Wasim Akram vs. Waqar Younis vs. Imran Khan

[capt_Luffy]

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.

You just make cases according you see fit. Haven't even addressed most of my points, because honestly you can't. The sport is always growing, and the decline of Test cricket mostly in the minds of nostalgia jerks like you. Haven't presented a single point why the sport is in decline, nor that I expect you to. What I expected was a civil conversation, but looks like that was too much.

 

[CricketFan90s]

You just make cases according you see fit. Haven't even addressed most of my points, because honestly you can't. The sport is always growing, and the decline of Test cricket mostly in the minds of nostalgia jerks like you. Haven't presented a single point why the sport is in decline, nor that I expect you to. What I expected was a civil conversation, but looks like that was too much.

You did not point any points to address them. You just came to a xxx conclusion that Hobbs and Barnes outperform Tendulkar and Waqar. So I just reminded you that the game has grown and you were showing the bias to suit your hopeless logic. I just said after T20 became popular many Players are focusing more on limited format to make a living and that naturally disturbs the quality of the Teams. The same did not happen once ODI came because they have to still play a complete day in an ODI which was tedious. It was easier to balance both formats of Cricket. ODI Cricket helped Test Cricket to grow better which T20 failed to do.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You did not point any points to address them. You just came to a xxx conclusion that Hobbs and Barnes outperform Tendulkar and Waqar. So I just reminded you that the game has grown and you were showing the bias to suit your hopeless logic. I just said after T20 became popular many Players are focusing more on limited format to make a living and that naturally disturbs the quality of the Teams. The same did not happen once ODI came because they have to still play a complete day in an ODI which was tedious.

The same didn't happen when ODIs came because....... Playing one day was tedious. Gotcha! And I can't remember when I said Hobbs was better than Sachin though, just that he would do better in your logically in your time travel fantasy. You were the one calling a particular era golden Age with heavy bias and T20s are such lazy arguments and the counter argument presented for ODIs is somehow lazier. Anyways, not responding anymore without a proper response to the points raised from you end.

1. The training facilities, fitness level and overall professionalism of the 70s (i.e, for Lillee and co) was much closer to Hobbs' time than today.
2. Sports science is more advanced now than it was during Warne's time, and so are the monetary aspects. The leap is greater than say between 1930s and 1970s.
3. How come Test fell away once T20 came but didn't change by the advent of ODIs?? And no, ODI being tedious is a dumb answer. People like you conveniently ignores that same flags were also raised when ODIs where first becoming popular.

 

[CricketFan90s]

The same didn't happen when ODIs came because....... Playing one day was tedious. Gotcha! And I can't remember when I said Hobbs was better than Sachin though, just that he would do better in your logically in your time travel fantasy. You were the one calling a particular era golden Age with heavy bias and T20s are such lazy arguments and the counter argument presented for ODIs is somehow lazier. Anyways, not responding anymore without a proper response to the points raised from you end.

1. The training facilities, fitness level and overall professionalism of the 70s (i.e, for Lillee and co) was much closer to Hobbs' time than today.
2. Sports science is more advanced now than it was during Warne's time, and so are the monetary aspects. The leap is greater than say between 1930s and 1970s.
3. How come Test fell away once T20 came but didn't change by the advent of ODIs?? And no, ODI being tedious is a dumb answer. People like you conveniently ignores that same flags were also raised when ODIs where first becoming popular.

So you want me to answer your xxx Assumptions. 1) How Many Strong Teams were there during the time of Hobbs ? 2) In 1970s How many Strong Teams are there ? 3) Sports Science has advanced ? Leap is greater but its application is lacking in a focused way. Show me a bowler who can spin the ball like Warne after advancement of Sports Science ?. ODIs gave players new abilities to score runs quickly and this made Test Cricket more interesting as players had the dual abilities to score fast and slow depend on a match situation. T20 Cricket also gives them some new skills which other generations did not have but it won’t help much in Test Cricket as the patience and perseverance required to play a test match are fading away in players. So understand that you have a lazy to think properly. Time travel fantasy is the right logic I have employed just bring Barnes and Waqar and let them bowl and the truth will be revealed - what’s wrong in that ? You want to win the argument but don’t want to use common sense.

 

[capt_Luffy]

So you want me to answer your xxx Assumptions. 1) How Many Strong Teams were there during the time of Hobbs ? 2) In 1970s How many Strong Teams are there ? 3) Sports Science has advanced ? Leap is greater but its application is lacking in a focused way. Show me a bowler who can spin the ball like Warne after advancement of Sports Science ?. ODIs gave players new abilities to score runs quickly and this made Test Cricket more interesting as players had the dual abilities to score fast and slow depend on a match situation. T20 Cricket also gives them some new skills which other generations did not have but it won’t help much in Test Cricket as the patience and perseverance required to play a test match are fading away in players. So understand that you have a lazy to think properly. Time travel fantasy is the right logic I have employed just bring Barnes and Waqar and let them bowl and the truth will be revealed - what’s wrong in that ? You want to win the argument but don’t want to use common sense.

Your most arguments are really stupid.... Anyways,
1. Two or sometimes three. And there were plenty of Country teams far stronger than current SL or WI. And in 1970s, the no of strong teams were really 3. Not to mention doesn't answers my query, nor I expected one from you.
2. That's not how sports science works..... My God! Sports science doesn't make Bishnoi turn like Warne, but helps focus more strengths. The player's skills are inherent, that's true today, was 10 years ago, was 100 years ago and will remain so in the next 100 years.
3. Players used to score runs fast in the early 1900s as well. Just read about Victor Trumper. The same arguments which people now use against T20s all applies to ODIs. Critics strongly believed that ODI also messed with players patience and perseverance, and there were ounces of truth to it, as there are to the T20 argument. Just that nostalgia jerks tends to ignore those.
4. Again, you totally ignored my counter points on time travel on why Waqar might get injured, not to mention Sachin having a lower chance of success than Hobbs. But well, carry on I guess. I won't reply to this thread again.

 

[Coronis]

Internationally: 1907-1914 I believe

1901 actually. And don’t bother with this pointless discussion with this user, he is an idiot.

Jokes are Jokes and Facts remain Facts.

And you still can’t tell which are which.

 

[shortpitched713]

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

Lillee, if transported as a 16 year old into the year 2006 or something, would have access to different training, nutrition, better video analysis, etc, and he would have to adapt his game to these new things. Maybe he would, or maybe he woul be put off by some of the differences, we don't know.

However, with all that said, the approach to bowling fast that he had would be virtually the same as from his time. And with all the potential improvements mentioned the end result might be 3-5 kph faster speed, i.e. virtually the same (that too only if he felt it best suited to his new game, his pace from that time is perfectly within range for so called fast-medium bowlers now, as is).

That is far from what can be said for Barnes, whose very style of bowling is extinct in modern cricket (and with good reason). The history of cricket includes a spectrum of techniques, and saw a big transformation, especially in the early half of the 20th century, but the optimization of the professional Era somewhat locked into place the range of skillsets and techniques we see on a cricket pitch. No one is held back anymore, and the only major changes have been safety equipment, and an increase in batting aggression. These are not aspects which professional Era players would not be able to adapt to, on the whole. (I will caveat that I do think the overall quality and skill displayed at the highest level of cricket is always improving incrementally, that's why you'd have to time travel a player in a development stage, rather than as they were in career, to make it fair as I do believe the older player would be generally disadvantaged in skill.)

 

[shortpitched713]

what do you say if Imran was benefitted from Pakistani Umpires ?

It's impossible to say to what extent. All pre neutral umpire Era players benefitted and suffered from this effect.

If Imran thought that him and Pakistan really needed this advantage, then he wouldn't have been one of the earliest advocates for neutral umpires.

 

[shortpitched713]

Imran's peak is well ahead of Waqar's.

Agreed.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lillee, if transported as a 16 year old into the year 2006 or something, would have access to different training, nutrition, better video analysis, etc, and he would have to adapt his game to these new things. Maybe he would, or maybe he woul be put off by some of the differences, we don't know.

However, with all that said, the approach to bowling fast that he had would be virtually the same as from his time. And with all the potential improvements mentioned the end result might be 3-5 kph faster speed, i.e. virtually the same (that too only if he felt it best suited to his new game, his pace from that time is perfectly within range for so called fast-medium bowlers now, as is).

That is far from what can be said for Barnes, whose very style of bowling is extinct in modern cricket (and with good reason). The history of cricket includes a spectrum of techniques, and saw a big transformation, especially in the early half of the 20th century, but the optimization of the professional Era somewhat locked into place the range of skillsets and techniques we see on a cricket pitch. No one is held back anymore, and the only major changes have been safety equipment, and an increase in batting aggression. These are not aspects which professional Era players would not be able to adapt to, on the whole. (I will caveat that I do think the overall quality and skill displayed at the highest level of cricket is always improving incrementally, that's why you'd have to time travel a player in a development stage, rather than as they were in career, to make it fair as I do believe the older player would be generally disadvantaged in skill.)

A very valid argument, but rich coming from a Philander fan given in the previous pacers rankings, three bowlers weren't included who were this time around because not being considered proper pacers; Barnes, Bedser and Philander. So if Philander can prosper, why not Barnes? Barnes is definitely a very unique case as most medium pacers struggled in Australia, always. Not him, he was very successful there as well. Freak bowlers exists in the modern game as well. Bumrah is borderline one with that action.
Agree with the way you time travel though.

 

[shortpitched713]

A very valid argument, but rich coming from a Philander fan given in the previous pacers rankings, three bowlers weren't included who were this time around because not being considered proper pacers; Barnes, Bedser and Philander. So if Philander can prosper, why not Barnes? Barnes is definitely a very unique case as most medium pacers struggled in Australia, always. Not him, he was very successful there as well. Freak bowlers exists in the modern game as well. Bumrah is borderline one with that action.
Agree with the way you time travel though.

Because Philander is primarily a conventional fast medium swing and seam bowler, not really much out of the norm of the many others from Botham to Anderson, that we see in the modern game. All would be considerably quicker than Barnes.

Barnes was a bowler of glorified medium pace cutters. Other than from batting all-rounders in the mid overs of ODIs, that's not a style that exists any more among Frontline Test bowlers. If you're using a cutter, it needs to be quick to trouble modern quality bats. Similarly, you're much better served by conventional (or if quick enough, reverse) swing, rather than drift as your method of movement in the air.

Barnes would have to completely reinvent himself to be a successful bowler in modern Test cricket, with some saying his tools are better served as a spinner rather than his actual role starting off with the new ball. Regardless, there's no such radical re-imagining of role required for any modern bowler, Philander included.

I'll stay away from comment on Bedser because he is confounding in both being of an intermediate transitional Era, and not wanting to get in a debate on his style, which probably contained a more eclectic combination of both older and more modern technique.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Because Philander is primarily a conventional fast medium swing and seam bowler, not really much out of the norm of the many others from Botham to Anderson, that we see in the modern game. All would be considerably quicker than Barnes.

Barnes was a bowler of glorified medium pace cutters. Other than from batting all-rounders in the mid overs of ODIs, that's not a style that exists any more among Frontline Test bowlers. If you're using a cutter, it needs to be quick to trouble modern quality bats. Similarly, you're much better served by conventional (or if quick enough, reverse) swing, rather than drift as your method of movement in the air.

Barnes would have to completely reinvent himself to be a successful bowler in modern Test cricket, with some saying his tools are better served as a spinner rather than his actual role starting off with the new ball. Regardless, there's no such radical re-imagining of role required for any modern bowler, Philander included.

I'll stay away from comment on Bedser because he is confounding in both being of an intermediate transitional Era, and not wanting to get in a debate on his style, which probably contained a more eclectic combination of both older and more modern technique.

You could also see Barnes as a quick leg spinner

 

[srbhkshk]

Barnes would be a Ganguly level bowler in the modern era.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

If Barnes is an atg bowler, then jadeja is one too

 

[capt_Luffy]

If Barnes is an atg bowler, then jadeja is one too

If Jadeja is an ATG bowler then so is Rhodes too.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Barnes would be a Ganguly level bowler in the modern era.

Damn, Ganguly then surely missed out to be a top 10 bowler of All Time.

 

[srbhkshk]

Damn, Ganguly then surely missed out to be a top 10 bowler of All Time.

Exactly, bro was born way too late. Might even have been top 5 if he bowled in the days of Barnes.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Exactly, bro was born way too late. Might even have been top 5 if he bowled in the days of Barnes.

Yep. We should be happy then Waqar didn't played back then and had a 5 match career.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Yep. We should be happy then Waqar didn't played back then and had a 5 match career.

Nah Waqar would be the best bowler in that era.

Barnes wouldn’t get into most international teams today as a bowler

 

[Coronis]

Exactly, bro was born way too late. Might even have been top 5 if he bowled in the days of Barnes.

Only if Ranji brought him over to England surely.