Who was the better bowler ?

[BhupinderSingh]

why..there have been few bowlers with the level of success that Botham had in the first half of his career in the last 50 years

But Botham was absolutely rubbish in later stages of his career,for apprximately as much time as he was was successful.

 

[Sanz]

But Botham was absolutely rubbish in later stages of his career,for apprximately as much time as he was was successful.

So was Imran, in the beginning of his career and later part of it. Imran was Rubbish for first 8-9 years of his career and then last 3-4 years of his career and that makes it more time than he was successful.

You see, I can argue like this too.

 

[funnygirl]

So was Imran, in the beginning of his career and later part of it. Imran was Rubbish for first 8-9 years of his career and then last 3-4 years of his career and that makes it more time than he was successful.

You see, I can argue like this too.

No ,i don't agree wth u on this . Imran was fabulous even in the twilight of his career . That WI tour of 1988. No need to say abt it . ,India's tour of 1989 ,he was an ageing warrior .He bowled brilliantly .Statistics didn't tell the whole story of that tour .

I remember he bowled 50 overs in Lahore dead track to protect his main bowler from injury . He bowled pretty fast even at that age . How on earth u can say that Imran was ''rubbish'' ? Imran was anything but rubbish .

 

[Ikki]

No ,i don't agree wth u on this . Imran was fabulous even in the twilight of his career . That WI tour of 1988. No need to say abt it . ,India's tour of 1989 ,he was an ageing warrior .He bowled brilliantly .Statistics didn't tell the whole story of that tour .

I remember he bowled 50 overs in Lahore dead track to protect his main bowler from injury . He bowled pretty fast even at that age . How on earth u can say that Imran was ''rubbish'' ? Imran was anything but rubbish .

But it's true, both his bowling at the start and the end weren't reflecting a bowler we consider one of the ever. Maybe pretty good for his age, but not too good nevertheless. And then you factor in the start...

 

[funnygirl]

Upto 1988 Imran was great ,the remaing 4 years he was just a pure batsman who bowled occasionally .

 

[Ikki]

Upto 1988 Imran was great ,the remaing 4 years he was just a pure batsman who bowled occasionally .

That's still what I mean. Go take the last 3-4 years of his bowling career.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

So was Imran, in the beginning of his career and later part of it. Imran was Rubbish for first 8-9 years of his career and then last 3-4 years of his career and that makes it more time than he was successful.

You see, I can argue like this too.

Imran came into the side as a teenager & played only 4 tests in first 5 years of his career & 1971-1975 makes only 5 years,not 8 or 9.And in last 4 years of his career,he was averaging 26,far from being rubbish.So,I recommend you to check stats before posting anything.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

But it's true, both his bowling at the start and the end weren't reflecting a bowler we consider one of the ever. Maybe pretty good for his age, but not too good nevertheless. And then you factor in the start...

That stuff is highly laughable.

 

[Richard]

So was Imran, in the beginning of his career and later part of it. Imran was Rubbish for first 8-9 years of his career and then last 3-4 years of his career and that makes it more time than he was successful.

You see, I can argue like this too.

Imran was a good bowler for far longer than Botham, and also a poor one for far less time.

His first 4 Tests in England in 1971 and 1974, and 7 of his last 13 (the other 6 he was playing purely as a batsman). That's 11 games - virtually nothing. For Botham, the figure was 60 (although you can exclude 5 of those as he should never have played them).

Where longevity is concerned, Imran trumps Botham as a bowler by a considerable margin.

 

[The Sean]

A few points on this.

a) There are obviously other factors that have to be considered. Length of career and consistency as well as other factors play a role. The players that have one brief incredible run of form that gives them an artificial high rating need to be weeded out. However, a low rating compred to other 'greats' can add a perspective to the issue.

b) For both the batting and bowing ratings a number of 900 or above is seen as top echelon. Now although Lara only has the 20 highest rating it was 911 which says a lot. Tendulkar has 898 which is still a monster rating. Both are still a lot higher than Wasims 57th rating of mid-800s which is very low for a supposed 'alltime' great

c) Lets take the numbers of 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers in a side. There are therefore more batsmen in the game and it would logically be more competetive to make a top batting spot than a bowling spot. Comparing Lara at 20 as a similar situation to Wasim at 57 is like comparing apples and oranges.

d) I see no reason why it would be expected that Lara and Tendulkar should be rated a lot higher either. On this forum Ive discussed on numerous occasions why I dont think either are close to being the best ever. Sure there are a few guys listed ahead of them on that list that they should be considered over and they should be a little higher, but I dont see their placings as a massve anomoly. Lara by many may only be considerd 4th on the WI batting list behind guys like Sobers, Headley and Richards so I wouldnt find an alltime ranking of in the teens as offensive.

c) If you were to use the batting number as a way to disparage the system, the obvious way would be to show Bradman ranked anywhere but number 1. Unfortunately he sits at the top of the tree and with the exception of a few players he is followed by all the usual suspects you would expect to see in any top batting list.
d) So whilst I agree that other factors must be include in the assessment of a player (I never claimed that this should be the only way) it is hard to ignore a rating of 57 for Wasim if a case is trying to be built that he is one of the best bowlers ever.

Fair enough mate - don't have time to respond to all this right now and it doesn't really matter anyway, but I'm not sure about your one point that I bolded. The fact that Bradman comes in at number 1 doesn't mean that any attempts to disparage the system are incorrect (not that I'm necessarily trying to disparage the whole system - I've said it works reasonably well for what it is). To me, Bradman being at number 1 on any batting ranking is the single easiest selection to make - even a flawed system will have a 99.94% chance of getting that one right.

 

[Sanz]

Imran came into the side as a teenager & played only 4 tests in first 5 years of his career & 1971-1975 makes only 5 years,not 8 or 9.And in last 4 years of his career,he was averaging 26,far from being rubbish.So,I recommend you to check stats before posting anything.

A bowler who is averaging in 30s is rubbish. Imran making his debut at 18 and then not making it to the team as a regular for another 7-8 years means that he was rubbish. And Last 4 years he was rubbish, that's why he didn't bowl much, Makes a total of 11-12 years out of 20-21 years of international cricket.

 

[Sanz]

Imran was a good bowler for far longer than Botham, and also a poor one for far less time.

His first 4 Tests in England in 1971 and 1974, and 7 of his last 13 (the other 6 he was playing purely as a batsman). That's 11 games - virtually nothing. For Botham, the figure was 60 (although you can exclude 5 of those as he should never have played them).

Where longevity is concerned, Imran trumps Botham as a bowler by a considerable margin.

Dont change the goal post now. Bhupinder was talking about time when Sir Botham was rubbish. Just because Imran didn't play more tests between 1971-1978, doesn't mean he was not rubbish during that period.

Even if we talk numbers, Botham was good untill 1984-85.after which he played 23 tests in 5 years.Imran between 1971-79 and 1989-92 played 40 tests. take your pick.

 

[Unattainableguy]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/player/40560.html

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/player/9163.html

End of story.

 

[shortpitched713]

Went with Wasim based on his ODI record.

Nah, actually had to go with Imran. Really, I'd say that hes in a different class than Wasim if your only looking at Test performance.

Only seen Wasim bowl live. But I've seen more of Imran from PTV's coverage of old Pakistan matches than probably any other cricketer I haven't seen live.

 

[shortpitched713]

FRAZ and Beleg to come in and claim Shoaib was better than the lot in
3...
2...
1...

 

[Burgey]

Went with Wasim FTW.

Have seen them both bowl. T'was a close run thing imo.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

A bowler who is averaging in 30s is rubbish. Imran making his debut at 18 and then not making it to the team as a regular for another 7-8 years means that he was rubbish. And Last 4 years he was rubbish, that's why he didn't bowl much, Makes a total of 11-12 years out of 20-21 years of international cricket.

What a load of BS.If a bowler averaging in 30s is rubbish,then you'll surely also consider Gary"I could bowl every style crapily"Sobers,Andrew Flintoff,Sarfaraz Nawaz & many many others averaging in 30s as rubbish bowlers also?

 

[SJS]

My my, if Imran had played for another thirty years it would have been almost a life time of bowling rubbish

 

[Richard]

Dont change the goal post now. Bhupinder was talking about time when Sir Botham was rubbish. Just because Imran didn't play more tests between 1971-1978, doesn't mean he was not rubbish during that period.

Even if we talk numbers, Botham was good untill 1984-85.after which he played 23 tests in 5 years.Imran between 1971-79 and 1989-92 played 40 tests. take your pick.

I don't give a flying %$£& about number of years - for a time in cricket relates to matches. It doesn't matter if you're crap for 10 years if you don't play a game in that time.

Botham was no good as a bowler after the First Test in India in 1981\82. He had odd moments and nothing more, and he had something resembling an Indian-summer of his career in the summer of 1985. His batting stayed top-bracket for quite a while afterwards, until the second half of the summer of 1984.

You are the one, incidentally, trying to move goalposts by picking utterly implausible points at which to start different periods of players' careers. Nothing in Imran's career before 1976\77 matters - at all, really. To try and bring that into a criticism of him is just dismal. And to suggest that he was not a superb bowler immediately that season began is equally baffling of logic.

 

[Richard]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/player/40560.html

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/player/9163.html

End of story.

So they both have topless CricInfo pictures... so what?