Can Cummins make it to the top 10 pacers ever?

[Randomfan]

Not including NZ and SL doesn't make any sense. They both were regular mid-tier standard test teams and England batting was hardly much better than them.

SL had won like 4-5 tests in entire history till the first 10 years of Wasim's career and transitioned to non-minnows after that.

Wasim underperformed collectively against Aus, Ind, SA, WI, Eng when compared to his peers by a big margin even in his peak. I mean collecitve avg of 27 and SR 60 is not impressive.

How high Wasim should be rated for perfomringing poorly against 5 teams and doing well against 1 team out of 7?

Shouldn't it count highly against him if you are penalizing Donald for not doing well against one team?

 

[kyear2]

You can remove the first 5 years of Wasim and see what he did compared to his peers,

Wasim away avg is still close to 27 with SR in 60. That's 29 tests in these venue and Donald has 26 tests. Same amount of play for both.

View attachment 44083

Yeah, I have Donald rated higher than Wasim. Not by much though. Think 10th / 11th and 12th ish.

 

[subshakerz]

SL had won like 4-5 tests in entire history till the first 10 years of Wasim's career and transitioned to non-minnows after that.

Wasim underperformed collectively against Aus, Ind, SA, WI, Eng when compared to his peers by a big margin even in his peak. I mean collecitve avg of 27 and SR 60 is not impressive.

How high Wasim should be rated for perfomringing poorly against 5 teams and doing well against 1 team out of 7?

Shouldn't it count highly against him if you are penalizing Donald for not doing well against one team?

SL of the 90s were a formidable team. NZ were a test standard team and as good as Eng in that era. Please include those numbers and share. Otherwise you are just cherrypicking.

Australia were the top team of the era so that's why we focus on that for Donald since he had only one quality series in five he played.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, I have Donald rated higher than Wasim. Not by much though. Think 10th / 11th and 12th ish.

So you have Wasim who isn't even in the top ten pacers in your ATG XI and yet you harp on 'we can't compromise on bowling quality for some batting'? Odd.

 

[Johan]

Trueman better than Donald and Wasim fr

 

[Randomfan]

Yeah, there's those number and the higher than normal percentage of tail end wickets.

But that talent and ability during his prime was special. Also a lot of people conflate his odi performances and factors those in as well when rating him overall.

ODI shouldn't be mixed with the test format.

In test alone, Wasim's skill was right up there with the best, but we are not ranking bowlers for their skills. We are making top bowlers list. Bowlers job is to take wickets cheaply and quickly. That's what wins matches and makes some one a better bowler.

Wasim's over all record against so many teams is not impressive. I hear pitches in Pakistan as reason for that, but then his collecitve away record against Aus, SA, WI, Ind, Eng is not impressive at all. Avg 27-28 and SR 60-65. Even after removing his initial years, same stats. We had Mcgrath/Ambrose/Donald bowling in the same period and we can see what they did. That gives an idea about what top bowlers were supposed to do in that period.

Put it this way, if you are making a list of playing XI to play against Aus, Ind, SA, WI, Eng then Wasim won't be even contender for spot in second world XI based on actual performance. Yes, in skill he is right up there and also I don't think left or right matters, what matters is picking wickets cheaply and quickly. You win tests by taking 20 wickets cheaply and quickly. Lower avg and lower SR matters helps to do it. If you do it against good teams then great. If you can do it against good teams in their home even better. Collectively, Wasim did neither.

Now if we are making XI agaisnt BD/Zim/SL/NZ then Wasim will find a spot, but 2 were minnows. SL had won 4-5 tests till wasim was 10 years in his career. Only NZ was non-minnow team during his entire career. How many greats we know who underperformed against 5 opponents taken together and perform against one. I can't think of many names to be honest.

If we exclude 80s for being newbie, in 90s Wasim was outbowled by MCGrath and Ambrose by a big margin. And by Donald by a smaller margin. How come Donald gets treated so harshly while Wasim gets a pass?

 

[subshakerz]

ODI shouldn't be mixed with the test format.

In test alone, Wasim's skill was right up there with the best, but we are not ranking bowlers for their skills. We are making top bowlers list. Bowlers job is to take wickets cheaply and quickly. That's what wins matches and makes some one a better bowler.

Wasim's over all record against so many teams is not impressive. I hear pitches in Pakistan as reason for that, but then his collecitve away record against Aus, SA, WI, Ind, Eng is not impressive at all. Avg 27-28 and SR 60-65. Even after removing his initial years, same stats. We had Mcgrath/Ambrose/Donald bowling in the same period and we can see what they did. That gives an idea about what top bowlers were supposed to do in that period.

Put it this way, if you are making a list of playing XI to play against Aus, Ind, SA, WI, Eng then Wasim won't be even contender for spot in second world XI based on actual performance. Yes, in skill he is right up there and also I don't think left or right matters, what matters is picking wickets cheaply and quickly. You win tests by taking 20 wickets cheaply and quickly. Lower avg and lower SR matters helps to do it. If you do it against good teams then great. If you can do it against good teams in their home even better. Collectively, Wasim did neither.

Now if we are making XI agaisnt BD/Zim/SL/NZ then Wasim will find a spot, but 2 were minnows. SL had won 4-5 tests till wasim was 10 years in his career. Only NZ was non-minnow team during his entire career. How many greats we know who underperformed against 5 opponents taken together and perform against one. I can't think of many names to be honest.

If we exclude 80s for being newbie, in 90s Wasim was outbowled by MCGrath and Ambrose by a big margin. And by Donald by a smaller margin. How come Donald gets treated so harshly while Wasim gets a pass?

What's funny is that SL were a better team overall than India in the 90 but you won't include them, and frankly NZ over Eng too.

 

[kyear2]

So you have Wasim who isn't even in the top ten pacers in your ATG XI and yet you harp on 'we can't compromise on bowling quality for some batting'? Odd.

If I didn't have writeups of my team in about 4 different threads and the reasons why players are selected (posts which you have liked, responded to and critiqued) I would understand the question.

In summary though.

1. An AT team should have representation from the major teams that impacted the game, and should have more than one from the SC.

2. The last position is between Imran and Wasim (reverse swing). It's basically Wasim's ability to move the ball both ways, and primarily the fact that he's very arguably the games best ever old ball bowler against Imran's batting. Wasim being the best old ball bowlers wins out because that would be his main role.

3. It's hard to overlook the fact that Cricinfo and Wisden selected All Time XIs and Wasim was one of only 7 players to make both.

My Wasim (Imran) selection is very similar to my Barry one. It's about bringing facets to their primary skill that no one else (Steyn the possible exception) can provide at this level, in reverse swing and old ball nous for the former and that aggression and ability to dominate and shift pressure at the top for the latter. Then adding that little something extra with their secondary contributions.

Not all about spread sheets, it's about building (for me) the perfect team, and Wasim was the best at something that I need.
And yes their team mates in Imran and Barlow were better (in secondary), but Wasim was good enough and Barry was pretty special himself.

Anything else?

 

[kyear2]

Trueman better than Donald and Wasim fr

Trueman has an argument over Wasim for sure. Not sure about over Donald.

What's your argument?

 

[Johan]

What's funny is that SL were a better team overall than India in the 90 but you won't include them, and frankly NZ over Eng too.

No shot

 

[sayon basak]

3. It's hard to overlook the fact that Cricinfo and Wisden selected All Time XIs and Wasim was one of only 7 players to make both.

And Why does this matter?

 

[Randomfan]

SL of the 90s were a formidable team.

First 10 years of career of Wasim, SL had won 4 tests in their entire history with W/L standing at 0.1. That's not a definition of formidable team for me. That's more than half of Wasim's career. SL started becoming formidable team after mid 90s.

NZ was surely a test standard team during his entire career. Point is how high you can rate some one for bashing NZ who were not that great to begin with after Hadlee was gone when same bowler is average 27-28 away with SR of 60-65 collecitvely against rest of the teams?

And at same time, you are saying that Donald should be rated below Wasim due to underperfoming against one team.

 

[Johan]

Trueman has an argument over Wasim for sure. Not sure about over Donald.

What's your argument?

Better against the strongest batting of his time (West Indies) by a large margin, and think 60s was harder to bowl in than 90s.

 

[kyear2]

ODI shouldn't be mixed with the test format.

In test alone, Wasim's skill was right up there with the best, but we are not ranking bowlers for their skills. We are making top bowlers list. Bowlers job is to take wickets cheaply and quickly. That's what wins matches and makes some one a better bowler.

Wasim's over all record against so many teams is not impressive. I hear pitches in Pakistan as reason for that, but then his collecitve away record against Aus, SA, WI, Ind, Eng is not impressive at all. Avg 27-28 and SR 60-65. Even after removing his initial years, same stats. We had Mcgrath/Ambrose/Donald bowling in the same period and we can see what they did. That gives an idea about what top bowlers were supposed to do in that period.

Put it this way, if you are making a list of playing XI to play against Aus, Ind, SA, WI, Eng then Wasim won't be even contender for spot in second world XI based on actual performance. Yes, in skill he is right up there and also I don't think left or right matters, what matters is picking wickets cheaply and quickly. You win tests by taking 20 wickets cheaply and quickly. Lower avg and lower SR matters helps to do it. If you do it against good teams then great. If you can do it against good teams in their home even better. Collectively, Wasim did neither.

Now if we are making XI agaisnt BD/Zim/SL/NZ then Wasim will find a spot, but 2 were minnows. SL had won 4-5 tests till wasim was 10 years in his career. Only NZ was non-minnow team during his entire career. How many greats we know who underperformed against 5 opponents taken together and perform against one. I can't think of many names to be honest.

If we exclude 80s for being newbie, in 90s Wasim was outbowled by MCGrath and Ambrose by a big margin. And by Donald by a smaller margin. How come Donald gets treated so harshly while Wasim gets a pass?

Damn, why are you trying to get me to change my mind?

What's your take on his captain and mentor, Imran?

I'm curious.

Good list btw I imagine PFK would have a different take on the matter though, lol.

 

[kyear2]

And Why does this matter?

That the cricket " bible" (no sacrilege intended) and the preeminent cricket website (which collected former players, captains and journalists to complete this exercise) both completed their all time teams and Wasim managed to make both?

Really?

In the NBA and the NFL the AP releases all Pro teams for each year and it factors heavily in their resume and legacy. Again when both leagues independently released top 50 / 75 teams, it represented who was the best of the very best. That was a higher honor than even the hall of Fame.

These two are the most credible and relatable possible resources and they both selected the same 7 names, what's a bigger honor than that?

 

[Randomfan]

What's funny is that SL were a better team overall than India in the 90 but you won't include them, and frankly NZ over Eng too.

SL was surely a better team in late 90s.

SL became formidable team after mid 90s. More than half way Wasim's career. They were minnows till mid 90s. I mean come on, not even 5 tests victory in entire history by then.

Yes, Eng was not great team as well. I never said Eng was a great team. They were more or less same level as NZ in 90s.

Wasim's status of going above Donald based on bashing one bottom tier team which was non-minnow during his entire career? Seems strange to me, that's why I asked.

 

[kyear2]

Better against the strongest batting of his time (West Indies) by a large margin, and think 60s was harder to bowl in than 90s.

Harder yes, but the 60's weren't flat either.

And he really wasn't that superb in Australia nor the WI tbh.

 

[sayon basak]

That the cricket " bible" (no sacrilege intended) and the preeminent cricket website (which collected former players, captains and journalists to complete this exercise) both completed their all time teams and Wasim managed to make both?

Really?

In the NBA and the NFL the AP releases all Pro teams for each year and it factors heavily in their resume and legacy. Again when both leagues independently released top 50 / 75 teams, it represented who was the best of the very best. That was a higher honor than even the hall of Fame.

These two are the most credible and relatable possible resources and they both selected the same 7 names, what's a bigger honor than that?

Understandable. But why should it affect your team? It's "your" team.

And cricket writers and journalists overrate players all the time (I've seen some of the so called expert's list of the 75th anniversary, many of them were awful).

 

[Johan]

Harder yes, but the 60's weren't flat either.

And he really wasn't that superb in Australia nor the WI tbh.

barely got to play tho, and Donald struggled against the strongest batting of his time even at home while Trueman obliterated WI at home, his away WI record looks bad true but he had a 26 avg series + match winning performance against Windies in a very flat/high scoring series. He is better in Australia than Donald too. I'll take Fred here.

 

[subshakerz]

SL was surely a better team in late 90s.

SL became formidable team after mid 90s. More than half way Wasim's career. They were minnows till mid 90s. I mean come on, not even 5 tests victory in entire history by then.

Yes, Eng was not great team as well. I never said Eng was a great team. They were more or less same level as NZ in 90s.

Wasim's status of going above Donald based on bashing one bottom tier team which was non-minnow during his entire career? Seems strange to me, that's why I asked.

The point is you compare averages including all regular teams. Then we can talk about Australia.