Imran Khan vs Shane Warne (as bowlers)

[OverratedSanity]

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.

It's only Anglo bias when Benaud leaves West Indian bowlers out of his ATG XI.

 

[subshakerz]

It's only Anglo bias when Benaud leaves West Indian bowlers out of his ATG XI.

That was so disappointing. He didn't even have WI bowlers in his shortlist.

 

[trundler]

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.

Larwood was farther ahead of Marshall on that list than Warne was ahead of Imran. West Indian quicks are basically excluded from pundits for spurious reasons and yet that has no bearing on how we rate them as cricketers. Compton is exalted to a supreme status for his role in restoring English cricket after the War but Imran or Hadlee lifting up their nations to such an extent that their histories are written as pre and post Imran or Hadlee is ignored. It is such an offensively dumb hill to die on.

 

[kyear2]

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.

I need to recap how this endless loop started. I posted a list, to which Trundler said, if you don't have Imran in your list, and I believe in the top 5 it isn't valid.
He just didn't laugh at it, he referenced it while replying to other posts, saying that all lists are better than mine because they included Imran (which mine did include btw).
He said the notion of a list without Imran Khan should be ridiculed because it was so far outside of the realm of possibility and reason.

If that is the case, then why is it that everyone else doesn't either. I didn't argue that Maco should be, has to be in anyone's top 5 or that his list isn't valid without it. You can't tell me no list is complete with out Imran when they are also so many that exists.

And both of you are refusing to see the point I'm making.

Now to the bolded response. We're comparing groups of 100 and 8 to one man's opinion, even though he explicitly said, this isn't the best team, it's the team I want to represent me. Everyone knew why he didn't include any of them in his short list, the same reason he didn't include Murali. The hypocrisy comes when he then chooses Larwood and Lillee who were known and renowned for the same tactics he resented the WI bowlers for. So again, there was nothing there to ignore. And again I would never say a list is invalidated if MM, IVA or anyone isn't on it.

So it's not about hypocrisy, he set a ridiculous and idiotic standard that isn't substantiated by anything other than his arrogance.

And this is a crusade for him when it comes to Imran and Wasim, which he takes too ****ing far and personal and I've seen it on other threads that he sees it as his birthright to defend them to the end. I have no such obligations.
If the next time we're picking teams and to prove a point, no one decides to choose Maco or Sobers, you think I would engage in the ad hominem attacks that he has resorted to, or even care for that matter?

 

[trundler]

Imran's away record is a mark against but Sobers, Lara or Steyn's isn't. Imran's home record doesn't count because of biased umpiring but the beneficiaries of Croft, Harper, Barker et al aren't held to this same standard. Imran's peer reputation is lower than his statistical superiority so the latter should be ignored but Hadlee and the West Indian quicks being also-rans to Barnes, Trueman, Lillee and Wasim by the same metrics doesn't matter. Imran being a top 6-10 quick on CW settles the debate on his status as a bowler but him being a universal top 5 pick on here is somehow irrelevant.

 

[kyear2]

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.

Sachin, Richards, Sobers, Akram are adored by same voters, while I have never said we should use these as gospel, let's not pretend that it's down to strict anglo bias.

 

[trundler]

If that is the case, then why is it that everyone else doesn't either. I didn't argue that Maco should be, has to be in anyone's top 5 or that his list isn't valid without it. You can't tell me no list is complete with out Imran when they are also so many that exists.

Still no response to this:

It's only Anglo bias when Benaud leaves West Indian bowlers out of his ATG XI.

So it's not about hypocrisy, he set a ridiculous and idiotic standard that isn't substantiated by anything other than his arrogance.

I have substantiated it plenty. You saying I haven't doesn't make it so.

And this is a crusade for him when it comes to Imran and Wasim, which he takes too ****ing far and personal and I've seen it on other threads that he sees it as his birthright to defend them to the end. I have no such obligations.

There are a lot of moronic takes on Wasim too, yes. Good observation. Putting slip fielding on a pedestal but ignoring how poor slip fielding affected Wasim is beyond ********, for instance.

If the next time we're picking teams and to prove a point, no one decides to choose Maco or Sobers, you think I would engage in the ad hominem attacks that he has resorted to, or even care for that matter?

If someone spent 10 years trying to peddle myths regarding them then eventually other posters would call that poster out too.

 

[trundler]

Sachin, Richards, Sobers, Akram are adored by same voters, while I have never said we should use these as gospel, let's not pretend that it's down to strict anglo bias.

Style and flair also come into it. None of those things make someone a better player.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Akram are adored by same voters

Yes but the problem is you don't acknowledge the adoration Akram gets from his peers as a legit reason to rank him as highly as they do. You rightly rank him lower than Marshall Mcgrath Hadlee Steyn etc. because you know that the adoration doesn't stand up to scrutiny (which I agree with).

My intention is not to turn this into a personal fight, never has been. But I find much of your justifications that Imran and Akram shouldn't be rated as highly compared to your favourite players to be rather inconsistently applied. I've tried to point this out as firmly as possible without being needlessly rude (well I think so anyway) .

 

[subshakerz]

Sachin, Richards, Sobers, Akram are adored by same voters, while I have never said we should use these as gospel, let's not pretend that it's down to strict anglo bias.

Not strictly Anglo-bias but someone with Imran's numbers doesn't get his fair share for some reason.

The Anglo-bias in Imran's case comes in comparison with Botham who he is often seen in competition with.

 

[kyear2]

Imran's away record is a mark against but Sobers, Lara or Steyn's isn't. Imran's home record doesn't count because of biased umpiring but the beneficiaries of Croft, Harper, Barker et al aren't held to this same standard. Imran's peer reputation is lower than his statistical superiority so the latter should be ignored but Hadlee and the West Indian quicks being also-rans to Barnes, Trueman, Lillee and Wasim by the same metrics doesn't matter. Imran being a top 6-10 quick on CW settles the debate on his status as a bowler but him being a universal top 5 pick on here is somehow irrelevant.

You're completely missing my point. I don't give a flying **** where you rate anyone.

I also don't care about pundit ratings

This entire thing was because you tried to say that Imran was so above the fray, his status so above discussion that anyone not agreeing with you should be ridiculed. You set the standard that everyone agrees with you and anyone who doesn't, have no clue what they are talking about. I'm just showing you that you stance made no sense.

That's it. He's not inarguably anything. He's not in my first team, who gives a damn.
But you cannot possibly fathom that everyone doesn't see him the way you do. That's insane.
Coronis doesn't like Viv, I rib him about it (literally once since my return) and move on. He's entitled to his opinion and it's not inarguable that Hammond deserves to be in a first team, I disagree but I wouldn't start a multi page , multi thread war over it.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes but the problem is you don't acknowledge the adoration Akram gets from his peers as a legit reason to rank him as highly as they do. You rightly rank him lower than Marshall Mcgrath Hadlee Steyn etc. because you know that the adoration doesn't stand up to scrutiny (which I agree with).

My intention is not to turn this into a personal fight, never has been. But I find much of your justifications that Imran and Akram shouldn't be rated as highly compared to your favourite players to be rather inconsistently applied. I've tried to point this out as firmly as possible without being needlessly rude (well I think so anyway) .

Peer rating is different from pundit listing. Let us not confuse the two.

The former is a factor to consider, the latter means far less.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Peer rating is different from pundit listing. Let us not confuse the two.

The former is a factor to consider, the latter means far less.

They are both close to worthless for me. But fair enough, they are indeed a little different.

 

[trundler]

This entire thing was because you tried to say that Imran was so above the fray, his status so above discussion that anyone not agreeing with you should be ridiculed. You set the standard that everyone agrees with you and anyone who doesn't, have no clue what they are talking about. I'm just showing you that you stance made no sense.

I said Imran is a certainty for a top 10 list. Precisely, I said he is a lot closer to top 2 than the bottom of that list. You keep saying I find your opinions ridiculous because I disagree with them but I've pointed out that whilst they are such, the bigger issue is your clear double standards regarding Imran. I've pointed out specific examples and you've never responded to them. Sure, if someone doesn't have Viv in their top 10 batsmen, I would vehemently disagree with them too. If they routinely made awful arguments to put him down I'd get annoyed with them too.

 

[subshakerz]

They are both close to worthless for me. But fair enough, they are indeed a little different.

I give peer rating consideration. If batsmen tell me McGrath was so difficult to face for XYZ reasons, I use that opinion in my judgment, but not the sole factor.

 

[subshakerz]

I said Imran is a certainty for a top 10 list. Precisely, I said he is a lot closer to top 2 than the bottom of that list. You keep saying I find your opinions ridiculous because I disagree with them but I've pointed out that whilst they are such, the bigger issue is your clear double standards regarding Imran. I've pointed out specific examples and you've never responded to them. Sure, if someone doesn't have Viv in their top 10 batsmen, I would vehemently disagree with them too. If they routinely made awful arguments to put him down I'd get annoyed with them too.

Yeah, nobody cares that much if Kyear doesn't put Imran in his ATG XI.

 

[kyear2]

I said Imran is a certainty for a top 10 list. Precisely, I said he is a lot closer to top 2 than the bottom of that list. You keep saying I find your opinions ridiculous because I disagree with them but I've pointed out that whilst they are such, the bigger issue is your clear double standards regarding Imran. I've pointed out specific examples and you've never responded to them. Sure, if someone doesn't have Viv in their top 10 batsmen, I would vehemently disagree with them too. If they routinely made awful arguments to put him down I'd get annoyed with them too.

You seem my arguments to be awful because to take them as a personal affront.

When ever Imran's name is even mentioned you jump and it's not just me.

Why would I respond to you when we've litigated them a thousand times. You hijack every thread every single time anyone mentions Imran or Wasim.
Sobers record at home was better because the ****ing pitches were flat. Peterhrt explained that, I've explained that, it's not difficult to understand. That 364 was a road vs **** bowling. No one uses that to say why he was in the top tier of batsmen after Bradman.
Lara was inconsistent as ****, which is the real reason no one besides HB has his above Sachin, plus Antigua was his playground, because again flat.
Steyn was better at home because they were the sole bastion of lively pitches in the era, same reason Smith and to a lesser extent Kallis struggled at home.
But beyond all of that you claim, I still rate the man 6th all time, well possibly 7th, but let's say 6th, which is at worst 1 spot behind where most have him. What's the ****ing problem.

The problem is that you want me to think what you do, he's second all time behind Bradman, no, for me is just isn't. I don't value bowling all rounder's as highly as you and some do. That has nothing to do with Imran. I don't even place that high a premium on batting all rounders, and while I do realise the need to have rotation bowlers, Hammond level is good enough for me. To be honest I wish Sobers had just batted at 4 and stood at second slip instead of killing himself with the ball, just a few overs here and there. And guess what he's still top 5 for me, just like Sachin is.

Why do you care so much where everyone rates Imran. Damn dude

 

[trundler]

You seem my arguments to be awful because to take them as a personal affront.

False. That's a good way to deflect any need to introspect on this point though.

Why would I respond to you when we've litigated them a thousand times.

Correct. The points you listed below were thoroughly discussed and we closed that discussion on the note that Imran's away record is elite. Other contentions were dealt with too and you have nowt to offer on the subject bar repeating yourself with more words.

The problem is that you want me to think what you do, he's second all time behind Bradman, no, for me is just isn't. I don't value bowling all rounder's as highly as you and some do. That has nothing to do with Imran. I don't even place that high a premium on batting all rounders, and while I do realise the need to have rotation bowlers, Hammond level is good enough for me. To be honest I wish Sobers had just batted at 4 and stood at second slip instead of killing himself with the ball, just a few overs here and there. And guess what he's still top 5 for me, just like Sachin is.

I don't give a flying **** how you rate batting and bowling all rounders. I only have an issue with a consistent pattern of obscenely idiotic posting.

Why do you care so much where everyone rates Imran. Damn dude

Because that's what we're discussing.

 

[Burgey]

That was so disappointing. He didn't even have WI bowlers in his shortlist.

I think Benaud left those blokes out because he hated the lack of a spinner during their reign as the top side and saw the relentlessness as pretty boring tbh, rather than any Anglo bias on his part. That doesn't excuse the mistake in omitting certain of them though. I mean, he used to crack the shits when Aus played four quicks when our spin options were Murray Bennett, Peter Sleep, Ray Bright and Mo.

 

[Burgey]

The problem is that you want me to think what you do

Reading over the past few pages, this is painfully apparent tbh. Hopefully it improves with a bit of maturity.

Unlikely, but you never know.