Wasim Akram vs. Waqar Younis vs. Imran Khan

[capt_Luffy]

Jokes are Jokes and Facts remain Facts.

Yeah, that fact being your best argument is it was a different time (while honestly, better arguments exists). I think you should talk with @Pap Finn Keighl about Barnes.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Yeah, that fact being your best argument is it was a different time (while honestly, better arguments exists). I think you should talk with @Pap Finn Keighl about Barnes.

what is your opinion about @shortpitched713 comment on Barnes ? I find his logic more reasonable.

It is not about winning argument its more about applying your common sense.

 

[capt_Luffy]

what is your opinion about @shortpitched713 comment on Barnes ? I find his logic more reasonable.

He believes cricket began in 1970. He had this discussion many times before with many people on forum. While his statement is kind of an overstatement, the game has changed. What many fails to understand is that that's true even for the last 50-60 years. You can't just time travel Dennis Lillee to modern day and expect him to outperform Bumrah and Cummins. It doesn't works like that. Similarly, you can't expect Sachin to time travel to 1910 and outscored Hobbs. In such scenarios, you just assume a great player will adapt to the changes in the game. And imo, the most logical measure is how much better a player was than their peers

 

[CricketFan90s]

He believes cricket began in 1970. He had this discussion many times before with many people on forum. While his statement is kind of an overstatement, the game has changed. What many fails to understand is that that's true even for the last 50-60 years. You can't just time travel Dennis Lillee to modern day and expect him to outperform Bumrah and Cummins. It doesn't works like that. Similarly, you can't expect Sachin to time travel to 1910 and outscored Hobbs. In such scenarios, you just assume a great player will adapt to the changes in the game. And imo, the most logical measure is how much better a player was than their peers

Sachin will definitely outscore Hobbs. They may or may not adapt.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sachin will definitely outscore Hobbs. They may or may not adapt.

I will bet more on Hobbs outscoring Sachin in 2010 with better bats, more trustable pitches covered pitches, shorter boundaries, bouncer rule and better guards; than Sachin doing so in 1910.

 

[CricketFan90s]

I will bet more on Hobbs outscoring Sachin in 2010 with better bats, more trustable pitches covered pitches, shorter boundaries, bouncer rule and better guards; than Sachin doing so in 1910.

You are not still using your common sense. Sachin went through much more difficult and sophisticated training over the years compared to Hobbs. So Sachin can adapt better than Hobbs on any day. You are just trying to look good in the books of some people in this thread who support Hobbs or Barnes.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You are not still using your common sense. Sachin went through much more difficult and sophisticated training over the years compared to Hobbs. So Sachin can adapt better than Hobbs on any day.

Sachin went to training with much more sophisticated equipments. Give him the piece of wood Hobbs used to bat with and he will definitely struggle to score. Without any helmets, proper pads and even shoes; in pitches extremely more bowler friendly than whatever he has seen. Hobbs would have a field day with the modern game. To put it bluntly, Sachin have to adapt to tougher conditions, Hobbs to easier ones.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Sachin went to training with much more sophisticated equipments. Give him the piece of wood Hobbs used to bat with and he will definitely struggle to score. Without any helmets, proper pads and even shoes; in pitches extremely more bowler friendly than whatever he has seen. Hobbs would have a field day with the modern game. To put it bluntly, Sachin have to adapt to tougher conditions, Hobbs to easier ones.

If you see the training the modern player will go through you will not make these arguments. Conditions were not tougher in Hobbs era they were much easier.
Fitness, Reflexes etc.., they have to be good at hundreds of skills which hobbs would have never learnt. So it is easy for modern players to adapt to older times than other way around.

Anyway this thread is about Imran, Wasim and Waqar and not about Hobbs or Sachin.

Waqar Younis from 1990-1994 if he time travels to Barnes era he will Average around 2 or 3 runs per wicket.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If you see the training the modern player will go through you will not make these arguments. Conditions were not tougher in Hobbs era they were much easier.
Fitness, Reflexes etc.., they have to be good at hundreds of skills which hobbs would have never learnt. So it is easy for modern players to adapt to older times than other way around.

Anyway this thread is about Imran, Wasim and Waqar and not about Hobbs or Sachin.

Waqar Younis from 1990-1994 if he time travels to Barnes era he will Average around 2 or 3 runs per wicket.

Yeah, no. Then Waqar will get injured within his first 5 matches running on those wet outfields.
As for the other point, conditions were objectively tougher for batsmen in Hobbs' era. Again, bats and pitches. Hobbs only have to adjust to new styles of bowling, Sachin has to reinvent the major part of his game.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Yeah, no. Then Waqar will get injured within his first 5 matches running on those wet outfields.
As for the other point, conditions were objectively tougher for batsmen in Hobbs' era. Again, bats and pitches. Hobbs only have to adjust to new styles of bowling, Sachin has to reinvent the major part of his game.

When I am having a conversation with you I am reminded of a quote by Mark Twain. Anyway I have my opinion you can have your opinion (which I believe has no Logic)

 

[capt_Luffy]

When I am having a conversation with you I am reminded of a quote by Mark Twain. Anyway I have my opinion you can have your opinion (which I believe has no Logic)

Ah, well mate. I found great irony in some of your logic and you unabashedly referring to that quote. Anyways, let's agree to disagree then.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Ah, well mate. I found great irony in some of your logic and you unabashedly referring to that quote. Anyways, let's agree to disagree then.

During the time of Barnes not many people were aware of a game called Cricket. In Sachin's era it became popular among more than a Billion people. So its time for you to requestion your logic hehe.

 

[capt_Luffy]

During the time of Barnes not many people were aware of a game called Cricket. In Sachin's era it became popular among more than a Billion people. So its time for you to requestion your logic hehe.

That's honesty a kinda silly logic. Cricket was played by a higher portion of British and Australian population, so if anything cricket was more popular in those countries during those times.

 

[CricketFan90s]

That's honesty a kinda silly logic. Cricket was played by a higher portion of British and Australian population, so if anything cricket was more popular in those countries during those times.

do you know how much modern players earn ? How much training has to go into that, Lot of skills were developed over years and players who master them can stay alive on Cricket Ground.

 

[capt_Luffy]

do you know how much modern players earn ? How much training has to go into that, Lot of skills were developed over years and players who master them can stay alive on Cricket Ground.

Virat earns more than Sachin did, has accessibility to better training equipments and honesty trains harder for his body, and more skills have been developed between their times. So, surely Virat>Sachin??

 

[CricketFan90s]

Virat earns more than Sachin did, has accessibility to better training equipments and honesty trains harder for his body, and more skills have been developed between their times. So, surely Virat>Sachin??

I am speaking in general after Cricket became popular worldwide. Kohli has definitely some better T20 Skills but in Test Cricket it’s definitely Sachin. Test Cricket’s popularity declined with the arrival of T20s. Test Cricket’s Golden era started with Dennis Lillee and Ended with Shane Warne.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I am speaking in general after Cricket became popular worldwide. Kohli has definitely some better T20 Skills but in Test Cricket it’s definitely Sachin. Test Cricket’s popularity declined with the arrival of T20s. Test Cricket’s Golden era started with Dennis Lillee and Ended with Shane Warne.

And that's against everything you just argued for, as neither Lillee had those equipments and surely Bumrah has them better than Warne. Just goes to show how biased you are for a particular period of cricket.

 

[CricketFan90s]

And that's against everything you just argued for, as neither Lillee had those equipments and surely Bumrah has them better than Warne. Just goes to show how biased you are for a particular period of cricket.

How many Tests Bumrah played ? How many Tests Warne played ? I am not biased you are just not having enough cricket knowledge to assimilate in your to come to a better conclusion about the game.

 

[capt_Luffy]

How many Tests Bumrah played ? How many Tests Warne played ? I am not biased you are just not having enough cricket knowledge to assimilate in your to come to a better conclusion about the game.

Lol. You are extremely biased. Your point was younger players are always better than olders because they didn't had modern training. Then you brought in Dennis Lillee, completely ignoring that his training facility was closer to Hobbs than Cummins or Bumrah; and then said that the Golden Age ended with Warne, while by your logic the trajectory should be upwards..... It literally had nothing to do with whether Warne is better or worse than Bumrah. Let's end this debate here. Your bias is too big for a particular era that you stopped making sense.

 

[CricketFan90s]

Lol. You are extremely biased. Your point was younger players are always better than olders because they didn't had modern training. Then you brought in Dennis Lillee, completely ignoring that his training facility was closer to Hobbs than Cummins or Bumrah; and then said that the Golden Age ended with Warne, while by your logic the trajectory should be upwards..... It literally had nothing to do with whether Warne is better or worse than Bumrah. Let's end this debate here. Your bias is too big for a particular era that you stopped making sense.

Because you have to understand various other factors in to consideration while judging a players quality. A Simpleton like you comes to a conclusion based on few parameters and that’s not the way real cricket works. Trajectory is not necessarily upward all the time and that’s what I pointed out the reason Test Cricket is at a decline despite having better equipments. The same logic cannot be applicable in the case of Hobbs as the game was growing that time.