Is Imran one of the 10 best bowlers ever?

[Autobahn]

To be honest, the reason Sobers bowled spin (Which he was decent at, but not really good, which he apparently was as a seamer) was because there were so many seamers in the Windies side at that time and team interests dictated that one spinner was needed. And since he was decent at it and because it gave them the option of the additional pacer, he bowled spin in the latter half of his career. Now, all of the above is hearsay, and though I think the people I heard it from are credible, it is still open to be doubted. So, if anyone has facts which proves the contrary, plz let me know in this thread.

No i'm sure Sobers had Gibbs with him a lot or one of the other spinners at the time.

Sobers used himself more as a stock bowler when bowling pace, and let Hall and Griffith really take the attack to the batsmen, and when he bowled his spinners i remember hearing that he bowled very flat and full often trying to buy wickets.

And for me Imran Khan's batting lets him down compared to sobers.

 

[Swervy]

Lillee has more reputation than substance in my opinion...doesnt take away from the fact that he was an alltime great bowler but its similar to overhyping Ronaldinho to be in Pele's class. Lillee's record against the best batting lineup of his time (the WI) is modest.
His record in subcontinent is abbysmal, not to mention such a brief sojourn in the subcontinent leaves a huge question mark on his performance on unfriendly pitches.
It is interesting that you take Lillee as one of the greatest ( the greatest in your opinion) and relegate Murali as 'great but not so great' despite the stats being exactly the other way round.

How many more times...Lillee only played 4 tests in the subcontinent, it is not enough to judge either way whether he was abbysmal or not, to be fair all the pace bowlers on the Pakistan tour suffered.

 

[social]

While I agree that C_C's estimation of Akhtar's worth is exaggerated - I think some of you are seriously underestimating him in turn. In face of his off field and on field shenanigans it is easy to lose sight of his bowling powers which have been on a steady incline since he came to the fore during the 98-99 season.

People that compare him to Lillee are seriously overestimating him.

When on song, he's a top quality bowler.

When he walks off the field, as he did vs Aus at the SCG on their last tour (basically because he'd pulled the pin - and didnt his team-mates and coach let him know how they felt), he doesnt deserve mention in the same breath as Lillee.

 

[Swervy]

Just noticed that CC said Lillees record vs WI was modest...what a pile of tosh, after his back problems, he was as effective against WI as probably any fast bowler of the time, it is interesting to note that during the time Lillee played, Imran Khan averaged 4 runs per wicket MORE than Lillee vs WI

 

[social]

To be honest, the reason Sobers bowled spin (Which he was decent at, but not really good, which he apparently was as a seamer) was because there were so many seamers in the Windies side at that time and team interests dictated that one spinner was needed. And since he was decent at it and because it gave them the option of the additional pacer, he bowled spin in the latter half of his career. Now, all of the above is hearsay, and though I think the people I heard it from are credible, it is still open to be doubted. So, if anyone has facts which proves the contrary, plz let me know in this thread.

Sobers was originally picked to play test cricket as a spinner - other forms of bowling came about via natural talent.

 

[Francis]

To be honest, the reason Sobers bowled spin (Which he was decent at, but not really good, which he apparently was as a seamer) was because there were so many seamers in the Windies side at that time and team interests dictated that one spinner was needed.

If Sobers was the best seamer in the team, he would have remained a seamer. I agee with the lad above me, when Lance Gibbs is in your team, you don't have to be a spinner. Sobers was renound for taking great catches at silly mid off when Gibbs was bowling. I personally think Sobers enjoyed being able to do anything. Which is neat. But as a bowler I think he may be overrated.

And for me Imran Khan's batting lets him down compared to sobers.

Khan's batting was beautiful. Not a lot fo people realised how hard he worked on it and how straight his bat was. Having a batting average around 40 is terrific for any person who's also a great bowler. Not I don't know if Khan could have done that with the bat if he bowled a bit more. But either way it's incredible.

I completely disagree with Ian Chappell, who said it many times, that "Gary Sobers was as far ahead of the next best all-rounder, as Bradman is of the best best batsman." Because Imran Khan is fairly close to Sobers. Like I said, Khan was probably one of the 100 best batters ever, same as Sobers with the ball. I think Sobers has a distinct and clear edge over him Khan... but the distance isn't far. If somebody said to be Khan was the third best cricketer ever, I wouldn't blink. I might not agree, but it makes sense.

 

[Swervy]

To be honest, the reason Sobers bowled spin (Which he was decent at, but not really good, which he apparently was as a seamer) was because there were so many seamers in the Windies side at that time and team interests dictated that one spinner was needed.

If Sobers was the best seamer in the team, he would have remained a seamer. I agee with the lad above me, when Lance Gibbs is in your team, you don't have to be a spinner. Sobers was renound for taking great catches at silly mid off when Gibbs was bowling. I personally think Sobers enjoyed being able to do anything. Which is neat. But as a bowler I think he may be overrated.

And for me Imran Khan's batting lets him down compared to sobers.

Khan's batting was beautiful. Not a lot fo people realised how hard he worked on it and how straight his bat was. Having a batting average around 40 is terrific for any person who's also a great bowler. Not I don't know if Khan could have done that with the bat if he bowled a bit more. But either way it's incredible.

I completely disagree with Ian Chappell, who said it many times, that "Gary Sobers was as far ahead of the next best all-rounder, as Bradman is of the best best batsman." Because Imran Khan is fairly close to Sobers. Like I said, Khan was probably one of the 100 best batters ever, same as Sobers with the ball. I think Sobers has a distinct and clear edge over him Khan... but the distance isn't far. If somebody said to be Khan was the third best cricketer ever, I wouldn't blink. I might not agree, but it makes sense.

sorry mate, but to say Imran was one of the 100 best batsmen of all time is way way off the mark...he was a good batsman no doubt, but in my opinion someone like Botham at his best was a better batsman than Imran, and I would never say Botham was close to being in the top 100 of all time.

 

[Francis]

Actually I concede that to you after looking at a few things. The only thing I disagree with is the beefy comment. Beefy wasn't a better batter, even at his best. Imran worked very hard of his batting!

 

[Autobahn]

Meh they where both good all-rounders where they differed was their respective talents, Botham was more likely to change the game with a fantastic knock with the bat then with the ball (Increasing so after 1982), where as Imran was more a steady robust batsmen but far more likely to run through teams with the ball.

 

[Anil]

Hey Anil,

Whats with that signature ?

Of course it tells which style of keyboard you are using

well yeah...it just has all the characters that all keyboards have....it is a symbol of my all-encompassing vision and range....

 

[steds]

To be honest, the reason Sobers bowled spin (Which he was decent at, but not really good, which he apparently was as a seamer) was because there were so many seamers in the Windies side at that time and team interests dictated that one spinner was needed.

He made his test debut (as a left arm orthodox spinner. The other stuff developed later) in the age of Ramadhin and Valentine. A time when West Indies had precious little good seamers.

 

[C_C]

How many more times...Lillee only played 4 tests in the subcontinent, it is not enough to judge either way whether he was abbysmal or not, to be fair all the pace bowlers on the Pakistan tour suffered.

You dont complete an assignment, you get zero in it.
Greatness is judged on achievements. Lillee has gaping holes in his 'achievements' resume.

 

[C_C]

Just noticed that CC said Lillees record vs WI was modest...what a pile of tosh, after his back problems, he was as effective against WI as probably any fast bowler of the time, it is interesting to note that during the time Lillee played, Imran Khan averaged 4 runs per wicket MORE than Lillee vs WI

Kapil, Imran, Hadlee, etc. were all more successful than Lillee against the WI.
Lillee was very much a 'clobbered one day - will destroy you the next' kinda bowler. Not the 'destroy you most of the time, get clobbered seldom' type bowler ala Hadlee, Imran,Marshall,Holding,etc.
And the WI had distinct advantage over Lillee in WSC as well - Lillee did well in 2-3 innings but got absolutely murdered the others.

 

[social]

Kapil, Imran, Hadlee, etc. were all more successful than Lillee against the WI.
Lillee was very much a 'clobbered one day - will destroy you the next' kinda bowler. Not the 'destroy you most of the time, get clobbered seldom' type bowler ala Hadlee, Imran,Marshall,Holding,etc.
And the WI had distinct advantage over Lillee in WSC as well - Lillee did well in 2-3 innings but got absolutely murdered the others.

C_C,

this would have to represent one of the most ludicrous assessments of any cricketers Ive ever seen.

Apples for apples, i.e. during the time that Lillee played, he was regarded as being so far ahead of the others you mention that it's not funny.

And, fyi, until the early 80s, Imran was the one that fitted the bill of being devastating one day, pedestrian the next. It was only after substantial remodelling of his action post WSC that he got any consistency at all into his bowling.

 

[Slifer]

To be honest, the reason Sobers bowled spin (Which he was decent at, but not really good, which he apparently was as a seamer) was because there were so many seamers in the Windies side at that time and team interests dictated that one spinner was needed.

If Sobers was the best seamer in the team, he would have remained a seamer. I agee with the lad above me, when Lance Gibbs is in your team, you don't have to be a spinner. Sobers was renound for taking great catches at silly mid off when Gibbs was bowling. I personally think Sobers enjoyed being able to do anything. Which is neat. But as a bowler I think he may be overrated.

And for me Imran Khan's batting lets him down compared to sobers.

Khan's batting was beautiful. Not a lot fo people realised how hard he worked on it and how straight his bat was. Having a batting average around 40 is terrific for any person who's also a great bowler. Not I don't know if Khan could have done that with the bat if he bowled a bit more. But either way it's incredible.

I completely disagree with Ian Chappell, who said it many times, that "Gary Sobers was as far ahead of the next best all-rounder, as Bradman is of the best best batsman." Because Imran Khan is fairly close to Sobers. Like I said, Khan was probably one of the 100 best batters ever, same as Sobers with the ball. I think Sobers has a distinct and clear edge over him Khan... but the distance isn't far. If somebody said to be Khan was the third best cricketer ever, I wouldn't blink. I might not agree, but it makes sense.

For the first time on this board i actually agree with u. And ill like to add that Keith Miller is also worth mentioning when comparing other all-arounders to Sobers.

 

[Autobahn]

For the first time on this board i actually agree with u. And ill like to add that Keith Miller is also worth mentioning when comparing other all-arounders to Sobers.

Me or Francis?

 

[C_C]

C_C,

this would have to represent one of the most ludicrous assessments of any cricketers Ive ever seen.

Apples for apples, i.e. during the time that Lillee played, he was regarded as being so far ahead of the others you mention that it's not funny.

And, fyi, until the early 80s, Imran was the one that fitted the bill of being devastating one day, pedestrian the next. It was only after substantial remodelling of his action post WSC that he got any consistency at all into his bowling.

Yes, Imran was no demon till the late 70s. But for the next decade, he surpassed Lillee's accomplishments, along with Hadlee, Marshall and Holding.
The best in any given timeframe doesnt equate to 'as good as anyone before or after'. Indeed, Hayden has the best record in this millenia but he isnt in the same bracket as Dravid,Tendulkar,Lara,Waugh,etc. In the late 60s/early 70s the best fast bowler was Graham McKenzie...a fine bowler no doubt but hardly comparable to the alltime greats.
Same with Lillee. He has far too many holes in his resume for me to put him in the top 10.

 

[Autobahn]

Yes, Imran was no demon till the late 70s. But for the next decade, he surpassed Lillee's accomplishments, along with Hadlee, Marshall and Holding.
The best in any given timeframe doesnt equate to 'as good as anyone before'. Indeed, Hayden has the best record in this millenia but he isnt in the same bracket as Dravid,Tendulkar,Lara,Waugh,etc.
Same with Lillee. He has far too many holes in his resume for me to put him in the top 10.

Well didn't someone say that Khan got much better when he stopped trying to hit batsmen?

 

[marc71178]

You dont complete an assignment, you get zero in it.
Greatness is judged on achievements. Lillee has gaping holes in his 'achievements' resume.

Bradman never made runs in Sri Lanka, therefore he can't be great.

 

[C_C]

Bradman never made runs in Sri Lanka, therefore he can't be great.

Trust you to miss the point as usual.
If Bradman averaged 55-57 while playing only in OZ and ENG, he too would be out of the top list.
His extraordinary record ( which Lillee does NOT have) excuses him to an extent.
But Lillee is unproven at best and dismal at worst on unresponsive pitches, got clobbered too often and doent have an extraordinary record against the best team of his times.
he practically played exclusively in OZ and Eng and if playing in OZ and ENG only, the haven of pace bowlers in those days, makes you the greatest, then Anil Kumble is the greatest leggie there ever has been, given his performance in subcontinental pitches.