Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[Sanz]

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.

While I will easily take Hadlee and Marshall ahead of Imran under any conditions against any opposition, but the claim that Indian pitches were flatter than Pakistan (and then provide manipulated stats to prove that claim ) , and the statement that "India, a Neutral Venue" for Imran is just too amusing.

Just FYI.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Overall bowling average in Pakistan in the period you selected - 34.39, India - 32.54

 

[BlazeDragon]

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

What do you mean so what?

The second poll was was way back when Mcgrath's career was still ongoing. People's rating of him have changed since then. He wasn't rated as one of the top greatest all time bowlers back then. Rating him above Akram back then would be like rating Trott above Tendulkar right now.

As for the first poll, its ODI its a completely different format. That's a format where Brett Lee really is arguably better than Wasim Akram.

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.

You never had any statistical argument in the first place. Your whole excuse was that people here rate Akram just as highly as Mcgrath in this place which the most recent poll shows to be quite false.

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.

Manipulating what stats? Are you saying its false that the era Mcgrath played in wasn't the era of flat tracks and that scores were much higher in general compared to Marshall's era?

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/264...hardly name calling. Get back to reality bro.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Who cares if Waqar had a higher economy rate. His strike rate tells us all that we need to know, that he was a strike bowler who went after wickets and not saving runs. Now that's a fast bowler for you.

 

[BlazeDragon]

While I will easily take Hadlee and Marshall ahead of Imran under any conditions against any opposition, but the claim that Indian pitches were flatter than Pakistan (and then provide manipulated stats to prove that claim ) , and the statement that "India, a Neutral Venue" for Imran is just too amusing.

Just FYI.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Overall bowling average in Pakistan in the period you selected - 34.39, India - 32.54

Lmao I can see why you don't wanna do statistical debates. You didn't even include who the host country is in your stats
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Those are the actual stats. And lol at me manipulating stats. Why exactly did you include just the bowling averages instead of overall averages of the teams?

and the statement that "India, a Neutral Venue" for Imran is just too amusing.

Yeah I'm pretty sure that there is literary no difference between India and Pakistan. In fact the Taj Mahal is also a part of Pakistan I'm sure. Hell throw in Bangladesh in there too they are right next door also.

If what you say is true it would actually benefit my original argument. Because then it would mean that Imran Khan had was worse even at home than the likes of Marshall and Hadlee.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Who cares if Waqar had a higher economy rate. His strike rate tells us all that we need to know, that he was a strike bowler who went after wickets and not saving runs. Now that's a fast bowler for you.

This has to be a joke right?

What's better taking 10 wickets in 80 overs while giving away 400 runs or taking 10 wickets in 90 over while giving away 300 runs?

 

[Darth018]

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)

Again with this fielding BS.

lol are actually suggesting that Pakistani fielding brought up Wasim Akram's average over 2?

I would really like you to prove that. At best they dropped a couple of odd catches that's it. Plus in his era fielding was really far from being that bad.

And lol you make it sound like they basically kicked the ball to the boundary. Every fielding team fail to stop the boundary here and there even Australia. I hardly remember Pakistani team in those days practically gifting away a boundary.

All I see is a bunch of excuses really.

I might as well just throw in an actual valid point here by throwing in the era here. A good portion of Wasim Akram's career happened before the flat track era.

 

[Sanz]

Manipulating what stats? Are you saying its false that the era Mcgrath played in wasn't the era of flat tracks and that scores were much higher in general compared to Marshall's era?

Yes it is either false or impossible to decide. Statistically there is almost very little difference in aggregate batting averages in the eras Marshall and Mcgrath bowled.Statistically Mcgrath bowled in an era where Strike rates were better i.e. easier to take wickets.

Which means, Statistically, If Mcgrath bowled same no. of overs during Marshall's era, he would have taken less wickets although at a better ER. Here is the Statistical calculation of Mcgrath's performance in Marshall Era :-

Mcgrath SR in Marshall Era would be 54.9, would have taken 532 wickets @ ER = 2.30, would have given 11211 runs.

Marshall SR in Mcgrath Era 44.12, 398 Wickets, ER = 2.90, 8498 runs, 21.35 Avg.

Still doesn't have better stats than Marshall even adjusting for eras.



Disclaimer :- The above is not how I decide who is a better player. If someone believes that Mcgrath is a better bowler, it definitely is a valid opinion. But some of these stats gurus are quick to dismiss others opinion as subjective and claim their opinion as fact and the above is just to show them their fact is in reality an opinion, a subjective one. Not that there is anything wrong with having that opinion even when looking at the raw stats. In my opinion, it is just impossible to compare two bowlers statistically. Because stats do not tell the story of so many intangibles that happen during a match.

 

[Sanz]

Yeah I'm pretty sure that there is literary no difference between India and Pakistan. In fact the Taj Mahal is also a part of Pakistan I'm sure. Hell throw in Bangladesh in there too they are right next door also.

If what you say is true it would actually benefit my original argument. Because then it would mean that Imran Khan had was worse even at home than the likes of Marshall and Hadlee.

I thought you would have understood what I was trying to say but again I have to spell out every single thing for you.

Imran's bowling record in India should be taken with a pinch of salt because he repeatedly was a victim of some absolutely pathetic umpring series after series against India. So in no way India was a 'comparable' neutral venue for Imran same way as it was for Marshall/Hadlee.

 

[Sanz]

Lmao I can see why you don't wanna do statistical debates. You didn't even include who the host country is in your stats
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Those are the actual stats. And lol at me manipulating stats. Why exactly did you include just the bowling averages instead of overall averages of the teams?

You see, once again you are the one who is doing the filter because the simple average era stats didn't fit your result.
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


But even using your own criteria, using only the following because the remaining countries didn't play test cricket in the 70s-80s :-

        Avg. Runs/Wicket            
        1970-89        1990-2010     Diff 
England 33.42        32.19        -1.23
NZ        33.18        33.13        -0.05
SL        32.91        27.21        -5.7
India     31.44        31.78         0.34
Aus       30.55        27.1        -3.45
WI        30.43        32.27         1.84
Pakistan 28.22        29.52         1.3
SA        22.18        27.08         4.9

As you can see, Avg.runs per wicket has gone down by 3.45 runs where Mcgrath played majority of his cricket. The avg. runs/wicket went up in SA where Marshall didn't play any cricket, which means he didn't benefit from it.

So in other words that filter didn't work. Time to think about another filter.

 

[smash84]

Again with this fielding BS.

lol are actually suggesting that Pakistani fielding brought up Wasim Akram's average over 2?

I would really like you to prove that. At best they dropped a couple of odd catches that's it. Plus in his era fielding was really far from being that bad.

And lol you make it sound like they basically kicked the ball to the boundary. Every fielding team fail to stop the boundary here and there even Australia. I hardly remember Pakistani team in those days practically gifting away a boundary.

All I see is a bunch of excuses really.

I might as well just throw in an actual valid point here by throwing in the era here. A good portion of Wasim Akram's career happened before the flat track era.

So what are you trying to imply that there was no difference between the fielding standard of Pakistan and Australia???? LMAO

I guess the old dictum fits you perfectly. Seems you are here for baiting not debating

 

[bagapath]

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

it does. just like batting well on bouncy or swinging conditions makes one a better batter.

Now from what it looks like Indian pitches were even flatter than Pakistan back then those days.

they were not. dont be confused by decimals.

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.

imran was better on flat tracks for sure. he could reverse swing.others could not. hence better results for him in pakistan.

 

[hang on]

surely hadlee was as good a flat track bowler as imran.

but that is neither here nor there. regarding the main point of comparison - that between sobers and imran - sobers seems to get some stick for not being a particularly good bowler. but he reached heights in bowling that imran certainly did not reach in batting. and the combined bowling and batting performances, at least as indicated by the icc ratings, indicates that he was comfortably ahead of imran as an all rounder, at least to the level his specialist suit compensated for his weaker one to a greater extent.

all rounder
Reliance ICC Player Rankings

bowling
http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/playercomparison/test/bowling/?graph=rating&name=Sobers&name2=imran+khan&name_selected=943&name_selected2=1803

batting
Reliance ICC Player Rankings


in terms of great series, it is sobers again! and that man botham. an interesting though perhaps contrived analysis from cricinfo...

botham as expected. but flintoff! much as i admired the fatlad, i never woulda thunk it.

It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Teja.]

I've always assumed that when we compare two ATG bowlers on CW, We're nitpicking minor scraps and everyone knows that the difference between them is pretty damn negligible anyway and both were bloody good. I'm slowly realizing that my assumption was wrong. Must say I'm slightly shocked at the conviction behind some people's arguments.

See, I'd take Macca but for one match or for a career It makes little to no difference really if you have Macca or Wasim. Extremely, extremely similar output-wise, especially if you bother to analyze Wasim's 18 year career properly and not with one cursory glance of their ****ing cricinfo profile page.

IMO, Wasim was as identically high quality a bowler as McGrath for about the same amount of time as Macca's career ran. If asked to pick between the two, I'd pick Macca but again that's from a cricket obsessed, absolut nit-picking POV.

As to why Wasim gets underrated as a test bowler here, IMO, It's because:-

1) His career was 18 years long, therefore, there were long patches where was merely good. So people tend to remember his early years and his late years pretty vividly as there were a lot of them. Wasim was genuinely top echelon for as long a period as pretty much every ATG bowler.

2) A few honourable men interpreting everything they want to know about Wasim from one look at his still, by any measure, breathtaking stats without doing a career breakdown. Give all stat-lovers a bad name tbh. Worst thing.

3) There were five years between 90 and 95 when Wasim was without doubt of ATG quality but was overshadowed by Waqar taking six wickets a game at 18 and a SR of 30, basically being the greatest fast bowler ever. So that period is usually seen as the Waqar period and deservedly so but Wasim would've been equal best bowler or best bowler in any other team in the world at that period of time.

The following argument argument should not be the be all and end all but I do think their career-breakdowns deserve at least some consideration and at least slightly more consideration than their cricinfo stat pages.

Wasim's career

The early years

1985 to 1989(5 years) - 29 matches - 94 wickets @ 28.18 at a wpm of 3.2

In the above period, He was essentially a very talented support bowler and did his job admirably well.

The ATG years

1990-1999(10 years) - 62 matches - 289 wickets @ 21.4 at a wpm of 4.7

In the above period, He was the Wasim we all know and love and for ten ****ing years which I'd think is a big enough sample size to ascertain one's credentials in the top echelon.

The later period

2000-2002(3 years) - 13 matches - 31 wickets @ 30 at a wpm of 2.3

Meh, really


Thing is, most ATG bowlers have that slight decline at the end and one year in the beginning(Mcgrath included) before kicking off but Wasim's raw stats are 'handicapped' by a massive phase in the beginning and end of his career where he was good enough to remain in the team and be a very good bowler but by no means an ATG or an excellent bowler. It's a career which certainly requires deep analysis to understand.

Again I'd still take Macca and all but it's beyond a joke when people say Wasim is not in the same league, no contest etc.

 

[hang on]

there is no doubt that wassa was a top echelon bowler and among the greatest to have picked up a cherry, old or new. the strange thing is that over the length of his whole career, he did not even once top the bowling rankings. not sure that this could ever be said of any all time great bowler. speaking of tests only, obviously. his highest rating was also a relatively mediocre 830 odd. was quite shocked when i read that.

 

[smash84]

I've always assumed that when we compare two ATG bowlers on CW, We're nitpicking minor scraps and everyone knows that the difference between them is pretty damn negligible anyway and both were bloody good. I'm slowly realizing that my assumption was wrong. Must say I'm slightly shocked at the conviction behind some people's arguments.

See, I'd take Macca but for one match or for a career It makes little to no difference really if you have Macca or Wasim. Extremely, extremely similar output-wise, especially if you bother to analyze Wasim's 18 year career properly and not with one cursory glance of their ****ing cricinfo profile page.

IMO, Wasim was as identically high quality a bowler as McGrath for about the same amount of time as Macca's career ran. If asked to pick between the two, I'd pick Macca but again that's from a cricket obsessed, absolut nit-picking POV.

As to why Wasim gets underrated as a test bowler here, IMO, It's because:-

1) His career was 18 years long, therefore, there were long patches where was merely good. So people tend to remember his early years and his late years pretty vividly as there were a lot of them. Wasim was genuinely top echelon for as long a period as pretty much every ATG bowler.

2) A few honourable men interpreting everything they want to know about Wasim from one look at his still, by any measure, breathtaking stats without doing a career breakdown. Give all stat-lovers a bad name tbh. Worst thing.

3) There were five years between 90 and 95 when Wasim was without doubt of ATG quality but was overshadowed by Waqar taking six wickets a game at 18 and a SR of 30, basically being the greatest fast bowler ever. So that period is usually seen as the Waqar period and deservedly so but Wasim would've been equal best bowler or best bowler in any other team in the world at that period of time.

The following argument argument should not be the be all and end all but I do think their career-breakdowns deserve at least some consideration and at least slightly more consideration than their cricinfo stat pages.

Wasim's career

The early years

1985 to 1989(5 years) - 29 matches - 94 wickets @ 28.18 at a wpm of 3.2

In the above period, He was essentially a very talented support bowler and did his job admirably well.

The ATG years

1990-1999(10 years) - 62 matches - 289 wickets @ 21.4 at a wpm of 4.7

In the above period, He was the Wasim we all know and love and for ten ****ing years which I'd think is a big enough sample size to ascertain one's credentials in the top echelon.

The later period

2000-2002(3 years) - 13 matches - 31 wickets @ 30 at a wpm of 2.3

Meh, really


Thing is, most ATG bowlers have that slight decline at the end and one year in the beginning(Mcgrath included) before kicking off but Wasim's raw stats are 'handicapped' by a massive phase in the beginning and end of his career where he was good enough to remain in the team and be a very good bowler but by no means an ATG or an excellent bowler. It's a career which certainly requires deep analysis to understand.

Again I'd still take Macca and all but it's beyond a joke when people say Wasim is not in the same league, no contest etc.

Wow man......great to you post after such a long time and coming up with a great quality post. Excellent analysis. While it is true that McGrath and Macko were probably better bowlers than Wasim as far as wicket taking is concerned but I do agree that it is a bit of a stretch when people say that he is not top tier.

 

[ankitj]

Good post, Teja. However, I don't fully agree. If you are looking at the peak 10 year period for Wasim, his bowling average does improve significantly, but he is still picking low quality of wickets which still means he lags some of the other ATG bowlers. Check Wasim's wickets in 90's. I did my usual math on that, and average value of his wickets in that period is ~25, which pales in comparison to likes of McGrath, Ambrose, Hadlee, Lillee, Imran, Marshall, Donald etc got, that too without narrowing down on a peak period. So, I still think he is a rung below the aforementioned bowlers.

 

[The Sean]

I've always assumed that when we compare two ATG bowlers on CW, We're nitpicking minor scraps and everyone knows that the difference between them is pretty damn negligible anyway and both were bloody good. I'm slowly realizing that my assumption was wrong. Must say I'm slightly shocked at the conviction behind some people's arguments.

See, I'd take Macca but for one match or for a career It makes little to no difference really if you have Macca or Wasim. Extremely, extremely similar output-wise, especially if you bother to analyze Wasim's 18 year career properly and not with one cursory glance of their ****ing cricinfo profile page.

IMO, Wasim was as identically high quality a bowler as McGrath for about the same amount of time as Macca's career ran. If asked to pick between the two, I'd pick Macca but again that's from a cricket obsessed, absolut nit-picking POV.

As to why Wasim gets underrated as a test bowler here, IMO, It's because:-

1) His career was 18 years long, therefore, there were long patches where was merely good. So people tend to remember his early years and his late years pretty vividly as there were a lot of them. Wasim was genuinely top echelon for as long a period as pretty much every ATG bowler.

2) A few honourable men interpreting everything they want to know about Wasim from one look at his still, by any measure, breathtaking stats without doing a career breakdown. Give all stat-lovers a bad name tbh. Worst thing.

3) There were five years between 90 and 95 when Wasim was without doubt of ATG quality but was overshadowed by Waqar taking six wickets a game at 18 and a SR of 30, basically being the greatest fast bowler ever. So that period is usually seen as the Waqar period and deservedly so but Wasim would've been equal best bowler or best bowler in any other team in the world at that period of time.

The following argument argument should not be the be all and end all but I do think their career-breakdowns deserve at least some consideration and at least slightly more consideration than their cricinfo stat pages.

Wasim's career

The early years

1985 to 1989(5 years) - 29 matches - 94 wickets @ 28.18 at a wpm of 3.2

In the above period, He was essentially a very talented support bowler and did his job admirably well.

The ATG years

1990-1999(10 years) - 62 matches - 289 wickets @ 21.4 at a wpm of 4.7

In the above period, He was the Wasim we all know and love and for ten ****ing years which I'd think is a big enough sample size to ascertain one's credentials in the top echelon.

The later period

2000-2002(3 years) - 13 matches - 31 wickets @ 30 at a wpm of 2.3

Meh, really


Thing is, most ATG bowlers have that slight decline at the end and one year in the beginning(Mcgrath included) before kicking off but Wasim's raw stats are 'handicapped' by a massive phase in the beginning and end of his career where he was good enough to remain in the team and be a very good bowler but by no means an ATG or an excellent bowler. It's a career which certainly requires deep analysis to understand.

Again I'd still take Macca and all but it's beyond a joke when people say Wasim is not in the same league, no contest etc.

Teja is quite simply an epic gun.

Wasim's last few matches certainly hurt him - he was ailing health-wise at the time, and his last eight Tests yielded just ten wickets. It doesn't make any difference to me, but I reckon plenty of people would rate Wasim higher if he'd retired after 96 Tests rather than 104.

 

[smash84]

certainly the stats-only brigade would rate him higher if he had retired at 96 tests

 

[ankitj]

Teja is quite simply an epic gun.

Wasim's last few matches certainly hurt him - he was ailing health-wise at the time, and his last eight Tests yielded just ten wickets. It doesn't make any difference to me, but I reckon plenty of people would rate Wasim higher if he'd retired after 96 Tests rather than 104.

I wouldn't. My main reason for not rating Wasim Akram that high is his quality of wickets and not so much his career bowling average.

 

[kyear2]

The reason that Wasim never had a rating over 900 or even 850 is the quality of wickets that he took, not his average. For a fast bowler who opened the bowling he collected an inordinately high percentage of lower order wickets. This lends some to believe that without reverse swing, he was a great bowler, but not quite in the upper elite, top tier. Additionally there were times when he wasn't even the best bowler on his team. He is not the best of his era and as such cant be the greatest of all time.