Can Cummins make it to the top 10 pacers ever?

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Cummins can maybe make top 10 by the time he retires, but he'll have to do a lot still from here to make it.

Currently he's definitely below:

McGrath/Marshall/Hadlee/Ambrose/Steyn/Imran/Woakes

Probably below:

Barnes/Lillee/Trueman/Wasim/Garner/Donald

And not obviously clear of:

Holding/Lindwall/Davidson/Walsh/Pollock/Anderson/Bumrah

Rabada could potentially overtake him as well depending on what happens from here.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Cummins can maybe make top 10 by the time he retires, but he'll have to do a lot still from here to make it.

Currently he's definitely below:

McGrath/Marshall/Hadlee/Ambrose/Steyn/Imran/Woakes

Probably below:

Barnes/Lillee/Trueman/Wasim/Garner/Donald

And not obviously clear of:

Holding/Lindwall/Davidson/Walsh/Pollock/Anderson/Bumrah

Rabada could potentially overtake him as well depending on what happens from here.

Forgot Waqar

 

[Randomfan]

Two major problems with your analysis:

- You don't consider exceptional length of career. Most of us acknowledge that his early couple and late couple years are really reflective of Imran the bowler

- If you consider raw average as a cutoff, his exceptional record for example in the WI of 48 wickets in 8 tests @25, which most of us consider ATG level, has to be considered somehow below world class. It's reductive.

I give brownie points to lets say some one like Kapil for Sub 25 avg in WI with lots of wickets, but I will still look at his away average to see how he did taken together. His good performance in WI is part of his total away record. Same way, I will see what IK has done. Yes, he was good in WI but that's part of his total away record. IK/Kapil must have done drastically worse in other places compared to other bowlers to end with away average of 26-27 and 32-33. Now if two bowlers are same away avg and one happens to dominate good team then you will consider that, but Ik away average of 26-27 puts him way below Marshall/Hadlee who played at the same time. We can't ignore difference of 5-6 avg, it's just huge.

Exceptional length would be a great point if he had maintained great standards for exceptional lengh, lets say like SRT did in batting. You get extra poits for that. You don't get extra points for simply having longer career if entire career was not high standards as a bowler. You can't also claim that give me extra point for long career but don't consider some part of my career. It can't go both ways.

Should we judge players on their best 35 tests? No one does that. You are judged based on what you did in your career. Off course, we all can see that players can have a poor first 5-7 tests due to being new or goes on playing too long despite declining big time for extra 5-7 tests. But peak in middle should some what compensate for poor start or poor ending. No one just takes raw avg and start ranking playes based on sorting. If I had done that IK won't figure in near top 10 for me. But as a bowler, your prime job is to take take wickets quickly and cheaply. That's how tests are won. It does matter what your numbers are and it can't be ignored by intangibles.

Now if you start making a list of bowlers with 35 tests peak then Ik will appear near the top, but we are not making that list here.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Forgot Waqar

Ah yeah, probably belongs in the "not obviously ahead of" category

 

[subshakerz]

Exceptional length would be a great point if he had maintained great standards for exceptional lengh, lets say like SRT did in batting. You get extra poits for that. You don't get extra points for simply having longer career if entire career was not high standards as a bowler. You can't also claim that give me extra point for long career but don't consider some part of my career. It can't go both ways.

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.

 

[Coronis]

And that's fine. But you then want to use his batting numbers from '89 onwards to boosts his batting credentials, boosting him as an all rounder.

You can't have it both ways.

I rate him basically from '76 to '89 period.

iirc you and subz both just tried to use the opposite argument regarding Walcott in the Miller thread

 

[Randomfan]

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.

I never brought up WPM for IK anytime because I know he was not bowling always. But not bowling won't change Avg or SR.

You say that pacers early years shouldn't count, here you go after removing his early years.

Gap between Marshall/Hadlee and IK is a large one despite removing 5 early years when he was not good. Simply said , he does not belong in that tier. 8-10 spot is very good for what he had done in his career.

 

[subshakerz]

I never brought up WPM for IK anytime because I know he was not bowling always. But not bowling won't change Avg or SR.

You say that pacers early years shouldn't count, here you go after removing his early years.

Gap between Marshall/Hadlee and IK is a large one despite removing 5 early years when he was not good. Simply said , he does not belong in that tier. 8-10 spot is very good for what he had done in his career.

View attachment 44095

Lol I never said he was as good as Marshall/Hadlee who I agree are better.

 

[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?

@kyear2 pls respond.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Dude you miss the point on exceptional length.

Imran debuted at 18. No major fast bowler except Wasim ever debuted that early.

Waqar

Hmmm birth certificates..

 

[subshakerz]

Waqar

Hmmm birth certificates..

Waqar was dodgy.

 

[subshakerz]

iirc you and subz both just tried to use the opposite argument regarding Walcott in the Miller thread

No I walked it back after you corrected me.

 

[kyear2]

Who is questioning legit ATG status of IK here. I even put him among the top 10 test pacers. Is that not ATG status?

I pointed out his huge disparity in home and away record which stands out in a negative way when compared to other greats. He is still one of the greats. When you are comparing greats in history, you are going to hear points for and against. It hardly means that a player career is getting donwplayed.

Yes, Lillee did not play everywhere, but many others have played in all away venues along side IK. Should we ignore wide gulf in away performance for all other greats and IK? As I said earlier, home record for everyone had different conditions and you can't make any apple to apple comparison, but you can certainly make apple to apple comparison and he falls short there. Also, away for IK will be all venues outside those Paksitani roads and for others it will include same Paksitani roads. Are we saying that IK's had far inferior skills than other bowlers to have good avg and SR outside of Paksitani roads. Because everyone else bowled in the same enviorument when playing away and for them it includes those Pakistani roads as well.

His great home Avg and SR stands out.among his peers.
His not so great away Avg and SR also stands out among his peers.

Yes, we all know great away series of IK and many other bowlers. That's part of their career. If he had no great away series then with away avg of 26-27 and SR of 60, he would have been rated far below. Those great away series is the reason he is in discussion for top 10 test bowlers. Otherwise no bowler with such away record will make the cut for discussion for top 10 pacers based only on good numbers at home.

Clearly, I am not ignoring his impact or good series away.

Well said.

No one has ever said he wasn't an ATG, or even top 10.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah this forum puts Imran as a top five if not solid top 3 cricketer, as does much of the cricket public.

You ideally wouldn't want him in your top ten but you have to squeeze him in.

It's pretty clear you downgrade him. Which is fine as you told us why.

I didn't ask you what others think. Others also have Kallis and Hammond top 10, do you?

And no, the cricket public definely doesn't have Imran top 3, you're just making up **** now.

And now to tell me I really don't want him, but I have to squeeze him in sounds ridiculous.

Does anything about my posts tell you I give a damn what anyone thinks? I have Barry at no. 9 all time for batsmen and 19th overall.

Looking at my rankings there's nothing there that's in any way inconsistent with how I rate players.

I'm still waiting to hear how someone can rank Kallis the 17th best batsman, but a top 10 cricketer. Similarly how can a bowler who I rank 8th overall, jump a top 3 who I rate well above him, 5 batsmen I rank well above him.

I have 3 bowlers for whom an argument can be made to be the best ever, Bradman, and 4 batsmen for whom an argument can be made to be the best batsman since Bradman.

I'm not skipping players of that class for someone I rank 8th as a bowler, or 11th as a batsman.

Outside of those 8 he's literally along with Warne, a Wisden top 5 player of the century for 9th.
How is that unreasonable.

Bradman | Sobers | Marshall | Hobbs | McGrath | Hadlee | Tendulkar | Richards

Warne | Imran ..........

You rank Imran 5th and ahead of Ambrose and the spinners, from numerous polls and the official rankings not many people agree with you. Sure that doesn't change your mind.

There's nothing nefarious about my rankings, yours on the other hand, as you apparently rate bases on combined skills, should have Kallis and Hammond over Sachin, not to mention Hadlee.

And you can look through as many lists as you like, by any sane observers or writer and you wouldn't see Imran no. 3 in absolute any. Again, not going to change your mind is it.

 

[subshakerz]

I didn't ask you what others think. Others also have Kallis and Hammond top 10, do you?

And no, the cricket public definely doesn't have Imran top 3, you're just making up **** now.

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.

And now to tell me I really don't want him, but I have to squeeze him in sounds ridiculous.

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.

Does anything about my posts tell you I give a damn what anyone thinks? I have Barry at no. 9 all time for batsmen and 19th overall.

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

Looking at my rankings there's nothing there that's in any way inconsistent with how I rate players.

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

I have 3 bowlers for whom an argument can be made to be the best ever, Bradman, and 4 batsmen for whom an argument can be made to be the best batsman since Bradman.

I'm not skipping players of that class for someone I rank 8th as a bowler, or 11th as a batsman.

Outside of those 8 he's literally along with Warne, a Wisden top 5 player of the century for 9th.
How is that unreasonable.

Bradman | Sobers | Marshall | Hobbs | McGrath | Hadlee | Tendulkar | Richards

Warne | Imran ..........

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.

You rank Imran 5th and ahead of Ambrose and the spinners, from numerous polls and the official rankings not many people agree with you. Sure that doesn't change your mind.

There's nothing nefarious about my rankings, yours on the other hand, as you apparently rate bases on combined skills, should have Kallis and Hammond over Sachin, not to mention Hadlee.

And you can look through as many lists as you like, by any sane observers or writer and you wouldn't see Imran no. 3 in absolute any. Again, not going to change your mind is it.

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.

 

[kyear2]

Yet you discard the Wisden and elite ESPN panel player rankings while making these ATG XIs the end all be all

Wisden player rankings outside of the top 5 were a joke, and even that's a stretch. Why you ask?

1. Instead of asking them to rank players and submit a list, they have each voter 5 votes. Two were all but taken up with the two automatics. That's an incredibly stupid and misleading way of choosing a top 5 for anything.

2. Frank Worrell was 6th and Compton was 9th.

3. Really after Bradman with 100 votes and Sobers with 90, 3rd had a whopping 30, 5th, barely a quarter of the votes with exactly 25.

4. The less ATGs a country had, the more likely they were going to get the lion share of the vote from said country. Pakistan had 11 votes and Imran (the reason for your comment) had 13. Unless anyone was pulling in 50 votes, or at a low baseline the quarter than no. 5 ended up with, it's academic.

5. The list of some of the people who got voted for a top 5 player of all time.
Lloyd, Holding, Constantine, Gibbs Worrell
Benaud, McCabe, Ian Chappell, Border, Grimmett
Evans, Larwood, Botham
Dev, Chandra

And it only gets worse.

For an ATX, it's pretty simple, you pick the best player for each position and go from there.

And yes, 7 players made the Wisden and Cricinfo efforts and he's, that is a big deal.

 

[subshakerz]

Wisden player rankings outside of the top 5 were a joke, and even that's a stretch. Why you ask?

1. Instead of asking them to rank players and submit a list, they have each voter 5 votes. Two were all but taken up with the two automatics. That's an incredibly stupid and misleading way of choosing a top 5 for anything.

2. Frank Worrell was 6th and Compton was 9th.

3. Really after Bradman with 100 votes and Sobers with 90, 3rd had a whopping 30, 5th, barely a quarter of the votes with exactly 25.

4. The less ATGs a country had, the more likely they were going to get the lion share of the vote from said country. Pakistan had 11 votes and Imran (the reason for your comment) had 13. Unless anyone was pulling in 50 votes, or at a low baseline the quarter than no. 5 ended up with, it's academic.

5. The list of some of the people who got voted for a top 5 player of all time.
Lloyd, Holding, Constantine, Gibbs Worrell
Benaud, McCabe, Ian Chappell, Border, Grimmett
Evans, Larwood, Botham
Dev, Chandra

And it only gets worse.

For an ATX, it's pretty simple, you pick the best player for each position and go from there.

And yes, 7 players made the Wisden and Cricinfo efforts and he's, that is a big deal.

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.

 

[Coronis]

Wisden player rankings outside of the top 5 were a joke, and even that's a stretch. Why you ask?

1. Instead of asking them to rank players and submit a list, they have each voter 5 votes. Two were all but taken up with the two automatics. That's an incredibly stupid and misleading way of choosing a top 5 for anything.

2. Frank Worrell was 6th and Compton was 9th.

3. Really after Bradman with 100 votes and Sobers with 90, 3rd had a whopping 30, 5th, barely a quarter of the votes with exactly 25.

4. The less ATGs a country had, the more likely they were going to get the lion share of the vote from said country. Pakistan had 11 votes and Imran (the reason for your comment) had 13. Unless anyone was pulling in 50 votes, or at a low baseline the quarter than no. 5 ended up with, it's academic.

5. The list of some of the people who got voted for a top 5 player of all time.
Lloyd, Holding, Constantine, Gibbs Worrell
Benaud, McCabe, Ian Chappell, Border, Grimmett
Evans, Larwood, Botham
Dev, Chandra

And it only gets worse.

For an ATX, it's pretty simple, you pick the best player for each position and go from there.

And yes, 7 players made the Wisden and Cricinfo efforts and he's, that is a big deal.

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.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

He loves Wisden except when he doesn't love Wisden.

 

[Skipper Pup]

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.