Who is better Imran Khan or Glenn Mcgrath?

[Debris]

Perhaps the conditions were conducive for him to generate reverse swing? Isn't that a better reason? In which case, McGrath also had the advantage of bouncy wickets at home, so there shouldn't be an issue. Reverse swing or no, every fast bowler would choose bowling in Australia or England over Pakistan.

McGraths record is actually better away than in Australia. The thought that Australia is a fast bowler's paradise is a bit of a myth these days.

 

[Richard]

I always find it suspicious when someone's record at home is much better than their average away. And the gap is pretty significant.

It may not have been umpiring as I said in my post. Maybe the conditions at home were just very favourable for him. How would you explain the gap?

That's very silly, really. Conditions in Pakistan until very recently tended to be the least bowler-friendly anywhere in The World. To do better there than elsewhere is a huge achievement.

 

[SJS]

There have always been allegations of biased umpiring in Pakistan but to say that the better home stats of a player need to be looked at with so much suspicion as to doubt the caliber of that player is stretching things too far.

Players from all countries (not just Pakistan) and of all types (spinners, medium pacers and fast bowlers) include those that have figures which are better at home. There are also those who have better figures away from home - would we doubt these too and on what basis.

Here is a random list of bowlers from different countries who have better figures at home. Imran is not such an isolated case. I am sure there are many others as well.

[B]Country	Player	        Home	Away	Adv %[/B]
ENG     Colin Blythe	12.27	24.5	49.9
ENG	Jim Laker	18.09	28.6	36.7
ENG	Johnny Briggs	13.63	20.88	34.7
ENG	Alec Bedser	21.56	32.99	34.6
IND	Anil Kumble	24.58	35.42	30.6
SRL	Muralitharan	19.23	26.29	26.9
ENG	Alec Barnes	13.38	17.96	25.5
[COLOR="DarkRed"]PAK	Imran Khan	19.21	25.76	25.4[/COLOR]
AUS	Jeff Thomson	24.98	33.49	25.4
ENG	Fred Trueman	20.04	26.09	23.2
PAK	Waqar Younis	20.3	26.07	22.1
NZL	Shane Bond	19.93	25.05	20.4
AUS	Keith Miller	20.47	25.48	19.7
AUS	MacDermot	26.47	32.89	19.5
ENG	Brian Statham	22.77	27.8	18.1

 

[Top_Cat]

Cherry-picking is an essential part of understanding how good a bowler is. If you start insisting that every part of a career is exactly equal in importance, you cannot possibly understand cricket.

McGrath too was very poor early in his Test career. You notice how I've left-out this tiny portion, along with a tiny portion of Imran's. I don't really care about such minute details. I care about the big picture. I care about comparing the two bowlers as the brilliant bowlers we knew them, not comparing them at a time they were both novices and\or over-the-hill.

Yes but the determination of when those bowlers were novices or over-the-hill is the arguable bit. If you're going to assume data points are outliers, expect to be criticised if people don't agree with the criteria used to exclude them. It's somewhat questionable as a methodology (take it from someone who does it for a living) to exclude those data points; you only ever exclude points if you actually quantitatively analyse and demonstrate they are outliers or statistical noise. Your criteria for exclusion is entirely arbitrary and arguable (as is anybody's who does the same) yet you react to people questioning it like they're arguing against established fact. That's what puts people off-side and is why you have Faaip mentioning stuff like intellectual honesty.

Putting data in context is fine but you have to prove that the excluded data should be excluded, not just assume it (and, yes, as a data/stats analyst, this sticks in my craw when I see someone's lovely linear plot with a > 80% correlation then find out they just chucked out some data points because they 'looked wrong'. Grrr...) And then you have to accept that even if the methodology holds up, there are caveats associated with your subsequent conclusions.

 

[Richard]

The methodology is obviously purely personal opinion. I've given my reasons for believing the start\stop points to be fitting - in some cases backed-up by written material rather than purely looking at statistical deviation - and if someone wishes to accept this that's their choice.

Personally I feel career averages are some of the most unreliable things you'll ever see in cricket. They almost always need some deeper examination.

In any case, Fuller is going-on about utter nonsense, because he's basically accusing me of doing something for one player and not accepting it for another. Which I'm not doing, at all. I'm simply avoiding wasting my time working-out stuff that has no relevance to what I'm saying.

 

[subshakerz]

McGraths record is actually better away than in Australia. The thought that Australia is a fast bowler's paradise is a bit of a myth these days.

Regardless, Australia, especially in the first half of McGrath's career, was far more bowler-friendly than Pakistan was for Imran in his career. The fact that Imran succeeeded so well at home should go to his credit, not his detriment.

 

[Engle]

Cherry picking is always done, regardless of methodology. If I may digress, Ali is considered one of the greatest boxers of all time, yet was absolutely woeful in the twilight of his career.

Now, Imran had the tougher challenges to surmount what with injuries and WSC distractions (akin to one DKL) and being persuaded to return from retirement, by no less than a dictatorial General.

He relished a challenge and had the ability to raise his game to outperform fast bowling greats like Marshall, Hadlee and Lillee in games they played together. This, IMO, is a very strong point, the ability to compete with the biggest names in the business.

Could McGrath have been able to overshadow a Marshall ?

 

[Ikki]

Regardless, Australia, especially in the first half of McGrath's career, was far more bowler-friendly than Pakistan was for Imran in his career. The fact that Imran succeeeded so well at home should go to his credit, not his detriment.

It's a weird one though. Imran bowled swing which pretty much took care of the impediment for the pitch. Whereas McGrath used seam throughout his career. Being able to seam the ball on a flat pitch is amazing, it's different to swinging it over a flat pitch.

Could McGrath have been able to overshadow a Marshall ?

Short answer: yep.

 

[Richard]

It's a weird one though. Imran bowled swing which pretty much took care of the impediment for the pitch. Whereas McGrath used seam throughout his career. Being able to seam the ball on a flat pitch is amazing, it's different to swinging it over a flat pitch.

McGrath did not seam it on flat pitches. No-one seams it on non-seaming pitches - that's the whole point, they don't allow you to. McGrath used cutters when the ball did not offer him movement off the seam - and, very occasionally, swing as well.

Similarly, Imran used swing, which takes the pitch out of the equation completely. Both are methods of being successful on non-seaming wickets.

 

[Ikki]

McGrath did not seam it on flat pitches. No-one seams it on non-seaming pitches - that's the whole point, they don't allow you to. McGrath used cutters when the ball did not offer him movement off the seam - and, very occasionally, swing as well.

Similarly, Imran used swing, which takes the pitch out of the equation completely. Both are methods of being successful on non-seaming wickets.

By your belief that cricket has been played on flat pitches for largely this last decade: McGrath has been bowling mostly cutters for 7-8 years?

 

[Sanz]

Cherry picking is always done, regardless of methodology. If I may digress, Ali is considered one of the greatest boxers of all time, yet was absolutely woeful in the twilight of his career.

Now, Imran had the tougher challenges to surmount what with injuries and WSC distractions (akin to one DKL) and being persuaded to return from retirement, by no less than a dictatorial General.

Do not understand the relevency of all that in this discussion. Some of this nonsensical stuff you always bring up.

He relished a challenge and had the ability to raise his game to outperform fast bowling greats like Marshall, Hadlee and Lillee in games they played together. This, IMO, is a very strong point, the ability to compete with the biggest names in the business.

Could McGrath have been able to overshadow a Marshall ?

I see no reason why Mcgrath could not have out shadowed Marshall, not that it has any significance in this discussion.

 

[Richard]

By your belief that cricket has been played on flat pitches for largely this last decade: McGrath has been bowling mostly cutters for 7-8 years?

The balls that he moved off the pitch between 2004/05 and 2005/06 (he struggled to move it off unresponsive surfaces in 2006/07) were mostly cutters, yes. He (and Stuart Clark) got the odd seaming surface in that time, however.

I've seen him bowl the odd few outswingers in that time as well, however - and heard about some on occasions I have not watched, notably in New Zealand in 2004/05.

 

[bagapath]

Most notably against Gavaskar and had his moments too. There was one particular series where Imran took 40 wickets @<14.00 on one of the flattest wickets ever. Every other bowler in the series averaged > 30.

this series is mainly remembered for the ball reverse swinging with alarming regularity - there was not even a name for that phenomenon back then. it is also whispered that a few bottle tops and picked seams had played their part in this devastating bowling. i dont want to think about it and sully my superman image of imran (just like i didnt want to analyze kapil's tears when he was accused of ball tampering)

 

[subshakerz]

this series is mainly remembered for the ball reverse swinging with alarming regularity - there was not even a name for that phenomenon back then. it is also whispered that a few bottle tops and picked seams had played their part in this devastating bowling. i dont want to think about it and sully my superman image of imran (just like i didnt want to analyze kapil's tears when he was accused of ball tampering)

You mean match-fixing. My view is that ball tampering was part of cricket at that time and only has gained attention in recent times with better TV coverage. Nearly every bowler used to indulge in it. Here's what Michael Holding said:

"You can ask any fast bowler. If he says he has never tampered with the ball, he either has just started playing, or is lying. Ball-tampering has been going on for donkey's years, and started long before I was born. It is only now, because of television, that people are becoming more and more aware of it. When I played in England, ball-tampering was rampant in county cricket. I saw many bowlers tamper with the ball, like picking the seam, or applying foreign stuff. I did not know anybody used things like bottle stoppers until I heard about it recently. I wouldn't pretend I never tampered with the ball."

http://specials.rediff.com/cricket/2004/jan/21cric2.htm

 

[Richard]

Ball-tampering has always been a stupidly over-stigmatised thing. Until fairly recently any respectable bowler at domestic level over here used to lift the seam to the maximum extent they could.

TBH if something helps a bowler swing the ball I find it difficult to get too uptight about it. Ball-"tampering" is no use unless the bowlers possess the skill to use the ball once it's in the right condition. And ball-"tampering" doesn't alter the skill of the bowlers, one iyota.

 

[Burgey]

Ball-tampering has always been a stupidly over-stigmatised thing. Until fairly recently any respectable bowler at domestic level over here used to lift the seam to the maximum extent they could.

TBH if something helps a bowler swing the ball I find it difficult to get too uptight about it. Ball-"tampering" is no use unless the bowlers possess the skill to use the ball once it's in the right condition. And ball-"tampering" doesn't alter the skill of the bowlers, one iyota.

Mints!!!!

XXX mints!!!!!

You Poms love 'em don't ya???? be honest now, c'mon.....

 

[bagapath]

apologies... i meant match - fixing with reference to kapil dev.

 

[Son Of Coco]

McGrath did not seam it on flat pitches. No-one seams it on non-seaming pitches - that's the whole point, they don't allow you to. McGrath used cutters when the ball did not offer him movement off the seam - and, very occasionally, swing as well.

Similarly, Imran used swing, which takes the pitch out of the equation completely. Both are methods of being successful on non-seaming wickets.

By your belief that cricket has been played on flat pitches for largely this last decade: McGrath has been bowling mostly cutters for 7-8 years?

Wow, and here I was thinking they were the same thing. Cutters being a ball that hits the seam and either cuts in to the batsman or away from him. Seamers being a ball that hits the seam and either cuts in to the batsman or away from him.

 

[Engle]

Do not understand the relevency of all that in this discussion. Some of this nonsensical stuff you always bring up.



I see no reason why Mcgrath could not have out shadowed Marshall, not that it has any significance in this discussion.

Well, think harder and figure it out for yourself

 

[Ikki]

Wow, and here I was thinking they were the same thing. Cutters being a ball that hits the seam and either cuts in to the batsman or away from him. Seamers being a ball that hits the seam and either cuts in to the batsman or away from him.

Seamers are different to cutters, I guess. Yes, both can hit the seam but cutters are little bits of spin imparted by fast-bowlers as they release the ball from their fingers.