By Spiro Zavos
September 30th 2008 @ 2:06am
Was Sobers cricket’s greatest all-rounder?
In the days when I used to go into the press box at the SCG as a writer of the occasional leader on cricket issues, I often had a chat with a lovely man, Kersi Meher-Homji, an engineer and a writer of fascinating books on arcane cricket matters such as famous cricketing brothers or famous ducks.
His latest tome is called Cricket’s Greatest All-Rounders (New Holland Publishers).
It is typically erudite and intriquing.
He points out that on statistics alone, the greatest all-rounder is probably Jacques Kallis. His Test batting average is 55.46, just below the 57.78 of Sir Garfield Sobers, and his bowling average of 31.22 is slightly better than Sobers’ 34.03.
Cricket statistics, like this, are a bit like presenting the body statistics of two women but not showing their faces.
Kallis’ statistics might be on a par with Sobers, but he has never had the presence and effect, either batting or bowling, as that of Sobers.
Sobers has won Tests with the bat and ball (bowling fast and slow, finger spin and wrist spin) and in the field in close-catching positions.
I saw Sobers play one of his first Test innings when he was a youngster touring New Zealand for the West Indians in the 1950s.
He was selected as a promising left-arm finger spinner.
For the Test at Wellington, he was promoted to opener where he scored twenty or so quite quickly. But what caught my eye was the way he hooked a six in the first over, the ball shattering a glass window in the far pavilion.
Then, around a decade later, I saw him playing for South Australia against a strong NSW side.
Alan Davidson took the second new ball and Sobers hit the first four deliveries for four before being out caught trying for another boundary. The only other batsman I saw who could belt virtually every ball for four in this sort of fashion was Barry Richards.
This reminds of a story about Sobers when he was coaching at North Sydney.
A batsman at net practice asked Sobers what he should do with deliveries that zip across him from leg to off. “Just belt them over mid-on,” the startled batsman was told.
Meher-Homji reckons that Kallis’ batting average is so high because there has been a fall-off in bowling standards at the Test level. The boundaries are shorter now, too, and the bats are heavier.
Phil Derriman, in a short review of the book, suggests that the last genuine all-rounder to play for Australia was Keith Miller. Derriman’s definition of all-rounder is a player who is capable of being selected in a team either as a batsman or a bowler.
Meher-Homji has a more open-ended definition: a player who can turn a match around with the bat or the ball.
Under this definition, Michael Clark becomes an all-rounder as he has won a couple of Tests with the ball and with the bat.
But I would have a quibble with both the definitions.
They do not allow for the wicket-keeper batsman. Adam Gilchrist, with his batting and keeping statistics, and especially with the way he scored his runs, would have to rate somewhere very near Sobers as cricket’s greatest all-rounder.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(20)
sledgeross said | September 30th 2008 @ 8:42am | Report comment
I would have to agree Spiro. Sobers is shoulders above any modern all-rounder. WHen we start getting excited about the likes of Shane Watson, you know the cupboard is bare. We have to remember that Sobers played against some of the greatest players of all time, on more difficult wickets, and the Windies were in the infancy of their cricketing tenure as a power. Sure, they had Weekes, Walcott, and the highly respected Worrell, plus the likes of Cammy Smith and Wes Hall, who all entertained crowds, but it was Sobers who captured the imagination. Sobers didnt play against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe.
He is the best.
Terry Kidd said | September 30th 2008 @ 9:19am | Report comment
I agree Spiro and Sledge …. Kallis does not even deserve to be named in the same paragraph as Sobers. As Sledge states trickier wickets, lighter bats, longer boundaries and probably a higher standard of bowler and opposing teams are all differing circumstances to now when Kallis has amassed his stats.
Kallis has not performed as his stats suggest against Australia with either bat or ball. McGrath and Warne generally had the wood on him and Australian batsmen did not rate his bowling as a great threat. This suggests a lot of higher performances against inferior opponenets.
It is entirely theoretical, and in no way do I wish to demean Zimbabwean or Bangladeshi cricket, but try to imagine Sobers batting in Harare …. the local kids would have great joy chasing the cricket balls down the local streets as they were smacked out of the ground. Another thought …. if Sobers had played as many tests as Kallis (the frequency in the 50s & 60s was far less than today) then I dare say that his stats as an all rounder would be near as unreachable as Bradman’s were as a batsman.
sheek said | September 30th 2008 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Spiro,
100 percent agree. Sobers first, daylight second. Kallis’ record just goes to show how stats can be deceiving.
You also mentioned Barry Richards. I’m a bit of a Saffie tragic when it comes to their 1970s cricketers. There’s 3 who deserve to be compared in any company.
Barry Richards (b. 1945) - arguably the greatest opener in the game’s history. Had he played more than 4 tests, he might have proved it. His batting for South Australia in 1970-71 was unbelievable. 356 against WA; 224 & 146 against England; 178 against NSW; 155 against Qld & 105 against Vic. Batting average around 109 for the season! Played only 4 official Tests (1970), 5 WSC Supertests (1977/79); 5 World XI Internationals (1970) & 6 unofficial Tests against Rebel teams (1981/84).
Graeme Pollock (b. 1944) - at the time of his retirement from 1st class cricket in 1987 (age 43), Bradman declared him the best left-hander in the history of the game (as oppossed to Sobers being the best all-rounder). The comment attracted little media attention in Australia, because this was the height of the anti-apartheid period. Played 23 official Tests (1963/70); 8 World XI Internationals (1970/72) & 14 unofficial Tests against Rebel teams (1981/87).
Mike Procter (b. 1946) - could he have been the 2nd best all-rounder in history after Sobers? And better than Imran & Botham? I suspect so, but we’ll never know for sure. Statistically, his County career averages are better than Imran & Botham, the only comparable stats available for all 3. Played 7 official Tests (1966/70); 4 WSC Supertests (1977/79); 5 World XI Internationals (1970) & one unofficial Test against Rebel teams (1981/82).
Sorry, couldn’t help myself (with the historical info)……….
JohnB said | September 30th 2008 @ 10:37am | Report comment
But all those factors only apply to arguably inflate later batting averages. None of them discount later bowling figures - and if you consider that they do inflate batting, shouldn’t they also inflate bowling figures? Thus if you are happy to apply a discount to Kallis’ batting average, shouldn’t you (out of fairness) also discount his bowling average so that it is that much better again than Sobers’?
I’m not a particular fan of Kallis, who’s never been an engaging player to watch, and I’m just old enough to have seen Sobers play in the Rest of the World games in 1971/2 including the famous 254, so he does take on a bit of that mythic giant of my youth glow - however, I don’t think it’s right to say that the overall standard of cricket then was any higher than it is now. It is true that Sobers didn’t play against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh - on the other hand he also didn’t play against South Africa or Sri Lanka. And he did play against some pretty ordinary Indian, Pakistani and New Zealand sides. I won’t call them the Zimbabwe’s of those days, but you could argue that wasn’t so completely unreasonable a comparison. Wickets in the WI were also generally made for batting in Sobers’ time.
So having said that, and added the obligatory observation that you can’t compare players across eras, I think you’re left with the undeniable fact that on the basis of figures Kallis is a hell of a player. Nearly 10,000 runs in 123 games, 30 hundreds, 48 fifties, 55.46 average; bowls about 22 overs per game on average, 240 wickets (so about 2 per game) @ 31.22 (with five 5 fers), 130 catches.
Very plainly they are the figures of a batting all-rounder rather than of someone who gets into a team for either his batting or his bowling - but I think you can say the same for Sobers. He played 93 games, taking 235 wickets (so almost as many as Kallis from many fewer games) with six 5-fers. However, he did bowl nearly 39 overs per game (and bowled far more in total than Kallis has), so his 2.5 wickets per game took a lot of getting. Those are perhaps the figures of a stock bowler who was good at blocking up an end - whether those figures alone would keep you in a test side would have to be debatable. The other thing you could debate is how many wickets Kallis might have taken if he’d been bowled more.
So is a fairer comparison of the 2 that Sobers is probably the better batsman but Kallis the better (or at least, much more penetrative) bowler, with both of them top drawer catchers?
sledgeross said | September 30th 2008 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Stats are wonderful!
For example, Sobers was limited by the amount of teams playing tests, so he played approx half his tests against Australia and England (Aus 19 tests or 20%, England 36 tests or 39%), followed by India 18 tests, NZ 12 tests and Pakistan 8 tests.
Kallis test list is diluted by the amount of teams playing these days, with most of his matches being played against mediocre England (24 tests or 20%) and Windies teams (21 tests or 17%), in addition to 6 tests against Zimbabwe and 4 against the might of Bangladesh. Against these two teams he has scored 956 runs and taken 33 wickets.
Im not saying that Kallis is rubbish, far from it. Its just that SObers (even though Ive only ever seen him play on archive, and read books about him) is the player who I would classify as easily the best all-rounder. He could bowl pace and spin, and was a more versatile fielder as well.
sheek said | September 30th 2008 @ 11:21am | Report comment
JohnB,
An Australian Charles Davis, attempted to apply mathematical models to cricket. He appreciated how the stats from different eras could be misleading, as not all eras were identical in strength, obviously. Individual batting & bowling figures were weighted up & down according to the era the player appeared in, & the quality of the opposition. The whole thing must have taken him years to compile.
His book - ‘The Best Of The Best: A New Look At The Great Cricketers And Their Changing Times’, was published in 2000, so it’s nearly a decade old now. Here’s some tidbits.
1. Historical batting & bowling averages (they balance out) for all teams (i’ve selected various years from the list)
1920s 33.8 (EN, AU, SA)
1930s 32.4 (EN, AU, SA, WI, NZ, IN)
1955-59 28.2 (EN, AU, SA, WI, NZ, IN, PA)
1965-69 30.9 (EN, AU, SA, WI, NZ, IN, PA)
1975-79 31.7 (EN, AU, WI, NZ, IN, PA)
1985-89 33.2 (EN, AU, WI, NZ, IN, PA, SL)
1995-99 31.1 (EN, AU, SA, WI, NZ, IN, PA, SL, ZI)
2. Individual batting & bowling averages for individual countries from above eras.
1920s Australia 37.1 & 34.8; England 36.1 & 31.8.
1930s Australia 37.0 & 28.7; England 36.8 & 30.6.
1955-59 Australia 29.3 & 23.5; England 31.2 & 22.1.
1965-69 West Indies 35.0 & 35.2; South Africa 35.8 & 25.8.
1975-79 West Indies 34.0 & 33.3; Australia 30.8 & 31.6; England 29.4 & 27.1.
1985-89 West Indies 32.7 & 25.7; India 36.5 & 33.8; Pakistan 34.6 & 30.0; New Zealand 34.3 & 34.1.
1995-96 Australia 33.9 & 26.9; South Africa 31.9 & 27.2; India 35.9 & 32.7.
Make of this what you will!!!
You can’t compare Kallis with Sobers, stats or no stats. Sobers won matches with his bat, Kallis saves them (his batting is so dull). Sobers was more electrifying with ball, perhaps Kallis more consistent. Sobers could run through sides, either bowling fast-medium swing & cutters, or left arm slow orthodox (offies) or chinamen (leggies).
And Sobers’ fielding sometimes bordered on the miraculous. Also, he captained the Windies for a long time. I guess our opinion on players & eras is all based on personal perceptions & preferences.
Terry Kidd said | September 30th 2008 @ 11:30am | Report comment
I have already agreed that in my book Sobers is right up there but in my book another South African mentioned by Sheek would also go close, and that is Mike Proctor. Unfortunately I never saw him play, nor have I seen him on film, so can only go on what I read, and I know nothing of his fielding or catching, but reports from other players of that time rate him extremely highly as a very dangerous bowler and punishing batsman.
Sheek do you have any test stats for him?
sheek said | September 30th 2008 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Terry,
Procter was a blond bombshell who was said to bowl ‘wrong’ front foot. In other words, he delivered the ball with the same leg forward as bowling arm. Procter always denied this, but I mention purely for trivia. It seems he delivered the ball in a legs crossover style.
I did see him bowl during WSc in 1977/78 & 1978/79. There was nothing overly unusual about his bowling style, except he reminded me a bit of Max Walker in delivery style. But bustling, barrell-chested, blond & stocky as opposed to Tangles’ tall, loping, dark haired approach!
His only 7 tests were all against Australia. In 1966/67, at only 20, he played 3 tests taking 15 cheap wickets @ 17.53. In 1970 he took another 26 wickets in 4 tests @ only 13.58 apiece! His batting was also consistent - 22 & 48, 32, 22 & 36no, 26 &23.
In 1970/71, playing for Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in the Currie (Castle) Cup B division, he emulated C.B.Fry & Don Bradman by scoring 6 centuries in 6 innings. In a long career with Gloucestershire, which fans said should have been renamed ‘Procter-shire’, he gave sterling service.
Had he enjoyed a longer test career, I believe it would have closely resembled that of Imran Khan, in style & substance. Both, early in their careers were tearaway fast men who could also hit well on occasions, becoming in their later years accomplished middle order batsmen & slower but still supreme pace bowlers.
While banning South Africa from sport for political reasons was probably justified, it was a tragedy sporting wise. The 1970 South African cricket team was arguably their best ever, cut down in their prime - B.Richards, T.Goddard, A.Bacher(c), G.Pollock, E.Barlow(vc), L.Irvine, D.Lindsay(k), H.Lance, M.Procter, P.Pollock, J.Traicos, P.Trimborn(12th).
Procter batting at #9 was ridiculous! The team batted down to Peter Pollock at 10. And skipper Bacher had Procter & Peter Pollock to open the bowling, followed by batting allrounder pacemen Goddard, Barlow & Lance. Traicos was the only spinner, & this was perhaps the only weakness in the side, lack of a genuine spinner. 12th man Trimborn was also a paceman.
Had the 1971/72 Saffies come to Australia, they would have been even stronger! Although Goddard & Lance had retired, another exciting allrounder in Clive Rice & giant paceman Vincent van der Bijl were selected in the team. They would have ‘wowed’ Aussie crowds. Shame about the politics.
Michael C said | September 30th 2008 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Sir Learie Constantine,
and domestically George Giffen.
Rob said | September 30th 2008 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Not taking anything away from modern batsmen but I wonder if comparing between eras is even more difficult given the body “armour ” that batsmen wear today.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 30th 2008 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
Kallis is not as quick as Sobers was and can’t bowl spinners!!! nor is he as good a fieldsman. Sobers could turn a match much more effectively than Kallis.
Bruce Walkley said | September 30th 2008 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
I think there have been only two true allrounders in my lifetime, and I’ve been lucky enough to see both in the flesh. To me a true allrounder has to be good enough, at Test level, to bat regularly at No.3 or 4 and either regularly open the bowling or be a top-class seamer or spinner capable of more than a handful of five-wicket innings hauls over his career. Sobers. Miller. Full stop. Botham goes close but not quite. The rest are either “bowling allrounders” (good bowlers who can bat better than capably) or “batting allrounders” (the reverse). If you have to qualify it when you say someone is an allrounder he isn’t. As for wicketkeepers, there were better keepers around during Gilchrist’s time, which means a few blokes have been lucky to get a run at No.6, where Gilchrist would have been chosen ahead of them in his own right as a batsman if he hadn’t also kept wicket.
sheek said | September 30th 2008 @ 7:09pm | Report comment
Michael C,
Did you see Learie play. He toured Australia in 1930/31. Crikey, you must be about 85 plus!!!!!
westy said | September 30th 2008 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
Oh ye of short memory …………..I would do my late father and Parkie a grave disservice if i did not remind you all of the great Keith Miller………..there were not many who could open the batting and bowling and field at cover in a Sheffield Shield side . After six years out fighting WW2 as a fighter piolt in Britain and Europe he played for fun not averages. Wonderful instruction to his young NSW side……….Where shall we field ? Answer just spread out ” and eight wickets later in short time they were on their way out to bat again. Let the last word be the great Sobers he always admired the way Miller played nor should any Australian ever forget.
JohnB said | September 30th 2008 @ 7:42pm | Report comment
Bruce, interesting set of criteria. Again I think they favour batting, in that to satisfy your criteria you need to be a better batsman than bowler - which in statistical terms is what Sobers was (one of the very best batsmen of all time but more a handy bowler than a top class one).
Skewing the qualification in that way does mean that Botham wouldn’t get in. He would rarely if ever have batted 3 or 4, although why the specialist batting positions of 5 and 6 don’t qualify I’m not quite sure. His career batting stats make him a solid/good (but certainly not great) 5 or 6 (5200 runs at 33.5, 14 hundreds, 22 fifties). People have had a test career as a batsman with those figures. I think most people would accept that he was at least a very good bowler and fieldsman (102 games, 383 wickets @ 28.4, 27 five-fers, four 10 in a match, strikerate 57, 120 catches). But if you’re saying that makes him a bowling allrounder, why isn’t Sobers a battng allrounder? 235 wickets is roughly 235 more than I’ve taken, but over 93 tests at a strike rate of 92 with 6 five-fers and no 10 in a match, it doesn’t really compare to Botham. If you wanted to argue that Botham was better than Sobers (which I don’t) you would add the “bowler’s centuries” (5 wickets per innings) to the batting centuries for the 2 of them, get (for Botham) 27 plus 14 total 41 and Sobers 26 plus 6 total 32. 9 more games for Botham, so some distortion there, but still fuel to argue he had a major impact more regularly. Let me repeat, not an argument I’m making.
Incidentally, if we accept your criteria, I’m not too sure how often Miller and Sobers batted at 3 or 4. Certainly on occasion, and certainly capable of doing so, but “regularly”?
I don’t actually disagree that Sobers was in all likelihood the best, to the extent you can make that judgement, but what I am saying is that it seems to me how much better a batsman he was than a bowler gets glossed over and that doesn’t happen when other players are discussed.
westy said | September 30th 2008 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
Miller was never mindful of averages. In some Sydney tests he tried to hit the clocktower/ he infamously threw the ball back to the ultra competitive Bradman …….or to Bradman’s request to give an English batsman in 48 the proper stuff …not now he had a difficult war. Miller……was unique. There was no other Australian who was in his class. To John B when Miller captained NSW he varied his batting position to combat the best bowlers sometimes opening/first/ second drop or late middle order if their was a good spinner or the young blokes were performing well. We have never had an allrounder in his class.
He would have made it as a early order batsman or as an opening / first change bowler.I cannot emphasise more that after his war experiences with a Messerschmidt up his arse he played cricket even test cricket for fun. Averages should never cloak how good this guy was.
Michael C said | September 30th 2008 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
Sheek -
nah, never saw him play (nor George Giffen at that rate either!!).
But, I rate higher for example the efforts of the ‘early greats’ of fledgling nations - - so George Headley (the black Bradman), Charlie Griffiths and Learie Constantine - - I rate them all very highly - - and so would provide an ‘upward’ correction factor to their averages.
Bruce Walkley said | September 30th 2008 @ 11:37pm | Report comment
Miller batted at 4 in two of the 1948 Tests, and 5 in the other three behind Barnes, Morris, Bradman and Hassett, and had a poor series with the bat, 10th in the Australian Test averages, but made a vital 58 at No.4 in the 4th when he helped 19-year-old Harvey to a ton in his first Test. He couldn’t bowl in the second Test because of an injured back, and bowled only 14 overs in the third, but took 13 wickets at 23.15 from 137.5 overs in the series, second only to Lindwall’s 27 wickets at 19.62 from 222.5 overs. Lindwall and Miller’s best opening bowling performance was in the first innings of the fifth Test, when Lindwall got 6/20 and Miller 2/5 (from 8 overs). England made 52, of which Hutton made 30, the next best batsman (Yardley) made 7 and extras were third top score (6). Miller was a handy footballer with St Kilda, too, and played fullback for Victoria. Lindwall, who just about qualifies as a bowling allrounder (two Test tons), rounded his ability off as a footballer, too, 31 first-grade games for St George, including two losing grand finals.
Rambo said | October 25th 2008 @ 11:23pm | Report comment
Kallis is a fine cricketer, but not in Sobers all round league. Sobers could (besides batting), do anything - off spin, wrist spin, medium pace, catch. As Ian Chappell once, said, even though it was in the seventies, Sobers is to allrounders what Bradman is to batsman. That still hasn’t changed. To call Michael Clarke an all rounder and mention him in the same breath is too ridiculous to even consider
Also just to rub it in, if you wanted to challenge Sobers in a game of golf he was a single figure left hand and right hand and probably could play one handed if that was viable. Another “thing” Sobers has behind that toothy grin, which none of the present day cricketers have got is charisma. Even MBE’s ,(massive big egos) ,like Ian Botham were in awe of him.
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | December 1st 2008 @ 12:47am (5 days ago) | Report comment
I think the key is early in Spiro’s piece (Sobers had presence and effect) and in Rambo’s comment immediately before me - Sober’s charisma. I heard of him mostly from my father - of course as a teenager I heard various innings on the radio and saw him (on TV) during his time in SA and for the WIndies, but I wasn’t paying enough attention back then.
I heard similar glowing reports from my father on Miller, including his powerful presence, and his exceptional talent.
The ones who stuck in my mind most, that I have seen myself, were Imran Khan and Botham - both were able to say “Give me the bloody thing, I’ll do it myself!” and to deliver. I’ll have to spend some time this week to research the stats, to measure my observations against their statistical record.