Rank them : Donald, Imran and Akram

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Imran is easily the 3rd greatest player ever. Top 5/6 bowler(ATG at home and in WI, brilliant in England and SL, good in Aus(taking into account his WSC record and 2 brilliant series, and decentish in India(one good series) and NZ(much better than Hadlee in the same tests Miandad took Hadlee apart))+ handy batsmen(much better than Hadlee who is the only one out of bowling ARs comparable in primary skill) + one of the greatest captains ever(test series victories in India and Eng, drawing away and at home with WI)

 

[kyear2]

Give me a ATG XI or top ten list that Hadlee appears in. Otherwise where is your evidence he is as highly rated as we know he was as a bowler


Maybe it helped he wasn't born in an era of ARs therefore easier to stand out.


Imran would stand out more based on WI performances, WSC, captaincy and the greatest ever bowling peak plus the record of his last ten years. All of these are unique to him.

But Hadlee doesn't make my XI either.

Sobers came right after Miller and played with Benaud. And if he played with Botham, Dev and Hadlee he still would have stood out. He would have been by far the best batsman and fielder and stood out even more with a bigger television audience

Imran averaged 25 in the Caribbean, think Procter and Holding both averaged better than him in WSC, his captaincy wasn't even the best of the era. Border was better, and Lloyd's way more impactful on the era and the trajectory of the game, and Viv was undefeated. Again, in an era where he had the "best bowling peak" why was he only looked at as the 3rd best bowler, even by you. His record at home was at best questionable.

Again, in an era where he didn't stand out among the all rounders he played with. He wasn't the best batsman nor bowler, nor combined said skills the most, how does one make the undisputable argument that you're next to the top 2 of all time.

With the all rounder and bat deep crowd crowd around here, you're good though.

But it really bothers you that the pundits don't rate him that highly doesn't it.

I have the opposite problem, the guy that was highly rated by the pundits is ignored here, but what can you do

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

But Hadlee doesn't make my XI either.

Sobers came right after Miller and played with Benaud. And if he played with Botham, Dev and Hadlee he still would have stood out. He would have been by far the best batsman and fielder and stood out even more with a bigger television audience

Imran averaged 25 in the Caribbean, think Procter and Holding both averaged better than him in WSC, his captaincy wasn't even the best of the era. Border was better, and Lloyd's way more impactful on the era and the trajectory of the game, and Viv was undefeated. Again, in an era where he had the "best bowling peak" why was he only looked at as the 3rd best bowler, even by you. His record at home was at best questionable.

Again, in an era where he didn't stand out among the all rounders he played with. He wasn't the best batsman nor bowler, nor combined said skills the most, how does one make the undisputable argument that you're next to the top 2 of all time.

With the all rounder and bat deep crowd crowd around here, you're good though.

But it really bothers you that the pundits don't rate him that highly doesn't it.

I have the opposite problem, the guy that was highly rated by the pundits is ignored here, but what can you do

Imran was certainly a better captain than Lloyd and at worst equal to Border. Imran as a captain had a great record at home, won in India and England, tied home and away with WI. An inspirational figure, and tactically great, one of the five greatest captains in test cricket history(Mark Taylor, Richie Benaud, Ian Chappell among others). After his premature retirement Immy came back with a mission to win in India, England and WI, and the WC, and nearly accomplished all

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

And that average of 25, was with a WPM of 6 and a crazy SR. Easily ATG in WI. And one of the best in the WSC

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

All time test XI:

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman(C)
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers
ABD(WK)
Hadlee
Murali
Marshall
Steyn

(You could have Imran instead of Hadlee, Warne instead of Murali and Mcgrath instead of Steyn, but for me Murali is superior to Warne by a small but noticeable margin, Steyn is more or less equal to McGrath(but I like Steyn more with his matchwinning champion instinct), and with Marshall and Steyn there already, instead of Imran, Hadlee would complement them better. A little quality of batting sacrificed, but the upside is that you have the best possible bowling in Marshall, Murali, Steyn, Hadlee).

 

[kyear2]

Imran is easily the 3rd greatest player ever. Top 5/6 bowler(ATG at home and in WI, brilliant in England and SL, good in Aus(taking into account his WSC record and 2 brilliant series, and decentish in India(one good series) and NZ(much better than Hadlee in the same tests Miandad took Hadlee apart))+ handy batsmen(much better than Hadlee who is the only one out of bowling ARs comparable in primary skill) + one of the greatest captains ever(test series victories in India and Eng, drawing away and at home with WI)

So let's go with your argument.

We rate him differently, so let's use the CW rankings from the last 2 polls where he came in at 8th each time.

I'm not going to get into the break down of records in different countries because we starkly disagree. By his ATG standards he was at best average away from home, I would give him England though. Moving on.

He was a handy lower order batsman, he wasn't much better than Hadlee, as was pointed out by another poster, up until '88 Imran's average was 30 and pretty much on par. Also he was very much, to quote, a not out merchant, where all but one of his hundreds came in draws and at most two (of the seven)were critical / impactful / consequential.

As far as captaincy goes, In his own era, Border was better, Lloyd more impactful and Richards undefeated.

And none of this factors in than no where else is he seen as the 3rd greatest player ever. Nor one of those lists the lists being bandied about has his 3rd. Many in the teens.

Now, I'm not saying he doesn't have an argument to be 3rd, but to say that he's easily 3rd isn't something that's rooted in reality.

He's at best the 3rd best bowler of his era and a handy lower order bat with an inflated average. Even among the other all rounders he was neither the best batsman nor bowler.

I was watching some extended clips from the '88 West Indies series to England where the WI declared with Marshall on 43*. How many instances of something like that would we find for Imran when he was scoring?

I think Marshall has an argument for 3rd, being the greats fast bowler and all, and he rated above Imran in at least 2 or 3 of those lists. But I wouldn't say he's easily no. 3, because there's Sachin, Hobbs, Richards, Warne etc. etc.

This is all incredibly subjective and no one has laid a claim to that title.

And I'm off to bed.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

So let's go with your argument.

We rate him differently, so let's use the CW rankings from the last 2 polls where he came in at 8th each time.

I'm not going to get into the break down of records in different countries because we starkly disagree. By his ATG standards he was at best average away from home, I would give him England though. Moving on.

He was a handy lower order batsman, he wasn't much better than Hadlee, as was pointed out by another poster, up until '88 Imran's average was 30 and pretty much on par. Also he was very much, to quote, a not out merchant, where all but one of his hundreds came in draws and at most two (of the seven)were critical / impactful / consequential.

As far as captaincy goes, In his own era, Border was better, Lloyd more impactful and Richards undefeated.

And none of this factors in than no where else is he seen as the 3rd greatest player ever. Nor one of those lists the lists being bandied about has his 3rd. Many in the teens.

Now, I'm not saying he doesn't have an argument to be 3rd, but to say that he's easily 3rd isn't something that's rooted in reality.

He's at best the 3rd best bowler of his era and a handy lower order bat with an inflated average. Even among the other all rounders he was neither the best batsman nor bowler.

I was watching some extended clips from the '88 West Indies series to England where the WI declared with Marshall on 43*. How many instances of something like that would we find for Imran when he was scoring?

I think Marshall has an argument for 3rd, being the greats fast bowler and all, and he rated above Imran in at least 2 or 3 of those lists. But I wouldn't say he's easily no. 3, because there's Sachin, Hobbs, Richards, Warne etc. etc.

This is all incredibly subjective and no one has laid a claim to that title.

And I'm off to bed.

Imran from 80-88(his bowling peak) averaged 40. And yes he was the third best bowler of his era, but because the other two were 2 best of all time(along with Mcgrath). As a captain, he was tactically much better than Border whilst being an inspirational leader.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

More importantly from 1982-88(his absolute peak) he averaged 17 with the ball and 43 with the bat.

 

[kyear2]

Imran was certainly a better captain than Lloyd and at worst equal to Border. Imran as a captain had a great record at home, won in India and England, tied home and away with WI. An inspirational figure, and tactically great, one of the five greatest captains in test cricket history(Mark Taylor, Richie Benaud, Ian Chappell among others). After his premature retirement Immy came back with a mission to win in India, England and WI, and the WC, and nearly accomplished all

Lloyd build a dynasty and changed the course of world cricket. Richards was undefeated and no way was he a better captain than Border. He wasn't great tactically and definely want one of the 5 greatest test captains ever. I'm sure you can name 10 higher rated ones off the top of your head, I surely can.

You can say he's the 2nd greatest all rounder and a top 10 bowler, the rest is hyperbole that even Subz doesn't believe.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Lloyd build a dynasty and changed the course of world cricket. Richards was undefeated and no way was he a better captain than Border. He wasn't great tactically and definely want one of the 5 greatest test captains ever. I'm sure you can name 10 higher rated ones off the top of your head, I surely can.

You can say he's the 2nd greatest all rounder and a top 10 bowler, the rest is hyperbole that even Subz doesn't believe.

He is believed by a lot of members on this group to be amongst the 5 or so greatest. There was an old captaincy battle ran, and Imran, Taylor, Benaud etc were in the final 4 or so. Border was a mighty inspirational figure, but not that great tactically(same thing Ian Chappell said). And Imran was great tactically yes. Bowling of slow spinners to achieve a drawn series in WI was a masterstroke. And Imran is recalled by most to be a very shrewd captain

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

We can disagree on this, but to call it unsubstantiated hyperbole is wrong

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

cricketweb chooses the best cricket captain ever: the contest thread

Benaud Worrell

www.cricketweb.net

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

On the other hand do feel Donald>Akram. Donald was ATG at home and in England, brilliant in India and WI, good in NZ and SL(based on small samples he had there), good in Aus(regarding the context of his last series).

 

[h_hurricane]

Donald has a reputation of not being discussed much in threads meant to talk about him.

 

[Johan]

Donald might be the most gun bowler here but as cricketers it's Imran all the way.

 

[subshakerz]

On the other hand do feel Donald>Akram. Donald was ATG at home and in England, brilliant in India and WI, good in NZ and SL(based on small samples he had there), good in Aus(regarding the context of his last series).

He wasn't good against Australia overall. One good series out of five. Akram was much better against them.

And his samples in Ind, WI, NZ, Pak, SL are so small it doesn't make a meaningful comparison with Akram, who had multiple tours as a teen and older.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

He wasn't good against Australia overall. One good series out of five. Akram was much better against them.

And his samples in Ind, WI, NZ, Pak, SL are so small it doesn't make a meaningful comparison with Akram, who had multiple tours as a teen and older.

Fair but probably also contextualise Donald missing out on some peak years. India I feel is brilliant, not ATG. Wi is a good sample size(5 matches). NZ and SL I agreed, and that’s why I rated those performances as good only(given the sample sizes).

 

[subshakerz]

So let's go with your argument.

We rate him differently, so let's use the CW rankings from the last 2 polls where he came in at 8th each time.

CW consistently rates him the 3rd best cricketer ever, thats higher than even I rate him.

I'm not going to get into the break down of records in different countries because we starkly disagree. By his ATG standards he was at best average away from home, I would give him England though. Moving on.

Was terrific in Aus including WSC, and of course ATG in WI given wickets and SR.

Btw he averaged better than Holding in WSC and Proctor hardly took wickets.

He was a handy lower order batsman, he wasn't much better than Hadlee, as was pointed out by another poster, up until '88 Imran's average was 30 and pretty much on par. Also he was very much, to quote, a not out merchant, where all but one of his hundreds came in draws and at most two (of the seven)were critical / impactful / consequential.

He averaged 32 until 1988. Won MOS based on his batting at least twice. In his peak, averaged in the 40s and 50s away in Ind, Aus, Eng, while facing Lillee and Hadlee.

And really, how many cricketers can you claim were the best bowler in their team and then became the best bat?

As far as captaincy goes, In his own era, Border was better, Lloyd more impactful and Richards undefeated.

No, Lloyd wasn't more impactful given the team he had. Imran changed the entire landscape of Pakistan cricket. Who said Border was better? Certainly not Ian Chappell, who rated Imran one of the best captains ever. Benaud and Brearely also rated Imran highly. You don't know what you are talking about. How many cricketers do you want me to share who rate his captaincy?

And none of this factors in than no where else is he seen as the 3rd greatest player ever. Nor one of those lists the lists being bandied about has his 3rd. Many in the teens.

Now, I'm not saying he doesn't have an argument to be 3rd, but to say that he's easily 3rd isn't something that's rooted in reality.

He's at best the 3rd best bowler of his era and a handy lower order bat with an inflated average. Even among the other all rounders he was neither the best batsman nor bowler.

He is generally around top 10 in these lists. Our argument is that if he was English or Australian he would be rated far higher, yes a definite no.3 contender. It's not a jump at all, if there was a charismatic English or Aussie great captain, ATG bowler plus a good bat the pundits would swoon over him.

 

[OverratedSanity]

So let's go with your argument.

We rate him differently, so let's use the CW rankings from the last 2 polls where he came in at 8th each time.

I mean, you keep switching up on whether CW polls/threads matter to you or not. There was literally a poll a few months ago to rank the 100 greatest cricketers and Imran was voted a pretty clear no.3. He was also voted no.3 in a voting exercise back in 2012 which you should probably remember because you disagreed with the ranking in that very thread lol. (http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/threads/cw50-2nd-edition-no-03.56551/)

 

[subshakerz]

Fair but probably also contextualise Donald missing out on some peak years. India I feel is brilliant, not ATG. Wi is a good sample size(5 matches). NZ and SL I agreed, and that’s why I rated those performances as good only(given the sample sizes).

Yeah but it's inherently unfair to compare that with Wasim who had three tours of the WI, two (twice as long) tours of India, three tours of SL and three tours of NZ. How likely are we that Donald could have maintained those margins if he had to tour over an entire full length 18 year career?

So to me the longevity brings parity to the stats between Donald and Wasim. But what is the real separating factor is that not a single bat who faced both thought that Donald was better, and that against the best opposition of the 90s, Wasim stood up more frequently than Donald who did not.