowling average 113.

The best all-rounder (I'm not sure but most experts agree) in the world had problems playing against us - Now let that sink in for a second



Side Note: Cumulatively (home and away combined) against all countries, Imran has better batting average than his bowling average. And he played against an ATG WI and never lost a series to them and came this close to beating WI in WI.

Says a lot for me and that keeps me more than happy.

 

[Robert]

Was Sobers the bowler, as good as Imran the batsman? I don't think so. Then you have to take Imran's leadership into account as well. By being the better bowler and a fantastic captain, Imran Khan should be rated higher than Sobers.

Imran was an OK middle-order batsman in tests, like Botham and Kapil. Sobers was an OK bowler in tests.

Imran the "fantastic captain" didn't actually win many tests. How many did Sobers win?

Note that Imran took 28 test catches to Sobey's 109.

We discussed this, right? Why are not-outs a bad thing?

Not understanding context and using stats to mislead is a bad thing.

 

[Madplayer]

This nonsense again How many not outs in those 51 tests?

Lol its imran's fault that bowlers couldnt get him out now? Nobody is saying he was a better bat than sobers or gavasker but if he was averaging 50 for 8-10 years which is very good, then he must be doing something right! As far as their secondary skills go, Averaging 50 with the bat for 8 years(imran) >>>> averaging 32 with the ball at 92 strike rate (sobers).
They were equally good in their primary skills imo (bowling for imran and batting for sobers). Not to mention imran's great captaincy.
Sobers is very over rated as an all rounder.

 

[Bilal7]

Imran was an OK middle-order batsman in tests, like Botham and Kapil. Sobers was an OK bowler in tests.

Imran the "fantastic captain" didn't actually win many tests. How many did Sobers win?

Note that Imran took 28 test catches to Sobey's 109.



Not understanding context and using stats to mislead is a bad thing.

Imran was a good batsman, just like Botham and Kapil. You don't think that Imran was a fantastic captain? This is a first. As far as misleading people goes, you're saying that Imran didn't win a lot of tests but made no mention about how difficult it was to win test matches back when he played or how a draw against the mighty West Indies was as good as a win.

That poster knows the context behind it, so do most of the people on here. Imran averaging 50 with the bat and 19 with the ball for the last ten years of his career, is a reality however.

 

[enkidu_]

Imran was an OK middle-order batsman in tests, like Botham and Kapil. Sobers was an OK bowler in tests.

Imran the "fantastic captain" didn't actually win many tests. How many did Sobers win?

Note that Imran took 28 test catches to Sobey's 109.


Not understanding context and using stats to mislead is a bad thing.

Man of the Series don't have an objective value (esp. considering Sobers wasn't able to get a lot of them), but are prime indicators of a player's importance. As for Imran Khan, here it is (from an old thread of mine) :

- He won 8 MoS awards in 28 series, the best ratio by any modern cricketer.

- Two of his MoS awards came when we won our first Test series in India (1987), and then, few months later, England.

Again months later (1988), was awarded his last MoS when he was about to captain a side which was about to beat the WI in a bilateral series after 15 years - Pak didn't break that record, but still beat WI in a Test at home after remaining one decade undefeated, and levelled the series 1-1 (3).

That should settle Immy's captaincy skills. As captain, he overall averaged 50 with the bat and 20 with the ball.

- Hadlee's 7 MoS awards out of 8, Imran's 5 MoS awards out of 8 and Kapil's 2 out of 4 came away ; all 3 of Botham's were at home.

- only Imran Khan and Kapil Dev had a MoS award against the dominating team of the decade, namely the WI.

Imran Khan has 3 MoS awards (out of career 8) against the WI, incl. 1 in the WI - the only one to have a MoS in WI's own backyard.

- Imran Khan averaged +50 with the bat and -25 with the ball for two MoS awards, Botham one.

- the MoS awards of both Imran and Hadlee spanned the whole decade, whereas for Kapil Dev it's the first half of the 80s, and Botham 1978-1981 (which I think says a lot about consistency.)

- Imran Khan has the best peak average ever as a bowler, that is +150 wickets at -15 for 1981-1986. That says a lot about his bowling "potential" :

 

[Anik Sharma]

Sobers

 

[Bilal7]

Great post, [MENTION=137893]enkidu_[/MENTION]. I had forgotten about these stats that confirm why Imran was the greatest all-rounder of them all, as well as being the greatest cricketer from the subcon.

 

[zabalestmsm]

Imran faced stronger opponents.

Sobers faced Trueman, Laker and Davidson (briefly) but the Indian and Pakistani teams he faced were weak. Also his high average is down to how beastly he was at home against all kinds of attacks. He did not set the world on fire when he faced Trueman/Laker in England, i read.

Having one of the worst SR's in bowling history does not help either.

I would go with Imran, by a fair way.

The deciding factor? Good point!

 

[zabalestmsm]

I haven't seen any of them play but going by the stats its Imran Khan for me!

G Sobers averaged in the 50s as a batsman. But batting wise as a captain, Imran Khan averaged in the 50s as well. So this almost neutralizes G Sobers' lead in batting stats!

Bowling wise, Imran Khan averaged impressively under 23. While G Sobers had an ordinary bowling average of above 30!

Also Imran Khan's era was more competitive as many players of that era had high reputations compared to G Sobers' era!

So this clearly puts Imran Khan above G Sobers as the best all rounder ever in the history of the game!

 

[Hitman]

1. Sobers along with Bradman are almost unanimously selected in every World XI.

2. Sobers is almost always rated among the top 2 or 3 greatest cricketers in every list of greatest cricketers.

3. Sobers is almost always rated as the greatest all round cricketer ever by ex-players, cricket pundits, etc.



P.S. Forget Imran, the only cricketers who can be rated better than Sobers are Bradman and W.G. Grace.

 

[Robert]

Imran was a good batsman, just like Botham and Kapil. You don't think that Imran was a fantastic captain? This is a first. As far as misleading people goes, you're saying that Imran didn't win a lot of tests but made no mention about how difficult it was to win test matches back when he played or how a draw against the mighty West Indies was as good as a win.

I thought he was a good captain, but strewth, it wasn't that hard. Bob Willis was a terrible skipper with a team gutted by the Rebel bans yet he won eight tests and lost five out of eighteen, facing sides with Lillee, Imran, Hadlee and Kapil in them.

Gower managed to get a win in India with the weakest England side I ever saw.

Imran wasn't a tactical genius like Brearley. What he had was a gun fast bowler (himself), another later on in Wasim and a mystery spinner in Qadir. Where he did well as skipper was keeping his excitable young players calm in pressure situations, like Strauss did more recently.

 

[Stallion__]

Man of the Series don't have an objective value (esp. considering Sobers wasn't able to get a lot of them), but are prime indicators of a player's importance.

There weren't used to be any MoM or MoS awards during Sobers time.

 

[TheOnDrive]

I thought the defining factor for such comparisons was peer and cricket experts recognition and not stats. Going by that it should be Sobers by a good margin. Should be accustomed to the double standards on PP by now.

 

[IndianWillow]

1. Sobers along with Bradman are almost unanimously selected in every World XI.

2. Sobers is almost always rated among the top 2 or 3 greatest cricketers in every list of greatest cricketers.

3. Sobers is almost always rated as the greatest all round cricketer ever by ex-players, cricket pundits, etc.



P.S. Forget Imran, the only cricketers who can be rated better than Sobers are Bradman and W.G. Grace.

Early generation players have a natural advantage when it comes to fame and reputation. They were competing with lesser number of peers and they were playing in an era when cricket was still in its formative days - so they could actually make game changing contributions easily.

As an analogy, mathematicians like Newton, Euler and Gauss are known to every school/college going child today. But if you ask them to label five leading mathematicians of today, no one will answer the question. Bradman and Sobers are rated #1,2 in every poll because people think that rating otherwise would be heresy.

 

[Chrish]

Difficult to compare.

By nomenclature, they both are allrounders, but its like comparing a bowler with a batsman, since their primary skills were different.

Since bowlers are the one who mostly control test matches, they are the ones who possess greater match-winning abilities. But that shouldn't necessarily or by default make them a better player.

One thing I have noticed that people raise doubts over Sobers bowling ability because of his bowling SR, but don't take into consideration the time in which he played.

Those were the days, when batsmen don't used to attack spinners like today and spinners do rely on batsman making mistakes for their wickets. Hence bowling strike rates of spinners used to be much higher as compared to today, particularly the finger spinners.

Just see what used to be the strike rate of common spinner during Sober's period.

And that consists of mostly full time spinners. I am sure, if we further dissect it into finger and wrist spinners, it will increase even further for finger spinners.

Even if we look spinners of that era individually, their strike rates were

Gibbs : 88
Nadkarni : 104
Venkat : 95
Valentine : 93
Ramadhin : 88
Illingworth : 98
Bedi : 80

Only Underwood, Prassana and Lock have less than 80 strike rate during that time. (Sobers bowling SR too was less than 80 during 8 year period in 60s).

So Sobers by any means was barely lesser than a typical full time finger spinner of his era.


Sobers fulfills the definition of word 'allrounder' better than anyone else. Was a brilliant fielder and could bowl 3 different varieties with the ball and was captain in 30+ matches. He was most natural cricketer ever, could do anything on cricket field, a cricket is expected to do. As mentioned earlier, Sobers used to perform both with the bat and ball simultaneously while Imran, apart from that 82 series, mostly gave performance in either of the departments.

Excluding Imran's captaincy, purely as a cricketer, Sobers is better for me, not by much, but he is better!

Hey buddy since we are on this, I remember you posting decadal bowling averages in another Sobers thread.. Bowling averages in 50s is remarkably lower compared to other decades. Why do you think that's the case?

You think pitches in that era were particularly bad compared to previous/ later decades?

 

[Chrish]

1. Sobers along with Bradman are almost unanimously selected in every World XI.

2. Sobers is almost always rated among the top 2 or 3 greatest cricketers in every list of greatest cricketers.

3. Sobers is almost always rated as the greatest all round cricketer ever by ex-players, cricket pundits, etc.



P.S. Forget Imran, the only cricketers who can be rated better than Sobers are Bradman and W.G. Grace.

Forget about anyone else.. What's YOUR reasoning?

 

[Robert]

G Sobers averaged in the 50s as a batsman. But batting wise as a captain, Imran Khan averaged in the 50s as well. So this almost neutralizes G Sobers' lead in batting stats!

Except that Sobers was scoring nearly twice as many actual runs per innings batted as Imran was, and quicker too. Back to my point about not-outs.

 

[Bilal7]

I thought he was a good captain, but strewth, it wasn't that hard. Bob Willis was a terrible skipper with a team gutted by the Rebel bans yet he won eight tests and lost five out of eighteen, facing sides with Lillee, Imran, Hadlee and Kapil in them.

Gower managed to get a win in India with the weakest England side I ever saw.

Imran wasn't a tactical genius like Brearley. What he had was a gun fast bowler (himself), another later on in Wasim and a mystery spinner in Qadir. Where he did well as skipper was keeping his excitable young players calm in pressure situations, like Strauss did more recently.

Imran also had an eye for talent. Wasim credits his development to Imran's account and Waqar was brought into the Pakistani team only when Imran had scouted him. His backing of Inzi who, despite his flaws, turned into a great batsman for Pakistan, was also down to Imran. Now of course, these players were talented and their success was primarily down to their skill and hardwork but Imran deserves credit as well.

He was a great leader, which is better than being a great captain. Miandad managed many of the tactical aspects of the team.

Once again, you have failed to acknowledge his punch for punch battles against the Windies, which was bigger than any series win against any other team back then.

I thought the defining factor for such comparisons was peer and cricket experts recognition and not stats. Going by that it should be Sobers by a good margin. Should be accustomed to the double standards on PP by now.

Yet, you keep coming back to Pakpassion. Peer appreciation wasn't enough for Wasim in his comparison threads, why should it be enough for Sobers over here?

 

[TheOnDrive]

Imran also had an eye for talent. Wasim credits his development to Imran's account and Waqar was brought into the Pakistani team only when Imran had scouted him. His backing of Inzi who, despite his flaws, turned into a great batsman for Pakistan, was also down to Imran. Now of course, these players were talented and their success was primarily down to their skill and hardwork but Imran deserves credit as well.

He was a great leader, which is better than being a great captain. Miandad managed many of the tactical aspects of the team.

Once again, you have failed to acknowledge his punch for punch battles against the Windies, which was bigger than any series win against any other team back then.



Yet, you keep coming back to Pakpassion. Peer appreciation wasn't enough for Wasim in his comparison threads, why should it be enough for Sobers over here?

That angle is still played out in those threads. The same posters playing that card are playing the stats one in this thread... Quite funny!

 

[Bilal7]

When players who grew up idolizing Imran and those that faced off against him replace the older experts, you will also see the public perception change regarding these two.

 

[Strike Rate]

My opinion is different i will pick important one for my team instead of a better one than another crickter.

A great bowling allrounder is always better than great batting all rounder in Test cricket. You need 20 wickets to win a Test match and for that to happen you need great bowlers in your side otherwise your tripple hundreds will become useless.

So my pick is Imran

 

[Stallion__]

Hey buddy since we are on this, I remember you posting decadal bowling averages in another Sobers thread.. Bowling averages in 50s is remarkably lower compared to other decades. Why do you think that's the case?

You think pitches in that era were particularly bad compared to previous/ later decades?

Few reasons I can think of.

-) Addition of new teams. Pakistan became permanent member of Test club and along with India and New Zealand, started getting more regular cricket during that decade. All three teams have ok bowling attacks (Pakistan have more than ok), but their batting wasn't much to speak off.

If you notice the lowest scores during that decade, it would be mostly these three teams bundling out for sub-100 totals against better teams (mostly on rain effected uncovered pitches).


-) Teams finding better bowling attacks. The bowling attacks of Australia and England in 30s and 40s were weaker as compared to 50s, particularly the pacers. Australia during Bradman's era were highly dependent on O'Reilly, Ironmonger and Grimmett with no genuine pacer to support them (Wall and McCormick were their most reliable ones, many times, McCabe used to open the bowling). England have only Verity as a trusted spinner but their fast bowling was better than Australia.

After WW2, both teams found some fine bowling talents, which carried their bowling attacks during 50s. Australia developed a bowling attack if Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Benaud while England have Trueman, Statham, Laker, Wardle, Lock and Tyson. Apart from these two teams, SA have a handy bowling with Adcock, Goddard and Tayfield while Pakistan have Fazal, Khan and Nasim. WI and India too have much better attacks as compared to previous decade.

So bowling standards overall, increase a lot as compared to last decade.


-) Lot of weather effected matches. Toss used to be so important those days, and many of the matches were decided on the basis on toss, because of the rain factor. Teams would rather bat in darkness than rain-effected pitches. This problem was further intensified by because if presence of lot of weak batting sides, who have no idea how to play on those pitches. If you study the reports of matches during that period, you will find many of them being influenced by weather in

In addition, countries like Pakistan, India and SA used to have matted pitches, and have bowling attacks (Pakistan and SA in particular) who were lethal on those pitches.


Actually had there been better bowlers around in 30s and 40s and had there been no Bradman and Hammond, the bowling averages during that decades would have been lowers as well. Those two batsman were responsible for keeping the batting average higher during that decade.

Only of I exclude Bradman's record from those two decades, the batting average of those decades overall becomes almost equal to 90s, which by many is considered as toughest batting decade. Thats the impact a player like Bradman had during his period.

 

[Cena]

Sober was a left arm medium so I pick Imran over him as the better one.

 

[Chrish]

Few reasons I can think of.

-) Addition of new teams. Pakistan became permanent member of Test club and along with India and New Zealand, started getting more regular cricket during that decade. All three teams have ok bowling attacks (Pakistan have more than ok), but their batting wasn't much to speak off.

If you notice the lowest scores during that decade, it would be mostly these three teams bundling out for sub-100 totals against better teams (mostly on rain effected uncovered pitches).


-) Teams finding better bowling attacks. The bowling attacks of Australia and England in 30s and 40s were weaker as compared to 50s, particularly the pacers. Australia during Bradman's era were highly dependent on O'Reilly, Ironmonger and Grimmett with no genuine pacer to support them (Wall and McCormick were their most reliable ones, many times, McCabe used to open the bowling). England have only Verity as a trusted spinner but their fast bowling was better than Australia.

After WW2, both teams found some fine bowling talents, which carried their bowling attacks during 50s. Australia developed a bowling attack if Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Benaud while England have Trueman, Statham, Laker, Wardle, Lock and Tyson. Apart from these two teams, SA have a handy bowling with Adcock, Goddard and Tayfield while Pakistan have Fazal, Khan and Nasim. WI and India too have much better attacks as compared to previous decade.

So bowling standards overall, increase a lot as compared to last decade.


-) Lot of weather effected matches. Toss used to be so important those days, and many of the matches were decided on the basis on toss, because of the rain factor. Teams would rather bat in darkness than rain-effected pitches. This problem was further intensified by because if presence of lot of weak batting sides, who have no idea how to play on those pitches. If you study the reports of matches during that period, you will find many of them being influenced by weather in

In addition, countries like Pakistan, India and SA used to have matted pitches, and have bowling attacks (Pakistan and SA in particular) who were lethal on those pitches.


Actually had there been better bowlers around in 30s and 40s and had there been no Bradman and Hammond, the bowling averages during that decades would have been lowers as well. Those two batsman were responsible for keeping the batting average higher during that decade.

Only of I exclude Bradman's record from those two decades, the batting average of those decades overall becomes almost equal to 90s, which by many is considered as toughest batting decade. Thats the impact a player like Bradman had during his period.

Beautiful post! I recommend this post for POTW [MENTION=49623]Me[/MENTION]nig, [MENTION=9]Saj[/MENTION] due to reasoning and research

 

[Robert]

He was a great leader, which is better than being a great captain. Miandad managed many of the tactical aspects of the team.

Once again, you have failed to acknowledge his punch for punch battles against the Windies, which was bigger than any series win against any other team back then.

OK, I acknowledge than Imran was unable to defeat West Indies.

I did follow that 1988 series quite closely.

 

[Chrish]

Different eras and some what different kinds of players, so they are obviously difficult to compare. For me, the pros and cons are:

Sobers:
Pros:
*Exceptional batsman, one of the greatest of all times.
*He was a full time bowler, unlike the likes of Kallis - so he was more than a batting all rounder. He was a balanced all rounder, though the stats don't show that because his strong performances as a pacer was masked by his weaker performances as a spinner.
*Sobers won matches with both bat and ball, and often won matches with the ball which was considered his weaker suite.
Cons:
*Sober's era was probably not as competitive like Imran's, so direct stats comparison may not be give the best results. Teams like NZ, Pakistan and India were a lot more competitive during Imran's era compared to Sober's era. Sobers had to contend only with two strong opponents in Australia and England. The Kiwi side of the 70s/80s was as strong as the Pakistani side of the 50s/60s, just for the context.

Imran:
Pros:
* Exceptional bowler, one of the greatest of all times.
* Exceptional leader and manager - singly responsible for the continuous flow of world class bowlers from Pakistan for many years.
* Played in a tough competitive era and brought out his best against the best teams.
Cons:
* Was rarely good with the bat and ball at the same time. He was either very good with the ball (early half) or good with the bat(later half) but he didn't match Sober's level in being able to excel simultaneously with bat and ball in any part of his career.

Sobers as batsman >> Imran
Imran as bowler >> Sobers
Imran as cricketer > Sobers

If I want to win a match, I would opt for both players, but I had only one pick I would choose Imran ahead of Sobers as better bowlers win you more test matches.

Well articulated post! Although when we consider Sobers' fielding and Imran's captaincy, it kinda evens out. Moreover as you said, sobers has shown the rare ability to perform with both bat and ball simultaneously so the comparison of who is better cricketer becomes pretty tough to conclude

 

[Monsee]

This nonsense again How many not outs in those 51 tests?

I thought there was a thread where that nonsence was sorted out once and all...

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...n-A-Selfish-and-Poor-Batsman!&highlight=Imran

 

[Bilal7]

OK, I acknowledge than Imran was unable to defeat West Indies.

I did follow that 1988 series quite closely.

How about you acknowledge that Imran was undefeated against the West Indies?

 

[shaz619]

I'd have Imran in my team if I had the choice between the two. However when it comes to who is better overall, I'd have to go with Sobers. Pretty good stats and he's highly regarded by the people who saw him play, played with him and his opponents. Not that Imran isn't but Sobers is hyped as this once in a life time talent and I believe he was, he could bowl pace/spin, bat and field really well.

 

[Buffet]

Sobers was actually a "regular" bowler like Buffet suggests. People rate him as a batting all rounder due to his relatively weaker bowling stats..

Good point!

Maybe a batting all-rounder bats 150+ balls per Test, a balanced all-rounder bats 100+ balls per Test and a bowling all-rounder bats 75+ balls per Test?

Sobers is pretty much a balanced all rounder like early part of Botham. That's how I see him. May be different people are using different definition of balance here and that's why different brackets for Sobers

--------------

Buffet, you're usually good with stats but many a times like this one, your posts do lack context and logical meaning. Don't know how you came up with "more series wins"? What's the absolute criteria to judge this and how come Imran the destroyer with bowling, one of the best captaincy/tactics in cricket history and excellent batting falls behind.

My comment was simply about contribution with weaker skill set and doing it at the same time as his stronger skill set. Sobers has done it more than most all rounder, including IK. I don't know what you found wrong about it.

I had earlier ranked all rounders in different threads,

If it's simply as cricketer in their entire career then,

1) Sobers
2) IK
3) Kallis
3) Miller
4) Botham

If it's for frequently of dominating all around contributions in test series during their entire career,

1) Sobers
2) Miller
3) Botham
4) IK
5) Kallis

Clearly, my statement was about second ranking and not sure where match winner etc comes in picture here in my comment.

I didn't put any stats because it's tedious and I have done it earlier. Anyway you can see below for sobers.

Was Sobers the bowler, as good as Imran the batsman?

Sobers contribution with ball was larger than IK's contribution with bat without even taking account of the fact that IK batting contributions came when he was bowling a lot less.

If you turn heads consistently based on your weaker skill set then it catches attention. Sobers has done more than other all rounders. Sobers from the get go put his hands up and grabbed truckload of wickets below 30 avg in many series.

If we take only 10+ wickets then he has,

1959 series - 10 wickets at avg of 29
1961 series - 23 wickets at avg of 20
1963 series - 20 wickets at an avg of 28
1965 series - 20 wickets at an avg of 27
1966 series - 14 wickets at avg of 25
1969 series - 11 wickets at an avg of 28
1973 series - 14 wickets at an avg of 30

To put it in context - He played only 22 series in his entire career. He was gun contributor with bat entire time anyway and that's why I was picking on this balanced all rounder tag discussion earlier.

---------------------

Sobers had actually taken a very large workload with his weaker skill set, much more than any other all rounder. It's not just workload, he produced consistent contribution with large number of wickets so it wasn't some random stats like picking 3 wickers at average of 15 and then getting touted till death. Volume of runs/wickets matters a whole lot more than average when it comes to contribution for his team and he did that very well with his weaker skill set.

For me , Sobers was a surely a balanced all rounder.

 

[Bilal7]

If we take only 10+ wickets then he has,

1959 series - 10 wickets at avg of 29
1961 series - 23 wickets at avg of 20
1963 series - 20 wickets at an avg of 28
1965 series - 20 wickets at an avg of 27
1966 series - 14 wickets at avg of 25
1969 series - 11 wickets at an avg of 28
1973 series - 14 wickets at an avg of 30

I'm sure Imran's contributions with the bat were just as good, if not better than this. He was arguably the third best batsman in the Pakistan team, even during the peak of his bowling powers. Also, like another poster mentioned, he is one of only two cricketers to have averaged 50+ with the bat and <25 with the ball, in the same series. He's also done it twice. Also, he has the best ratio of MOTS wins, which he no doubt achieved due to his all-round contributions.

As for Sobers, if those were his good series, his bad series would have been awfully bad. Also, his SR was a big negative against him which you haven't mentioned in your post.

 

[Buffet]

I'm sure Imran's contributions with the bat were just as good, if not better than this.

Please list them here and we can all see how many runs were contributed by IK with what frequencies. We can also see if he was doing it with both skill set.

 

[Chrish]

Sobers contribution with ball was larger than IK's contribution with bat without even taking account of the fact that IK batting contributions came when he was bowling a lot less.

I just checked IK's innings and found out during the period when he was prominent with bat (late 80s and early 90s), he hardly bowled or did not bowl at all! I must admit I didn't know about this particular aspect..

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...s=1;template=results;type=allround;view=match

 

[Buffet]

* both skill set at same time*

 

[Bilal7]

Please list them here and we can all see how many runs were contributed by IK with what frequencies. We can also see if he was doing it with both skill set.

I'll just redirect you to [MENTION=137893]enkidu_[/MENTION]'s excellent post.

Man of the Series don't have an objective value (esp. considering Sobers wasn't able to get a lot of them), but are prime indicators of a player's importance. As for Imran Khan, here it is (from an old thread of mine) :

- He won 8 MoS awards in 28 series, the best ratio by any modern cricketer.

- Two of his MoS awards came when we won our first Test series in India (1987), and then, few months later, England.

Again months later (1988), was awarded his last MoS when he was about to captain a side which was about to beat the WI in a bilateral series after 15 years - Pak didn't break that record, but still beat WI in a Test at home after remaining one decade undefeated, and levelled the series 1-1 (3).

That should settle Immy's captaincy skills. As captain, he overall averaged 50 with the bat and 20 with the ball.

- Hadlee's 7 MoS awards out of 8, Imran's 5 MoS awards out of 8 and Kapil's 2 out of 4 came away ; all 3 of Botham's were at home.

- only Imran Khan and Kapil Dev had a MoS award against the dominating team of the decade, namely the WI.

Imran Khan has 3 MoS awards (out of career 8) against the WI, incl. 1 in the WI - the only one to have a MoS in WI's own backyard.

- Imran Khan averaged +50 with the bat and -25 with the ball for two MoS awards, Botham one.

- the MoS awards of both Imran and Hadlee spanned the whole decade, whereas for Kapil Dev it's the first half of the 80s, and Botham 1978-1981 (which I think says a lot about consistency.)

- Imran Khan has the best peak average ever as a bowler, that is +150 wickets at -15 for 1981-1986. That says a lot about his bowling "potential" :

I see at least five high-quality, all-round performances. Not a single one of these has been a poor one for an all-rounder.

 

[Buffet]

I just checked IK's innings and found out during the period when he was prominent with bat (late 80s and early 90s), he hardly bowled or did not bowl at all! I must admit I didn't know about this particular aspect..

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...s=1;template=results;type=allround;view=match

Well, he developed into a gun bowler later and age caught up with him. You can't expect fast bowling with lots of workload at that age. Credit to IK for developing his batting in that phase. One of the best examples of how far you can go with your hard work. First he did it with bowling and then with batting.

 

[Chrish]

Well, he developed into a gun bowler later and age caught up with him. You can't expect fast bowling with lots of workload at that age. Credit to IK for developing his batting in that phase. One of the best examples of how far you can go with your hard work. First he did it with bowling and then with batting.

Not blaming him at all.. If one looks at the scorecard more closely, he will realize IK did pretty decent job with batting and even served as one of the main bats in some instances

 

[Buffet]

I see at least five high-quality, all-round performances. Not a single one of these has been a poor one for an all-rounder.

Comparison was for consistent contributions for their teams with weaker skill sets. I listed for Sobers. You can list the same for IK and we can compare otherwise we are simply talking two different thing.

IK surely has some good all round contributions otherwise he won't be even talked as an all rounder. I rate IK high but that's not the point we are discussing. Sobers gets lots of stick in PP for poor SR but he has contributed immensely by number of overs/number of wickets for his team in around 50% of series he played. Equivalent for a bowling all rounders will be how much time they batted and how many runs they made.

 

[Bilal7]

Comparison was for consistent contributions for their teams with weaker skill sets. I listed for Sobers. You can list the same for IK and we can compare otherwise we are simply talking two different thing.

IK surely has some good all round contributions otherwise he won't be even talked as an all rounder. I rate IK high but that's not the point we are discussing. Sobers gets lots of stick in PP for poor SR but he has contributed immensely by number of overs/number of wickets for his team in around 50% of series he played. Equivalent for a bowling all rounders will be how much time they batted and how many runs they made.

Surely it's better to compare the best all-round series of each player, if we're talking about who is the more "balanced" all-rounder.

Even if we do compare their weaker department, Imran's batting in the above presented chart is comparable to Sober's bowling, looking at the averages. Please don't bring up the oft-repeated, regularly debunked "Not-outs" argument.

 

[MMHS]

This nonsense again How many not outs in those 51 tests?

Again, you are bringing the not out issue without looking at the figures.

If I tell you that in 1980s, there were only 7/8 batsmen who scored over 2500 Test runs & average over 49.5, one of them being someone who took 200+ wickets as well at <19 & led a indiscipline & infighting unit to world's top team in most turbulent period of their history. AND all these after losing 3 of the best years of his career to injury, you 'll realize what was Imran Khan.

It's impossible to describe Imran in a single post, I won't try; BUT, in cricket history the most over hyped cricketer is Gary Sobers, who looked shinning because there was no one close to him as all-rounder & he did things that were eye catching those days. Bowling fast, swing, spin is a bull **** that worked in amateur days of cricket - try this today, crowd 'll mock you instead of the orgasm ......... He could swing the ball at a better than Military medium hence had an average of 25 in ENG - take out that, he was as good a bowler as Ravi Shastri. Any thing that he did was blown out of proportion - just read my post on the story of his 6 Sixes against Malcom Nash somewhere in PP, you 'll understand.

Sobers was super hyped as a batsman because in an era of Barrington & Simpson & Cowdrey & Hanif he was someone who played attractive shots. Take out his figures against IND & PAK (doesn't make sense now, but think about AB playing about 25 Tests against BD & ZIM in last 10 years) at their early days & averaged 85+ against them (On same logic people bashes Sangakara left, right & centre - but for Sobers, suddenly IND & PAK becomes world's elite team in 50s & 60s). When the top 8 bowlers of AUS & ENG (read Lindwall, Miller, Davidson, Benaud, Truman, Statham, Laker & Lock) were active - check out Sober's average with bat.

And, he was a pathetic Captain to be polite.

I am trying to write something on the cricket strength by decade & 80s probably coming among top 2/3 - in that decade Imran made all-rounders like Hadlee, Kapil & Botham a level lower; Sobers would have competed with Shastri in 80s. It's a taboo established that Bradman is the greatest batsman, Sobers the best all-rounder & everyone is extremely nervous to challenge that.

If we don't consider the bull shits that 50s & 60s cricket were men's game & in 80s downwards top Cricketers used to **** with bananas, Sobers doesn't stand against Kallis or even Wasim, let alone Imran or Botham or Kapil or Hadlee..........

 

[Robert]

If I tell you that in 1980s, there were only 7/8 batsmen who scored over 2500 Test runs & average over 49.5, one of them being someone who took 200+ wickets as well at <19 & led a indiscipline & infighting unit to world's top team in most turbulent period of their history. AND all these after losing 3 of the best years of his career to injury, you 'll realize what was Imran Khan.

I am quite aware of Imran as I saw him play a lot in tests and County cricket in the eighties. So I resist this attempt by young Pakistanis who never saw him to afford him mythical status based on cherrypicking manipulation of statistics.

in cricket history the most over hyped cricketer is Gary Sobers, who looked shinning because there was no one close to him as all-rounder & he did things that were eye catching those days. Bowling fast, swing, spin is a bull **** that worked in amateur days of cricket - try this today, crowd 'll mock you instead of the orgasm ......... He could swing the ball at a better than Military medium hence had an average of 25 in ENG - take out that, he was as good a bowler as Ravi Shastri.

Sobers was super hyped as a batsman because in an era of Barrington & Simpson & Cowdrey & Hanif he was someone who played attractive shots.

Now you are showing ignorance of history. Cowdrey was a shot-player. Sobers played with and against aggressive batters Weekes, Worrall, Walcott, Kanhai, May and Dexter and he was the king of them all.

Mocking from the crowd? Amateurs? He was a professional, facing hardmen like Trueman trying to knock his head off. Fred Trueman was the best England bowler ever, and described Sobers as "magical".

As a skipper he beat Australia away and England away.

If he was playing today then even arrogant youngsters would call him greatest genius ever, which he is. If you bring Shastri into it then I think Sobers comparable as a SLA. So what you get is a combination of Lara with the bat, plus Anderson / Shastri with the ball, plus as good a slip-catcher as ever drew breath.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

Never seen enough of Sobers to compare him with Imran.

 

[Scrolln]

Comparing across eras is always tricky.

Bradman faced one professional team.

Sobers faced two (England and Australia)

Imran faced five (India,NZ,Aus,Eng,WI)

There is absolutely no question as to which one of the three was up against tougher opponents. Imran stood out as arguably the greatest cricketer of the 80's which is among the toughest decades for test cricket. I feel
he was at par with Botham and Kapil with the bat, but was in a different league with the ball.

In my opinion, cricketers who stand out in a tougher era > cricketers who stand out in a relatively easier environment. Therefore Imran gets my vote.

 

[Robert]

Comparing across eras is always tricky.

Bradman faced one professional team.

Sobers faced two (England and Australia)

Imran faced five (India,NZ,Aus,Eng,WI)

There is absolutely no question as to which one of the three was up against tougher opponents. Imran stood out as arguably the greatest cricketer of the 80's which is among the toughest decades for test cricket. I feel

By that logic, Kallis is a better all-rounder than Imran because he played against eight professional sides.