CW Top 50 Cricketers of All Time - 2nd Edition

[ankitj]

I know. Yet with a bowling average of 26 and 2.8 wickets a match, he must have been using himself pretty smartly. Hate to say, but still better than Sobers bowling at any stage, isn't it?

 

[Burgey]

I know. Yet with a bowling average of 26 and 2.8 wickets a match, he must have been using himself pretty smartly. Hate to say, but still better than Sobers bowling at any stage, isn't it?

All you do in that situation is invite a comparison between Sobers' batting and Imran's.

 

[weldone]

I know. Yet with a bowling average of 26 and 2.8 wickets a match, he must have been using himself pretty smartly. Hate to say, but still better than Sobers bowling at any stage, isn't it?

No way ...Between 1961-63, Sobers grabbed 55 wickets @ 25

 

[ankitj]

All you do in that situation is invite a comparison between Sobers' batting and Imran's.

Haha. OK. I screwed up there.

EDIT: Looked in isolation though, that is not very bad. He'd be India's second best bowler today in that phase of his career.

 

[marc71178]

oh....please I remember that silly list that you once brought up which put a cut off at what 250 runs...at least do some background analysis before jumping on to stats guru

What you mean 50 runs and 4 wickets a match over a 3 or more Test series - hardly a huge effort, but not one he could do more than once in his career:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2556222-post280.html

 

[marc71178]

Imran's performance after return from retirement. Batting average of 61, bowling average of 26, and a couple of drawn series against the mighty West Indies. Those are pretty awesome results!

Yes, another misrepresentation of his role in the team - 1 good series with the ball when coincidentally he was **** with the bat then his batting improves and look what happens to his bowling, it goes to ****.

 

[smash84]

What you mean 50 runs and 4 wickets a match over a 3 or more Test series - hardly a huge effort, but not one he could do more than once in his career:

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2556222-post280.html

lol........you didn't have to post that silly post again......and how convenient not posting the follow up points in that debate

I gave you 3 series where Imran performed admirably with bat and ball at the same time. 2 were 3 test series, and one was a 6 test series.
I am not going into that stupid debate again that 250 is not 247 and so Imran's series doesn't count despite the fact that he took 40 wickets at an average of 15 or so and scored 247 runs at an average of 61

Also add the 1987 series in England where he was man of the series with 191 runs @ 48 and 21 wickets @ 21.66 at a S of 48.

Now get your head out of your arse and look at the facts.

 

[ankitj]

Yes, another misrepresentation of his role in the team - 1 good series with the ball when coincidentally he was **** with the bat then his batting improves and look what happens to his bowling, it goes to ****.

Fooled by randomness again. Trying to find correlations when none need to exist. I get the point about broader phases where Imran was effectively playing as a batsman or a bowler, but then going series by series and match by match is taking it too far. It's like be intentionally decides to perform in one discipline at any time even when he in midst of good / decent forms in both disciplines. You are going to struggle to logically explain that 'correlation'.

 

[marc71178]

Fooled by randomness again. Trying to find correlations when none need to exist. I get the point about broader phases where Imran was effectively playing as a batsman or a bowler, but then going series by series and match by match is taking it too far. It's like be intentionally decides to perform in one discipline at any time even when he in midst of good / decent forms in both disciplines. You are going to struggle to logically explain that 'correlation'.

To be an all-rounder there HAS to be a correlation of doing both things at the same time otherwise he's being either a batsman or a bowler, not both which is what an all-rounder is.

 

[marc71178]

lol........you didn't have to post that silly post again......and how convenient not posting the follow up points in that debate

I gave you 3 series where Imran performed admirably with bat and ball at the same time. 2 were 3 test series, and one was a 6 test series.
I am not going into that stupid debate again that 250 is not 247 and so Imran's series doesn't count despite the fact that he took 40 wickets at an average of 15 or so and scored 247 runs at an average of 61

Also add the 1987 series in England where he was man of the series with 191 runs @ 48 and 21 wickets @ 21.66 at a S of 48.

Now get your head out of your arse and look at the facts.

You gave me 3 series, yes, and I pointed out that in 2 of them he simply did not do enough batting to call him an all-rounder but the 3rd one was the 1 series (out of 21) when he did carry dual burdens. Nobody is expecting him to do it every series, but 1 out of 21 is a pathetically small amount.
247 runs in 6 matches is not a batsman's output.
191 runs in

 

[smash84]

You gave me 3 series, yes, and I pointed out that in 2 of them he simply did not do enough batting to call him an all-rounder but the 3rd one was the 1 series (out of 21) when he did carry dual burdens. Nobody is expecting him to do it every series, but 1 out of 21 is a pathetically small amount.
247 runs in 6 matches is not a batsman's output.
191 runs in

"He simply did not do enough batting to call him an all rounder". Of course when your criteria is 249 runs is not enough and 250 is, then of course you can come up with any random stuff to say when batting is or is not enough.


He played 5 innings in that 1987 series. Now you will xzy...."Oh 5 innings is not enough batting".......to which I will say that you will only perform when you get a chance and he did in those 5 innings.

Garry Sobers taking a wicket every 100 balls is amazing all round performance but 200 runs at an average of 40 odd isn't "enough batting"

 

[Burgey]

Zip it.

 

[Jono]

Zip it.

I think Marc listened to you tbf

You gave me 3 series, yes, and I pointed out that in 2 of them he simply did not do enough batting to call him an all-rounder but the 3rd one was the 1 series (out of 21) when he did carry dual burdens. Nobody is expecting him to do it every series, but 1 out of 21 is a pathetically small amount.
247 runs in 6 matches is not a batsman's output.
191 runs in

Just stopped typing mid-sentence.

 

[Fusion]

 

[marc71178]

"He simply did not do enough batting to call him an all rounder". Of course when your criteria is 249 runs is not enough and 250 is, then of course you can come up with any random stuff to say when batting is or is not enough.

247 runs in 6 matches is not a batsman's output.

"He played 5 innings in that 1987 series. Now you will xzy...."Oh 5 innings is not enough batting".......to which I will say that you will only perform when you get a chance and he did in those 5 innings.

Batting 5 times in 6 matches is not a batsman's burden.

Garry Sobers taking a wicket every 100 balls is amazing all round performance but 200 runs at an average of 40 odd isn't "enough batting"

That is totally irrelevant to my points seeing as Sobers managed to combine front line batting and bowling over multiple series.

 

[smash84]

247 runs in 6 matches is not a batsman's output.

Batting 5 times in 6 matches is not a batsman's burden.

What a load of old cobblers. Those matches didn't have 12 innings for everybody which is why context is so important before jumping to conclusions.

Another brilliant subjective criteria. The "batsman's burden.....this is hilarious

 

[smash84]

That is totally irrelevant to my points seeing as Sobers managed to combine front line batting and bowling over multiple series.

Front line bowling because WI didn't have too many options. Much like Imran's batting towards the end of his career when Pak had plenty of bowling options and he could bat up the order.

 

[Jono]

Is Marc's point that Imran wasn't an allrounder at all, or that he wasn't as good an allrounder as Sobers?

 

[smash84]

Is Marc's point that Imran wasn't an allrounder at all,

His point is that he wasn't really an all rounder because he did one discipline at one time and left off the other.

Now when I show him 4 different series where he did well with both bat and ball you get to hear plenty of lame excuses

 

[marc71178]

Is Marc's point that Imran wasn't an allrounder at all, or that he wasn't as good an allrounder as Sobers?

My point is that he rarely performed as an allrounder, which when you compare it to all his rivals (as I did in the post I linked to) - it was either batting or bowling. For that reason I don't consider him as good as some of the others named. I definitely don't consider him anywhere near as good as Sobers.

For daring to point that out I've told I "look for correlation where there doesn't need to be any" which I find a bit odd if we're talking about all rounders.

As for excuses like "he was a front line bowler because the WI didn't have options" or "there weren't 12 innings in 6 Tests" - those are irrelevant because they show that Sobers had a double burden which Imran never managed to properly conquer (note that by never I mean one series in 21)