Will there will be another Shane Warne or Garry Sobers?

[Hitman]

Garry Sobers and Shane Warne. There might be another Viv, Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Wasim, Marshall, Murali or any other cricketer you can think of.

But I confidently believe that there'll never be another Garry Sobers and Shane Warne, two names that are compulsory in any World XI compiled.

What would be your names?

 

[Mamoon]

Garry Sobers and Shane Warne. There might be another Viv, Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Wasim, Marshall, Murali or any other cricketer you can think of.

But I confidently believe that there'll never be another Garry Sobers and Shane Warne, two names that are compulsory in any World XI compiled.

What would be your names?

Stokes is the new Sobers, but I agree that the next Warne is highly unlikely to emerge. Easily the greatest spinner of all time and it is not even close.

 

[Hitman]

Stokes is the new Sobers, but I agree that the next Warne is highly unlikely to emerge. Easily the greatest spinner of all time and it is not even close.

I'm real excited to see what Stokes has in his sleeve for the future. An extremely fine talent. But the new Sobers?

 

[Rana]

Never another Lara.

 

[Hasan123]

LOL at Stokes being the new Sobers. Sobers averaged 57 and was a genuine option with the ball. Stokes is more of a specialist batter these days .

Don't see there being another Sobers but cricket will still produce quality all rounders.

Don't see there being another Shane Warne. His ability to read batters and his all round personality was something else. What a legendary cricketer.

 

[Hasan123]

Stokes is the new Sobers, but I agree that the next Warne is highly unlikely to emerge. Easily the greatest spinner of all time and it is not even close.

You overrate every English and Indian player.

 

[Hitman]

LOL at Stokes being the new Sobers. Sobers averaged 57 and was a genuine option with the ball. Stokes is more of a specialist batter these days .

Don't see there being another Sobers but cricket will still produce quality all rounders.

Don't see there being another Shane Warne. His ability to read batters and his all round personality was something else. What a legendary cricketer.

Sobers is arguably the second greatest batsman after Bradman.

 

[Hasan123]

Sobers is arguably the second greatest batsman after Bradman.

Stokes isn't even the best batter in his team. Quality impact player. But his lack of consistent threat with the ball is why I wouldn't put him up there with the 80s all rounders ATGs and someone like Sobers.

He is a specialist batter who will bowl to fill overs or when England need to try something different.

 

[Mueez]

Lara.

The shots which he played, jheez...

Also think about the mighty West Indies bowlers. Think they cannot be replaced by another set of bowlers.

 

[Hasan123]

Imo there won't be another

Shane Warne
Wasim Akram
MS Dhoni
AB De Villiers
Viv Richards

 

[Pakhs]

Imo there won't be another

Shane Warne
Wasim Akram
MS Dhoni
AB De Villiers
Viv Richards

There has already been better keeper batsmen than Dhoni - Gilchrist.

 

[Mamoon]

LOL at Stokes being the new Sobers. Sobers averaged 57 and was a genuine option with the ball. Stokes is more of a specialist batter these days .

Don't see there being another Sobers but cricket will still produce quality all rounders.

Don't see there being another Shane Warne. His ability to read batters and his all round personality was something else. What a legendary cricketer.

Sobers was far from a genuine option with the ball. A genuine option with the ball does not have a strike rate of 92. Stokes is comfortably a better bowler.

Both are equally good batsmen and catchers. You cannot compare an average of 57 in the 1950s and 1960s with an average of 37 today. Cricket is now a more professional and demanding sport.

I have no doubt in my mind that Stokes and Sobers would have had nearly identical batting records had they played in the same era.

 

[Mamoon]

^ [MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION]

 

[therealAB]

Imo there won't be another

Shane Warne
Wasim Akram
MS Dhoni
AB De Villiers
Viv Richards

There will be hundred of Dhoni's. De Kock for one could easily end his career as a greater player.

 

[therealAB]

^ [MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION]

Equally good bastmen. Wut. So you think Sobers would average 37 today. When do you think the standard dropped of so steeply, give me a year.

 

[Mamoon]

Equally good bastmen. Wut. So you think Sobers would average 37 today. When do you think the standard dropped of so steeply, give me a year.

Yes. I personally don’t consider Sobers a better/equal batsman to Smith and Kohli so I don’t think he would be averaging 57 today.

 

[therealAB]

Yes. I personally don’t consider Sobers a better/equal batsman to Smith and Kohli so I don’t think he would be averaging 57 today.

He doesn't have to be a better bat than Smith/Kohli. He needs to be a better bat than Taylor/Cook/Amla etc to be a better test bat than Stokes

 

[Ab Fan]

<B>AB de Villiers</B>, there may not be a batter as versatile as him.

 

[KP From India]

Ashok Dinda.

 

[Mamoon]

He doesn't have to be a better bat than Smith/Kohli. He needs to be a better bat than Taylor/Cook/Amla etc to be a better test bat than Stokes

And Stokes isn’t that far off to be honest. He is entering his peak years as a batsman and has averaged close to 50 in the last year. He can easily take his overall average to 42-43 in the next 3-4 years.

 

[Mamoon]

Cricket is particularly notorious sport when it comes to overrating players of the past. While in others sports the “establishment” has no problem with calling Messi, Federer or Tiger Woods the GOATs of their respective sports, it is an absolute crime for any modern cricketer to be considered better or even equal to the big name players of the past.

Past cricketers have become larger than life figures with magical skills who were capable of superhuman feats.

If Stokes played for England at the same time as Sobers, his legend would now be much greater and there would be plenty of anecdotal evidence provided to ensure that no modern all-rounder can dare to be compared to him.

I really wish we could develop a time machine so that a lot of myths are busted and Lloyd’s West Indies losing in India, Bradman gets outclassed by Smith, Hobbs struggles to score more runs than Cook while opening the batting for England, and Alan Davidson proves to be a lesser bowler than Boult let alone Wasim.

The standard of cricket has remained fairly consistent since the 1970s with the rise of the first two genuine fast bowlers - Lillee and Thompson - they raised the bar and other teams including West Indies had to quickly find out their own genuine fast bowlers and evolve in order to stay competitive.

The legends of the pre-70 cricketers need to be revered and respect for what they achieved in their time, but their statistics need to be taken with a pinch of salt when it comes to comparisons with contemporary cricketers.

 

[cric_4life]

there wont be any shoaib Akhter.

 

[cric_4life]

Cricket is particularly notorious sport when it comes to overrating players of the past. While in others sports the “establishment” has no problem with calling Messi, Federer or Tiger Woods the GOATs of their respective sports, it is an absolute crime for any modern cricketer to be considered better or even equal to the big name players of the past.

Past cricketers have become larger than life figures with magical skills who were capable of superhuman feats.

If Stokes played for England at the same time as Sobers, his legend would now be much greater and there would be plenty of anecdotal evidence provided to ensure that no modern all-rounder can dare to be compared to him.

I really wish we could develop a time machine so that a lot of myths are busted and Lloyd’s West Indies losing in India, Bradman gets outclassed by Smith, Hobbs struggles to score more runs than Cook while opening the batting for England, and Alan Davidson proves to be a lesser bowler than Boult let alone Wasim.

The standard of cricket has remained fairly consistent since the 1970s with the rise of the first two genuine fast bowlers - Lillee and Thompson - they raised the bar and other teams including West Indies had to quickly find out their own genuine fast bowlers and evolve in order to stay competitive.

The legends of the pre-70 cricketers need to be revered and respect for what they achieved in their time, but their statistics need to be taken with a pinch of salt when it comes to comparisons with contemporary cricketers.

How would Bradman fair playing shoaib Wasim warne Murali?

 

[burger_uno]

i certainly hope there is no warne because very few cricketers have bought the sport into disrepute as much as he has. unlike barely matric-pass asif, who got tricked into associating with a pretend wheeler dealer, warne cavorted with and took money from an actual bookie - a fact he admitted himself. and if that misdemeanour was not enough, like asif, warne actually failed a drugs test. it seems to me that warne was entirely unrepentant about his original sin. the drugs ban should result in an asterisk against warne's name in the record books. imagine the global headlines if, heaven forbid, nadal or federer were able to fail a drugs test?

i am completely amazed at the exoneration of a shady character like warne who in my book is no different from asif or lance armstrong.

https://www.dawn.com/news/625192/au...94-how-ca-shielded-warne-waugh-in-fixing-scam

 

[Hasan123]

Equally good bastmen. Wut. So you think Sobers would average 37 today. When do you think the standard dropped of so steeply, give me a year.

You haven't included his captaincy and his personality. His ability to stay calm when things are falling apart or even when things are going well is unmatched.

 

[Hasan123]

Sobers was far from a genuine option with the ball. A genuine option with the ball does not have a strike rate of 92. Stokes is comfortably a better bowler.

Both are equally good batsmen and catchers. You cannot compare an average of 57 in the 1950s and 1960s with an average of 37 today. Cricket is now a more professional and demanding sport.

I have no doubt in my mind that Stokes and Sobers would have had nearly identical batting records had they played in the same era.

You are only looking at his international career. He has over a 1000 wickets including all first class cricket. At international level he may have not been needed with the ball due to the quality of the West Indies attack.

An average of 57 is ridiculously good whichever way you try to spin it. Cricket is demanding now but not being able to average over 40 is a little bit of a worry for someone who is supposed to be better than Sobers.

 

[therealAB]

You haven't included his captaincy and his personality. His ability to stay calm when things are falling apart or even when things are going well is unmatched.

Well Sobers could do that pretty well. It's not unmatched. Waugh, Border, Smith etc. Sobers is Lara, Sachin class. >>>Stokes

 

[therealAB]

You are only looking at his international career. He has over a 1000 wickets including all first class cricket. At international level he may have not been needed with the ball due to the quality of the West Indies attack.

An average of 57 is ridiculously good whichever way you try to spin it. Cricket is demanding now but not being able to average over 40 is a little bit of a worry for someone who is supposed to be better than Sobers.

Sobers wasn't a great bowler, no more than Kallis level who is well below stokes. Strike rate of 92. SObers bowling is overrated, just as much as his batting is underrated. He is a legit contender for best since Bradman with the bat

 

[Hasan123]

There has already been better keeper batsmen than Dhoni - Gilchrist.

Not just solely talking about batting. Talking about captaincy and personality.

Don't forget Dhoni was a top order batter and had to adapt to playing down the order. Really doubt Gilchrist would have been effective if he had to make that move in LO.

 

[therealAB]

Cricket is particularly notorious sport when it comes to overrating players of the past. While in others sports the “establishment” has no problem with calling Messi, Federer or Tiger Woods the GOATs of their respective sports, it is an absolute crime for any modern cricketer to be considered better or even equal to the big name players of the past.

Past cricketers have become larger than life figures with magical skills who were capable of superhuman feats.

If Stokes played for England at the same time as Sobers, his legend would now be much greater and there would be plenty of anecdotal evidence provided to ensure that no modern all-rounder can dare to be compared to him.

I really wish we could develop a time machine so that a lot of myths are busted and Lloyd’s West Indies losing in India, Bradman gets outclassed by Smith, Hobbs struggles to score more runs than Cook while opening the batting for England, and Alan Davidson proves to be a lesser bowler than Boult let alone Wasim.

The standard of cricket has remained fairly consistent since the 1970s with the rise of the first two genuine fast bowlers - Lillee and Thompson - they raised the bar and other teams including West Indies had to quickly find out their own genuine fast bowlers and evolve in order to stay competitive.

The legends of the pre-70 cricketers need to be revered and respect for what they achieved in their time, but their statistics need to be taken with a pinch of salt when it comes to comparisons with contemporary cricketers.

You say Lillee and Thompson. Well Sobers smashed Lillee around for 254 in 71/72, so he could clearly keep up

 

[Hasan123]

Sobers wasn't a great bowler, no more than Kallis level who is well below stokes. Strike rate of 92. SObers bowling is overrated, just as much as his batting is underrated. He is a legit contender for best since Bradman with the bat

So his batting is better than Stokes. Stokes is more of a batter these days than all rounder tbh.

 

[therealAB]

Not just solely talking about batting. Talking about captaincy and personality.

Don't forget Dhoni was a top order batter and had to adapt to playing down the order. Really doubt Gilchrist would have been effective if he had to make that move in LO.

Well Gilchrist did it well in test, he could have in ODI. I am not saying he is a better ODi bat, but he is >>>>> as a test bat

 

[Hasan123]

Well Sobers could do that pretty well. It's not unmatched. Waugh, Border, Smith etc. Sobers is Lara, Sachin class. >>>Stokes

I don't think you understand my point when it comes to Dhoni.

I'm not talking about someone being better. I dont see there being another cricketer adjusting like Dhoni did and also being such a good captain for such a long period.

 

[Hasan123]

Well Gilchrist did it well in test, he could have in ODI. I am not saying he is a better ODi bat, but he is >>>>> as a test bat

The thread isn't about being better.

It's about if we will see a cricketer similar to another one.

I don't see there being another cricketer, who could be captain in all 3 formats who had to adjust to another role, could be so calm when everything is falling apart, shoulder all this responsibility for a decade or so.

If you think there will be another cricketer who can do that, that's your opinion.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Sobers has a strike rate golf 92! That's really shocking given how posters overrate him.

My list goes
1.Warne-never seen anyone like him,magician.

2.Akhtar-The fastest ever,no one cones close,the passion with which he ran starting from the boundary line will never be matched.

3.Malinga-no one will be able to perfect that action like he did .At his peak the most destructive of bowler.

4.Imran khan-complete package,at g bowler,decent batsman,great captain.

5.Sobers-could bowl fast,leg spin,off spin and was a great batsman and leader.

 

[therealAB]

The thread isn't about being better.

It's about if we will see a cricketer similar to another one.

I don't see there being another cricketer, who could be captain in all 3 formats who had to adjust to another role, could be so calm when everything is falling apart, shoulder all this responsibility for a decade or so.

If you think there will be another cricketer who can do that, that's your opinion.

I believe that there will be cricketers who do that. Many before have captained excellently in all forms (Waugh, Lloyd, Fleming, Graeme Smith, Imran etc), so it would be common sense to believe there will be another

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

So his batting is better than Stokes. Stokes is more of a batter these days than all rounder tbh.

To the OP: "Will there be ever..." Of course there will be! I can write down on a piece of paper for you with my signature and you can check back with me in 200 years from now.

People on this thread are going to live another few years but cricket will go on for centuries. And if history teaches us anything, it is this - all sporting records of the past are always broken, repeatedly. Better, stronger and bigger athletes just keep coming.

Therefore I find it inane when people disparage athletes of the past by comparing them to athletes of today - of course athletes of the past in any sport will not hold a candle to athletes of today. Rod Laver will not last a game to Federer, Maradona will not be as influential as Messi and Bradman will not be able to have an average of 99 today, maybe not even 40.

Science has made sure humans today are physically the best for millennia. And by the same trajectory, humans after 50 years will be running 100 meter dash in under 8.5 seconds.

Best way to judge an athlete is to compare him/her with his/her own generation - and see how far above they were. If they are a little ahead, then there are good, if they are miles ahead and their peers look up to them as gods, then they are ATG. Bradman and Sobers belong to that category.

Specifically on Stokes:

Stokes I am afraid, good as he is, he is not as far ahead of his peers as Sobers, Warne, Bradman or Viv were, in either discipline. He is just very very good in the last 2 years and let's watch him for a few more years.

 

[Pakhs]

Not just solely talking about batting. Talking about captaincy and personality.

Don't forget Dhoni was a top order batter and had to adapt to playing down the order. Really doubt Gilchrist would have been effective if he had to make that move in LO.

Gilchrist was allround better player - He was 2/3 times better player in test alone where Dhoni was a nobody compare to other wicket keeping greats. And on what basis Dhoni was a top order player? he hardly played any innings in the top 4 all his career he batted mostly in the lower order.

 

[Pakhs]

The thread isn't about being better.

It's about if we will see a cricketer similar to another one.

I don't see there being another cricketer, who could be captain in all 3 formats who had to adjust to another role, could be so calm when everything is falling apart, shoulder all this responsibility for a decade or so.

If you think there will be another cricketer who can do that, that's your opinion.

Another cricket on what basis? All crickets are unique from you logic we wont see another Afridi either but we will see better version of him for sure. Same goes for Dhoni there has already been better wicket keeper batsmen around or even before him.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Gilchrist was allround better player - He was 2/3 times better player in test alone where Dhoni was a nobody compare to other wicket keeping greats. And on what basis Dhoni was a top order player? he hardly played any innings in the top 4 all his career he batted mostly in the lower order.

Name an ODI player who was an GOAT finisher,ATG wicketkeeper and GOAT captain.

 

[TeymurBlake]

Stokes and Sobers in the same sentence.......

Your kidding right? No way these two should be in the same sentence at all. There not even in the same league. Sobers changed the game for AR's and is regarded as the best ever.

Whereas Stokes is the best AR today but he's the only solid AR today and tbh he's not all that either. His batting is decent but inconsistent, you never know which Stokes your gonna get on the day. Whereas his bowling is not good enough at all, he has seemed to have lost in potency, maybe due to him being more of a fifth bowler and he also bowls quite little.

With the pace attack England have know has changed a lot specially due to Archer coming in with his pace and accuracy. Stokes is more of a batsman in his team than anything.

 

[Ab Fan]

Virender Sehwag will not be a bad pick either. Really destructive batsmen and never really cared what team management said, he just played the game which suited him best and went on to achieve so much.

 

[angrypathan]

Stokes and Sobers in the same sentence.......

Your kidding right? No way these two should be in the same sentence at all. There not even in the same league. Sobers changed the game for AR's and is regarded as the best ever.

Whereas Stokes is the best AR today but he's the only solid AR today and tbh he's not all that either. His batting is decent but inconsistent, you never know which Stokes your gonna get on the day. Whereas his bowling is not good enough at all, he has seemed to have lost in potency, maybe due to him being more of a fifth bowler and he also bowls quite little.

With the pace attack England have know has changed a lot specially due to Archer coming in with his pace and accuracy. Stokes is more of a batsman in his team than anything.

Only recent player comparable to Sobers is Kallis. Noone else comes close.

 

[Mamoon]

You say Lillee and Thompson. Well Sobers smashed Lillee around for 254 in 71/72, so he could clearly keep up

Stokes would have done the same. He has smashed Cummins who is as good as those bowlers.

 

[Mamoon]

You are only looking at his international career. He has over a 1000 wickets including all first class cricket. At international level he may have not been needed with the ball due to the quality of the West Indies attack.

An average of 57 is ridiculously good whichever way you try to spin it. Cricket is demanding now but not being able to average over 40 is a little bit of a worry for someone who is supposed to be better than Sobers.

I don’t care about FC record in an amateur era when his bowling strike rate in Test cricket would be embarrassing even for part-timers.

Stokes is more of a genuine all-rounder than Sobers.

As far as the difference in batting average is concerned, bear in mind that Stokes is entering his peak years as a batsman only now, and he has averaged close to 50 with the bat in the last calendar year.

He is every bit as good a batsman as Sobers.

 

[Hasan123]

Another cricket on what basis? All crickets are unique from you logic we wont see another Afridi either but we will see better version of him for sure. Same goes for Dhoni there has already been better wicket keeper batsmen around or even before him.

Name an ODI player who is a great captain, great batter,and great keeper all into one?

 

[Pakhs]

Name an ODI player who was an GOAT finisher,ATG wicketkeeper and GOAT captain.

He was only those things in one format out of the 3 (50 over format) his record in other formats are relatively poor as compared to other greats.

Anyway I am not undermining Dhoni the point is there has already been better players than Dhoni in his position which is wicket keeper bat. Gilchrist is my all format wicket keeper batsman he was better all things combined - all formats combined.

 

[Hasan123]

I don’t care about FC record in an amateur era when his bowling strike rate in Test cricket would be embarrassing even for part-timers.

Stokes is more of a genuine all-rounder than Sobers.

As far as the difference in batting average is concerned, bear in mind that Stokes is entering his peak years as a batsman only now, and he has averaged close to 50 with the bat in the last calendar year.

He is every bit as good a batsman as Sobers.

Your problem is you think everything Sobers did is irrelevant due the era he played in. That is out of his control.

Stokes is never going to average 57 at the end of his career. If he is on par with him he should be able to come close to that.

 

[Pakhs]

Name an ODI player who is a great captain, great batter,and great keeper all into one?

Not ODI player just 50 over format player.

 

[Mamoon]

Your problem is you think everything Sobers did is irrelevant due the era he played in. That is out of his control.

Stokes is never going to average 57 at the end of his career. If he is on par with him he should be able to come close to that.

Sobers was a joker with the ball and that was in his control. As an all-rounder, Stokes is already better than him because he is a better bowler.

It doesn’t matter what his overall average is at the end of his career if Stokes can manage to average around 45 in the peak years of his career which I am sure he will. He is developing into an excellent clutch batsman.

 

[Mamoon]

Stokes and Sobers in the same sentence.......

Your kidding right? No way these two should be in the same sentence at all. There not even in the same league. Sobers changed the game for AR's and is regarded as the best ever.

Whereas Stokes is the best AR today but he's the only solid AR today and tbh he's not all that either. His batting is decent but inconsistent, you never know which Stokes your gonna get on the day. Whereas his bowling is not good enough at all, he has seemed to have lost in potency, maybe due to him being more of a fifth bowler and he also bowls quite little.

With the pace attack England have know has changed a lot specially due to Archer coming in with his pace and accuracy. Stokes is more of a batsman in his team than anything.

Sobers was highly influential and one of the first all-rounders, but being the first of your kind doesn’t make you the best of your kind.

Sobers wasn’t even a proper all-rounder. He was a clown with the ball. The first genuine all-rounder was K. Miller who also preceded Sobers.

Stokes is becoming a very consistent batsman now that he is entering his peak years. He averaged 48 with the bat in the last calendar year and has 3 tons in his last two series. You pretty much know which Stokes you are going to get these days. The bloody good one.

 

[Mamoon]

Stokes and Sobers in the same sentence.......

Your kidding right? No way these two should be in the same sentence at all. There not even in the same league. Sobers changed the game for AR's and is regarded as the best ever.

Whereas Stokes is the best AR today but he's the only solid AR today and tbh he's not all that either. His batting is decent but inconsistent, you never know which Stokes your gonna get on the day. Whereas his bowling is not good enough at all, he has seemed to have lost in potency, maybe due to him being more of a fifth bowler and he also bowls quite little.

With the pace attack England have know has changed a lot specially due to Archer coming in with his pace and accuracy. Stokes is more of a batsman in his team than anything.

And Stokes isn’t a great bowler but he is still better than the guy who had a strike rate of 92 with the ball and is now called the GOAT all-rounder.

 

[Pakhs]

Sobers was a joker with the ball and that was in his control. As an all-rounder, Stokes is already better than him because he is a better bowler.

It doesn’t matter what his overall average is at the end of his career if Stokes can manage to average around 45 in the peak years of his career which I am sure he will. He is developing into an excellent clutch batsman.

His Average is not 45

 

[Mamoon]

His Average is not 45

He is entering his peak only now, and averaged 48 last year. He will most likely average around 45 in the peak years of his career.

I am not talking about overall average but average during peak years.

 

[therealAB]

Stokes would have done the same. He has smashed Cummins who is as good as those bowlers.

I was making the point that there was no great divide between the 70's and Sobers' generation, i.e. he would still be great in the modern era, as he did well against the best bowler of the 70's. My point had nothing to do with Stokes

 

[Hari Sombar]

There will never be another De Villiers, able to hit 30 off 200 and 150 off 70, whilst hitting he ball in every direction with perfect execution.

 

[Ab Fan]

Stokes is a Thorpe and Gower level batsmen but Kallis level bowler

Sobers was Tendulkar level batsmen and dunno about bowling but he was a genius in a sense that depending on pitches he could bowl differently, spin or pace. Ofcourse not a great bowler but surely good enough as Stokes/Kallis level.

There is no comparison as much as I like Stokes after his exploits in 2019.

 

[therealAB]

Stokes is a Thorpe and Gower level batsmen but Kallis level bowler

Sobers was Tendulkar level batsmen and dunno about bowling but he was a genius in a sense that depending on pitches he could bowl differently, spin or pace. Ofcourse not a great bowler but surely good enough as Stokes/Kallis level.

There is no comparison as much as I like Stokes after his exploits in 2019.

Agree with the batting, but Stokes >> Kallis as a bowler. Kallis never did anything like Stokes' spell in SA to win the test for eng

 

[NishanKonar]

Sobers was far from a genuine option with the ball. A genuine option with the ball does not have a strike rate of 92. Stokes is comfortably a better bowler.

Both are equally good batsmen and catchers. You cannot compare an average of 57 in the 1950s and 1960s with an average of 37 today. Cricket is now a more professional and demanding sport.

I have no doubt in my mind that Stokes and Sobers would have had nearly identical batting records had they played in the same era.

This is bit unfair on Sobers. His average of 57 can only be compared with his peers. Fact that he was far more easy on the eyes than his peers like Bobby Simpson , Hanif & Barrington makes him extra special

Viv Richards's strike rate is nothing special if compared to today's batters but in his day he was revolutionary given the prevailing strike rates of his era

Sobers' bowling strike rate was poor but not out of place for his era given that he bowled lots of overs as medium pace & spin like stock bowler. Added to that those days u had 6 day tests & upto 120 overs bowled per day - so bowlers in general bowled more & took more deliveries for a wicket especially spinners ( given lbw rules of those days ). Lance Gibbs who took 309 wickets had SR of 88 and he was specialist bowler !!!

Plus Sobers had some very good series as genuine all rounder. Like 1966 England tour where he scored 700+ runs & 20 wickets in 5 tests. Both outstanding figures with bat & bowl. In 1963 West Indies tour of engand Sobers took 20 wickets & scored 320 runs in 5 tests - again very balanced all round performance. In 1968-69 in Australia, Sobers scored 500 runs & 18 wickets in 5 tests !!

In the mid 60s Sobers generally took 3 wickets per test - very acceptable record for a allrounder. Stokes have never really come close to such balanced all round performances. His bowling is more Kallis like. Sobers was more Flintoff-like except that he was far more consistent with both bat & bowl

 

[Robert]

Garry Sobers and Shane Warne. There might be another Viv, Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Wasim, Marshall, Murali or any other cricketer you can think of.

But I confidently believe that there'll never be another Garry Sobers and Shane Warne, two names that are compulsory in any World XI compiled.

What would be your names?

Bradman.

 

[Robert]

Stokes is the new Sobers, but I agree that the next Warne is highly unlikely to emerge. Easily the greatest spinner of all time and it is not even close.

Stokes averages 58 in tests?

No wait, it’s 37.

Stokes could open the bowling with fastish left arm swing then bowl England out with spin in the second innings?

No he could not.

 

[Robert]

Stokes is a Thorpe and Gower level batsmen but Kallis level bowler

Sobers was Tendulkar level batsmen and dunno about bowling but he was a genius in a sense that depending on pitches he could bowl differently, spin or pace. Ofcourse not a great bowler but surely good enough as Stokes/Kallis level.

There is no comparison as much as I like Stokes after his exploits in 2019.

He’s got some way to go. Let’s see if his average tops out in the mid-forties. He might get there. But Gower and Thorpe faced better bowlers too.

 

[Pakhs]

He is entering his peak only now, and averaged 48 last year. He will most likely average around 45 in the peak years of his career.

I am not talking about overall average but average during peak years.

oh really? how many years are peak years? are you going to compare all player during their peak years from now? very unfair on others.

 

[Robert]

Only recent player comparable to Sobers is Kallis. Noone else comes close.

Agreed. The three top batting allrounders were Hammond, Sobers and Kallis.

 

[Ab Fan]

Agree with the batting, but Stokes >> Kallis as a bowler. Kallis never did anything like Stokes' spell in SA to win the test for eng

Stokes at peak > Kallis at peak as bowler but overall there is really not much to seperate them as bowlers.

Kallis till 2002 also had similar figures as Stokes now, it's just that he focussed on his batting more and established himself as one of the best batters of his generation while becoming just a stock bowling option after that.

Stokes is also going through similar phase now. He is focussing more on his batting and just bowling some overs to give breathe to the bowlers. Stokes does have that match winning ability with the bat and bowl which Kallis lacked and that makes him better but overall the difference still remains minute.

 

[Robert]

This is bit unfair on Sobers. His average of 57 can only be compared with his peers. Fact that he was far more easy on the eyes than his peers like Bobby Simpson , Hanif & Barrington makes him extra special

Viv Richards's strike rate is nothing special if compared to today's batters but in his day he was revolutionary given the prevailing strike rates of his era

Sobers' bowling strike rate was poor but not out of place for his era given that he bowled lots of overs as medium pace & spin like stock bowler. Added to that those days u had 6 day tests & upto 120 overs bowled per day - so bowlers in general bowled more & took more deliveries for a wicket especially spinners ( given lbw rules of those days ). Lance Gibbs who took 309 wickets had SR of 88 and he was specialist bowler !!!

Plus Sobers had some very good series as genuine all rounder. Like 1966 England tour where he scored 700+ runs & 20 wickets in 5 tests. Both outstanding figures with bat & bowl. In 1963 West Indies tour of engand Sobers took 20 wickets & scored 320 runs in 5 tests - again very balanced all round performance. In 1968-69 in Australia, Sobers scored 500 runs & 18 wickets in 5 tests !!

In the mid 60s Sobers generally took 3 wickets per test - very acceptable record for a allrounder. Stokes have never really come close to such balanced all round performances. His bowling is more Kallis like. Sobers was more Flintoff-like except that he was far more consistent with both bat & bowl

A very good point which would suggest that Sobers was as good a spinner as the best ever Windies spinner, and as good as Edmonds and Emburey later on and before the lbw law changed.

But we don’t know how he did in each discipline as records do not say. Bob Woolmer considered Sobers - in his cricketing dotage - very dangerous with the new ball. I would hazard a guess that Sobers was a test class SLA - he got into the Windies side in this capacity, batting #8, a test class swing bowler, and a substandard wrist-spinner who bought wickets.

 

[Ab Fan]

Agreed. The three top batting allrounders were Hammond, Sobers and Kallis.

Hammond was not an all-rounder, Kallis was, he got to 150 wickets in 60 tests.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Stokes averages 58 in tests?

No wait, it’s 37.

Stokes could open the bowling with fastish left arm swing then bowl England out with spin in the second innings?

No he could not.

If a bowler with 92 are rate opens the bowling then I a sure that team didn't had many quality bowlers.
Stokes is a better bowler than Sobers buy yeah far behind him in batting.

 

[Mamoon]

Stokes averages 58 in tests?

No wait, it’s 37.

Stokes could open the bowling with fastish left arm swing then bowl England out with spin in the second innings?

No he could not.

Stokes is entering his peak as a batsman, and he averaged 48 in the last calendar. He is as good as a specialist batsman now.

If Stokes opens the bowling and also starts bowling spin, his bowling strike rate might go up to Sobers’ level.

As a bowler, Sobers was jack of all and master of none. Had he decided to stick to one style instead of bowling everything, he might not be taking nearly 100 deliveries to take a wicket.

 

[ManFan]

Yes.

Every generation laments their times while forgetting the greatness imbedded in it.

And later on, memory deludes them into creating a vestige coat of protective armor against any criticism of it.

There have been times in the past where it was said that the age of leg-spin and left-arm pace was dead. Along came Warne and Wasim.

Along will come others.

 

[ManFan]

Stokes is entering his peak as a batsman, and he averaged 48 in the last calendar. He is as good as a specialist batsman now.

If Stokes opens the bowling and also starts bowling spin, his bowling strike rate might go up to Sobers’ level.

As a bowler, Sobers was jack of all and master of none. Had he decided to stick to one style instead of bowling everything, he might not be taking nearly 100 deliveries to take a wicket.

You’re overrating Stokes because the memory of the WC and Ashes is fresh in your mind.

Revisit this thread in three years time and you’ll find, he simply had a peak, like Flintoff, that was magnified by the occasion.

 

[Cric1234]

In terms of average only Bradman might never be equalled or surpassed but otherwise all players will have others who are close to them with a different style as every player has their own unique style of playing.

 

[Mamoon]

You’re overrating Stokes because the memory of the WC and Ashes is fresh in your mind.

Revisit this thread in three years time and you’ll find, he simply had a peak, like Flintoff, that was magnified by the occasion.

I don’t agree. Stokes is a vastly superior batsman compared to Flintoff.

Stokes’ peak is starting now, and I expect him to flourish with the bat for the next 4-5 years.

He has been a world class player for 2-3 years now, but 2019 was the year where he transcended from world class into all-time great category.

If Stokes tapers off and averages around 35 between now and 2024-25, I would agree with you in hindsight. However, I don’t see that happening.

He always had the capability of playing magical innings, but now he has added consistency to his game which was not always there in the early years of his career, hence an overall average of 37 that does not do justice to his skills.

 

[therealAB]

You’re overrating Stokes because the memory of the WC and Ashes is fresh in your mind.

Revisit this thread in three years time and you’ll find, he simply had a peak, like Flintoff, that was magnified by the occasion.

Stokes >> Flintoff

Flintoff managed to peak in the most memorable series ever. That is the only reason he is viewed so highly. Ztokes could retire now and be better

 

[big_gamer007]

People over rate and under rate Sobers at the same time.

You can't compare players like Bradman or Sobers directly with modern players. The comparison cannot be made since it depends on whatifs and not actual facts. Whether Bradman or Sobers can evolve their techniques to adapt to the modern game or not we will never know, because there is no data to back it up.

It's all guesswork.

So, we have to look at the data available, Sobers was a brilliant all rounder and left a long lasting legacy. He was the top dog during his time and the best batsmen during his time.

No point comparing him with modern players.

I think regarding the topic, we won't see anyone like Bradman who averages 99.9 in tests again.

Rest every kind of player we can and will see.

 

[big_gamer007]

Cricket is particularly notorious sport when it comes to overrating players of the past. While in others sports the “establishment” has no problem with calling Messi, Federer or Tiger Woods the GOATs of their respective sports, it is an absolute crime for any modern cricketer to be considered better or even equal to the big name players of the past.

Past cricketers have become larger than life figures with magical skills who were capable of superhuman feats.

If Stokes played for England at the same time as Sobers, his legend would now be much greater and there would be plenty of anecdotal evidence provided to ensure that no modern all-rounder can dare to be compared to him.

I really wish we could develop a time machine so that a lot of myths are busted and Lloyd’s West Indies losing in India, Bradman gets outclassed by Smith, Hobbs struggles to score more runs than Cook while opening the batting for England, and Alan Davidson proves to be a lesser bowler than Boult let alone Wasim.

The standard of cricket has remained fairly consistent since the 1970s with the rise of the first two genuine fast bowlers - Lillee and Thompson - they raised the bar and other teams including West Indies had to quickly find out their own genuine fast bowlers and evolve in order to stay competitive.

The legends of the pre-70 cricketers need to be revered and respect for what they achieved in their time, but their statistics need to be taken with a pinch of salt when it comes to comparisons with contemporary cricketers.

That's because a lot of columnists are old players who like to big up their time in mythical stories.

 

[ammar_merry]

Not just solely talking about batting. Talking about captaincy and personality.

Don't forget Dhoni was a top order batter and had to adapt to playing down the order. Really doubt Gilchrist would have been effective if he had to make that move in LO.

well in Gilchrist started as lower middle order batsman also in domestic until steve waugh made him to open in a match.
https://youtu.be/Hlp0HWDltdc

 

[Extra_Cover]

Stokes is the new Sobers, but I agree that the next Warne is highly unlikely to emerge. Easily the greatest spinner of all time and it is not even close.

I agree with the bit on Stokes. World cup hero, Ashes hero. Still has 5 years or more left in him with potential peak. Would go down as greatest English allrounder for sure and would be arguably top 3 best all-rounders ever in test cricket.

 

[Hasan123]

You’re overrating Stokes because the memory of the WC and Ashes is fresh in your mind.

Revisit this thread in three years time and you’ll find, he simply had a peak, like Flintoff, that was magnified by the occasion.

Stokes is better than Flintoff but Mamoon is doing what he normally does by overrating every English and Indian player.

 

[Hasan123]

well in Gilchrist started as lower middle order batsman also in domestic until steve waugh made him to open in a match.
https://youtu.be/Hlp0HWDltdc

They moved him up the order because they knew he was better suited for it.