Understood, but because you weren't regarded the best when you retired, doesn't mean you can't be seen as the 7th best ever (where we are with the vote) besides wpm I don't see how Lille can be seen as objectively better than Holding. Not to.mention that Holding actually.played some and succeeded outside of Aus / Eng / NZ, specifically the SC
Because objectivity.
The fact that you believe that you unquestionably know something that escapes everyone else (not to mention the hoops you jump through to justify it) is amusing and the height of hubris.
Yup. Marshall was taking 6 wickets a test in his peak while Holding, Garner and Walsh were around him. He certainly wasnt feeding off the others.
I dunno. With Donald there has to be a reason he is virtually forgotten when it comes to players of his era overlooking him in their lists and best xis or being ranked so low in ESPNs list which was at his career peak. I always felt there was something missing that put him from Ambrose Akram McGrath level.
When did i say so?
Just your opinion though. Going by pure bowling averages, Garner was ahead of Akram by the same percentage as Hayden was ahead of Langer in batting average.
. Would have given a vote to Big Bird.
Not just Marshall or McGrath.. Ponting, Viv.. Etc also had it easier than the likes of Lara or Crowe.
I do somewhat agree with this. Not that Viv or Ponting achieved more than they should have based on their ability or had better stats than they should. But that players with weaker teams like Lara and in the modern era, Root, don't achieve as much as they should and have worse stats than they could potentially have due to their weaker teams.
Are you Mr. Akram?
There is no way to prove this though.
), Sarwan etc. Yes the weight would have got to him at times, it also brought out absolute genius as well. Plus Lara is still seen as a top 6 batsman of all time, didn't hinder him "that" much.
If you are feeling uneasy seeing someone rating Akram as the best ever.. Please stay inside CW forever.
Sure, I agree there's no way to prove it since there will always be cases that prove otherwise as well. I think that most people do agree that when you have good bowling support and batting support, it does make it easier. If you don't believe that, then that's fair enough. True, Lara wasn't really hindered that much but I feel he could have achieved even more with a better team. i know that's controversial though. Sometimes when I watch Root when the batting lineup is collapsing, it feels like he decides to take risks to get more runs on the board before the team gets bowled instead of building proper test innings. If he was selfish enough to stay not out till the end of the innings, then sure I would agree it doesn't affect him. And then he also comes in at 10-2 every innings, which pretty much makes him an opener which most people consider harder than coming out when there's a solid total on the board. Obviously none of this could be true because as you said there's' no way to prove it. That said, I don't make ridiculous adjustments like PFK does when adjusting Akram's bowling average to 18 due to his fielding. But I do give a very tiny boost which I believe is fair to do.There is no way to prove this though.
Additionally, Headley had it rough, he was the only test class player and everything was focused and dependent on him. While Lara and Root didn't have strong or even good teams, it wasn't to the extent that Hedley had to deal with. Lara had Chanders, Hooper (??
It's not been about Akram for a while though, he's a legit ATG player, it's the incessant nonsense and the accompanying incomprehensible argument.
Check the post you quoted