Imran Khan vs Dale Steyn

[subshakerz]

But relative to the likes of Steyn and McGrath you'd say they're both better in Asia because they had better records there. They didn't, Ambrose actually averages less in Asia than both. Likewise, people believe Steyn is better than Imran because he had a better away than Imran.

Fwiw, I don't really have a dog in this fight but it's like coronis I believe mentioned, we use arguments in one argument, then completely go against those principles in another.

Taking these lumped averages away for several countries together as if it means something is mostly silly and misleading. I prefer country by country. So there is one meaningless test against SL and one good and one horrible series in Pakistan. Nothing in India.

My argument with Ambrose is that he didn't display enough success there and I dock Lillee worse for the same reason.

 

[kyear2]

The argument is you being stricter on Imran's away record compared to Steyn's who you rank no.4 of all time.

All of us pretty much put Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee ahead of everyone.

Ok, I thought I made this quite clear.

1. Steyn had a much smaller sample size in each of these countries, ranging from 2 matches to a maximum of 7.

2. I can explain why Steyn played better home than away, because his home conditions were more conducive to fast bowling and he played in an era where most of the other test playing nations had flatter wickets and better batting conditions. This is not disputable.

Imran played tougher conditions home than away (India aside), yet he averaged better in Pakistan than ****ing England.

So yes, I can see reasons for Steyn's less successful away record, and it can explain it.

And with all of that the difference between Steyn's home and away record is 2.58, despite having to deal with tougher over seas conditions with small smaller size. Imran who played more away than home and playing in tougher conditions had a difference of 6.56

So yes, I rate Steyn higher, why does this upset everyone. This ****ing poll has a significant plurality, 78% to 22% who rate Steyn higher than Imran, it's not just me. It's not inconsistent, get over it.

My top 5 has been named, I think they are better.

I next have Imran, Wasim, Holding, Garner, Donald, Lillee. You are acting like I'm comparing him to Kapil. That's above such greats as Davidson, Trueman, Lindwall, Waqar. That doesn't include Pollock, Roberts and countless others outside the top 15.

 

[trundler]

1. Steyn had a much smaller sample size in each of these countries, ranging from 2 matches to a maximum of 7.

Not Imran's fault.

2. I can explain why Steyn played better home than away, because his home conditions were more conducive to fast bowling and he played in an era where most of the other test playing nations had flatter wickets and better batting conditions. This is not disputable.

This is just punishing Imran for standing out in his home conditions.

Imran played tougher conditions home than away (India aside), yet he averaged better in Pakistan than ****ing England.

You have not responded to the context I presented around his stats in England. He has a series defining 10 wicket haul there in a high scoring series. England = good conditions is a laughably dumb and simplistic assumption. Prove how these were easy conditions.

The problem isn't necessarily your ranking but that you seem to have dedicated yourself to long term anti Imran propaganda based on the dumbest, most surface level reasons which get debunked every time you bring them up.

You did not address why I think his last phase is irrelevant when comparing him to bowlers also.

Keep dodging them. I'll keep bringing them up.

 

[kyear2]

West Indian bowlers of the time famously had no one object to their tactics and gamesmanship. Nobody ever accused them West Indies of unfairness and taking libraries with the rules.

We bowled bouncers and took a bit long to bowl our overs.

The bouncers aspect we took from what we got from Thompson and Lillee, let go back a bit further, Lindwall and Miller, what England for some reason tried against Viv and co.

We had slow over rates because we bowled 4 fast bowlers, didn't England just get penalized for that? And yes, teams delay if they are on the rocks

And to be clear, you're comparing this to Imran openly cheating by picking the seam and using bottle tops.

Getting desperate I see, but this is as false equivalency as I can imagine.

Also as you referenced it, Barker wasn't biased, he was incompetent and had quite a few bad decisions against us as well. Go back and read contemporary reports.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok, I thought I made this quite clear.

1. Steyn had a much smaller sample size in each of these countries, ranging from 2 matches to a maximum of 7.

This applies to countries he also has good figures in like India, WI and Pakistan.

So aren't you being hypocritical not to problematize those successes but handwaive the rest when he averages higher?

 

[trundler]

We bowled bouncers and took a bit ling to bowl our overs.

The bouncers aspect we took from what we got from Thompson and Lillee, let go back a bit further, Lindwall and Miller, what England for some reason tried against Viv and co.

We had slow over rates because we bowled 4 fast bowlers, didn't England just get penalized for that? And yes, teams delay if they are on the rocks

And to be clear, you're comparing this to Imran openly cheating by picking the seam and using bottle tops.

Getting desperate I see, but this is as false equivalency as I can imagine.

Also as you referenced it, Barker wasn't biased, he was incompetent and had quite a few bad decisions against us as well. Go back and read contemporary reports.

Benaud thought it fit to disregard the West Indians entirely but not Imran. .

And no, the umpires in '88 were afraid to give decisions against the home side. That's not just incompetence.

 

[subshakerz]

Keep dodging them. I'll keep bringing them up.

This is the essence of Kyear's argument. Never address Imran's actual away successful series.

 

[Slifer]

Benaud thought it fit to disregard the West Indians entirely but not Imran. .

And no, the umpires in '88 were afraid to give decisions against the home side. That's not just incompetence.

Imran was included amongst the all rounders but ok.

 

[trundler]

This is the essence of Kyear's argument. Never address Imran's actual away successful series.

He has also admitted that biased umpiring, which is what his main contention regarding Imran's home record, was also a thing in NZ and Australia but the West Indian umpires who refused to give decisions in favour of Pakistan in '88 for fear of their own safety were not biased. Along with refusing to acknowledge or address Imran's successes away and the context surrounding his away record, one can see why kyear2's opinions on Imran are not taken seriously anymore.

Imran was included amongst the all rounders but ok.

Why would Benaud list him twice? He wasn't disqualified for how he played the game but the West Indians were.

 

[kyear2]

Astute observation. Whatever it was, it was so significant that it made Benaud disqualify them from his list of great players completely. Let's not forget that West Indies benefited greatly from dodgy home umpiring too which seems to be the main contention here.

Because Benaud was a hypocrite, his false and misplaced indignation was a joke.

The WI didn't benefit greatly from dodgy umpiring, but I see we've resorted to false equivalency.
And in any even Marshall still managed to perform practically identically home and away, as did McGrath, as did Hadlee. See the difference.

And you mentioned earlier that rating Imran in the top 10 is back handed compliment, I listed the bowlers I rate him with or even above, so no, it was a genuine rating and not trying to throw shade or be disingenuous in any way.

My 5 (of you agree or not)

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose


Imran, Wasim, Donald, Garner, Holding, Lillee

Davidson, Trueman, Lindwall

Pollock, Waqar, Miller, Roberts etc etc....

If that's an insult then probably then the lady doth protest too much.

 

[trundler]

Because Benaud was a hypocrite, his false and misplaced indignation was a joke.

The WI didn't benefit greatly from dodgy umpiring, but I see we've resorted to false equivalency.
And in any even Marshall still managed to perform practically identically home and away, as did McGrath, as did Hadlee. See the difference.

And you mentioned earlier that rating Imran in the top 10 is back handed compliment, I listed the bowlers I rate him with or even above, so no, it was a genuine rating and not trying to throw shade or be disingenuous in any way.

My 5 (of you agree or not)

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose


Imran, Wasim, Donald, Garner, Holding, Lillee

Davidson, Trueman, Lindwall

Pollock, Waqar, Miller, Roberts etc etc....

If that's an insult then probably then the lady doth protest too much.

Cool, no answers for any of the facts I've raised regarding Imran's away record. Have a good day.

 

[Slifer]

Astute observation. Whatever it was, it was so significant that it made Benaud disqualify them from his list of great players completely. Let's not forget that West Indies benefited greatly from dodgy home umpiring too which seems to be the main contention here.

Dodgy home umpiring or not, no team in the 80s were beating peak WI at home and none came remotely close. No team. Even the Pakistan team that drew in '88, came up against a WI already on it's way down. That WI team was missing the likes of Lloyd, Garner, and Holding. Marshall and Richards missed the first and only test that the WI lost.

And every one of Marshall, Ambrose, Holding and Garner all averaged sub 25 home and away so dodgy home umpiring or not, they were great wherever they went with just a few exceptions.

 

[Slifer]

Because Benaud was a hypocrite, his false and misplaced indignation was a joke.

The WI didn't benefit greatly from dodgy umpiring, but I see we've resorted to false equivalency.
And in any even Marshall still managed to perform practically identically home and away, as did McGrath, as did Hadlee. See the difference.

And you mentioned earlier that rating Imran in the top 10 is back handed compliment, I listed the bowlers I rate him with or even above, so no, it was a genuine rating and not trying to throw shade or be disingenuous in any way.

My 5 (of you agree or not)

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee

Steyn
Ambrose


Imran, Wasim, Donald, Garner, Holding, Lillee

Davidson, Trueman, Lindwall

Pollock, Waqar, Miller, Roberts etc etc....

If that's an insult then probably then the lady doth protest too much.

A huge one at that. Nobody bounced batsmen as much as his beloved Lillee and Thompson and going further back, Lindwall and Miller practically used to Bodyline the likes of Weekes and Walcott. In any event, Richie never called his eleven the best of anything, it's the team he wanted to see play together and represent him.

 

[trundler]

Dodgy home umpiring or not, no team in the 80s were beating peak WI at home and none came remotely close. No team. Even the Pakistan team that drew in '88, came up against a WI already on it's way down. That WI team was missing the likes of Lloyd, Garner, and Holding. Marshall and Richards missed the first and only test that the WI lost.

That's not the point. West Indies were still the best in the world. Imran beats them in '88 without dodgy umpiring. Dodgy umpiring wasn't exclusive to Pakistan.

And every one of Marshall, Ambrose, Holding and Garner all averaged sub 25 home and away so dodgy home umpiring or not, they were great wherever they went with just a few exceptions

None of them played as batsmen when they were no longer top class as bowlers. Imran debuted before and retired after all of them. None of them have 10 wicket hauls in 4 different away countries. I have already demonstrated why just going by averages is dumb.

 

[Slifer]

That's not the point. West Indies were still the best in the world. Imran beats them in '88 without dodgy umpiring. Dodgy umpiring wasn't exclusive to Pakistan.

None of them played as batsmen when they were no longer top class as bowlers. Imran debuted before and retired after all of them. None of them have 10 wicket hauls in 4 different away countries. I have already demonstrated why just going by averages is dumb.

Ok then freaking rate Imran over all of them then if you like ffs.

 

[subshakerz]

Dodgy home umpiring or not, no team in the 80s were beating peak WI at home and none came remotely close. No team. Even the Pakistan team that drew in '88, came up against a WI already on it's way down. That WI team was missing the likes of Lloyd, Garner, and Holding. Marshall and Richards missed the first and only test that the WI lost.

Fair enough but given that it is the only test WI lost at home that decade and the only time they didn't win a series that decade, it was a noteworthy achievement. WI were still a better team than Pakistan.

 

[trundler]

Ok then freaking rate Imran over all of them then if you like ffs.

Imran is ahead of all bar Marshall for me. Imran's away record is certainly more decorated than all bar Macko.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

West Indian bowlers of the time famously had no one object to their tactics and gamesmanship. Nobody ever accused them West Indies of unfairness and taking libraries with the rules.

Why would anyone have a problem with taking libraries with the rules? Maybe they wanted to read some books on the rules of the game.

 

[Slifer]

Imran is ahead of all bar Marshall for me. Imran's away record is certainly more decorated than all bar Macko.

Decorated? Meaning what exactly? The West Indian bowlers were never going to take more 10 fors for obvious reasons. But Garner for example averaged 19.7 sr of 50.6 and had a wpm of 4.7 away. And his highest average away is 25 in Australia.

 

[kyear2]

Not Imran's fault.

This is just punishing Imran for standing out in his home conditions.

You have not responded to the context I presented around his stats in England. He has a series defining 10 wicket haul there in a high scoring series. England = good conditions is a laughably dumb and simplistic assumption. Prove how these were easy conditions.

The problem isn't necessarily your ranking but that you seem to have dedicated yourself to long term anti Imran propaganda based on the dumbest, most surface level reasons which get debunked every time you bring them up.

You did not address why I think his last phase is irrelevant when comparing him to bowlers also.

Keep dodging them. I'll keep bringing them up.

Not Imran's fault, but not an equal comparison either

I'm not punishing Imran for standing out in his home conditions, I'm placing why he did into context.

So saying England is generally good bowling conditions, especially in that era is debunked because of one series? The match in question was one where England didn't pass 200 in either innings, I'm a bit lost.
The last two matches could be seen as high scoring, but in fourth there was a flurry of wickets in both second innings and the last Pakistan batted well, but still effortlessly bowled out England in their first innings and ran out of steam in their second.

Additionally the West Indies travelled to England the following year and Birmingham aside played on the same pitches and routed England. But I'm guessing the conditions drastically changed during that time.

I do not have anti Imran sentiments, nor do I engage in propaganda against anyone not named Novak Djokovic or 2021 Max Verstappen. I just find it annoying that you'll ignore or sweep over the fact that he ball tampered and that more than most he benefitted from favorable home umpires. He basically acknowledged both in various forums, more indirectly for the latter, but yeah.
And as I've said, none of these factors drops him to anything less than the great champion he was.

Please point out any additional questions that I haven't answered, because it's a bit tough keeping up with the posts