Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[TINJU Jishnu]

You have the right to your opinion but I am not sure why you would object to my choice. Wasim bowled for 8 years before Mcgrath made his debut, I don't really consider Mcgrath as a bowler from same generation. Their careers overlapped but Wasim had played 50 tests before Mcgrath made his debut.

Wasim was fast when needed, could swing both ways, equally effective with both new and old ball, he produced wickets almost every time his team needed to.
With him in the team you could almost guarantee that there were no lower order partnership between the No. 9 and no. 8 type batsmen. Many top batsmen of his era consider him the most difficult bowler they faced and he almost has the stats to match all that. And in addition he could also entertain you all day long with his bowling.

I am not really sure why you find it so difficult to accept that many cricket fans can consider Akram as one of the best and best of his era.

+ greatest under achiever with 10+ world records
+ biggest bowling superstar ever (warne?)

 

[BlazeDragon]

Yes, Wasim Akram and Umar Gul are at the same level as bowlers and the difference between Mcgrath/Akram's bowling is of such a magnitude that it is really impossible for anyone to accept Akram as the better bowler.

Wait..There is another thread in Cricketweb where Akram is at par with Mcgrath as a bowler among CW members.

What thread would you be talking about? There are old threads when Mcgrath was still playing where they were close but in the most recent thread Mcgrath won the poll quite comfortably.
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/51984-who-better-bowler-glenn-mcgrath-wasim-akram.html

Like I have said before I could care less about these poll results if someone actually put up a good debate but nobody has done so as far as I know.

I think you need to read my posts first and figure the contexts where the statement was made. That I consider Marshall as better bowler than Mcgrath has nothing to do with Stats.

You said Marshall was better than Mcgrath in every department I remember that correctly. What exactly were you justifying your statement with if your weren't using stats?

Nobody is asking you to prove and you will never be able to convince me with any amount of stats to me. I watched the guy making his debut in 1985 and since than have watched him bowl more than any other bowler. Have watched Mcgrath bowl a lot as well and I don't have any doubt in my mind about who is the better bowler.

And Of course it is a personal opinion. Please show me where I said that Wasim is statistically the greatest bowler.

Like I have been repeating it over and over if your not gonna use stats I might as well just say Brett Lee is better than Wasim Akram. I have also seen both of them bowl a lot and If I make that statement that he is better than Akram it would be about have the same merit as your statement because both are just opinions.

 

[BlazeDragon]

imran is among the top 5 fast bowlers of all time. if anyone ranks him at the very top - due to his great success on dead pakistan wickets and for his amazing stats against the great west indian sides of his era - i wont have a problem with that either.

In other words home pitches he should be doing well on.

Strike Rate trumps everything else. So statistically Waqar is the greatest.

How exactly does strike rate trump everything else? His strike rate doesn't seem so impressive when you take his economy rate into account.

He is still not the greatest though. The greatest strike rate among modern era bowlers belongs to Bond actually.

 

[Sanz]

What thread would you be talking about? There are old threads when Mcgrath was still playing where they were close but in the most recent thread Mcgrath won the poll quite comfortably.
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/51984-who-better-bowler-glenn-mcgrath-wasim-akram.html

Like I have said before I could care less about these poll results if someone actually put up a good debate but nobody has done so as far as I know.

Nobody is going to engage in Mcgrath Vs. Akram debate when you are going to use Umar Gul to prove whatever point you want to make.

As for Mcgrath Vs. Akram Threads :-

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/49492-better-odi-bowler-mcgrath-wasim.html

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/6791-mcgrath-vs-akram.html

You said Marshall was better than Mcgrath in every department I remember that correctly. What exactly were you justifying your statement with if your weren't using stats?

That is the problem with not reading complete threads and the context of the statement made. The post was made in a debate with IKKI who uses stats to say Player A > Player B, but incase of Mcgrath Vs. Marshall he didn't use the statistical criteria. I was merely pointing the inconsistency by him by making that statement.

Like I have been repeating it over and over if your not gonna use stats I might as well just say Brett Lee is better than Wasim Akram. I have also seen both of them bowl a lot and If I make that statement that he is better than Akram it would be about have the same merit as your statement because both are just opinions.

If you are such a believer in stats Why did you Pick Mcgrath over Marshall ?

Cricket Web - View Poll Results

You can repeat it as many times as you want but once you bring the likes of Brett Lee, in the Mcgrath Vs. Akram debate, nobody would take you seriously. And ofcourse, I have not questioned the validity of your opinion that Mcgrath is the better bowler.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Nobody is going to engage in Mcgrath Vs. Akram debate when you are going to use Umar Gul to prove whatever point you want to make.

As for Mcgrath Vs. Akram Threads :-

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/49492-better-odi-bowler-mcgrath-wasim.html

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/6791-mcgrath-vs-akram.html

Did you even read my post before before making this reply?

There are old threads when Mcgrath was still playing where they were close but in the most recent thread Mcgrath won the poll quite comfortably.

The second link you provided was way made back in 2004.

As for the the first the link, the title giving you much of a clue as to why?

Better ODI bowler::: McGrath or Wasim

Nobody is going to engage in Mcgrath Vs. Akram debate when you are going to use Umar Gul to prove whatever point you want to make.

I will take that as translation for I can't make a debate. I don't see anybody using Umar Gul to make a point that the thread I provided. Mcgrath still won the poll quite comfortably.

That is the problem with not reading complete threads and the context of the statement made. The post was made in a debate with IKKI who uses stats to say Player A > Player B, but incase of Mcgrath Vs. Marshall he didn't use the statistical criteria. I was merely pointing the inconsistency by him by making that statement.

He made plenty of arguments regarding stats. His argument was era. His argument in that thread was somehow not good but in here its somehow perfect even though its pretty much the same thing and is being used as an advantage for Imran Khan.

Still I think I understand quite well why you would feel like using stats when its Marshall but all of a sudden back out when its Wasim.

If you are such a believer in stats Why did you Pick Mcgrath over Marshall ?

Cricket Web - View Poll Results

You can repeat it as many times as you want but once you bring the likes of Brett Lee, in the Mcgrath Vs. Akram debate, nobody would take you seriously. And ofcourse, I have not questioned the validity of your opinion that Mcgrath is the better bowler.

You accuse me of not reading post yet it seems like you have not read anything at all. Did you even see my argument? It was era also. Mcgrath's stats come out ahead when you do the era adjustment.

I don't care if people who thinks like you doesn't take me seriously. You could get a couple of Pakistani and some Akram fanboys take you seriously just like I could get a couple of Australian and Lee fanboys take me seriously. The fact still remains that your statement of Wasim Akram being the greatest is still just an opinion just like a statement of Brett Lee is better than Wasim Akram would be.

Mcgrath being better than Akram is not an opinion, statistically its a fact no matter what type of stat argument you do.

 

[bagapath]

In other words home pitches he should be doing well on.

no, mate. pakistan had highway strips disguised as cricket pitches those days. they broke lillee's back. even hadlee had a tough time there as well. imran's stupendous success as a fast bowler in pakistan is one of the greatest achievements in the history of cricket. dont ever underestimate that. his 40+ wickets at 13 against india is as big an achievement as bradman's 900+ runs in the 1930 Ashes.

when their careers overlapped, from marshall's debut to hadlee's retirement, they both and imran were absolutely inseparable in terms of class, success and genius. when i say one can rank them in any order only based on personal preference, i mean every word of it. all great batsmen of their time, given a choice, would avoid facing all three of them with equal respect. look at their record when they played together and make up your mind.

Sir RJ Hadlee 63 109 16484 6800 342 9/52 15/123 19.88 2.47 48.1 32 7
MD Marshall 68 127 15221 6831 329 7/22 11/89 20.76 2.69 46.2 22 4
Imran Khan 64 105 14188 5704 282 8/58 14/116 20.22 2.41 50.3 19 5

 

[smash84]

Nobody is going to engage in Mcgrath Vs. Akram debate when you are going to use Umar Gul to prove whatever point you want to make.

As for Mcgrath Vs. Akram Threads :-

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/49492-better-odi-bowler-mcgrath-wasim.html

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/6791-mcgrath-vs-akram.html




That is the problem with not reading complete threads and the context of the statement made. The post was made in a debate with IKKI who uses stats to say Player A > Player B, but incase of Mcgrath Vs. Marshall he didn't use the statistical criteria. I was merely pointing the inconsistency by him by making that statement.




If you are such a believer in stats Why did you Pick Mcgrath over Marshall ?

Cricket Web - View Poll Results

You can repeat it as many times as you want but once you bring the likes of Brett Lee, in the Mcgrath Vs. Akram debate, nobody would take you seriously. And ofcourse, I have not questioned the validity of your opinion that Mcgrath is the better bowler.

And statistically it is not that Wasim and McGrath are not in the same ballpark (which I doubt Wasim and Lee are not) extra boundary conceded every 20 overs costs about 2 runs to the bowlers average (the Pakistan fielding cost Wasim dearly at times and not only the ground fielding but also the catching). The difference between McGrath and Wasim's average is less than 2 runs)

 

[Sanz]

Did you even read my post before before making this reply?
The second link you provided was way made back in 2004.

As for the the first the link, the title giving you much of a clue as to why?

So what the first link was in 2004 and the other link is about ODIs ?

I will take that as translation for I can't make a debate. I don't see anybody using Umar Gul to make a point that the thread I provided. Mcgrath still won the poll quite comfortably.

What debate you want to engage in when you have already decided to use stats as sole criteria to judge a bowler and know the answer already ? And yes you did bring up Umar Gul and Brett Lee when I dismissed Stats as the only criteria to judge a player.

He made plenty of arguments regarding stats. His argument was era. His argument in that thread was somehow not good but in here its somehow perfect even though its pretty much the same thing and is being used as an advantage for Imran Khan.

When you start manipulating Stats, it also becomes a mere opinion about what criteria you want to use to manipulate the stats. I would use performance against India as a major criteria for any bowler and therefore don't rate Ambrose/Warne etc. as high as the English fans. But that use of stats is not objective.

You accuse me of not reading post yet it seems like you have not read anything at all. Did you even see my argument? It was era also. Mcgrath's stats come out ahead when you do the era adjustment.

No they do not. As was shown here - http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2643312-post279.html

Not that it proves anything. And as IKKI can show you how he manipulated the Era stats also when it didn't work in his favorite player's favor as shown here :-
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2643706-post294.html

I don't care if people who thinks like you doesn't take me seriously. You could get a couple of Pakistani and some Akram fanboys take you seriously just like I could get a couple of Australian and Lee fanboys take me seriously. The fact still remains that your statement of Wasim Akram being the greatest is still just an opinion just like a statement of Brett Lee is better than Wasim Akram would be.

And this is how you want to engage in a debate by calling those who believe Akram as a better bowler as either fanboys or Pakistanis. As if my nationality has anything to do with my opinion. Like when I believe that Lillee as the greatest Aussie bowler, I must be either an Aussie or a Lillee fanboy. Or when I believe that Sobers is the greatest allrounder, I must be either a West Indian or a fanboy.

Please, do not expect me to take you seriously when you engage in such name calling.

And ofcourse my statements about Akram being the greatest is an opinion, nowhere I have tried to pass it as some sort of fact.

Mcgrath being better than Akram is not an opinion, statistically its a fact no matter what type of stat argument you do.

Where have I denied the above statement, I am not even sure why you have to bring it up over and over again. Here I say it again:-

"It is a statistical fact that Mcgrath is a better bowler and that Akram is the better bowler of the two is strictly my Humble Opinion" .

Hopefully that seals the deal for you.

 

[ankitj]

There was a 2 year period in early 80s when Imran could not bowl (which begs the question why is Imran's recovery from injury not as celebrated as Lillee's?) and then last 3-4 years when he bowled very little. Yet he finished with a wpm of >4. That tells us what a gun he was when he was bowling full time.

 

[Ikki]

He made plenty of arguments regarding stats. His argument was era. His argument in that thread was somehow not good but in here its somehow perfect even though its pretty much the same thing and is being used as an advantage for Imran Khan.

Still I think I understand quite well why you would feel like using stats when its Marshall but all of a sudden back out when its Wasim.

That's because Sanz, unfortunately, is too preoccupied with arguing in a "devil's advocate" kind of way than actually making sense or comprehending the other person's argument in its entirety.

Mcgrath being better than Akram is not an opinion, statistically its a fact no matter what type of stat argument you do.

Well, I'd disagree with that. It all depends on what stats you look at and which you value above others. There isn't and will never be a 'fact' as to who is better but there can be a lot of evidence for and against players for people to choose.

 

[Ikki]

There was a 2 year period in early 80s when Imran could not bowl (which begs the question why is Imran's recovery from injury not as celebrated as Lillee's?) and then last 3-4 years when he bowled very little. Yet he finished with a wpm of >4. That tells us what a gun he was when he was bowling full time.

Probably due to the severity of Lillee's. He had stress fractures in his back and was ruled out of ever playing again. In fact, he had 3 fractures, the doctor's had said it was the worse case they'd ever seen. His whole fiasco with that injury and how he recovered was a blueprint for others. And he came back still the best in the world; although a different bowler.

 

[ankitj]

Ah, I see.

On a separate note, it's also interesting to see Imran's ODI record and compare it with contemporary all-rounders:

[SIZE="4"][B]Batting[/B][/SIZE]
		[B]Mat	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50[/B]
Imran Khan	175	3709	102*	33.41	5105	72.65	1	19
Richard Hadlee	115	1751	79	21.61	2319	75.50	0	4
Kapil Dev	225	3783	175*	23.79	3979	95.07	1	14
Ian Botham	116	2113	79	23.21	2671	79.10	0	9

[SIZE="4"][B]Bowling[/B][/SIZE]
		[B]Mat	Wkts	BBI	Ave	Econ	SR	4w	5w[/B]
Imran Khan	175	182	6/14	26.61	3.89	40.9	3	1
Richard Hadlee	115	158	5/25	21.56	3.30	39.1	1	5
Kapil Dev	225	253	5/43	27.45	3.71	44.2	3	1
Ian Botham	116	145	4/31	28.54	3.96	43.2	3	0

While they all did pretty well in bowling department (Hadlee stands out and Kapil seems to do a bit better than Imran and Botham on ER), it's only Imran who remains a solid contributor in the batting department, the weaker skill of all four of them. I know posters on this forum don't generally consider ODIs when assessing cricketers, but hey, they spent most of their career playing ODIs too! And I don't recommend going too deep into ODI stats, but just consider the fact that it shows that Imran is someone who maximizes his potential in all forms and all disciplines (including leadership). Just underscores his steely character and determination. Don't see how his place in 3 greatest cricketers of all time can ever be disputed.

 

[centurymaker]

Ah, I see.

On a separate note, it's also interesting to see Imran's ODI record and compare it with contemporary all-rounders:

[SIZE="4"][B]Batting[/B][/SIZE]
		[B]Mat	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50[/B]
Imran Khan	175	3709	102*	33.41	5105	72.65	1	19
Richard Hadlee	115	1751	79	21.61	2319	75.50	0	4
Kapil Dev	225	3783	175*	23.79	3979	95.07	1	14
Ian Botham	116	2113	79	23.21	2671	79.10	0	9

[SIZE="4"][B]Bowling[/B][/SIZE]
		[B]Mat	Wkts	BBI	Ave	Econ	SR	4w	5w[/B]
Imran Khan	175	153	6/14	26.61	3.89	40.9	3	1
Richard Hadlee	115	112	5/25	21.56	3.30	39.1	1	5
Kapil Dev	225	221	5/43	27.45	3.71	44.2	3	1
Ian Botham	116	115	4/31	28.54	3.96	43.2	3	0

While they all did pretty well in bowling department (Hadlee stands out and Kapil seems to do a bit better than Imran and Botham on ER), it's only Imran who remains a solid contributor in the batting department, the weaker skill of all four of them. I know posters on this forum don't generally consider ODIs when assessing cricketers, but hey, they spent most of their career playing ODIs too! And I don't recommend going too deep into ODI stats, but just consider the fact that it shows that Imran is someone who maximizes his potential in all forms and all disciplines (including leadership). Just underscores his steely character and determination. Don't see how his place in 3 greatest cricketers of all time can ever be disputed.

going by those stats if i had to rank them i'd go with this

Imran
hadlee
dev
botham

kapil dev's batting strike-rate is impressive.
hadlee's economy is equally outstanding.

 

[smash84]

Ah, I see.

On a separate note, it's also interesting to see Imran's ODI record and compare it with contemporary all-rounders:

[SIZE="4"][B]Batting[/B][/SIZE]
		[B]Mat	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50[/B]
Imran Khan	175	3709	102*	33.41	5105	72.65	1	19
Richard Hadlee	115	1751	79	21.61	2319	75.50	0	4
Kapil Dev	225	3783	175*	23.79	3979	95.07	1	14
Ian Botham	116	2113	79	23.21	2671	79.10	0	9

[SIZE="4"][B]Bowling[/B][/SIZE]
		[B]Mat	Wkts	BBI	Ave	Econ	SR	4w	5w[/B]
Imran Khan	175	153	6/14	26.61	3.89	40.9	3	1
Richard Hadlee	115	112	5/25	21.56	3.30	39.1	1	5
Kapil Dev	225	221	5/43	27.45	3.71	44.2	3	1
Ian Botham	116	115	4/31	28.54	3.96	43.2	3	0

While they all did pretty well in bowling department (Hadlee stands out and Kapil seems to do a bit better than Imran and Botham on ER), it's only Imran who remains a solid contributor in the batting department, the weaker skill of all four of them. I know posters on this forum don't generally consider ODIs when assessing cricketers, but hey, they spent most of their career playing ODIs too! And I don't recommend going too deep into ODI stats, but just consider the fact that it shows that Imran is someone who maximizes his potential in all forms and all disciplines (including leadership). Just underscores his steely character and determination. Don't see how his place in 3 greatest cricketers of all time can ever be disputed.

 

[ankitj]

Corrected the number of wickets in that table. Had got them wrong.

And for interested ones, Shaun Pollock's all-round ODI stats are bloody impressive too. Averages 32 with bat and has got 1 century and 14 fifties.

 

[BlazeDragon]

no, mate. pakistan had highway strips disguised as cricket pitches those days. they broke lillee's back. even hadlee had a tough time there as well. imran's stupendous success as a fast bowler in pakistan is one of the greatest achievements in the history of cricket. dont ever underestimate that. his 40+ wickets at 13 against india is as big an achievement as bradman's 900+ runs in the 1930 Ashes.

when their careers overlapped, from marshall's debut to hadlee's retirement, they both and imran were absolutely inseparable in terms of class, success and genius. when i say one can rank them in any order only based on personal preference, i mean every word of it. all great batsmen of their time, given a choice, would avoid facing all three of them with equal respect. look at their record when they played together and make up your mind.

Sir RJ Hadlee 63 109 16484 6800 342 9/52 15/123 19.88 2.47 48.1 32 7
MD Marshall 68 127 15221 6831 329 7/22 11/89 20.76 2.69 46.2 22 4
Imran Khan 64 105 14188 5704 282 8/58 14/116 20.22 2.41 50.3 19 5

Sorry bro but just performing better on flat pitches simply doesn't make you the better bowler.

While it is true that Pakistan was one of the flatter pitches in the 70's and 80's and that Imran Khan has a better record there compared to the likes of Marshall, Hadlee but its also true that it was his home pitch.

Now from what it looks like Indian pitches were even flatter than Pakistan back then those days.
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Now in India, a neutral venue, which was even flatter than Pakistan, Imran Khan the worst record between him Mashall and Hadlee. So if your trying to say that Imran was the better flat track bowler it would be false.

 

[Sanz]

That's because Sanz, unfortunately, is too preoccupied with arguing in a "devil's advocate" kind of way than actually making sense or comprehending the other person's argument in its entirety.

Yes I have to read your arguments about how you are objective in your assessment because you use stats and accuse everyone else, who does not use stats, of being subjective . Yet in the very same thread you go on to disregard the stats and select the guy with slightly inferior stat as the better bowler.

 

[Indusriver]

as a overall player and allrounder obviously there is not better allrounder/player then Garry Sobers. but if you look at the bowling or batting, bowling wise Imran was miles a ahead and batting wise Sobers was miles ahead

 

[Furball]

Corrected the number of wickets in that table. Had got them wrong.

And for interested ones, Shaun Pollock's all-round ODI stats are bloody impressive too. Averages 32 with bat and has got 1 century and 14 fifties.

cbf checking but I'm almost certain that is wrong.

Flintoff is the best allrounder there's ever been in ODIs anyway.

edit: turns out I could be bothered checking and I was right. Pollock averaged 26 with the bat in ODIs.

 

[ankitj]

cbf checking but I'm almost certain that is wrong.

Flintoff is the best allrounder there's ever been in ODIs anyway.

edit: turns out I could be bothered checking and I was right. Pollock averaged 26 with the bat in ODIs.

**** I looked at wrong column again.