Imran Khan vs Shane Warne (as bowlers)

[kyear2]

There are few reasons Imran's peer rating isn't as higher:

- He was one of four of the era and hence the acclaim was split, with Botham getting much of the earlier plaudits and many commentators are begrudging on giving Imran his full due at Botham's expense

- Imran was clearly the best bowler in the world in the early 80s but injury cut his pace peak short before he could get higher acclaim. By the time he returned, Marshall had taken the mantle even though Imran was about as successful.

- Imran tends to get recognized as a captain first, often overshadowing even his bowling exploits

- Imran's batting wasn't the bombastic or stylish variety of other top all-rounders like Botham, Sobers, Miller, and goes under the radar.

I dont know how true this is, but I would say that similar to Sober's being an all rounder perceptively overshadowed his batting, that it was more the all rounder tag that took away some luster from the bowling.

 

[trundler]

Sobers overbowling himself to the detriment of his batting is relevent information when discussing him as a batsman but Imran playing through injury as a batting all rounder isn't when discussing him as a bowler. Cool and consistent analysis.

 

[kyear2]

Just on this, every country very much didn't get 11 votes. As per Wisden themselves:

" To reflect the pattern of cricket history, we established an electorate of 100, from all nine Test-playing countries but weighted to reflect each country's role in international cricket over the century, judged - very roughly - on the number of Tests played. So there were 28 English voters, 20 from Australia and so on down the line to just one from Zimbabwe. "

EDIT - I checked up on the full voter allocation and it was as follows:

28 England
20 Australia
11 South Africa
11 West Indies
10 India
8 New Zealand
8 Pakistan
3 Sri Lanka
1 Zimbabwe

Sorry, the post was directly speaking towards the comparison between Sobers and Imran, but yes it was 8 not 11.

But the point still remains that he got 15 votes out of 100 and 7 out of 92 non partisan voters.

 

[trundler]

Sorry, the post was directly speaking towards the comparison between Sobers and Imran, but yes it was 8 not 11.

But the point still remains that he got 15 votes out of 100 and 7 out of 92 non partisan voters.

Apparently peer reputation is an important metric when Imran doesn't do well on it but not so when West Indian quicks are largely ignored by Anglo-centric pundits because of their style of play. You also don't think that Lillee was a greater bowler to Hadlee so let's not pretend aren't cherry picking here. Do I need to remind you that Benaud didn't even short list a single West Indian quick but picked Imran in his all time XI?

 

[kyear2]

You keep bringing up peer reputation as an argument but you don't believe Lillee and Akram are the greatest ever so it's very much cherry picking. You asserted that Imran should be a top 3 player previously but "isn't" when that's literally the opposite of CW consensus. Having Sobers over Bradman but then leaving out the GOAT bowling all rounder is a hilarious contradiction. If you didn't have either in the list and truly prioritised specialists (Murali didn't even make the list) I wouldn't have a problem. So yeah leaving Imran out is as ridiculous as not having Marshall in your top 3 quicks and you should feel bad. The bloke that thinks Hayden is better than Tendulkar can't catch a break for it either. Ridiculous opinions should be ridiculed by definition

Ok, I'll try to answer point by point.

I'm not saying you have to believe peer reputation, and I'm not cherry picking to say believe them about this and not that, that was never my point. My point is if you believe Imran is uncontested and can't legitimately be left off a list, then that opinion should be mirrored by the larger community, which it isn't. If it's that overwhelming that I can't possibly omit him, then it should be a way more consensus choice.

You're annoyed because I have Sobers one spot higher than anyone else. Ok, let's say he's two, which he would be more often than not. Your argument is if I have the best batting all rounder, then I should have the best bowling all rounder, fair point. Sobers isn't in second because he's the best all rounder, as I have consistently said, all weightings are primarily based on the primary skill. He's there because he's the 2nd best batsman who can also do other things that adds to it. Sobers is in my top tier of batsmen, Imran isn't in my top tier of bowlers. It's not that difficult.
And why do I have to include Murali, it's 10, and all of them are worthy. Who did I have that wasn't deserving.
As I've said in this thread, I rate fast bowlers higher than spinners because they are more efficient and versatile.

And again, Imran isn't a can't omit player, there only two of those. And he's a possiblity for 10 as well. It was a list quickly out together and he was in the set of players mentioned. Relax dude.

 

[BazBall21]

 

[trundler]

I'm not saying you have to believe peer reputation, and I'm not cherry picking to say believe them about this and not that, that was never my point. My point is if you believe Imran is uncontested and can't legitimately be left off a list, then that opinion should be mirrored by the larger community, which it isn't. If it's that overwhelming that I can't possibly omit him, then it should be a way more consensus choice.

Sure, no one has to believe it but you only bring it up when it's convenient. Imran being left out of those lists is a product of Anglo-centrism and referencing something you don't even believe to be accurate is a poor argument. Imran being left out is a possibility but it doesn't make reasons for leaving him out spurious and incredulous. It's as big a call as leaving Tendulkar out of your BAB tier.

You're annoyed because I have Sobers one spot higher than anyone else. Ok, let's say he's two, which he would be more often than not. Your argument is if I have the best batting all rounder, then I should have the best bowling all rounder, fair point. Sobers isn't in second because he's the best all rounder, as I have consistently said, all weightings are primarily based on the primary skill. He's there because he's the 2nd best batsman who can also do other things that adds to it. Sobers is in my top tier of batsmen, Imran isn't in my top tier of bowlers. It's not that difficult.

Imran isn't a worse specialist than Sobers. You make allowances for the special circumstances that Sobers faced but don't for Imran. Imran's away record isn't worse than Sobers's either. Sobers isn't unquestionably better than Imran. Multiple people here would have Imran ahead. Imran was also a better captain than Sobers.

And again, Imran isn't a can't omit player, there only two of those. And he's a possiblity for 10 as well. It was a list quickly out together and he was in the set of players mentioned. Relax dude.

He is though. He's much closer to Sobers than he is to the 10th greatest player of all time. I have entertained each of your arguments to the contrary several times and they get KO'd each time. You literally just made up Wisden's list having equal representation in an attempt to diminish Imran but were again quickly corrected.

So yeah, Imran is a dead certainty for a top 5, let alone top 10. Run a poll on it.

 

[kyear2]

Sure, no one has to believe it but you only bring it up when it's convenient. Imran being left out of those lists is a product of Anglo-centrism and referencing something you don't even believe to be accurate is a poor argument. Imran being left out is a possibility but it doesn't make reasons for leaving him out spurious and incredulous. It's as big a call as leaving Tendulkar out of your BAB tier.

Imran isn't a worse specialist than Sobers. You make allowances for the special circumstances that Sobers faced but don't for Imran. Imran's away record isn't worse than Sobers's either. Sobers isn't unquestionably better than Imran. Multiple people here would have Imran ahead. Imran was also a better captain than Sobers.

He is though. He's much closer to Sobers than he is to the 10th greatest player of all time. I have entertained each of your arguments to the contrary several times and they get KO'd each time. You literally just made up Wisden's list having equal representation in an attempt to diminish Imran but were again quickly corrected.

So yeah, Imran is a dead certainty for a top 5, let alone top 10. Run a poll on it.

Ok the list was anglo centric, but still featured two west indians. Including one that got 90 votes. Imran didn't not make the top 5 because he wasn't British it Australian, he didn't because only 15 of them thought he was good enough, I could guarantee you that if it were a few years later, Sachin would have been there. Now if you ssif it was batman focused on would have been more inclined to agree. But even then, if he was as undisputed as you say, persons would have included him.

I don't make special allowances, I basically said imagine it Sobers didn't over bowl himself, he doesn't need allowances to be rated where he is.

It's not undisputed, but the last poll was quite conclusive, believe it was 99 to 38, you can feel free to do another. Even in this poll he's loosing as a bowler to Warne.

I never said it was equal representation, and I cleared up what I was trying to say. I was incorrect though, and Pakistan didn't have 11 voters, just 8. West Indies had 11, but I guess that was enough to make up the difference between Sobers and Imran's votes.

The main point though, is that I may disagree but hey, it's your opinion. You on the other hand is trying, a bit too hard I must say, to force your opinion on me.

 

[trundler]

Ok the list was anglo centric, but still featured two west indians. Including one that got 90 votes. Imran didn't not make the top 5 because he wasn't British it Australian, he didn't because only 15 of them thought he was good enough, I could guarantee you that if it were a few years later, Sachin would have been there. Now if you ssif it was batman focused on would have been more inclined to agree. But even then, if he was as undisputed as you say, persons would have included him.

That list is irrelevant. You never actually respond to my points but keep repeating yourself.

I don't make special allowances, I basically said imagine it Sobers didn't over bowl himself, he doesn't need allowances to be rated where he is.

Nor does Imran. His record is as brilliant as Sobers's.

It's not undisputed, but the last poll was quite conclusive, believe it was 99 to 38, you can feel free to do another. Even in this poll he's loosing as a bowler to Warne.

As a bowler but not as a cricketer. Not everyone subscribes to your view of great pacers being inherently superior to hear spinners. Many people would have Warne as the greatest bowler of all time, or close to it. Don't make this poll something it isn't. Sure, that's decisive but Imran still has arguments in his favour. I didn't mean run a poll on Imran v Sobers. I meant on whether Imran makes a top 5 or not.

The main point though, is that I may disagree but hey, it's your opinion. You on the other hand is trying, a bit too hard I must say, to force your opinion on me.

I'm not forcing my opinion on you. I just find yours ridiculous and I'm appropriately ridiculing it. Your opinions themselves don't annoy but your apparent inconsistency and poor reasoning.

 

[kyear2]

That list is irrelevant. You never actually respond to my points but keep repeating yourself.

Nor does Imran. His record is as brilliant as Sobers's.

As a bowler but not as a cricketer. Not everyone subscribes to your view of great pacers being inherently superior to hear spinners. Many people would have Warne as the greatest bowler of all time, or close to it. Don't make this poll something it isn't. Sure, that's decisive but Imran still has arguments in his favour. I didn't mean run a poll on Imran v Sobers. I meant on whether Imran makes a top 5 or not.



I'm not forcing my opinion on you. I just find yours ridiculous and I'm appropriately ridiculing it. Your opinions themselves don't annoy but your apparent inconsistency and poor reasoning.

The list of Wisden is irrelevant but your opinion isn't, got it. You don't see it do you, you're the one that dismisses everything that doesn't conform you your beliefs, because heaven forbid you're not right.

My reasoning isn't inconsistent, and just because you disagree with it doesn't make it poor. But obviously you would prefer a society where everyone agree with you.

 

[trundler]

The list of Wisden is irrelevant but your opinion isn't, got it. You don't see it do you, you're the one that dismisses everything that doesn't conform you your beliefs, because heaven forbid you're not right

Of course my opinion is relevant when we're discussing it. You never addressed the my problems with that list. You also don't fully agree with it yourself and you never seem to bring up peer reputation aside from this case. Virtually every pundit considers Lillee > Hadlee. You don't think that's relevant when you're making your own list, do you?

My reasoning isn't inconsistent, and just because you disagree with it doesn't make it poor.

Each of your contentions with Imran also applies to other cricketers you rate highly. Aka you're being inconsistent. This was thoroughly dealt with before and you had no answers to it so I'll refrain from beating a dead horse. Your rejection of your inconsistency doesn't make you consistent either.

 

[kyear2]

Of course my opinion is relevant when we're discussing it. You never addressed the my problems with that list. You also don't fully agree with it yourself and you never seem to bring up peer reputation aside from this case. Virtually every pundit considers Lillee > Hadlee. You don't think that's relevant when you're making your own list, do you?

Each of your contentions with Imran also applies to other cricketers you rate highly. Aka you're being inconsistent. This was thoroughly dealt with before and you had no answers to it so I'll refrain from beating a dead horse. Your rejection of your inconsistency doesn't make you consistent either.

You are missing my point, when players are close, as many of those are, it can be very subjective.
What you are trying to tell me is that Imran is on the same plane as Bradman and Sobers, where it's just idiotic to argue or disagree. If that's the case, it should be undisputable to the point that no one disagrees.
You're not talking about arguably better, where some Aussies swear for Lillee, you're talking about a chiseled in mount Rushmore, surely is that's inarguable then Wisden could overcome their "bias" like they did for Sobers.

Im not remotely arguing with you that the list was perfect or that I agree, but if Imran is so beyond reproach, why didn't 85 people see it like that?
You're invalidating me and my opinion because he can't be omitted, yet many do

 

[trundler]

You're invalidating me and my opinion because he can't be omitted, yet many do

Sometimes lots of people are wrong.

You're not talking about arguably better, where some Aussies swear for Lillee, you're talking about a chiseled in mount Rushmore, surely is that's inarguable then Wisden could overcome their "bias" like they did for Sobers.

Word salad. Hadlee is pretty clearly better than Lillee and in a different tier according to your own rankings but you don't abide by this so peer reputation can't be that important. And you ignore the fact that Lillee is widely and comprehensively held to by better than Hadlee almost universally by the same peerage. Thus you fail to demonstrate how you aren't cherry picking wrt Imran.

 

[Coronis]

I like it when trundler attacks someone that’s not me.

 

[kyear2]

Sometimes lots of people are wrong.

Word salad. Hadlee is pretty clearly better than Lillee and in a different tier according to your own rankings but you don't abide by this so peer reputation can't be that important. And you ignore the fact that Lillee is widely and comprehensively held to by better than Hadlee almost universally by the same peerage. Thus you fail to demonstrate how you aren't cherry picking wrt Imran.

You're deliberately missing my point, so I'll end this here until the next time I mention Imran or Wasim.

Btw, been reading a Wasim vs Kallis thread, apparently there's a trend

 

[subshakerz]

Sorry, the post was directly speaking towards the comparison between Sobers and Imran, but yes it was 8 not 11.

But the point still remains that he got 15 votes out of 100 and 7 out of 92 non partisan voters.

Doesn't Imran get picked in the top ten of most cricket lists out there though? Certainly in the Wisden one towards the millennium, and plenty of ATG XIs, such as Benaud, Dickie Bird and Geoff Armstrong.

Fair to say though that we on CW rate him slightly higher though than punditry but it's not a huge stretch.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

So yeah, Imran is a dead certainty for a top 5, let alone top 10. Run a poll on it.

Should I do it?

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Should I do it?

Like you won't do it if he said no

 

[kyear2]

Doesn't Imran get picked in the top ten of most cricket lists out there though? Certainly in the Wisden one towards the millennium, and plenty of ATG XIs, such as Benaud, Dickie Bird and Geoff Armstrong.

Fair to say though that we on CW rate him slightly higher though than punditry but it's not a huge stretch.

That's the thing, I don't not rate Imran. I think he's amazing and an all time great. It's a toss up whether he makes my first team or not and really have nothing against him. But apparently that isn't good enough for some

 

[subshakerz]

That's the thing, I don't not rate Imran. I think he's amazing and an all time great. It's a toss up whether he makes my first team or not and really have nothing against him. But apparently that isn't good enough for some

You are probably the only one here who seems to rate him less than even most cricket punditry.

I think the perception here is that you are uncomfy with giving him a top 10 or ATG first XI spot because you think he's got 'special advantages' to get to ATG status and you refuse to give full credit even his away exploits.