Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[Furball]

Watson's a bad example IMO because he is so good with the ball. If his body could hold itself together he could be picked for both bat and ball - yes, he could be one of the greatest ARs ever, if not the greatest. His bowling, when he bowls, is as good as the specialists. He averages 29 and strikes at 59.

Kallis and other batting allrounders aren't as good as him with the ball.

Watson isn't that good with the ball.

 

[marc71178]

Agree with the sentiment but WAC.

 

[Howe_zat]

Watson isn't that good with the ball.

Whoops, I seem to have woken up and it's 2008.

 

[TINJU Jishnu]

that is a blasphemous argument. imran and hadlee were as good as marshall and mcgrath to take the new ball against any team anywhere in the world. it is impossible for anyone to rank these four bowlers in any order without any personal bias. you are welcome to choose marshall and mcgrath to open your bowling (I would go for marshall and hadlee), but there is no way you can say imran and hadlee were not good enough to make it to any dream xi purely as fast bowlers. they did everything, and more, required of any all time top 5 bowler to deserve that kind of respect. even marshall and pigeon would agree to come in at first and second change if all four of them were picked in a team. they all were absolute equals. no question about that.

agree on hadlee.
imran - ATG , but not in first tier

 

[smash84]

and would you please elaborate why Imran is not first tier? As far as test matches are concerned he is a better bowler than Wasim

 

[TINJU Jishnu]

and would you please elaborate why Imran is not first tier? As far as test matches are concerned he is a better bowler than Wasim

never seen , any1 rating imran as greatest bowler ever, that means he is not in the league of akram , marshal, lillee, hadlee, holding , mcgrath, ..etc

//As far as test matches are concerned he is a better bowler than Wasim//

statistically , yez

otherwise , there's nobody better than god

 

[Furball]

never seen , any1 rating imran as greatest bowler ever, that means he is not in the league of akram , marshal, lillee, hadlee, holding , mcgrath, ..etc

//As far as test matches are concerned he is a better bowler than Wasim//

statistically , yez

otherwise , there's nobody better than god

Akram wasn't even close to being the best bowler of his generation never mind best of all time.

 

[BlazeDragon]

No.

About what? Are you saying Mcgrath and Marshall are not better bowlers than Imran and Hadlee or that Pakistan of the 80's did face batting as great as the Aus dominated era?

Watson's a bad example IMO because he is so good with the ball. If his body could hold itself together he could be picked for both bat and ball - yes, he could be one of the greatest ARs ever, if not the greatest. His bowling, when he bowls, is as good as the specialists. He averages 29 and strikes at 59.

Kallis and other batting allrounders aren't as good as him with the ball.

Watson isn't that good with the ball.

This pretty much. If he can keep up his current form maybe he can be considered an all time great one day but hey so can Bresnan.

Having anymore that one batsman who can bowl in a side is a bit pointless because there's a limit as to how much that batsman will be able to bowl. On the other hand everyone in the side is normally required to contribute with the bat and you can never have enough batting.

I would rather have 3 bowlers like Watson in the team over 3 batsmen like Broad anyday.

The difference between Imran/Hadlee and Marshall/McGrath as bowlers is negligible, but the former pair give you far superior batting depth.

Its not negligible in a World XI in a squad filled with specialist batsmen.

 

[Furball]

About what? Are you saying Mcgrath and Marshall are not better bowlers than Imran and Hadlee or that Pakistan of the 80's did face batting as great as the Aus dominated era?





This pretty much. If he can keep up his current form maybe he can be considered an all time great one day but hey so can Bresnan.



I would rather have 3 bowlers like Watson in the team over 3 batsmen like Broad anyday.



Its not negligible in a World XI in a squad filled with specialist batsmen.

You still need your 8, 9, 10 and 11 to bat for you at somepoint. 3 Watsons in your side will barely bowl unless your frontline bowlers haven't performed. Your lower order is still likely to be called upon to bat even if your top order has done the job. Bowling allrounders are much, much more valuable to a team than batting all rounders.

I'm not saying I'd pick the all rounder over a specialist bowler - ultimately your bowling allrounder needs to justify his place through his bowling alone. But there's two reasons why Anderson, Broad, Bresnan and Swann are so valuable to England - the most obvious one is that they are, by a distance, the best bowling attack in the world. The second is they form the best lower order around - Bresnan and Swann have multiple FC centuries (and Bresnan has two Test 90s to boot) - Broad has a massive Test century which rescued us against Pakistan at Lord's last year (and Broad's half centuries in the first 2 Tests were huge reasons why England eventually won both Tests). A Dale Steyn might be slightly more effective with the ball but it's far too easy to underestimate just how important batting depth is in Test cricket.

 

[smash84]

never seen , any1 rating imran as greatest bowler ever, that means he is not in the league of akram , marshal, lillee, hadlee, holding , mcgrath, ..etc

//As far as test matches are concerned he is a better bowler than Wasim//

statistically , yez

otherwise , there's nobody better than god

If you are talking about swinging the ball then yes maybe there isn't anyone better than Akram but who was better at taking wickets?

 

[BlazeDragon]

that is a blasphemous argument. imran and hadlee were as good as marshall and mcgrath to take the new ball against any team anywhere in the world. it is impossible for anyone to rank these four bowlers in any order without any personal bias. you are welcome to choose marshall and mcgrath to open your bowling (I would go for marshall and hadlee), but there is no way you can say imran and hadlee were not good enough to make it to any dream xi purely as fast bowlers. they did everything, and more, required of any all time top 5 bowler to deserve that kind of respect. even marshall and pigeon would agree to come in at first and second change if all four of them were picked in a team. they all were absolute equals. no question about that.

How exactly is it blasphemous? Statistically they are better bowlers than Hadlee and Imran. If you were picking them because of their batting abilities I could sympathize but if you say your picking them just because of their bowling over two bowlers with superior statistics then I am sorry that's what's really called personal bias.

As for top 5, Hadlee I could understand but I wouldn't put Imran in there.

 

[Ikki]

This pretty much. If he can keep up his current form maybe he can be considered an all time great one day but hey so can Bresnan.

Wrong comparison, which shows your underestimation of Watson. He is not having some little peak with the ball or with the bat. He is a genuine pick as either. In FC cricket he was averaging 50 with the bat IIRC and again averaging in the 20s as a bowler and striking in the 50s.

The only real limiter to Watson is his body, and how much workload he can shoulder. When he bowls, he is pretty much as good as the specialist pacers - as his ratios show clearly. His issue is one of quantity, not quality.

That's why I think comparing him to Kallis, especially in the context of all-rounders in certain XIs, is wrong. Watson is probably the closest thing to Keith Miller as you can get.

 

[smash84]

yeah he might be the closest thing to Miller but the gap is huge I think

 

[BlazeDragon]

You still need your 8, 9, 10 and 11 to bat for you at somepoint. 3 Watsons in your side will barely bowl unless your frontline bowlers haven't performed. Your lower order is still likely to be called upon to bat even if your top order has done the job. Bowling allrounders are much, much more valuable to a team than batting all rounders.

I'm not saying I'd pick the all rounder over a specialist bowler - ultimately your bowling allrounder needs to justify his place through his bowling alone. But there's two reasons why Anderson, Broad, Bresnan and Swann are so valuable to England - the most obvious one is that they are, by a distance, the best bowling attack in the world. The second is they form the best lower order around - Bresnan and Swann have multiple FC centuries (and Bresnan has two Test 90s to boot) - Broad has a massive Test century which rescued us against Pakistan at Lord's last year (and Broad's half centuries in the first 2 Tests were huge reasons why England eventually won both Tests). A Dale Steyn might be slightly more effective with the ball but it's far too easy to underestimate just how important batting depth is in Test cricket.

You can do vice-versa with this also. Someone like Broad or Swann will not even have to bat in a world xi unless your specialist batsmen fails. And there is no reason to expect them to perform if your specialist batsmen themselves are failing. At least not consistently.

I can understand where you are coming from but like I said I disagree. To me both batting and bowling all rounders are equals and both provide in certain times where specialist players fail.

Wrong comparison, which shows your underestimation of Watson. He is not having some little peak with the ball or with the bat. He is a genuine pick as either. In FC cricket he was averaging 50 with the bat IIRC and again averaging in the 20s as a bowler and striking in the 50s.

The only real limiter to Watson is his body, and how much workload he can shoulder. When he bowls, he is pretty much as good as the specialist pacers - as his ratios show clearly. His issue is one of quantity, not quality.

That's why I think comparing him to Kallis, especially in the context of all-rounders in certain XIs, is wrong. Watson is probably the closest thing to Keith Miller as you can get.

I am talking first class here its not in the same level as international cricket. If bring first class into this its becomes a completely different world. Great first class players failing at international level is not an uncommon thing.

I see no reason to treat Watson differently than Bresnan just because of first class records. Both at this point have the potential either to go on and become ATGs or fail and become just another all rounder. I hope the best for Watson and hope he does go on and become one in the future and but I am not taking my chance chance with a lottery ticket and declaring him a future all time great already.

Akram wasn't even close to being the best bowler of his generation never mind best of all time.

Awta. People in general tend to overrate him, A LOT.

 

[Ikki]

You can put whatever weight you wish on it, but I was showing you his FC record to show that it is no fluke and it's not a matter of sample size. Even his ODI bowling is impressive and probably already has a claim as an ATG all-rounder in that form of the game.

Whereas Bresnan is going through a bit of a purple patch with his weaker discipline (just look at his FC record for reference); Watson was/will be a genuine contender with both bat and ball throughout his career. His is not really a matter of skill but of fitness.

There is a pretty good reason to treat them differently. Watson's not doing a whole lot different to his FC record; whereas Bresnan is about double his batting average. One has played almost 30 tests, the other has just entered the double digits.

 

[Sanz]

For people who are claiming that Akram wasn't the best bowler of his generation, can they please explain which generation he belonged to ?

 

[BlazeDragon]

Just one of the reasons I think judging by first class record is unfair is because FC players who get into the international side do it with form. They don't have to deal with downs of their career that people do in a longevity of career in international cricket. Shaun Marsh's case is pretty good example. From what I hear his overall first class is not that good but if you take his record for only recent years it is. He got into the side with form. Now it would be quite unfair to him if he makes records now and we down it just because of his early first class form. He wasn't in form then but he is now and we shouldn't take anything away from him just because he got there a little late. Just one of the reasons why I think you shouldn't put weight on first class records.

Anyways, I would agree that Watson certainly has more potential than Bresnan of being an all time great and I hope he does I really like him as a player. But I don't wanna show any favoritism here by treating him higher than Bresnan or any other all rounders in their situation while they are still playing because lets be honest anything can happen you never know they might maintain this form and they might not you will never know that until the end of their career.

Edit: @Ikki

 

[BlazeDragon]

For people who are claiming that Akram wasn't the best bowler of his generation, can they please explain which generation he belonged to ?

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/52071-rank-your-top-20-bowlers-modern-era.html

Not much of a statistics person are you?

 

[kyear2]

For people who are claiming that Akram wasn't the best bowler of his generation, can they please explain which generation he belonged to ?

From his generation, Mcgrath was better, Ambrose was better, at times Waqar was better and some would argue that Donald was better and Pollock was a better all rounder.
Akran took an dispoportionately high number of lower order wickets and never in his career was the number one rated bowler in the World.
A tad over rated is Akram. Great bolwer but not top tier to me.

 

[smash84]

Great bolwer but not top tier to me.

Emmm.......how would you define top tier?

Wasim was a real match winner. He has the best ratio of MoM awards for any fast bowler in the history of the game.

I am assuming you haven't seen Akram play much have you? As GI once pointed out some staggering figures of how much fielding affects bowling figures you will be off led somewhat by using stats only