Can Cummins make it to the top 10 pacers ever?

[subshakerz]

Bit of a silly thread given the guy has achieved almost everything in the sport. The stats don't tell the whole story in terms of importance of wickets.

Cummins might not be the greatest ever, but he's phenomenal at taking wickets in the big moments. I've been critical of his captaincy through the years but in terms of setting an example and leading from the front, he's amongst the best.

Best Aussie captain since Taylor.

 

[Skipper Pup]

Best Aussie captain since Taylor.

I wouldn't go that far. Edgbaston and Brisbane tests incite PTSD when it comes to bowling tactics and field choices.

He's also partly responsible for the continued selection of Mitch Marsh - that alone hurts his credentials.

 

[subshakerz]

I wouldn't go that far. Edgbaston and Brisbane tests incite PTSD when it comes to bowling tactics and field choices.

He's also partly responsible for the continued selection of Mitch Marsh - that alone hurts his credentials.

Yeah but I can bring up similar howlers for Waugh, Ponting, Clarke, Smith and Paine.

Bottomline he has delivered the top end results of WC, WTC, Ashes and BGT.

 

[Skipper Pup]

Yeah but I can bring up similar howlers for Waugh, Ponting, Clarke, Smith and Paine.

Bottomline he has delivered the top end results of WC, WTC, Ashes and BGT.

Pup would be my choice, always prioritised keeping the game moving forward and had an aggressive mindset. He had to navigate a pretty poor period quality-wise in Australian cricket. He was also very impressive through the Phil Hughes tragedy which stuck with me.

I remember Warne was a big fan of his captaincy, if that means anything.

Less said about his personality and post-cricket life the better.

 

[subshakerz]

Pup would be my choice, always prioritised keeping the game moving forward and had an aggressive mindset. He had to navigate a pretty poor period quality-wise in Australian cricket. He was also very impressive through the Phil Hughes tragedy which stuck with me.

I remember Warne was a big fan of his captaincy, if that means anything.

Less said about his personality and post-cricket life the better.

Pup failed at team unity and lost two Ashes away along with being whitewashed in the SC. For all his tactical rep he doesn't have much to show except WC 2015.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Best Aussie captain since Taylor.

Waugh was better

 

[subshakerz]

Waugh was better

Waugh was overrated and had an ATG team to cover his faults.

 

[subshakerz]

Dude, I am going to break this for you once and for all so you can stop this nonsense about Imran struggling in Aus with high average and low WPM.

You already agreed that his 1990 series was an outlier we can exclude since he was basically a regular bat and part time bowler then.

His other series came in 84/85 when he played two tests as a pure bat and didn't bowl a ball as he had his shin injury.

Ignoring those, there are his series in Australia:

76/77: 18 wickets @ 26 breakthrough series against Aus the best side in the world, including his 12fer to draw the series

78: WSC 25 wickets @20, arguably the best bowler of the series

78/79: 7 wickets @40, poor series

80/81: 16 wickets@19 against a full strength Aus side

So in his actual bowling prime above, he took 66 wickets in 13 tests@24.

That's the reality of his Aus record. It's nothing short of very good.

Can you please acknowledge this?

@capt_Luffy @HouHsiaoHsien

I just want you to note for the record that despite multiple efforts to get @kyear2 to respond to this clarification of Imran's Australia record in response to his talking point, he has refused to do so and ignored it. This just shows that on this topic he is simply a bad faith actor who doesn't really care about modifying his views but just repeating himself as if he never heard a rebuttal.

 

[capt_Luffy]

@capt_Luffy @HouHsiaoHsien

I just want you to note for the record that despite multiple efforts to get @kyear2 to respond to this clarification of Imran's Australia record in response to his talking point, he has refused to do so and ignored it. This just shows that on this topic he is simply a bad faith actor who doesn't really care about modifying his views but just repeating himself as if he never heard a rebuttal.

Reminds me of someone really.....

 

[kyear2]

@capt_Luffy @HouHsiaoHsien

I just want you to note for the record that despite multiple efforts to get @kyear2 to respond to this clarification of Imran's Australia record in response to his talking point, he has refused to do so and ignored it. This just shows that on this topic he is simply a bad faith actor who doesn't really care about modifying his views but just repeating himself as if he never heard a rebuttal.

God you're hilarious.

I'll get to you shortly.

 

[Kirkut]

Cummins took 12 wickets @22.00 in 3 tests at Pakistan, on those dead wickets. He may not have a great record in India yet but that doesn't qualify him to be an easy bowler to face in subcontinental conditions.

 

[subshakerz]

Cummins took 12 wickets @22.00 in 3 tests at Pakistan, on those dead wickets. He may not have a great record in India yet but that doesn't qualify him to be an easy bowler to face in subcontinental conditions.

Yeah that was a good series. I want him to have a good series in India and then no issues for me in SC.

 

[kyear2]

Dude you miss the point on exceptional length.

Imran debuted at 18. No major fast bowler except Wasim ever debuted that early. Taking his numbers seriously at that age doesn't make any sense until he is early 20s like the rest.

Similarly, after 1990, Imran was basically a full regular batsman in the side who occasionally did part time bowling. His bowling prime was done and if he couldn't bat he would have retired by his own admission. Taking his bowling numbers then also doesn't make sense.

Also, for example, when Imran was injured with his shin for two years as a bowler, he played completely as a batsman in Australia and didn't bowl a ball. Should we count those numbers as part of his WPM?

Do you understand? Imran had a bit of an exceptional career that defies normal categorizing and needs context.

You need to stop with this he debuted at 18 argument.

He played one single match, where he didn't even play that badly.

I'm the first innings he bowled 23 overs and took 0/36. In the second innings he was a bit expensive and only got 5 overs.

He didn't play again for 3 years, when he did he played 3 matches and again didn't play for another 2 years when he test career really began.

All of these matches were against England, in England and no one holds it against him. He was great in and vs England.

And this wpm stuff, don't think that showed up in any argument, and not bowling doesn't impact his average or strike rate.

This last part about his exceptional career that "defies categorizing and needs context" is nonsense.

What other cricketer do we parse and adjust averages for? None.

You think he's on par with Sobers, no one serous thinks that, but we'll go with it a second.

Both debuted as teenagers. Imran was to the manor born, went to the best schools where his craft was honed. Sobers was self taught and never received coaching until entering the WI team, teaching himself the game playing cricket in the streets of Bridgetown with taped rocks and coconut stems for a bat. He didn't get his first set of whites until one was donated to him on debut.

His started off as a finger spinning lower order batsman. Have you seen me ever calculate what he averaged for those first 3 or 4 years and subtract that from his overall numbers? I mean his best and most efficient style of bowling was pace and to a slightly lesser extent wrist spin, and he didn't start bowling either of those till I believe the 60's.

You once used the argument that Imran wasn't viewed as highly by the pundits in comparison to Sobers because he was from Pakistan, when Imran was fully a part of the English establishment, while Sobers by comparison was the black kid from the Caribbean. And if you think we were viewed as part of anything positive in England and Australia during the 60's I have some articles and testimonials for you. You should look up what Gordon Greenidge had to say about growing up in England as a teenager.

Sobers was also worn down by the end of his career, a ridiculous blowing load for the WI, and from the mid to late 60's in county cricket. Have I ever calculated how his average may or may not have dipped since then? I never looked.

No one on this forum ranks Imran outside of the top ten as a bowler or a cricketer.

No one hates Imran, there some single cricketer I have disdain for and it's certainly not him.

With regards to the other post where you think I rate him too lowly, why would I rate the 8th best bowler number 3, when he was in general a 30 quality average batsman, and those number were boosted a little near the end of his career when he wasn't bowling. Similarly I'm not pushing Kallis or Hammond into the top 10 either.

If you want to argue his positioning with Warne, cool, I would entertain that. Over Sachin and Viv I would push back harder as Sachin is arguably the 2nd best batsman ever and I think Viv was equally as good, it's basically peak vs longevity. And before anyone starts one also had the 2000's to recover and pad on and minnows to abuse. One was also the best fielder of his era and one of the greatest slips ever.

So while you disagree, it's not ridiculous. To be in my top 8, you have to be in that top tier of bowlers who at least have an argument to be the best ever, 3 names, and either Bradman or the guys who can be seen as the best after him, 5 names. Is that remotely reasonable to you?

 

[subshakerz]

You need to stop with this he debuted at 18 argument.

He played one single match, where he didn't even play that badly.

I'm the first innings he bowled 23 overs and took 0/36. In the second innings he was a bit expensive and only got 5 overs.

He didn't play again for 3 years, when he did he played 3 matches and again didn't play for another 2 years when he test career really began.

All of these matches were against England, in England and no one holds it against him. He was great in and vs England.

Sure but it matters to Mr Blind Average guy who I was responding to who doesn't know that.

And this wpm stuff, don't think that showed up in any argument, and not bowling doesn't impact his average or strike rate.

You brought up low WPM for Imran in Aus.

This last part about his exceptional career that "defies categorizing and needs context" is nonsense.

What other cricketer do we parse and adjust averages for? None.

He is exceptional in that he had periods where he is a pure bat and bowling AR on top of playing longer than any fast bowler ever. So we account for that.

You think he's on par with Sobers, no one serous thinks that, but we'll go with it a second.

Nowhere do I rate Imran on par with Sobers. Sobers is my no.2 and Imran is my no.5 greatest cricketer. The rest of what you wrote is therefore irrelevant.

So while you disagree, it's not ridiculous. To be in my top 8, you have to be in that top tier of bowlers who at least have an argument to be the best ever, 3 names, and either Bradman or the guys who can be seen as the best after him, 5 names. Is that remotely reasonable to you?

No I argue it's just made up criteria because you know on merit Imran should be higher but you can't rate a cheat that high.

Now please respond to my points on Imran in Aus.

 

[humaiyun.hibas]

Pat Cummins definitely makes into the top 10 pacers ever. 100%!

He bowls relentless lengths.
He has a beautiful action. He looks like a Greek god too!
When he runs up, in bounds and springs, hair lopping, he looks like some cinematic ideal of limpid Australian athletic vitality.

 

[kyear2]

On CW, Imran is a confirmed top 3 cricketer.

For cricket public, he is a confirmed top 5 cricketer (I can give you multiple polls across the last decade if you wish, some ranking him ahead of Sobers).

For cricket pundits, Imran is a top 10 cricketer.


Yes relative to all posters here, you would rather Imran not even be in your top 10, he barely makes it. And I argue this is because of what you have stated is your reason to downgrade him. The issue isn't your ranking it's why you rank him and how you make it a point to specify there is a gap between him and the top tier.


Yes you bring up rankings and ATG XI and peer rating when convenient to you and the ignore it for other cricketers.


Totally inconsistent with CW consensus and even pundit opinion. A complete arbitrary mess.


You put Marshall so high yet never acknowledge that pundit opinion doesn't even have him a solid top 10 cricketer. You are forcing him in that position. Yet suddenly Barry is a top ten bat based on pundits.


I am pretty consistent with my selections and overall I can assure you that none of my rankings depart radically (let's say more than 5 places) with general cricket pundit consensus which I consider useful but often misguided from the plusses and minuses of a players record.

Now please answer my point on Imrans Aus record.

On CW he got less than (going on memory here) half the votes Sobers got, and that's because there's no consensus no. 3 and CW is all rounder obsessed. The cricket public are idiots and yes, as you acknowledge, for the pundits he's top 10. Same place I have him.

For the last ****ing time, you can't tell me where I want to place someone. Again, do you think you can bully or shame me into rating anyone anywhere? I (rightfully) have Barry in my top 10 batsman. And yes there is a gap, you think the gap is there just for Imran? Jesus, do you understand how paranoid and insane that sounds? My entire ranking and where there are gaps, is based purely on Imran Khan. I rate Kallis every bit the all rounder than Imran is, but Imran is a better bowler than Kallis is a batsman, and that's why he higher on the list.

Which rankings and peer ratings do I ignore? Now what you would like is for me to use only the ones you prefer and ignore the others, rather than incorporating all of them. There's a difference. Where you you and everyone does decide to literally ignore peer ratings is for one Barry Richards, because if you didn't he would be easily a top 15 batsman at worst.

The same CW consensus that you love to harp on also have him, and I mean consistently and not close to the ones above him, 8th as a bowler. Are you going to change your opinion to that as well? If not, just shut up on it. And again, how are you justifying the 8th best bowler being the 3rd best player.

Please, instead of saying he's the CW consensus. Please tell me how the 8th best bowler, and barely at that, is the 3rd best player of all time. How is he jumping 7 bowlers and about 5 batsmen. You fuss about Kallis's production over average, but Kallis's production is just on par with Imran's. At least for Imran, way more so than for Sobers.

You mention Marshall, what's the argument against him being in the top 3. Again don't use consensus, tell me why Malcolm Marshall isn't worthy to be in the top 5 cricketers of all time. Becuse he wasn't an all rounder? So then Sachin is out too yeah? So yes, please tell me what off with Malcolm Denzil Marshall being in the top 3.

Barry is top 10 based on contemporary batting ratings at the time that he played that had him above Sunny and Chappell as batsmen. If when he played he was above those gentlemen, and even in '79 he was still rated above Sunny and at worst on par with Chappell, how is he below them as batsmen? Ranking as cricketers is arbitrary as hell, it's how do rate batsmen vs bowlers, and that's before you include all rounders all all that stuff. It's a crap shoot and literally every one does it differently. You love to push Imran re lists and peer rating, but in every single one Warne is above him, and easily too, yeah, that's one you love and live to ignore.

But batting (or bowling) ratings are straight forward as hell. Who was the better batsman? Don't think there's a list where Chappell is higher, and with Sunny the two interchange. But while they were both playing, Barry was seen to be better, and even after Barry retired, there was literally one series where Sunny did anything that would have changed that equation.

My issue with you is that every cricket opinion that you have, every argument that you make and almost every single post is geared towards Imran. There will be the odd few that's for Sachin and hence anti Lara, and of course the Ashwin and Jadeja squabbles, but basically all about one player. Even the stupid ass slip catching arguments you have is basically because it's something that can be used for Kallis and not him, and it's transparently obvious. Becuse you need everyone to see him as the 3rd best player ever, which for me there is no argument for, but hey, do you. But for you I must agree, and if I don't I'm biased and have something against him. If I say he's too 10, it's only because you made me and I really don't want to do it. Yet at the same time it's too low and I hate him.

This is the hopefully the last time that I'll have to say this. For me if you're a contender to be the greatest at anything, or in Bradman's case, the best at anything, you're in a elite tier of your own.

You say you go by consensus, and that I should as well, I assume that means that Warne is in your top 5 as well? As per outside and pundit ratings he's too 5, and easily so. But you ignore those don't you.

I believe I've watched cricket long enough, and have read enough about it, studied the game enough and understand what it takes for teams to win and how teams should be constructed and what factors contributes more to that than others... To be able to entitled to my own opinions.

There isn't a player in my top 10 lists that's out of order or indefensible, and even the top 40 list is pretty damn solid. I don't have any insane rankings like Richards being a top 15 batsman like a couple here do, and outside of Imran you don't have an issue with it either. It's not biased, it's not because you made me, it's not because of any of the crazy ass reasons you've come up with in your head. That's where I think he and Warne belong, and **** me, they're still in the top 10. How is that crazy to you.

 

[kyear2]

Dude the methodology of the Wisden list is irrelevant. The fact is that on that elite ranking along with the ESPN rankings and many others, a guy you claim is the no.3 cricketer of all time, Marshall, doesn't even come close to being ranked a top 10 cricketer. Yet you harp on Imran not being ranked sufficiently high?

So you can claim that you don't care about pundit consensus for Marshall. Ok.

But then suddenly you come with Barry as an ATG and base it entirely on rankings and punditry, which you ignore for Marshall.

You clearly have mixed up standards and aren't sure what you are doing, as long as it is downgrading Imran.

I'll keep this one short.

You're deliberately confusing ranking players in their primary disciples with ranking players as cricketers.

As a bowler Marshall is up there, how people decide to rate cricketers is up to them.

The absolutely sad part of all of this is that again, it's just about one man and you're being a man child because I don't agree with you.

I don't believe that automatically every all rounder is better than every specialist. And neither do you. Becuse then Kallis is also top 5, is he too 5 for you? Of course not, you've already tried your best to destroy him because he's a rival of Imran. How about Miller? Hammond? Hadlee? Hadlee is a easily better bowler than Imran, and the batting is literally secondary. There's no argument in my mind that Hadlee is a better cricketer. Candidate for best ever and not that bad a batsman either.

Every decision I make isn't based on Imran Khan.

When Gower and CMJ made their lists were they also biased against him? Does everyone who doesn't have him top 5 biased against him?

You say Pundit ratings have him top 10, are they also biased against him?

Are you yet begining to see how ****ing ridiculous this is?

Jesus Christ I have him 9th or 10th and you make it seem like I'm saying he's ****.

 

[kyear2]

iirc you mention Sobers being a Wisden player quite often, be careful about what rankings you call a joke! Johnny Wisden will come for you.

You do see the difference between receiving 100 or 90 votes and the consensus that implies rather than 10 right?

I'm assuming there's a difference implied.

 

[subshakerz]

On CW he got less than (going on memory here) half the votes Sobers got, and that's because there's no consensus no. 3 and CW is all rounder obsessed. The cricket public are idiots and yes, as you acknowledge, for the pundits he's top 10. Same place I have him.

Ah yes when convenient nitpick CW rankings.

For the last ****ing time, you can't tell me where I want to place someone. Again, do you think you can bully or shame me into rating anyone anywhere? I (rightfully) have Barry in my top 10 batsman. And yes there is a gap, you think the gap is there just for Imran? Jesus, do you understand how paranoid and insane that sounds? My entire ranking and where there are gaps, is based purely on Imran Khan. I rate Kallis every bit the all rounder than Imran is, but Imran is a better bowler than Kallis is a batsman, and that's why he higher on the list.

Dude in the bowler list you literally go out of your way to say there is a huge tier gap before we get to Imran. And conveniently in the overall player list you say there is a huge tier gap before we get to Imran. Coincidence? I think not. Kinda obvious what's going on.

You mention Marshall, what's the argument against him being in the top 3. Again don't use consensus, tell me why Malcolm Marshall isn't worthy to be in the top 5 cricketers of all time. Becuse he wasn't an all rounder? So then Sachin is out too yeah? So yes, please tell me what off with Malcolm Denzil Marshall being in the top 3.

Marshalls in my top 10 but I downgrade him a bit for relatively less impact in terms of greatness. But you haven't explained the gap between you putting him at no.3 and pundits not even putting him close to top 10.

Barry is top 10 based on contemporary batting ratings at the time that he played that had him above Sunny and Chappell as batsmen. If when he played he was above those gentlemen, and even in '79 he was still rated above Sunny and at worst on par with Chappell, how is he below them as batsmen? Ranking as cricketers is arbitrary as hell, it's how do rate batsmen vs bowlers, and that's before you include all rounders all all that stuff. It's a crap shoot and literally every one does it differently. You love to push Imran re lists and peer rating, but in every single one Warne is above him, and easily too, yeah, that's one you love and live to ignore.

You bring up pundits and rankings for Barry in your arguments but drop them for Marshall because you know they don't back you putting him as no.3. Thats the issue.

Becuse you need everyone to see him as the 3rd best player ever, which for me there is no argument for, but hey, do you.

I rate Tendulkar as no.3 greatest cricketer ever and Imran as no.5, which is lower than CW consensus. Your entire argument is wrong.

You say you go by consensus, and that I should as well, I assume that means that Warne is in your top 5 as well? As per outside and pundit ratings he's too 5, and easily so. But you ignore those don't you.

No because I already said I normally have a divergence of around 4-5 spots from pundit consensus versus my own opinion.

 

[subshakerz]

As a bowler Marshall is up there, how people decide to rate cricketers is up to them.

You literally have destroyed your arguments for Barry here. Again when convenient, pundits can take a hike.