Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[ankitj]

Yeah, never getting to the top of ICC ranking charts, and attaining a modest career best of 840 points is another reason why I don't rate him that highly as a test bowler. His average and WPM are not the real reason.

Wasim Akram is an odd case. To the naked eye he no doubt looks like the most skilled fast bowler that I have seen. But his stats don't quite back him up (again, I don't mean just the average and wpm). Yet, he has best rate of winning MoM awards in tests! I'd be interested in seeing break up of his MoM awards by opposition, don't know how to get it.

 

[TINJU Jishnu]

wasim was considered as the best bowler throughout 90s
waquar was 2nd best pak bowler even in that amazing peak

waquar's peak indirectly affected wasim's stats, i think..

ODIs

kapil and botham - 20+ with bat
imran - 30+

stats apart, hu was best and y?

 

[kyear2]

Because of his magic deliveries and his ability to finish of matches, which incidentally is called cleaning up the tail when the ball was reversing like crazy.

 

[fredfertang]

At his absolute peak Waqar was streets ahead of Wasim and, in my opinion at least, as good a quick bowler as there has been - if Wasim was as good as some seem to think Lancashire wouldn't have had to wait the best part of eight bleeding decades for a County Championship

 

[OMM!]

Khan only played 1 Test. Was decent enough against Australia, but nowhere near as good as Graeme Smith, Alviro Peterson etc.

Easily Sobers if we're comparing the two!

 

[ankitj]

Khan only played 1 Test. Was decent enough against Australia, but nowhere near as good as Graeme Smith, Alviro Peterson etc.

Easily Sobers if we're comparing the two!

Australia was not a very strong team in Imran's days.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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.

Oh this has to be a joke. Well It was only a matter of time before I saw some Youtube comment like posts in this place but I didn't expect this even from you.

All right if you wanna play it that way then his record in Pakistan is also not comparable then because of favorable umpiring decisions. I mean his record is worse in pretty much everywhere else than Marshall, Hadlee so this has to be the only explanation.

I can't take any of your posts seriously after this.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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

Wtf how does a link of the 90's and 00's prove Imran was a better bowler that Pakistan was a flatter pitch than India? lol this is just getting ridiculous.

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.

PMSL all this talk about stats manipulation and this is what you come up with? I have idea and many buttons you played around with on statsguru to come up with these figures.

There are the overall stats of the teams throughout the career of Mcgrath and Marhsall.

Mcgrath:
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Marshall:
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

No other team other than West Indies even has a stats higher than New Zealand. So this argument can only go two different way now. Either you accept that the era Mcgrath bowled in was the era of flat tracks and batsmen had it easier or you accept that every other team in the in Marshall's era were even worse than New Zealand of the modern era.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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.

Me: Mcgrath is a better bowler than Wasim Akram statistically.

You: Stats shouldn't be the only argument.

Me: Okay, make other arguments if you can.

You: Statistically Marshall is better than Mcgrath.

I didn't even bother with the stats you provided because only you know where you come up most of those.

The stats above I provided of the overall teams should be good enough to tell you that it was harder to bowl in the Mcgrath era. If not the West Indies must have faced some mighty weak sides in those days.

Anyways, I have no intention of debating Mcgrath vs Marshall with you on a Sober vs Imran thread. If you actually good come with some good arguments on why Wasim should be considered better than Mcgrath or that Mcgarth's era wasn't harder to bowl on than Marshall's post it in the right thread.

 

[BlazeDragon]

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

No man both bowling and betting better on every single conditions make you the truly better player

they were not. dont be confused by decimals.

I should take your word over stats then? At best I would say that they were about equally flat. Both both were flat pitches no doubt about it.

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

Its quite debatable and I disagree. His record in India suggests that he wasn't the better flat track bowler.

 

[ankitj]

Ignore function is handy.

 

[bagapath]

I should take your word over stats then?

yes. good idea.

 

[Fusion]

yes. good idea.

 

[smash84]

Khan only played 1 Test. Was decent enough against Australia, but nowhere near as good as Graeme Smith, Alviro Peterson etc.

Easily Sobers if we're comparing the two!

Ignore function is handy.

haha awta......is this guy also on your ignore list?

 

[Darth018]

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

Australian fielding is overall better but suggesting that it dropped someone's whole career average over 2 runs is plain idiotic.

lol what you are doing is baiting as well. I could report it but your posts are just pure comedy so I'll cut you some slack.

 

[Darth018]

Ignore function is handy.

Not really. Doesn't stop stupid people from making idiotic posts.

 

[Fusion]

Keep it civil guys.

 

[Sanz]

Wtf how does a link of the 90's and 00's prove Imran was a better bowler that Pakistan was a flatter pitch than India? lol this is just getting ridiculous.




PMSL all this talk about stats manipulation and this is what you come up with? I have idea and many buttons you played around with on statsguru to come up with these figures.

There are the overall stats of the teams throughout the career of Mcgrath and Marhsall.

Mcgrath:
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Marshall:
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

No other team other than West Indies even has a stats higher than New Zealand. So this argument can only go two different way now. Either you accept that the era Mcgrath bowled in was the era of flat tracks and batsmen had it easier or you accept that every other team in the in Marshall's era were even worse than New Zealand of the modern era.

Another Filter. This time it may actually convince you.

 

[Sanz]

Oh this has to be a joke. Well It was only a matter of time before I saw some Youtube comment like posts in this place but I didn't expect this even from you.

All right if you wanna play it that way then his record in Pakistan is also not comparable then because of favorable umpiring decisions. I mean his record is worse in pretty much everywhere else than Marshall, Hadlee so this has to be the only explanation.

I can't take any of your posts seriously after this.

Yes, Imran's record in Pakistan against India should be taken with a pinch of salt just like his record in India. If you find that it is youtube worthy, then it is your problem and perhaps shows how far away you are from reality. Indian/Pakistani umpire didn't shy away form displaying their bias during those days.

 

[Sanz]

Anyways, I have no intention of debating Mcgrath vs Marshall with you on a Sober vs Imran thread. If you actually good come with some good arguments on why Wasim should be considered better than Mcgrath or that Mcgarth's era wasn't harder to bowl on than Marshall's post it in the right thread.

Yes and that is the best way you can save the face in the Mcgrath Vs. Marshall argument. Because Statistically your choice of Mcgrath over Marshall even after era adjustment, doesn't make sense.

So either accept that Marshall is better, purely from a statistical PoV or accept that you don't depend on statistics completely when deciding who is a better player.