Imran Khan vs Shane Warne (as bowlers)

[subshakerz]

I recall this clip from Benaud where he calls Tendulkar the greatest cricketer he ever saw after Bradman.

I don't think he was racist.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

I recall this clip from Benaud where he calls Tendulkar the greatest cricketer he ever saw after Bradman.

I don't think he was racist.

I don't think Benaud was a racist but this is a terrible example. One can be racist to one race while not being racist to another.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think Benaud was racist but this is a terrible example. One can be racist to one rave while not being racist to another.

Yeah but his best fast bowler and spinner were Aussie so if he continued along those lines I would find it hard to stomach.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Yeah but his best fast bowler and spinner were Aussie so if he continued along those lines I would find it hard to stomach.

I mean even if he picked all Australians it won't make him racist. Just biased and incapable of making rational objective judgement.

Anyway he did picked only 3 Australians tho so I don't see your point.

 

[kyear2]

****ing A, let's just say it. Casual racism, or at the very least casual prejudice was (can still be) a very common thing in those days. It doesn't make Benaud a "bad" man. It just makes him a product of his time.

Think was more stylistic than racist. Was hypocritical though considering he included Lillee and Larwood.

 

[kyear2]

This is getting ridiculous. IIRC Richie mentioned that the side that he was picking may not necessarily be the best but one that he would like to watch play and that was reflected in his short lists as well. As good as the WI of the 80s were, their bowlers bowling fast and short at the body, over after over could get tiring to watch and this continued for a long time. I'd much rather watch swinging fast and full deliveries than to watch short pitched bowling tucking the batsman up all day. I am sure some would love to watch short and fast bowling all day long. We all have our preference. It's ridiculous to call his omissions as one of malicious intent or casual racism without looking at his whole body of work (which is far from casual racism or malicious intent).

I'm sure you watched Marshall and Ambrose enough to know that they were more than skilled enough with Ambrose targeting outside off and Marshall could swing it as well or better than anyone. So that characterization and attempt to stereotype is disingenuous.

Additionally, I've never hinted at racism but hypocrisy because no one was more intimidating than Lillee and Larwood as far as tests go was only renowned because of bodyline.
The malicious intent with regards to Murali was because of the seeming inability for some to appreciate what he did on the field and the implicit bias.
For Knott, because he apparently wanted an all Aussie group for keepers for some reason.

 

[smash84]

I'm sure you watched Marshall and Ambrose enough to know that they were more than skilled enough with Ambrose targeting outside off and Marshall could swing it as well or better than anyone. So that characterization and attempt to stereotype is disingenuous.

Additionally, I've never hinted at racism but hypocrisy because no one was more intimidating than Lillee and Larwood as far as tests go was only renowned because of bodyline.
The malicious intent with regards to Murali was because of the seeming inability for some to appreciate what he did on the field and the implicit bias.
For Knott, because he apparently wanted an all Aussie group for keepers for some reason.

I did watch them bowl and tbh I never really enjoyed watching Ambrose bowl a lot but I knew what I was watching was ridiculously good. As great as McGrath was I far preferred watching Wasim bowl. Heck if I had to choose between watching McGrath bowl or Lillee bowl, I would likely choose Lillee.

The point is that all his categories are biased because he was not making the best team. He was picking a team he would like to watch and be in charge of. He mentions that in the DVD. For some reason you don't want to listen to his reasoning and why the team looks the way it does except thinking that it must be his hypocrisy or malicious intent. Benaud fast seems to be becoming the Imran of punditry in your books .

Edit: You didn't say racism, that was another poster. You said "malicious intent".

 

[Coronis]

I'm sure you watched Marshall and Ambrose enough to know that they were more than skilled enough with Ambrose targeting outside off and Marshall could swing it as well or better than anyone. So that characterization and attempt to stereotype is disingenuous.

Additionally, I've never hinted at racism but hypocrisy because no one was more intimidating than Lillee and Larwood as far as tests go was only renowned because of bodyline.
The malicious intent with regards to Murali was because of the seeming inability for some to appreciate what he did on the field and the implicit bias.
For Knott, because he apparently wanted an all Aussie group for keepers for some reason.

Again where does he say that intimidatory bowling or whatever was his reason for excluding the West Indians? Does he ever say he only wanted Aussie keepers? Or are these just assumptions you’re making?

The Murali exclusion is its own matter really and caused much debate around that time, dividing opinion amongst many, many experts and Benaud has a clear preference for leg spinners no doubt.

 

[Jumno]

Warne

 

[kyear2]

I recall this clip from Benaud where he calls Tendulkar the greatest cricketer he ever saw after Bradman.

I don't think he was racist.

No one , except literally asshole, even hinted or intimated about being racist. I referenced Knott in my post, never once did I even think it. So why the consecutive posts pushing back against something not seriously suggested.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

No one , except literally asshole, even hinted or intimated about being racist. I referenced Knott in my post, never once did I even think it. So why the consecutive posts pushing back against something not seriously suggested.

You talking about me?

 

[kyear2]

The d

I did watch them bowl and tbh I never really enjoyed watching Ambrose bowl a lot but I knew what I was watching was ridiculously good. As great as McGrath was I far preferred watching Wasim bowl. Heck if I had to choose between watching McGrath bowl or Lillee bowl, I would likely choose Lillee.

The point is that all his categories are biased because he was not making the best team. He was picking a team he would like to watch and be in charge of. He mentions that in the DVD. For some reason you don't want to listen to his reasoning and why the team looks the way it does except thinking that it must be his hypocrisy or malicious intent. Benaud fast seems to be becoming the Imran of punditry in your books .

Edit: You didn't say racism, that was another poster. You said "malicious intent".

The difference between Trundler and myself is that I'm not trying to tell anyone who to select. What I was saying is that it was agenda driven, trying to push or continue a narrative, specifically Murali. With Marshall and Ambrose just found it hilarious and hypocritical.
He knew everyone would see this as him naming the best, most people would look at the list rather than listen for the nuance, he knew what he was doing.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

I recall this clip from Benaud where he calls Tendulkar the greatest cricketer he ever saw after Bradman.

I don't think he was racist.

Always thought he meant ‘Batsman’ rather than cricketer.

If he thought the latter, I would genuinely be surprised given he played with a way better cricketer than anyone bar Bradman.

 

[smash84]

The d

The difference between Trundler and myself is that I'm not trying to tell anyone who to select. What I was saying is that it was agenda driven, trying to push or continue a narrative, specifically Murali. With Marshall and Ambrose just found it hilarious and hypocritical.
He knew everyone would see this as him naming the best, most people would look at the list rather than listen for the nuance, he knew what he was doing.

You mean just as your agenda on Imran is clear?

 

[honestbharani]

I recall this clip from Benaud where he calls Tendulkar the greatest cricketer he ever saw after Bradman.

I don't think he was racist.

I dont think Benaud was racist is either but its laughable to think people can't be racist toward one particular race while being ok with another.

 

[Coronis]

The d

The difference between Trundler and myself is that I'm not trying to tell anyone who to select. What I was saying is that it was agenda driven, trying to push or continue a narrative, specifically Murali. With Marshall and Ambrose just found it hilarious and hypocritical.
He knew everyone would see this as him naming the best, most people would look at the list rather than listen for the nuance, he knew what he was doing.

lol….

So mad because Marshall wasn’t on the shortlist he MUST be pushing an agenda.

I’ve just rewatched that segment and Nicholson actually asks him outright about if short pitched bowling influenced him with regards to the Windies bowlers and he states he has no problem with it (aside from playing it himself - as a compulsive hooker) its always been part of the game since he was playing it - specifically mentioning Lindwall and Miller and saying every team had bowlers bowling bouncers at that time.

Amongst keepers he mentions Evans, Knott and Dujon and again says it was minute differences between such players as to making it onto his shortlist.

 

[kyear2]

You mean just as your agenda on Imran is clear?

When I first joined Cricinfo I was in awe of Imran and when I became aware of his numbers in reference to his peak, even more so and wondered why he wasn't included, as I referenced in an earlier post, in the Bradman, Sobers stratosphere. Hell why wasn't he even as highly rated as Richards or Warne?
Noticing his home and away bowling splits that didn't exist among other ATG bowlers, I asked questions and what made it even harder to explain was the fact that Pakistan pitches were to quote you "graveyards"
And yes I had heard about Pakistani umpires way before coming here, but didn't give it much credence, plus that was mostly in reference to Minadad..... but then added to that was the ball tampering stories and I wondered if there was indeed a correlation.

Despite the best coordinated, coercive, almost bullying responses that one receives when even mentioning the name of the great one, none of the contrived explanations have ever made sense to or convinced me.
The arguments that umps were bad everywhere, ok, but again, no one's splits are what his are. Ball tampering was wide spread, ok but didn't see any of the others linked to it as they were. That matches he played in over seas happened to be more high scoring, probably because some of the other teams bowled out teams for less. Yes, the pitches in India were dead, they were equally so for everyone.
Then his batting, yes way better than the other bowling specialists, but also feels inflated. There were discussions on Kallis's batting and how it doesn't match his average, similar for Sangakkara and how they didn't convert to victories. Neither did Imran's, I looked at 4 or 5, none of them led to victories and only one even led to salvaging an innings and there's a double standard there. We are allowed to breakdown and critique everyone but him, at the risk of you, Trundler and ORS aggressively jumping to his defence.
Pews and Coronis doesn't rate Viv, a question is asked, we all move on, not with this.

I have no political or racial agenda, I've never started a thread vs Imran, I've voted for Imran in multiple, but every little thing I (and anyone else for that matter) says is jumped on, blown out of proportion and goes on for pages, because heaven forbid someone has a different opinion. It's taken personal to a extent that no other player's defence is.

Also, the main difference between myself and Richie is he had a platform and knew how his selections would be seen. I think the Murali exclusion was unwarranted and petty, to name the 3 best spinners ever and to exclude him taints the exercise to a certain degree, despite how he tries to spin it at the end. He just didn't want to acknowledge his accomplishments.

I have nothing personal against any player, well kinda Sunny, but that doesn't stop me from selecting him if warranted.

This is supposed to be fun, but as Red has said, is becoming more unnecessarily contentious (or something to that effect) and why. I don't have to agree with you.

For the record I think Imran is a top 6 bowler, between him and Hadlee is the best bowling all rounder in history, so tell me please what I have against Imran

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Imran vs Marshall as cricketers would be a good poll

 

[Adorable Asshole]

When I first joined Cricinfo I was in awe of Imran and when I became aware of his numbers in reference to his peak, even more so and wondered why he wasn't included, as I referenced in an earlier post, in the Bradman, Sobers stratosphere. Hell why wasn't he even as highly rated as Richards or Warne?
Noticing his home and away bowling splits that didn't exist among other ATG bowlers, I asked questions and what made it even harder to explain was the fact that Pakistan pitches were to quote you "graveyards"
And yes I had heard about Pakistani umpires way before coming here, but didn't give it much credence, plus that was mostly in reference to Minadad..... but then added to that was the ball tampering stories and I wondered if there was indeed a correlation.

Despite the best coordinated, coercive, almost bullying responses that one receives when even mentioning the name of the great one, none of the contrived explanations have ever made sense to or convinced me.
The arguments that umps were bad everywhere, ok, but again, no one's splits are what his are. Ball tampering was wide spread, ok but didn't see any of the others linked to it as they were. That matches he played in over seas happened to be more high scoring, probably because some of the other teams bowled out teams for less. Yes, the pitches in India were dead, they were equally so for everyone.
Then his batting, yes way better than the other bowling specialists, but also feels inflated. There were discussions on Kallis's batting and how it doesn't match his average, similar for Sangakkara and how they didn't convert to victories. Neither did Imran's, I looked at 4 or 5, none of them led to victories and only one even led to salvaging an innings and there's a double standard there. We are allowed to breakdown and critique everyone but him, at the risk of you, Trundler and ORS aggressively jumping to his defence.
Pews and Coronis doesn't rate Viv, a question is asked, we all move on, not with this.

I have no political or racial agenda, I've never started a thread vs Imran, I've voted for Imran in multiple, but every little thing I (and anyone else for that matter) says is jumped on, blown out of proportion and goes on for pages, because heaven forbid someone has a different opinion. It's taken personal to a extent that no other player's defence is.

Also, the main difference between myself and Richie is he had a platform and knew how his selections would be seen. I think the Murali exclusion was unwarranted and petty, to name the 3 best spinners ever and to exclude him taints the exercise to a certain degree, despite how he tries to spin it at the end. He just didn't want to acknowledge his accomplishments.

I have nothing personal against any player, well kinda Sunny, but that doesn't stop me from selecting him if warranted.

This is supposed to be fun, but as Red has said, is becoming more unnecessarily contentious (or something to that effect) and why. I don't have to agree with you.

For the record I think Imran is a top 6 bowler, between him and Hadlee is the best bowling all rounder in history, so tell me please what I have against Imran

That's what you also do though when it comes to Marshall.

 

[trundler]

The d

The difference between Trundler and myself is that I'm not trying to tell anyone who to select. What I was saying is that it was agenda driven, trying to push or continue a narrative, specifically Murali. With Marshall and Ambrose just found it hilarious and hypocritical.
He knew everyone would see this as him naming the best, most people would look at the list rather than listen for the nuance, he knew what he was doing.

Please stop posting about me if you don't want me to put you in your place. Thanks.