archie mac
International Coach
Botham was a fine bowler, I think he should be in
Pakistani wickets were always better for fast bowlers than Indian ones. They always had some seam movement in them and held up due to grass ,specially karachi unlike Indian wickets whcih used to be dry and dusty with the ball kepping low. It is only after 2000 that paksitani wickets (some of them) became flat. Though not all of them.Pakistani wickets have been as flat,if not more, than Indian wickets & Imran,Wasim,Waqar & Fazal have as good bowling averages as any other alltime great.
If you have a good average bu low wkts/match & bowled less as compared to others,it shows you lack stamina & hence don't deserve to be amongst those greats who did much better than you in those respective departments.Miller & Hall were very good bowlers but they are not alltime greats.You can't say someone is an alltime great by just looking at their average.You need to go through other variables as well.
And 1 against SRL as well.Lets also mention he never toured Asia again on account of his business responsibilities & fake injuries.Lets mention his 3 Tests against Pakistan
LOL.Pakistani wickets from 1970s-90s were on the whole flattest there have ever been in history of cricket.Pak-Aus 1983 series & PAK-IND 1989 series are 2 prime examples that spring to mind.Young people said "Can wickets be flatter than that?" in first 2 tests of 2006 PAK-IND series but those from 70s-90s were much flatter than those.I think you either do not know much about Pakistani wickets are trying to make an excuse for India not being able to produce an alltime great bowler.Whole world knows how wickets have been in Pakistan.Pakistani wickets were always better for fast bowlers than Indian ones. They always had some seam movement in them and held up due to grass ,specially karachi unlike Indian wickets whcih used to be dry and dusty with the ball kepping low. It is only after 2000 that paksitani wickets (some of them) became flat. Though not all of them.
I realise this part's over but, Akhtar would have been great, if he could keep his temper down. He's out of the game as much as any injury prone player is, because he always gets himself banned.An average of 25 is not bad but a good stamina& not being injury prone are one of the essentials of alltime greats.So, based on that,people like Akhtar & Bond are not alltime greats & hence should not be included in this battle.
Lets also mention he never toured Asia again on account of his business responsibilities & fake injuries.
That might be worth doing after the group stages are done. Once we are down to the top 16, we will be able to have a seeded single elimination system for those bowlers.Should get to re-rate the eliminated bowlers to get a truer ranking. The bowlers who got knocked out by eventual winners will naturally suffer a bit while a few may have been beaten by guys who are about to be knocked out in the next round.
Yeah it is this (among other things) which has convinced me to do a full ranking of eliminated bowlers instead of a simple "vote for the top 2" after round 2.It's a bit tough on Bruce Reid that he has a rating above 5 because he had 6 in his round, while Gregory who got last each time ends up ahead of Reid.
Love your work though Stephen, it's proving very interesting.
Think it's the opposite actually, India wickets tend to give occasional seam support whereas Pakistani wickets are more often just roads, Karachi being an exception.Pakistani wickets were always better for fast bowlers than Indian ones. They always had some seam movement in them and held up due to grass ,specially karachi unlike Indian wickets whcih used to be dry and dusty with the ball kepping low. It is only after 2000 that paksitani wickets (some of them) became flat. Though not all of them.