Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[honestbharani]

I don't think it is. Time was an issue in Sobers's era, he had to score quickly because with everyone else going at a snail's pace the chances of running out of time were pretty high. Time was no issue at all for Kallis most of the time, very few of the tests he played in were draws, relatively speaking. So he could score at whatever rate he wanted and it made no difference.

Relativity might matter to you, but it doesn't to me in this particular case. Scoring at a strike rate of 53 is scoring at a strike rate of 53, whether everyone else is scoring at a strike rate of 20 or a strike rate of 80. It's still the same achievement. It's everyone is averaging 40 and one player is averaging 60, then I'll take relativity into account, because it implies to me that scoring runs was exceptionally difficult in that era. I don't think the low strike rates in Sobers's era were because scoring quickly was especially more difficult. I think it was just how things were done.

The problem with what you are saying is, you are looking at things AFTER they happened and then concluding whether an innings mattered or not. As I said, juz by looking at stats, Hussey's hunded at the Oval came after everything was lost and does not matter as much as a hundred that set up a win... But reality is, as long as he was there with a decent partner at the other end, they were always threatening to even win the game... You look at scorecards and say it is BECAUSE Kallis played slowly that games were drawn.. But I can make that argument for almost every other player on that scorecard, INCLUDING the opposition players...


You don't rate innings AFTER you know the result. You rate them in the context of when they were played. That is the problem with most people like you who just prefer to look at results and numbers in hindsight and draw conclusions from it...

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think it is. Time was an issue in Sobers's era, he had to score quickly because with everyone else going at a snail's pace the chances of running out of time were pretty high. Time was no issue at all for Kallis most of the time, very few of the tests he played in were draws, relatively speaking. So he could score at whatever rate he wanted and it made no difference.

Relativity might matter to you, but it doesn't to me in this particular case. Scoring at a strike rate of 53 is scoring at a strike rate of 53, whether everyone else is scoring at a strike rate of 20 or a strike rate of 80. It's still the same achievement. It's everyone is averaging 40 and one player is averaging 60, then I'll take relativity into account, because it implies to me that scoring runs was exceptionally difficult in that era. I don't think the low strike rates in Sobers's era were because scoring quickly was especially more difficult. I think it was just how things were done.

If the average SR of your era is 50 and you are striking at 55, it means you are doing above par for that era. When the average SR of your era is 60 and you are striking at 47, it means you are doing well below par for your era.. This includes SRs of opposition batsmen as well, so it does matter in determininig the result of games..

 

[Uppercut]

If the average SR of your era is 50 and you are striking at 55, it means you are doing above par for that era. When the average SR of your era is 60 and you are striking at 47, it means you are doing well below par for your era.. This includes SRs of opposition batsmen as well, so it does matter in determininig the result of games..

How many is what's important, not how fast. The team that scores the most runs wins, not the team that scores most quickly.

If the average SR of your era is 50, there's a fair chance you'll be pushed for time at the end, so you might want to score more quickly (you might not, bearing in mind that it's just as likely that your opponent will be pushed for time at the end of the game. But you might.) But if the average SR is 60, it's pretty unlikely that anyone will run out of time, relatively speaking. Bearing this in mind, you can score as slowly or as quickly as you want because time doesn't matter. Number of runs matters.

Scoring quickly is marginally more desirable at best. You can say that in an all-time XI they're more likely to want to score quickly, but Kallis didn't play for an all-time XI, he played for South Africa, and he did what was right for them. Scoring quickly was neither here nor there for that team, it was just as likely to cost them as it was to benefit them.

It's worth remembering, I don't think Kallis was better than Sobers. We're arguing over margins here. The following arguments I think are valid:

-Sobers' average, when minnows are excluded, is a few runs (six or seven) higher than Kallis'. He was a better batsman.
-Runs were slightly harder to come by in Sobers' era than they are in Kallis'. Not by much, particularly with Kallis playing his home matches in South Africa, but by a little.
-Sobers fared much better against the greatest attacks of his era than Kallis did against the greatest attacks of his.
-Sobers, for a short period of time, was a better bowler than Kallis was at any stage in his career.
-Sobers was a better fielder than Kallis. I think Kallis is done an injustice here sometimes, because the slips are IMO the most important field position and Kallis is absolutely fantastic there. But there's no doubt Sobers was better.
-Sobers was a more successful captain than Kallis.

The following arguments I think are invalid:

-Sobers scored 18% more quickly. All but irrelevant for the purpose of winning/not losing cricket matches. It made him stand out more in the era he played, it made him more entertaining to watch and it endeared him to onlookers. But I don't think it contributed to his side's success much.
-Sobers bowled lots of different types of bowling. It doesn't matter in cricket how you get the wickets.
-Sobers' good period of bowling makes him more worthy as a bowler than Kallis. The flip-side to having a very strong six-year period is that, when your overall record is so mediocre, you were a pretty damn poor bowler for the rest of your career. Kallis has done exceptionally well to maintain his standard of bowling for such a long time, and I don't think that can be discounted.
-Sobers is the best because everyone knows he's the best, and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. It's probably the most common pro-Sobers argument, and it's also the worst.
-Kallis hasn't scored a double century. I just don't see why it matters in the slightest.
-Sobers was more widely acknowledged by his contemporaries. When you're trying to make a case that Kallis is horrendously underappreciated by his contemporaries, bringing that fact up is just circular logic.

That's all, really.

 

[honestbharani]

How many is what's important, not how fast. The team that scores the most runs wins, not the team that scores most quickly.

If the average SR of your era is 50, there's a fair chance you'll be pushed for time at the end, so you might want to score more quickly (you might not, bearing in mind that it's just as likely that your opponent will be pushed for time at the end of the game. But you might.) But if the average SR is 60, it's pretty unlikely that anyone will run out of time, relatively speaking. Bearing this in mind, you can score as slowly or as quickly as you want because time doesn't matter. Number of runs matters.

Scoring quickly is marginally more desirable at best. You can say that in an all-time XI they're more likely to want to score quickly, but Kallis didn't play for an all-time XI, he played for South Africa, and he did what was right for them. Scoring quickly was neither here nor there for that team, it was just as likely to cost them as it was to benefit them.

It's worth remembering, I don't think Kallis was better than Sobers. We're arguing over margins here. The following arguments I think are valid:

-Sobers' average, when minnows are excluded, is a few runs (six or seven) higher than Kallis'. He was a better batsman.
-Runs were slightly harder to come by in Sobers' era than they are in Kallis'. Not by much, particularly with Kallis playing his home matches in South Africa, but by a little.
-Sobers fared much better against the greatest attacks of his era than Kallis did against the greatest attacks of his.
-Sobers, for a short period of time, was a better bowler than Kallis was at any stage in his career.
-Sobers was a better fielder than Kallis. I think Kallis is done an injustice here sometimes, because the slips are IMO the most important field position and Kallis is absolutely fantastic there. But there's no doubt Sobers was better.
-Sobers was a more successful captain than Kallis.

The following arguments I think are invalid:

-Sobers scored 18% more quickly. All but irrelevant for the purpose of winning/not losing cricket matches. It made him stand out more in the era he played, it made him more entertaining to watch and it endeared him to onlookers. But I don't think it contributed to his side's success much.
-Sobers bowled lots of different types of bowling. It doesn't matter in cricket how you get the wickets.
-Sobers' good period of bowling makes him more worthy as a bowler than Kallis. The flip-side to having a very strong six-year period is that, when your overall record is so mediocre, you were a pretty damn poor bowler for the rest of your career. Kallis has done exceptionally well to maintain his standard of bowling for such a long time, and I don't think that can be discounted.
-Sobers is the best because everyone knows he's the best, and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. It's probably the most common pro-Sobers argument, and it's also the worst.
-Kallis hasn't scored a double century. I just don't see why it matters in the slightest.
-Sobers was more widely acknowledged by his contemporaries. When you're trying to make a case that Kallis is horrendously underappreciated by his contemporaries, bringing that fact up is just circular logic.

That's all, really.

The first point shows how much you know of cricket.. sorry to say this again. But can't think of any other way to put it. When you can score runs consistently AND score them quickly, it always puts your team at an advantage.. Do you think people like Ian Chappell have no idea what they are talking when they say this? Considering other 10 guys to perform to their par, if you ask me to choose between a 11th guy who scores 58@ 3 and 58@ 45, I will ALWAYS choose the former. He scores the same runs but he scores them quicker, meaning there is more chance of a result... And it is not just the result, when you score quicker, you tend to spread the field out quicker, and it CAN demoralize bowlers, which DOES HELP the others in your side.. You seriously need to play the game at some level to understand the effect quick scoring can have on bowlers.. And again, "quick" is relative to the era... Today anything above 65 can be considered as quick... But back then, anything above 50 was quick... People were simply not used to guys scoring that fast and it sets them apart. When viewers and pundits outside get affected by it, there is no way the opposition would NOT have been affected by it. Cricket is not played between machines, it is played between humans and they DO tend to get affected by thoughts that a batsmen give them. It might make bowlers try harder to get him out but THAT can lead to more bad balls as well... At the end of the day, the only reason HOW a player affects the opposition matters is because cricketers are human too and they DO get affected by such stuff. That is why people consider these things in rating a player. They are not idiots just because they tend to rate something higher than stats.......... It is because this cricket is not played by some computer sim which takes averages for everything... It is played by human beings and diff. people bring out diff. aspects of their opposition through their personalities. I am yet to hear bowlers who were IN AWE of Kallis as they were of Sobers and that is enough to rate him higher for me....

 

[Ikki]

I agree with HB: a better SR is better and that's not really arguable. Don't simply take it as a ratio across a career but an indicator of better ability to score runs when time is of the essense. Also, yes, a batsman that is thrashing the bowlers will demoralise them.

Still, I think it's a waste of time arguing it as it's not a huge difference and there is more superior about Sobers' batting than simply his SR.

Yet, I also find it ironic how people are building up Sobers' batting SR and ignore his horrendous bowling SR.

 

[honestbharani]

How many is what's important, not how fast. The team that scores the most runs wins, not the team that scores most quickly.

If the average SR of your era is 50, there's a fair chance you'll be pushed for time at the end, so you might want to score more quickly (you might not, bearing in mind that it's just as likely that your opponent will be pushed for time at the end of the game. But you might.) But if the average SR is 60, it's pretty unlikely that anyone will run out of time, relatively speaking. Bearing this in mind, you can score as slowly or as quickly as you want because time doesn't matter. Number of runs matters.

Scoring quickly is marginally more desirable at best. You can say that in an all-time XI they're more likely to want to score quickly, but Kallis didn't play for an all-time XI, he played for South Africa, and he did what was right for them. Scoring quickly was neither here nor there for that team, it was just as likely to cost them as it was to benefit them.

It's worth remembering, I don't think Kallis was better than Sobers. We're arguing over margins here. The following arguments I think are valid:

-Sobers' average, when minnows are excluded, is a few runs (six or seven) higher than Kallis'. He was a better batsman.
-Runs were slightly harder to come by in Sobers' era than they are in Kallis'. Not by much, particularly with Kallis playing his home matches in South Africa, but by a little.
-Sobers fared much better against the greatest attacks of his era than Kallis did against the greatest attacks of his.
-Sobers, for a short period of time, was a better bowler than Kallis was at any stage in his career.
-Sobers was a better fielder than Kallis. I think Kallis is done an injustice here sometimes, because the slips are IMO the most important field position and Kallis is absolutely fantastic there. But there's no doubt Sobers was better.
-Sobers was a more successful captain than Kallis.

The following arguments I think are invalid:

-Sobers scored 18% more quickly. All but irrelevant for the purpose of winning/not losing cricket matches. It made him stand out more in the era he played, it made him more entertaining to watch and it endeared him to onlookers. But I don't think it contributed to his side's success much.
-Sobers bowled lots of different types of bowling. It doesn't matter in cricket how you get the wickets.
-Sobers' good period of bowling makes him more worthy as a bowler than Kallis. The flip-side to having a very strong six-year period is that, when your overall record is so mediocre, you were a pretty damn poor bowler for the rest of your career. Kallis has done exceptionally well to maintain his standard of bowling for such a long time, and I don't think that can be discounted.
-Sobers is the best because everyone knows he's the best, and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. It's probably the most common pro-Sobers argument, and it's also the worst.
-Kallis hasn't scored a double century. I just don't see why it matters in the slightest.
-Sobers was more widely acknowledged by his contemporaries. When you're trying to make a case that Kallis is horrendously underappreciated by his contemporaries, bringing that fact up is just circular logic.

That's all, really.

The team that scores most runs CANNOT win if you cannot take 20 wickets. That is limited overs cricket where you win by scoring more than your opposition, not tests.


And the thing abt scoring quickly is, NO ONE is going to score that quickly when you are looking to save the game. The point is, in the first innings, if someone scores a 100 at 80, it is ALWAYS an advantage. You make it sound as though a guy is doing his team a disservice by scoring that quickly... If you still go on to lose the game, the blame is with the bowlers and the other batters and maybe the same batter in the second inning. But to say a team lost BECAUSE someone scored their runs quickly is as ridiculous as it gets... And having been here since 2004, I can tell you that is some effort.



As for your summary, here is my reply:


1. Answered your point in the previous post. Basically, in cricket, it is easier to defend a ball than to attack, esp. the good balls. So yes, people do rate batsmen who can attack bowlers than batsmen who can only stonewall bowlers. You win games by scoring runs and taking wickets, not by blocking out deliveries. And if someone can average higher and also score his runs quicker, esp. in an era when the average SR was much lower than what it is today, then OBVIOUSLY most people of the game rate him higher... It is your fault if you fail to see what everyone else can see easily.


2. Yes, it doesn't matter HOW you get wickets. But it matters how much variety you can provide to an attack. If Sobers is there in my team, I can play 4 quicks and still know that I have a decent defensive spin option at my disposal to provide variety. And contrary to what some may say, variety in bowling attack DOES matter. That is why almost every good cricketer at the international level acknowledges the need for variety. And on a turner, it allows me to pick 2 spinners knowing I ALWAYS have a more than handy 3rd seamer who can also be a match winner bowling that variety... Juz look at India to see why you need a 3rd seamer even in certain turning tracks...



3. Did you ever try to see when and how he had his bad periods of bowling and how it co-incided with his role in the side??? This has been discussed ad nauseam in another thread and quite a few in this forum who were around when the great man plied his art have written at length about it. I can always refer to CW's own bradman, SJS for further analysis of his bowling career. And yes, he has included your beloved numbers in his analysis. Kallis was never really a threat to the best sides with the ball... Sobers was, as a medium pacer. Kallis never had to bowl another variety so that his side could accomodate a specialist.. Sobers did.



4. That is the dumbest thing because no one in this thread has seriously said that, except maybe LT but he has given his inputs in the other thread. Not everyone has the amount of time you and I do.


5. When a top order batsman can't score double centuries, it means he doesn't take control of the game. For me, centuries and double centuries are important because it shows you can cash in on your good form. Everyone is going to get their share of low scores, so it matters how much you can get when you are in good nick.. Either Kallis is not good enough to get that many runs, or he takes so long to get them that captains declare on him... How is that not important, I do not know. I want all my top 4 to average well and also be capable of scoring the really big knocks....



6. Contemporaries who know a thing or two about cricket, and perhaps more than us because they did play at that level. And it is not like ONLY his contemporaries rate him high.. People who have seen players before him rated him as the best. People who have seen players after him have rated him the best. People who have seen both players before and after him have rated him the best. This point was again very well illustrated in the other thread should you care to find it... It is not circular logic, it is juz something you don't want to accept and it is spelled F A C T.

 

[honestbharani]

I agree with HB: a better SR is better and that's not really arguable. Don't simply take it as a ratio across a career but an indicator of better ability to score runs when time is of the essense. Also, yes, a batsman that is thrashing the bowlers will demoralise them.

Still, I think it's a waste of time arguing it as it's not a huge difference and there is more superior about Sobers' batting than simply his SR.

Yet, I also find it ironic how people are building up Sobers' batting SR and ignore his horrendous bowling SR.

who ignored it... It does matter but it depends on what role you want him to play in your side, right?


I mean, if I pick Imran to bat at 7 or 8 in my team, I should not really EXPECT him to score double centuries, should I? Or to even score quickly... There is a job to be done at that position and that is what I expect of each player.. Same with Sobers...

 

[Migara]

it should be remembered that Bradman had Bradman no matter what the team he captained

But it's highly irrational to think that Bradman will be "Bradman" even against a second string all time XI. He would be closer to mortals IMO.

 

[Ikki]

who ignored it... It does matter but it depends on what role you want him to play in your side, right?

I don't mean ignoring completely, but ignoring it for the most part. Not only was Sobers' bowling SR pathetically bad for most of his career, even when it was very good it was merely average or a bit better.

If we want to look at SRs properly, Kallis' bowling SR is much better than Sobers' - much more important than the difference between the SRs in their batting - and it was mostly consistent to boot.

If it wasn't for that period in the 60s, I would have serious trouble suggesting Sobers as an all-time great all-rounder. And the only way he competes is if you ignore the vast majority of his career with the ball.

I mean, if I pick Imran to bat at 7 or 8 in my team, I should not really EXPECT him to score double centuries, should I? Or to even score quickly... There is a job to be done at that position and that is what I expect of each player.. Same with Sobers...

That's the thing. Sobers would be a viable all-rounder for the WIndies team he played in. In a different side - a stronger bowling side - his bowling would be a let-down. Whereas batting is something all players must do regardless.

 

[Ikki]

But it's highly irrational to think that Bradman will be "Bradman" even against a second string all time XI. He would be closer to mortals IMO.

That would go for all batsmen. He'd still be a country mile ahead of every other batsman in his side or against.

 

[aussie]

-Sobers bowled lots of different types of bowling. It doesn't matter in cricket how you get the wickets.
-Sobers' good period of bowling makes him more worthy as a bowler than Kallis. The flip-side to having a very strong six-year period is that, when your overall record is so mediocre, you were a pretty damn poor bowler for the rest of your career. Kallis has done exceptionally well to maintain his standard of bowling for such a long time, and I don't think that can be discounted.

I dont think this is that accurate TBH. Based on passed research, Sobers peak years as bowler was like AUS 60-61 to about 1970 during those ROW matches.

Having seen Kallis entire career, i would say he has been passed his best since about SA last tour to ENG 03. Although he has improved a bit of late, he is still very much a 5th bowler in tests.

 

[zaremba]

If it wasn't for that period in the 60s, I would have serious trouble suggesting Sobers as an all-time great all-rounder. And the only way he competes is if you ignore the vast majority of his career with the ball.

I'd like to make one quite minor point about this. I've not done the research (someone surely can) but I would imagine that bowling strike rates tend to be higher these days than they were in the days of stodgy, defensive batting in the 1960s.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't mean ignoring completely, but ignoring it for the most part. Not only was Sobers' bowling SR pathetically bad for most of his career, even when it was very good it was merely average or a bit better.

If we want to look at SRs properly, Kallis' bowling SR is much better than Sobers' - much more important than the difference between the SRs in their batting - and it was mostly consistent to boot.

If it wasn't for that period in the 60s, I would have serious trouble suggesting Sobers as an all-time great all-rounder. And the only way he competes is if you ignore the vast majority of his career with the ball.



That's the thing. Sobers would be a viable all-rounder for the WIndies team he played in. In a different side - a stronger bowling side - his bowling would be a let-down. Whereas batting is something all players must do regardless.

One thing, Ikki... If his batting SR was not available on cricinfo, may I ask how you got the bowling SR?


I mean, if they can get his bowling SR, it is reasonable to assume they can get his batting SR too, right????

 

[Pratters]

One thing, Ikki... If his batting SR was not available on cricinfo, may I ask how you got the bowling SR?


I mean, if they can get his bowling SR, it is reasonable to assume they can get his batting SR too, right????

Bowling S/R is wickets/no of balls bowled which is tracked via scorecards.

Batting S/R isn't available as earlier they used to count the minutes a batsman has batted, not how many balls he has faced.

 

[honestbharani]

Bowling S/R is wickets/no of balls bowled which is tracked via scorecards.

Batting S/R isn't available as earlier they used to count the minutes a batsman has batted, not how many balls he has faced.

No.. what I meant was, if they have a count of how many balls a guy bowled, surely it wont be that difficult to track how many balls a guy faced. Anyways... I understand your point.

 

[Uppercut]

Having seen Kallis entire career, i would say he has been passed his best since about SA last tour to ENG 03. Although he has improved a bit of late, he is still very much a 5th bowler in tests.

Don't rightly agree. He's had his ups and downs, as any bowler does, but he's been having a pretty good run with the ball for South Africa since around the end of 2006. As recently as the last series he played in he took the wickets of Ponting, Hussey and Clarke to in a spell of 3/22 to roll Australia for 207, if you remember.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd like to make one quite minor point about this. I've not done the research (someone surely can) but I would imagine that bowling strike rates tend to be higher these days than they were in the days of stodgy, defensive batting in the 1960s.

Ikki already has, I believe. I brought that point up to him once before. But Sobers's strike rate is atrocious even by 1960s standards.

 

[Uppercut]

it is juz something you don't want to accept and it is spelled F A C T.

You might be making a few good points, but they're invariably littered with "this juz shows u no nothn bout cricket" and "juz accept it ur wrong and its a FACT". I suspect you genuinely struggle to accept that someone might disagree with you and not be an idiot as a result, rather than just being obnoxious for the sake of it. In any case, I'm not really interested in continuing the discussion for that reason.

 

[Ikki]

One thing, Ikki... If his batting SR was not available on cricinfo, may I ask how you got the bowling SR?


I mean, if they can get his bowling SR, it is reasonable to assume they can get his batting SR too, right????

Simple answer: because it is available on cricinfo without the complexities of his batting SR.

I'd like to make one quite minor point about this. I've not done the research (someone surely can) but I would imagine that bowling strike rates tend to be higher these days than they were in the days of stodgy, defensive batting in the 1960s.

I've already presented the data numerous times in many threads, I'll put it out again:

[U]The bowling during Sobers' career[/U]
           [B]AVG.     SR[/B]
[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_pacespin=1;class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;spanmax1=05+apr+1974;spanmin1=30+mar+1954;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling"]Pacer[/URL]:[/B]    29.40    71.5
[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/stats/index.html?bowling_pacespin=2;class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;spanmax1=05+apr+1974;spanmin1=30+mar+1954;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling"]Spinner[/URL]:[/B]  33.02    89.5
[B][URL="http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;spanmax1=05+apr+1974;spanmin1=30+mar+1954;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling"]All[/URL]:[/B]      31.18    79.8

To put it simply, his overall career record, even if he were primarily a spinner, is still above the average of all spinners. Yet what makes it worse is that despite Sobers' overall record being diluted with his 6-7 years bowling pace - which would have brought it down a lot - it's still too high. His period where he bowled pace, depending on where you actually look (usually the start to mid-60s) he averaged in the mid-20s and his SR was in the mid 70s. So even on that account; the average pacer at his peak.

 

[subshakerz]

No Migara, Don Bradman was a superior captain. Just check out how he reversed the batting order once, for instance, to turn the game around completely in his favor. He would be the no.3 in every dream team anyone can conceive and he will also skipper all of them.

Imran was a very good captain. But he is not one of the best. 14 wins out of 48 tests is closer to Ganguly's record than Benaud's or Ian Chappell's. Sub continent fans used to hero worship him to the point of making him superhuman. The fact that Imran could tower above the petty politics of Pakistan cricket and lead his teams to series wins in India and England (and later win the world cup) made him look like he was an all time great skipper. He was not. These were worthy achievements but not comparable to Lloyd and Steve Waugh's teams' relentless victories around the globe. Since they were blessed with great teams I am quoting Benaud and Ian Chappell's names as they led solid teams to great wins.

Sorry, but judging a captain by his wins or losses is pretty silly. And that doesn't just come from me, Ian Chappell said that. Is Ponting better than Fleming then? To suggest that Lloyd and Waugh were better captains than Imran or that Imran was not an all-time great captain is erroneous.

Lloyd and Waugh had a team of champions and were so far above their opposition that their actual captaincy didnt make much effect. But captaincy isnt about winning when everything is in your favor, but getting the best out of your team when faced with superior opposition or tough conditions. Imran did just that when he won first ever series victories in England and India and drew with the WI three times in a row (and of course there is his World Cup victory). Look at how Waugh did when he rarely faced tough conditions, like in Sri Lanka in 99 and India in 2001.

You also have to look at the context. When Imran started, Pakistan were a defensive, underwhelming, fractionated group, and he pretty much gave the team a sense of unity and aggression and built them into a group of world beaters. His team wasn't great, but he got them to perform when it mattered. He also led from the front with both bat and ball unbelievably well. You just have to look at Pakistan's status before he led and after he left and see the difference.

The way you present it seems only captains who lead the best side in the world can qualify as "all-time" great captains. Fine captains like Mark Nicholas and Ian Chappell list Imran as one of their greatest captains in history, and for a reason. To quote Nicholas, "Clearly, what he did for Pakistan, as a leader, was monumental." Check below for yourself:

The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Sports | Mark Nicholas: A captain should provide perspectives which the pack may not get
'Don't judge a captain on wins and losses' | The Round Table | Cricinfo Talk | Cricinfo.com

It's also worth noting that if you watch the video of Richie Benaud when he picks his greatest XI, the only selection I remember in the side whose captaincy he expressly praises is Imran's, not Bradman's.