Imran Khan vs Shane Warne (as bowlers)

[OverratedSanity]

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 still don't get it, it's not about where you rate him, it's the reasons that we find extremely questionable and lacking in consistency. Peer opinion in particular is one you use only when convenient.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'll type it out now from memory, be prepared for some slight English bias...

1) Don Bradman
2) WG Grace
3) Garfield Sobers
4) Shane Warne
5) Jack Hobbs
6) Sachin Tendulkar
7) Sydney Barnes
8) Walter Hammond
9) Vivian Richards
10) Adam Gilchrist

11) Malcolm Marshall
12) Glenn McGrath
13) Muttiah Muralitharan
14) Imran Khan
15) Wilfred Rhodes
16) Keith Miller
17) Len Hutton
18) Ian Botham
19) Dennis Lillee
20) George Headley
21) Denis Compton
22) Fred Trueman
23) Bill O'Reilly
24) Brian Lara
25) Richard Hadlee
26) Sunil Gavaskar
27) Frederick Spofforth
28) Barry Richards
29) Alec Bedser
30) Victor Trumper
31) Ray Lindwall
32) Everton Weekes
33) Jim Laker
34) Wasim Akram
35) Kumar Singh Ranjithsingh
36) Waqar Younis
37) Graeme Pollock
38) Greg Chappell
39) Frank Worrell
40) Frank Woolley
41) Richie Benaud
42) Peter May
43) Herbert Sutcliffe
44) Graham Gooch
45) Clyde Walcott
46) Ken Barrington
47) Ricky Ponting
48) Kapil Dev
49) Harold Larwood
50) George Lohmann.
51) Curtly Ambrose
52) Jacques Kallis
53) Geoffrey Boycott
54) Clarrie Grimmett
55) Allan Border
56) Learie Constantine
57) Javed Miandad
58) Kumar Sangakkara
59) Hedley Verity
60) Kevin Pietersen
61) Arthur Shrewsbury
62) Bishen Bedi
63) Steve Waugh
64) Les Ames
65) Stanley McCabe
66) John Snow
67) Sanath Jayasuriya
68) Mike Proctor
69) Alan Knott
70) David Gower
71) Jack Gregory
72) Clive Lloyd
73) Martin Donnelly
74) Rahul Dravid
75) Ted Dexter
76) Andy Flower
77) Maurice Tate
78) Colin Cowdrey
79) Mahela Jayawardene
80) CB Fry
81) Bill Ponsford
82) Andrew Flintoff
83) Allan Donald
84) Gilbert Jessop
85) Michael Holding
86) Zaheer Abbas
87) Neil Harvey
88) Abdul Qadir
89) Brian Statham
90) Lance Gibbs
91) Ian Healy
92) Courtney Walsh
93) Graeme Smith
94) Virender Sehwag
95) Charlie Turner
96) Vijay Merchant
97) Shaun Pollock
98) Martin Crowe
99) Anil Kumble
100) Charles Macartney

This list was published in the summer of 2009.

Kevin ****ing Pietersen at number 60 ahead of Steve Waugh, Rahul Dravid, Allan Donald, Michael Holding, etc. Jesus that's embarrassing.

What on earth is Jayasuriya doing in there too?

 

[kyear2]

You still don't get it, it's not about where you rate him, it's the reasons that we find extremely questionable and lacking in consistency. Peer opinion in particular is one you use only when convenient.

Half of what CW uses is peer opinion, unless it doesn't fit the narrative.

How we determine how good Hammond, Hobbs, O'Reilly was, but that's beyond the point.

I'm not saying to use peer opinions, I'm not even saying I believe a lot of it, because so much of it is subjective. All I ****ing asked was if Imran was so far above reproach and on the level of Sobers and Bradman, why did he get only 15 votes? When you're so far above the fray, the subjectivity disappears and consensus occurs.

The amount of players on that level is two, period. Everything and one else is apparently subjective.

 

[trundler]

Half of what CW uses is peer opinion, unless it doesn't fit the narrative.

Speak for yourself. At least you've admitted to being a hypocrite here I suppose.

All I ****ing asked was if Imran was so far above reproach and on the level of Sobers and Bradman, why did he get only 15 votes? When you're so far above the fray, the subjectivity disappears and consensus occurs

The same reason Hadlee is underrated despite being a superior player to Lillee. The whims of English writers aren't always reasonable.

The amount of players on that level is two, period.

False. Bradman is Bradman and then Imran and Sobers are pretty close to each other. Imran is as ahead of the next best bowling AR as Sobers is of the next best batting AR.

 

[subshakerz]

Half of what CW uses is peer opinion, unless it doesn't fit the narrative.

How we determine how good Hammond, Hobbs, O'Reilly was, but that's beyond the point.

I'm not saying to use peer opinions, I'm not even saying I believe a lot of it, because so much of it is subjective. All I ****ing asked was if Imran was so far above reproach and on the level of Sobers and Bradman, why did he get only 15 votes? When you're so far above the fray, the subjectivity disappears and consensus occurs.

The amount of players on that level is two, period. Everything and one else is apparently subjective.

I have given you several reasons why Imran is not rated by punditry on that level. Even in the video you posted they say he is underrated. For whatever reason, while he was always recognized as an ATG, it is clear his record never got the level of appreciation or even scrutiny as other ATGs of his period, whereas Botham maintained a high reputation despite a decade of mediocre returns until retirement. Probably because he was the first SC superstar and the cricket media in the SC didn't have the same weight.

If he were an English cricketer with that record, there is no doubt he would be a top 5 confirmed cricketer.

 

[CricAddict]

False. Bradman is Bradman and then Imran and Sobers are pretty close to each other. Imran is as ahead of the next best bowling AR as Sobers is of the next best batting AR.

Hadlee and Kallis

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm not saying to use peer opinions, I'm not even saying I believe a lot of it, because so much of it is subjective. All I ****ing asked was if Imran was so far above reproach and on the level of Sobers and Bradman, why did he get only 15 votes? When you're so far above the fray, the subjectivity disappears and consensus occurs.

Botham, Wasim and Lillee are rated frequently by peers and their opponents higher than their record merits. In the 2000 version of the Wisden list, Imran was rated higher than every single fast bowler except Lillee. Malcolm Marshall was rated lower than Kapil Dev, Botham, Denis Compton. He got three votes. Establishment farts who make these lists are biased and make mistakes.

If you yourself admit peer opinion shouldn't be used, then why use it, that too selectively only when it comes to not rating Imran highly and then choose to ignore it when it comes to your favourites like Marshall (when he was left out of benaud's shortlist).

I also don't think Imran was on par with Sobers, that is a fringe opinion for the most part.

 

[kyear2]

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.

I have absolutely no issue with placing him in my top 10. The list was put together quickly and I made multiple amendments and ended up with 14 names. TBH, outside of about 4 players, no one is an absolute lock.

With regards to my all time XI, I even posted a poll with 3 options as to which was the best attack, because with the balance I was looking for, they were all incredibly close. Imran was literally in one of the 3. Actually last I checked all 3 were tied on votes.

To your final point, I genuinely don't know (if he had special advantages). As much as Trundler has tried to explain away all the discrepancies, especially with the away record, that isn't required for the others in the top tier. Additionally the same way you feel about Kallis's batting I feel about his.

But I also have no doubt that he was the best batsman of the top tier bowlers and the best bowling all rounder, though I believe Hadlee was easily the better bowler. And to follow on from that, I believe he was at best the 6th best fast bowler ever and just outside my top tier (that you don't have to agree with). So why in a team with a top order of Hutton, Gavaskar, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Gilchrist, would I not just go with who I believe is the absolute best attack? And if I feel the need to slightly compromise, then why not go with Hadlee (over McGrath), who everyone here agrees is better than Imran as a bowler but can also provide batting depth.
I also explained why I chose the bowlers I do
I want one of each different type, I also want if possible bowlers from different eras.
Marshall the no. 1, performed well everywhere in all conditions, and could do it all, extreme pace, swing, adaptability, intimidation, accuracy.
McGrath, accuracy, intensity, seam movement, that extra bounce and the ability to keep it tight, he also prospered in a time of less helpful conditions.
Steyn, again success in even more modern era, the incessant attacking for wickets and primarily his ridiculous strike rate, he's always coming for you.
That the attack I want, even though Hadlee wasn't far off McGrath and had more with the bat, in this scenario I just trust McGrath on a grater variety of pitches.
With this attack, I'm more concerned with getting a cordon that's not likely to spill chances, than I am with additional batting, again that includes the names above. Plus neither Marshall nor Warne are bunnies and could handle themselves with a bat.

Since I don't plan to revisit these topics again

A top 10

Bradman
Sobers
Hobbs
Marshall
Tendulkar
McGrath
Richards
Imran / Hadlee
Warne
Gilchrist

That still leaves out Hutton, who I love and think is the best opener ever. Murali the 1a of spinners, Hammond who was one of the absolute giants of the game, Kallis who some rate higher of an all rounder than Imran.

That still pisses off someone because why Warne and not Murali, where's Miller, how can you leave off Hammond?

It's not an insult to Imran, it's a testament to how many great and closely rated players there are over the long illustrious history of the game.

I know this still wouldn't make anyone happy, but this is my opinion.

 

[trundler]

To your final point, I genuinely don't know (if he had special advantages). As much as Trundler has tried to explain away all the discrepancies, especially with the away record, that isn't required for the others in the top tier.

This is just straight up anti intellectualism. Numbers don't exist in a vacuum ffs. Your whole analysis comes to fitting numbers into ranges. You've never actually addressed the points raised against your contentions regarding his away record but you just keep going back "average > X". And yet Imran's away record as a bowler isn't worse than Steyn or worse than Lara or Sobers. This was amply demonstrated by myself and others.

 

[kyear2]

Speak for yourself. At least you've admitted to being a hypocrite here I suppose.

The same reason Hadlee is underrated despite being a superior player to Lillee. The whims of English writers aren't always reasonable.

False. Bradman is Bradman and then Imran and Sobers are pretty close to each other. Imran is as ahead of the next best bowling AR as Sobers is of the next best batting AR.

Ahh yes, I guess you rate Bradman and Hobbs from the memories you have of them from before the war, and the only hypocrite here has been you, not to add arrogant and obtuse to refuse to accept that any perspective outside of yours can be valid.

Yeah, Sobers and Imran and not close. As I said, the last poll was 99 to 38.
Again with Wisden's list we aren't talking about scraping 15 to 30 votes where subjectivity kicks in, were talking 90 to 15. That's not remotely close and outside the realm of "the whims of British writers aren't always reasonable"
The next bowling all rounder behind Imran is Hadlee, who you've even admitted is a better bowler, which was their primary skill by the way, so the balance is weighted more in that direction. The next after Sobers is Kallis, who subs just said isn't a top 20 bat and bowling isn't nearly up to scratch to be seen as an all rounder.
When Widen named the all time test Team there was an article published, who after Bradman and Sobers? Oh, and on that head to head Sobers got 100% of the votes over Mr Khan, but I guess they were all British writers as well (8 captains from each of the major test playing nations and 4 historians / writers).

 

[trundler]

yes, I guess you rate Bradman and Hobbs from the memories you have of them from before the war, and the only hypocrite here has been you, not to add arrogant and obtuse to refuse to accept that any perspective outside of yours can be valid

I rate them based on what they did and how they fared relative to their oppositions. I don't rate Stan McCabe higher than Dudley Nourse because I recognise that a lot of those writers have very apparent biases. Again, your opinions themselves aren't as awful as your absurd reasoning.

 

[trundler]

Again with Wisden's list we aren't talking about scraping 15 to 30 votes where subjectivity kicks in, were talking 90 to 15. That's not remotely close and outside the realm of "the whims of British writers aren't always reasonable"

The same list still had Hadlee far behind Lillee. Keep dodging that point.

The next after Sobers is Kallis, who subs just said isn't a top 20 bat and bowling isn't nearly up to scratch to be seen as an all rounder.

Subs, well known for his balanced opinions on Kallis.

When Widen named the all time test Team there was an article published, who after Bradman and Sobers? Oh, and on that head to head Sobers got 100% of the votes over Mr Khan, but I guess they were all British writers as well (8 captains from each of the major test playing nations and 4 historians / writers).

More waffle about peer reputation. Wow 8 people said something, must be gospel.

 

[trundler]

The next bowling all rounder behind Imran is Hadlee, who you've even admitted is a better bowler, which was their primary skill by the way, so the balance is weighted more in that direction.

Also this leads to Miller being a worse all rounder than Pollock. Nonsensical. Imran was marginally worse than Hadlee as a bowler, if at all, and far better as a batsman.

 

[kyear2]

Also this leads to Miller being a worse all rounder than Pollock. Nonsensical. Imran was marginally worse than Hadlee as a bowler, if at all, and far better as a batsman.

This is again, your opinion. Hadlee was a better bowler than Imran, that's one thing that this entire forum agrees on. I've never seen Hadlee outside of the top 3, while last I checked Imran got well beaten by Steyn who is definitely behind Hadlee, and I've seen multiple posters say they have Imran as top 10 or borderline top 10.

 

[kyear2]

The same list still had Hadlee far behind Lillee. Keep dodging that point.

Subs, well known for his balanced opinions on Kallis.

More waffle about peer reputation. Wow 8 people said something, must be gospel.

Wow, Trundler said something, must be gospel

 

[trundler]

This is again, your opinion. Hadlee was a better bowler than Imran, that's one thing that this entire forum agrees on. I've never seen Hadlee outside of the top 3, while last I checked Imran got well beaten by Steyn who is definitely behind Hadlee, and I've seen multiple posters say they have Imran as top 10 or borderline top 10.

And that's just your opinion. This discussion is a tangent anyway. The same pundits you keep citing to denigrate Imran also have Lillee and Barnes ahead of Hadlee. You now cite CW consensus on their bowling but need I remind you that the vast majority have him top 5 at worst in another ongoing poll and as many have him top 2 as do top 10. But I suppose consistency isn't your forte.

 

[subshakerz]

This is again, your opinion. Hadlee was a better bowler than Imran, that's one thing that this entire forum agrees on. I've never seen Hadlee outside of the top 3, while last I checked Imran got well beaten by Steyn who is definitely behind Hadlee, and I've seen multiple posters say they have Imran as top 10 or borderline top 10.

Can we agree that calling on pundit lists is shaky evidence for proving anything definitive?

CW sees Imran as a firm no.3 ATG but this isn't a far cry from most pundits having in the top 10. Hadlee and Marshall suffer worse. The collective cricket punditry is deluded about Warne too.

There is a difference between peer reputation and pundits listing things with their own selective criteria.

 

[trundler]

Wow, Trundler said something, must be gospel

Still no response to why players from smaller nations such as Hadlee, Nourse, and Murali are rated a lot lower than is warranted by the same pundits in addition to Imran.

 

[trundler]

Can we agree that calling on pundit lists is shaky evidence for proving anything definitive?

They put Hadlee and Marshall way down too.

Just because CW sees Imran as a firm no.3 ATG. Punditry would put Warne as a top 5 ATG.

It is clear as day that the reason Warne is considered a much better cricketer than Murali by pundits is based largely on one playing in the Ashes and secondarily playing in a stronger team. That is to mark Murali down for being Sri Lankan which is absurd. Of course there are other reasons for having Warne ahead too but him being so far ahead in the eyes of pundits is a product of those reasons. And plainly Imran's feats such as taking 7 wickets per match in a series where no bowler did anything and then outdoing every great pacer in his backyard one by one are overlooked because they did not come in marquee series.

 

[subshakerz]

It is clear as day that the reason Warne is considered a much better cricketer than Murali by pundits is based largely on one playing in the Ashes and secondarily playing in a stronger team. That is to mark Murali down for being Sri Lankan which is absurd. Of course there are other reasons for having Warne ahead too but him being so far ahead in the eyes of pundits is a product of those reasons. And plainly Imran's feats such as taking 7 wickets per match in a series where no bowler did anything and then outdoing every great pacer in his backyard one by one are overlooked because they did not come in marquee series.

Yes clearly. Given all the clear Anglo-bias, I think Imran making the top ten in most lists is pretty impressive all said and done.