Garry Sobers vs Imran Khan

[kyear2]

Both sides go to extreme versions of it imo. The wider audience have batsmen as their heroes unless a Warne type personality arrives. Whereas on CW, there is somehow a belief that bowlers are inherently more valuable than batsmen and are favoured in comparisons with batsmen just for being a bowler

I have no argument with this.

They are both supremely important. If there is the slightest of edges it goes to the bowlers and that's just because to win, you need to take 20 wickets.

 

[kyear2]

This is just BS. Warne, Lillee and Wasim are rated to the stars.

Marshall isn't, yet you harp on Imran who has better ratings than him and never critique Marshall for the same thing.

Absolutely hypocritical.

Warne is the only one that comes up in the GOAT discussion and that's because of his personality and flair.

Lillee and Wasim were both highly peer rated as bowlers but not discussed among the batsmen when discussing who's the best ever.

 

[subshakerz]

So "82

I said two years. So 82 and 83.

82 he conquered England and started getting called the best bowler in the world at the time along with Wisden Cricketer of the Year. 83 he wiped Australia at home and then annihilated India with perhaps the greatest pace series ever. But then it got cut short with injury.

 

[kyear2]

Anyone suggesting Lillee was a better cricketer than Imran (or infact Sobers or Hadlee) has surely got a bias.

When Lillee retired he was seen as the greatest ever, taking over the mantle from Lindwall.

How is that crazy?

 

[kyear2]

I love how easily you are able to throw your logic (if XYZ player is so great why doesn't feature is so many rankings, etc) out the window just to fit in your favorites.

I said you're the one that uses that argument against Kallis.

It's not my logic, I genuinely don't care. It's you that uses it against one, but ignores it against the rest.

Tell me the argument against Marshall being in contention for the no. 3 spot.

 

[kyear2]

I said two years. So 82 and 83.

82 he conquered England and started getting called the best bowler in the world at the time along with Wisden Cricketer of the Year. 83 he wiped Australia at home and then annihilated India with perhaps the greatest pace series ever. But then it got cut short with injury.

I would argue that by the end of "83 Marshall was staring to be seen as the best in the game.

He reigh is generally seen to be from '83 till '89

 

[subshakerz]

Warne is the only one that comes up in the GOAT discussion and that's because of his personality and flair.

Lillee and Wasim were both highly peer rated as bowlers but not discussed among the batsmen when discussing who's the best ever.

Lillee gets put in almost every top 10 list I have seen. Marshall in almost none.

 

[subshakerz]

I would argue that by the end of "83 Marshall was staring to be seen as the best in the game.

He reigh is generally seen to be from '83 till '89

Nonsense. It takes a year or so and several series to gain that reputation.

 

[subshakerz]

I said you're the one that uses that argument against Kallis.

No, my logic has always been that Kallis wasnt rated by peers of his time as a bat. I always acknowledge this high peer rating for his era as an AR.

You have used this argument against Imran several times even when the conversation isn't about Kallis.

It's not my logic, I genuinely don't care.

BS. You're lying. If you didn't care, you wouldn't bring it up all the time.

Remember this doozy when you were picking apart a CW ranking to find a way to discredit Imran, brought in a completely unrelated thread btw

Ahhhh

No.

The highlighted part is particularly egregious and is actually the inverse and actually quite accurate for the ranking poll.

First up there's no vote splitting for voting for a trio, you choose the 3 best options, factoring in everything btw, from all of the players to have ever played the game, who are best suited to form the attack.

The poll was started to prove mine was wrong, and that given a choice, most wouldn't choose the best three bowlers, but the best three batsmen among the bowlers. My guy finished last, but the top3 bolwers finished on top and it wasn't remotely close.

Of the 54 votes each received

Marshall - 51 (94%)

Next were

McGrath and Hadlee - 29 (54%)
&
Imran and Wasim - 17 (31%)

Note the separation only two players in the 20's and Imran reviving only a third of the vote and tied with Wasim for said 4th. He was closer to Ambrose in 6th than he was to 3rd. That's not votes being split, and quite definitive.

While the bowling trio poll was had a good sample size and votes definitive, while having a clear objective and definition ... The player rankings tended to be more haphazard, greater about of players factored in, and with no definition, some just turn it into a listing of all rounders, and yes, this is where the vote splitting occurs. Not to mention the massive gap between 2nd and 3rd.

The poll being referenced had only 24 participants, so you're starting with a much smaller sample size, which when added to point allocations, gives greater impact to a few disproportionate votes.

There were also much more persons nominated, especially considering the far smaller vote count.

So with all of that being said...

Oh, and if you're wondering why didn't the persons who voted him 3rd (or better), also not vote for him in the blowing trio thread? No need to wonder, they all did.

Of the 24 participants, how many actually ranked Imran 3rd or higher?

Seven (7).

One person voted him 2nd, no prizes for guessing who.
Six voted him 3rd, again no need for guesses.

Out of 24 votes, only 7 persons voted him into the position he ended up, btw that's what vote splitting looks like.(Similar to the Cricinfo votes after 2nd)

So again, if the majority of the forum thought he was top 3 (which apparently they don't), they would have also voted him into the top trio.

Think about it, it's like having the best possible group of players available for your club team and saying Timmy is easily the 3rd best, but he's not making the team?

Subz loves to maintain that Wisden's only allowed on all-rounder, with zero evidence mind you. The truth is that none of us has a clue how they came to their conclusions.

Yes Imran was a top 10 bowler and really good lower order batsman, not arguing that in the slightest, but in the end shouldn't we be ranking them on what they were primarily selected to do? It's at least arguable.

 

[kyear2]

Lillee gets put in almost every top 10 list I have seen. Marshall in almost none.

You're free to say Lillee is better than Marshall you know.

Lillee was excitement, Lille had the backing of the establishment. Marshall exemplified what was hated about the WI and their success. Benaud and many others resented how they played, the aggression etc, which was the height of hypocrisy. They changed the rules to stop them, multiple actually.

No our pacers weren't admired.

 

[subshakerz]

Tell me the argument against Marshall being in contention for the no. 3 spot.

Yes was the best fast bowler ever, but many are close enough and for whatever reason he lacked the aura and uniqueness associated with that top tier of greatness. I am uncomfy putting him that high if the entire cricket world hardly ranks him in the top ten, it's too much of a disconnect.

Btw greatness to me does not mean just your skills or performances but your uniqueness as a cricketer and legacy.

Whenever I see Marshall described as the best pacer by peers it is never gushing praise or awe. It's more just simple acknowledgement of being technically the best.

 

[Coronis]

I said you're the one that uses that argument against Kallis.

It's not my logic, I genuinely don't care. It's you that uses it against one, but ignores it against the rest.

Tell me the argument against Marshall being in contention for the no. 3 spot.

Now that’s just not true.

 

[kyear2]

No, my logic has always been that Kallis wasnt rated by peers of his time as a bat. I always acknowledge this high peer rating for his era as an AR.

You have used this argument against Imran several times even when the conversation isn't about Kallis.


BS. You're lying. If you didn't care, you wouldn't bring it up all the time.

Remember this doozy when you were picking apart a CW ranking to find a way to discredit Imran, brought in a completely unrelatedthread btw

The first paragraph is simply not true. You even presented articles stating that Kallis wasn't an all rounder and said he wasn't seen as a great all rounder or batsman during his career.

I bring it up to show your hypocrisy, as is referenced each time.

There's also no argument, with the numbers Kallis maintained during his career that he wasn't rated, especially the 2000's.

What he wasn't, was rated as highly as the big two or Punter.

 

[subshakerz]

You're free to say Lillee is better than Marshall you know.

Lillee was excitement, Lille had the backing of the establishment. Marshall exemplified what was hated about the WI and their success. Benaud and many others resented how they played, the aggression etc, which was the height of hypocrisy. They changed the rules to stop them, multiple actually.

No our pacers weren't admired.

I agree Lillee is overrated a bit but your point was that bowlers don't get credit yet he and Warne did.

Viv was from the WI that didn't stop him from getting super plaudits.

I can give excuses that Imran was from the SC, which was backwaters at the time and was underrated as a result. I am sure you would dismiss it as wishy-washy excuses.

Bottomline is by your own measure, you shouldn't put Marshall so high. I would put Marshall in the top 10 but not as high as no.3.

 

[subshakerz]

The first paragraph is simply not true. You even presented articles stating that Kallis wasn't an all rounder and said he wasn't seen as a great all rounder or batsman during his career.

The article I shared was for bringing up the problems in his batting and how his bowling is overrated. Show me where I critiqued Kallis' peer rating as an AR. Don't think I ever did.

There's also no argument, with the numbers Kallis maintained during his career that he wasn't rated, especially the 2000's.

What he wasn't, was rated as highly as the big two or Punter.

Numbers doesn't mean he was rated as a bat that high when he was achieving those numbers.

 

[kyear2]

Yes was the best fast bowler ever, but many are close enough and for whatever reason he lacked the aura and uniqueness associated with that top tier of greatness. I am uncomfy putting him that high if the entire cricket world hardly ranks him in the top ten, it's too much of a disconnect.

Btw greatness to me does not mean just your skills or performances but your uniqueness as a cricketer and legacy.

Aura and uniqueness, those are the same things that get Warne over rated.

As you yourself pointed out just today in another thread.

And you're not comfortable placing him there because no one else does is the weakest bullshit I've ever heard.

Contrary to what's spouted today, the WI pacers were not admired.

 

[subshakerz]

Aura and uniqueness, those are the same things that get Warne over rated.

Yes because Warnes record doesn't measure up thats why I downgrade him. But for something a bit expanded like greatness those are prerequisites to be so high as no.3.

And you're not comfortable placing him there because no one else does is the weakest bullshit I've ever heard.

Lol says the guy who treats the Cricinfo and Wisden ATG XIs as gospel just so he can exclude Imran from contention.

Contrary to what's spouted today, the WI pacers were not admired.

Whatever. The bigger reason is that Marshall simply was a technically better pacers than the rest but didn't bring anything new to the table like those usually cited in the top 10.

 

[kyear2]

I agree Lillee is overrated a bit but your point was that bowlers don't get credit yet he and Warne did.

Viv was from the WI that didn't stop him from getting super plaudits.

I can give excuses that Imran was from the SC, which was backwaters at the time and was underrated as a result. I am sure you would dismiss it as wishy-washy excuses.

Bottomline is by your own measure, you shouldn't put Marshall so high. I would put Marshall in the top 10 but not as high as no.3.

You've seen Lillee touted as the best since Bradman? Would be interested to see by whom?

Viv was a batsman that did things that no one's ever seen. He wasn't putting English batsmen in the hospital either.

But who was better? Who was more important to the team's success, especially in the 80's. There's no comparison.

By my own measure? Are you insane?

In a game where bowlers and half the equation to batsmen, where they are the match winners and Marshall (and McGrath) were the greatest match winners ever for the greatest teams ever, why are they excluded from the discussion of the greatest ever.

There's absolutely no objective reason besides your, Smali's and the rest of the crew's hatred of me, that he isn't a viable candidate for the 3rd spot.

Is Sachin excluded because he didn't bowl, Hobbs?

I'm waiting, why isn't he?

 

[kyear2]

Now that’s just not true.

Now you're telling me what I care about?

 

[subshakerz]

You've seen Lillee touted as the best since Bradman? Would be interested to see by whom?

No but Lillee rated in the top 10. It's not a far jump from there to no.3 compare to Marshall struggling to make the top 20 at times lol.

Viv was a batsman that did things that no one's ever seen. He wasn't putting English batsmen in the hospital either.

Sure but Viv had aura and brought an entirely new dimension to cricket and along with his record made him greater than Marshall.

Marshall knocking batsmen could be done by Holding or Croft too. Big deal.

But who was better? Who was more important to the team's success, especially in the 80's. There's no comparison.

By my own measure? Are you insane?

Sorry you need some special sauce beyond just the record to make no.3

In a game where bowlers and half the equation to batsmen, where they are the match winners and Marshall (and McGrath) were the greatest match winners ever for the greatest teams ever, why are they excluded from the discussion of the greatest ever.

Because greatness is more than just the numbers. You need the numbers but you need stuff on top of that.

There's absolutely no objective reason besides your, Smali's and the rest of the crew's hatred of me, that he isn't a viable candidate for the 3rd spot.

Just saying that if I were you, I would start wondering why Marshall is so underrated. Maybe like Imran to you, you should start questioning his greatness lol.

Is Sachin excluded because he didn't bowl, Hobbs?

I'm waiting, why isn't he?

Sachin lately is my 3rd greatest cricketer of all-time.