Did Imran Khan use to do intense ball tempering frequently?

[Muloghonto]

So Imran got all those wickets away from home and the batsmen never complained. What does that tell you? And bowling overseas was no barrier to his success as some have suggested that his success was entirely based on tampering on home pitches, which is clearly not true.



Almost all pacers indulged in ball tampering and you have no evidence that Imran was any more blatant at it than others. What set Imran apart was reverse swing which nobody was prepared for.



I didnt say cherry picking is ok, I just said you dont have evidence for it. No player of his time ever accused him of that, or any bowler under his captaincy. Yet somehow you know better. And Imran is the last, last player you can accuse of playing for his stats or records.

The only time he did bowl less was after 88 when it was clear his bowling abilities were on the wane, his batting came to the fore and Waqar came into the side hence he didnt need to do much grunt work.

I saw him live for over a decade. That is evidence enough. Just because a player is not accused of anything (which is not true for Imran, he was accused, just that cricket is not strict to stand up to scrutiny in a court fo law, particularly about on-field stuff) does not mean it didnt happen- gentlemen's game and all.
Imran is not the last player i can accuse of playing for his stats, he was pretty much the biggest example of playing for his stats. Even with Waqar in the side, Imran opened the bowling more often than not, which is a blatant boosting of personal stats over using best available resources.

 

[smash84]

I digress. This is not a court of law and if you think that opinions of those who have seen the game firsthand need to be corroborrated, then it speaks of your disrespect for the average poster and the fact that you yourself have no basis of forming first hand opinion, therefore you are unwilling to admit others in the same position.
I don't care about autobiographies, i know what is saw and asking corroborrating evidence is as assinine as asking corroborating evidence to pronounce that deVilliers is a great batsman...

Being that posters like you who claim to have seen imran live and perhaps the only one I know who concludes that imran played for his stats. How is asking for corroborating evidence in this case as asinine as asking for evidence that drvilliers is a great batsman? .

You seem to have the iq of a vegetable or are deliberately trolling here.

You conveniently also chose not to address your claim of imran getting cheap wickets when it was shown that he had a fairly low share of tail end wickets

 

[Muloghonto]

Being that posters like you who claim to have seen imran live and perhaps the only one I know who concludes that imran played for his stats. How is asking for corroborating evidence in this case as asinine as asking for evidence that drvilliers is a great batsman? .

And how many people have you interacted with who've seen Imran personally ? I'd be surprised if that sample space is in double digits. And even if it is, so what ? You seek evidence for cheating in a sport where cheating is, univerally a hush-hush/supressed thing in many, many sports to believe cheating exits or ABC was a cheat. Well, i don't thik that is a realistic approach to sports at all. it is your option to believe the opinion or not, but to ask about evidence to conclude that a sportsman was a cheat is like playing on technicalities to get a case dismissed.

You seem to have the iq of a vegetable or are deliberately trolling here.

You conveniently also chose not to address your claim of imran getting cheap wickets when it was shown that he had a fairly low share of tail end wickets

Low share of tail-end wickets does not mean he bowled in the middle overs to set batsmen now, is it ? You can avoid bowling to middle order set batsmen for 30-40 overs,still dismiss them with the new ball and have the spread you described. So since your statistic is not dismissive of the scenario, i simply chose to ignore it, as reliance on it is simply reliance on stats rather than a functional understanding of the game, which is not fully encapsulated by statistics.

 

[harsh.ag]

I must say, I am quite surprised that such attacks on a player like Imran are being condoned on here. Does anybody really think somebody like Richie Benaud, when picking the all time world XI which would represent him and cricket, would have included Imran if he was in any way concerned about Imran's character? Benaud picked people like Frank Worrell ahead of other great(er) batsmen in his squad because he highly valued character. And you think he would have picked Imran in the first XI if he wasn't sure what kind of a player Imran was?

Get your heads out of our goddamned asses, and stop this ridiculous attack on Imran.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I must say, I am quite surprised that such attacks on a player like Imran are being condoned on here. Does anybody really think somebody like Richie Benaud, when picking the all time world XI which would represent him and cricket, would have included Imran if he was in any way concerned about Imran's character? Benaud picked people like Frank Worrell ahead of other great(er) batsmen in his squad because he highly valued character. And you think he would have picked Imran in the first XI if he wasn't sure what kind of a player Imran was?

Get your heads out of our goddamned asses, and stop this ridiculous attack on Imran.

I think the case with Benaud is that we romanticise past players, and personas are an important part of that romanticisation so affect how we rate them so to speak. The David Boon's and Keith Millers etc come to mind. More recent players aren't romanticised so heavily, so their characters have less impact on how we rate them.

Nothing wrong with attacking Imran's character but what is disconcerting is the lack of perspective being applied.

Imrans character has been called into question a couple of times in the past, iirc Hadlee had a couple of words to say about him; pressuring umpires is the one that comes to mind. Now because everything is so much more fun when it involves attacking Aussies named Chappell (or just Aussies in general) lets stop for a moment and think about how Ian would have acted if he had a bowler capable of reversing the ball to the extent that Imran could. Bottle tops would have been the least of it.

Ball tampering really isn't that big a deal, its well within the bounds of what the average ultra-competitive captain/bowler would employ.

 

[harsh.ag]

Although that is generally true, with Benaud I think the complete opposite applies. If he was a romantic in any way, then the first player on his ATXI team sheet would probably have been Keith Miller, his hero and friend. But he chose Imran over Miller. Benaud is old, and if he was going to romanticize players, they would be from a generation before Imran's. Plus, he romanticizes Tendulkar as much as he does anybody else, to be honest. So, I wouldn't go there with Benaud.

 

[harsh.ag]

Nothing wrong with attacking Imran's character but what is disconcerting is the lack of perspective being applied.

Exactly.

 

[social]

:

Ha ha

Not as glamorous as it seems

Imran played with my best mate in England and looked me up when he came to Australia

I didn't play for NSW but we had quite a few nets together at the local park

 

[harsh.ag]

Ha ha

Not as glamorous as it seems

Imran played with my best mate in England and looked me up when he came to Australia

I didn't play for NSW but we had quite a few nets together at the local park

Damn, that is actually more glamorous than I thought it would be. I think fans in the sub-continent are much more alienated from their cricket stars than is the case in England and Australia. Obviously because many fans here are scary.

 

[Muloghonto]

I must say, I am quite surprised that such attacks on a player like Imran are being condoned on here. Does anybody really think somebody like Richie Benaud, when picking the all time world XI which would represent him and cricket, would have included Imran if he was in any way concerned about Imran's character? Benaud picked people like Frank Worrell ahead of other great(er) batsmen in his squad because he highly valued character. And you think he would have picked Imran in the first XI if he wasn't sure what kind of a player Imran was?

Get your heads out of our goddamned asses, and stop this ridiculous attack on Imran.

Sorry, that is not an argument- that is simply appeal to authority.

Benaud, whom i greatly respect, would certainly not be the first or the last highly respected expert to give a completely positive character reference to a colleague of sorts, assuming that you choose to believe such allegations. Consider that.
I actually don't think it is a big deal because IMO, Imran was good enough a bowler to be considered a great with or without tampering or cherry picking his overs.
IMO, he would've ended up with a 24-25 average, not 22.5 or so. Still a great bowler.

 

[Muloghonto]

I think the case with Benaud is that we romanticise past players, and personas are an important part of that romanticisation so affect how we rate them so to speak. The David Boon's and Keith Millers etc come to mind. More recent players aren't romanticised so heavily, so their characters have less impact on how we rate them.

Nothing wrong with attacking Imran's character but what is disconcerting is the lack of perspective being applied.

Imrans character has been called into question a couple of times in the past, iirc Hadlee had a couple of words to say about him; pressuring umpires is the one that comes to mind. Now because everything is so much more fun when it involves attacking Aussies named Chappell (or just Aussies in general) lets stop for a moment and think about how Ian would have acted if he had a bowler capable of reversing the ball to the extent that Imran could. Bottle tops would have been the least of it.

Ball tampering really isn't that big a deal, its well within the bounds of what the average ultra-competitive captain/bowler would employ.

You do realise the oxymoron of using the word 'average' and 'ultra' to describe the same subset, correct ?
sports isnt war- and if it is, be real about it and make full out fighting legal like we do with Hockey in canada.
But till it is war, the captain that bends the rules or the bowler- is a shady b&stards. No two ways about it, is the way i see it.
It doesnt make them nothing, just lesser than their records indicate, IMO.

 

[harsh.ag]

You do realise the oxymoron of using the word 'average' and 'ultra' to describe the same subset, correct ?
sports isnt war- and if it is, be real about it and make full out fighting legal like we do with Hockey in canada.
But till it is war, the captain that bends the rules or the bowler- is a shady b&stards. No two ways about it, is the way i see it.
It doesnt make them nothing, just lesser than their records indicate, IMO.

All right, Muloghonto. You can have your IMO and while you have it, prepare to recognize ALL the people who are "lesser than their record indicate". Every bowler in and before the very modern years has benefited from ball tampering. Greats like Sachin Tendulkar have done it. I am not even sure if there was anybody who did not benefit, and who these players are. And honestly, what I really, really don't get is - WHY THE **** IS YOUR HORSE SO ****ING HIGH ???

 

[kyear2]

To just make reference to Benaud's team alone isn't a good enough sample to make any conclusive statements sine Benauds team and especially shortlist have instances of inherent biases. Fair possibly to look at a winder range of teams selected by others and then make statements.
Additionally no one's head is up their assets, Imran is a great man, what he has done post cricket is admirable, it doesn't mean he never cheated or taught it to others. That's my only point.


CricketWeb
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, McGrath

Geoff Armstrong
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Pollock, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, Barnes

Cricinfo
Hutton, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Akram, Warne, Lillee

Wisden
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Knott, Akram, Warne, Marshall, Barnes

Geoffrey Boycott
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Headley, Richards, Sobers, Knott, Marshall, Warne, Lillee, Barnes

Benaud
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Imran, Gilchrist, Warne, Lillee, Barnes

Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Warne, Barnes, McGrath

Courier-Mail
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Akram, Marshall, Warne, Lillee

Reuters
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Headley, Grace, Sobers, Imran, Knott, Warne, Lillee, Barnes

Kim Hughes
Hobbs, Trumper, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Akram, Marshall, Warne, Lillee

Martin Crowe
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Akram, Warne, Marshall, Lillee

Third Man Cricket
Gavaskar, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Akram, Warne, Marshall, McGrath

 

[Muloghonto]

All right, Muloghonto. You can have your IMO and while you have it, prepare to recognize ALL the people who are "lesser than their record indicate". Every bowler in and before the very modern years has benefited from ball tampering. Greats like Sachin Tendulkar have done it. I am not even sure if there was anybody who did not benefit, and who these players are. And honestly, what I really, really don't get is - WHY THE **** IS YOUR HORSE SO ****ING HIGH ???

incase you havn't noticed, my horse isnt high enough to discredit Imran's accomplishents completey. I still select him for alltime XIs, I am sharing my viewpoint in relation to this thread, so whats the problem ?

I am a realist, not an absolutist. I do realize that some amount of bending the rule is human nature. but there is a judgement call, that referees in 'hard to 100% enforce sports' - such as most contact sports, adopt. Which is ' there is the average everyone is doing it bending the rules and getting away with it but then there is the I take it too far and get a greater advantage over the field, which is just exploiting douchery' and cracked down upon.

I take the same view. yes, ball tampering was not just Imran + 3/4 others. Dozens of players out of scores more did it. But there is a difference between lifting the seam with your fingernails and doing it with your teeth. There's a difference between rolling the ball on the ground one way only and tearing strips out of it using bottlecaps.
Imran, IMO was one who took it too far and IMO his admission is a corroborration of that too, along with the questions he's faced before.

 

[harsh.ag]

To just make reference to Benaud's team alone isn't a good enough sample to make any conclusive statements since Benauds team and especially shortlist have instances of inherent biases. Fair possibly to look at a winder range of teams selected by others and then make statements.
Additionally no one's head is up their assets, Imran is a great man, what he has done post cricket is admirable, it doesn't mean he never cheated or taught it to others. That's my only point.

No seriously, how thick are you? One of the major biases in Benaud's shortlist selection was that of high character. That's what I was talking about. Frank Worrell was selected for no other reason. Benaud made it amply clear that this was the team he was choosing to represent him personally. And would Imran be there if he wasn't up to snuff on that factor? **** no. There were plenty of alternatives, as both you and I know.

Again, cheating is a relative word. If everyone is doing it, it's not the same. Imran was one of the first to vigorously ask for neutral umpires. He didn't care about the home umpire advantage on tampering, because everyone was doing it. Imran was honest. That's it.

 

[kyear2]

No seriously, how thick are you? One of the major biases in Benaud's shortlist selection was that of high character. That's what I was talking about. Frank Worrell was selected for no other reason. Benaud made it amply clear that this was the team he was choosing to represent him personally. And would Imran be there if he wasn't up to snuff on that factor? **** no. There were plenty of alternatives, as both you and I know.

Again, cheating is a relative word. If everyone is doing it, it's not the same. Imran was one of the first to vigorously ask for neutral umpires. He didn't care about the home umpire advantage on tampering, because everyone was doing it. Imran was honest. That's it.

High character is the last word I would use to describe Ian Healy, especially over a player like Knott. Lillee was highly regarded during his era but there are many who though that he pushed the bounds of sportsmanship at times, Gavaskar as well. Lara will always be a favorite of mine but the way he carried himself with the board and treated team mates would hardly suggest high character. On the flip side there were few who exhibited more class, dignity and character on and off the field than Muralitharan, yet he was also omitted.

So how hick are you, the man choose a team of players he liked (Sir Frank was a close friend of his and a very under rated batsman at that) and omitted those he didn't for arbitrary reasons. Marshall and co were discarded because of perceived intimidatory bowling yet he included Lillee, similarly Murali for reasons known to all was also omitted yet included a man actually suspended for another form of cheating.
This team has no credibility as far as I am concerned because of the inherent biases that are apparent, if one believes that Lillee, Warne and Gilchrist are the best the only competition for the top spot that they have are Marshall, Murali and Knott so hence they are omitted rather than have that argument. It's a team of his favorites, just admit that and don't pretend character played a role and still include the players you did.

 

[the big bambino]

I didnt say cherry picking is ok, I just said you dont have evidence for it. No player of his time ever accused him of that, or any bowler under his captaincy. Yet somehow you know better. And Imran is the last, last player you can accuse of playing for his stats or records.

You are correct. No evidence is provided for the simple reason there isn't any. Lets take the following comments and judge them against what happened.

No, Akram, Waqar, etc. were better suited to take the new ball in the end. And before Waqar, yes, Imran was the 2nd best bowler to take the new ball (after Akram) but that does not mean he gets to bowl 7-8 overs on the trot with the new ball and not bowl a single over for anothe 30+ overs. If you are good to bowl 7-8 overs on the trot, fitness is not an issue.
The issue was, he was the captain and he reserved the best bowling opportunities for himself. Thats one reason why bowling captains are rare: not only are they not fit enough compared to batsmen to play as much games, they have an inherent bias to bowl themselves over making the most efficient use of bowler rotation and Imran was the perfect example of that.
Had he not been the captain, he certainly would not have gotten scot free in the middle overs, where every single captain uses his best bowler as well in the middle overs.

To begin Imran deserved the new ball up until Waqar materialised as a destructive bowler. That occurred in October 1990. After that date Imran only played 6 tests. He didn't bowl in 4 of them. He bowled sparingly in the other 2. Therefore it can't be claimed he cherry picked his overs in those tests. In one of the 2 tests he bowled he gave Akram the opportunity to bowl at the tail. Akram picked up every tail end wicket that fell. In the remaining game he bowled at no.5 neither hogging the new ball or bowling at the tail.

The remainder of the claim is that from the mid 80s Imran dodged the middle overs to the detriment of his team. An analysis of his test wickets in this period show this break up:

Top order: 38.5%
Middle order: 31.5%
Tail: 30%

These are stats commensurate with a new ball bowler who is expected to break through and come back for the tail. They approximately match his overall record as shown by harsh.ag. which is similar to the record of most fast bowlers. They approximate to his record for the 1st half of his career leading up to the mid 80s. In short there is no evidence of cherry picking his overs to enhance his opportunities to bowl at the tail. There is no evidence to suggest he dodged the middle overs as 31.5% of his victims were middle order players.

His figures for each batting position reveals a consistent pattern. Apart from no.s 1 & 2 whom he dismissed 20 and 18 times respectively, his frequency of dismissals for the remaining 9 positions range between a tight 8 and 13. Showing he bowled consistently throughout an innings. There was no shirking from him.

This is why you need to corroborate your opinion. No one, for example, would doubt De Villiers is a great player as there is plenty of evidence for it. Your opinion comes from that evidence. However a controversial opinion contradicting a player's reputation should be fortified by the facts. In this case they are not. It is unconvincing to state your belief is supported by your observations. Especially when it appears you don't understand what you see.

 

[smash84]

Well said

 

[rtramdas]

Ah! Now it makes sense. rt is head of the ATG Players HR Department.

i too can comment....but not interested in silly comments....

 

[harsh.ag]

i too can comment....but not interested in silly comments....

When asked about the thread started in the forum IndianCricketFans, you replied saying it was your brother who had started the thread. Here is a quote from rtmohanlal from that thread:

ok..but it came as a real shock for me because i considered him as one of the best all rounders of all time.. if not the best.but now i don't rate him that highly.any way it is my personnel opinion.

Here is your post from earlier in the thread:

Based on the testimonies of all the persons inclusive of in those statements i put forward in my main topic, i firmly believe that his case was not at all that silly as those involved in the routine things which we see in front of our eyes during live telecasts of cricket matches. based on that i can no more take the credentials of such a player as such.any way it is my personnel opinion only.

How incredibly fortuitous that you and your brother know the exact wrong spelling of "personal". Silly comments indeed...