Shane Warne vs Imran Khan

[kyear2]

They were eventually swapped in 84. Unsure how that transition occurred whether Garner took over after an injury then continued with that setup or if it was just a choice.

Pretty sure it was due to injury, but that's going by memory.

 

[kyear2]

Hmm, seems like for Australia’s tour of Windies in 84, Holding didn’t play the first two matches and Marshall didn’t play the first. Garner took 9/142 and 7/95, including 2 6’fers and getting Steve Smith out twice. From then on he remained opening.

Now that's special.

The ultimate time heist.

 

[sayon basak]

Barnes apart, it is.

You don't rate pre war players, doesn't mean everybody else has to do the same. The very lists you quote to boost Barry have Barnes in the top 15 as a cricketer.

 

[Johan]

Barnes apart, it is.

Nothing unreasonable about having Barnes above Warne.

 

[DrWolverine]

Nothing unreasonable about having Barnes above anyone

 

[Johan]

Nothing unreasonable about having Barnes below McGrath while simultaneously rating both.

 

[DrWolverine]

For me, Barnes is either the best bowler ever or he should not be compared to modern day greats

 

[Johan]

You just got that take from Subs and say it without understanding his record.

 

[subshakerz]

You just got that take from Subs and say it without understanding his record.

My position is similar to Kyear. I find it hard to rate Barnes as I could not watch him bowl.

But if I had to put him in my top ten, it would be no.8 after the best pacers and Warne/Murali.

 

[DrWolverine]

You just got that take from Subs and say it without understanding his record.

If something is good, you can borrow it

Except Don, I find it hard to compare pre war cricketers to modern day greats

 

[Johan]

If something is good, you can borrow it

Except Don, I find it hard to compare pre war cricketers to modern day greats

but you'd rate 70s and 80s greats, even though Cricket objectively changed more in 1970-2025 than in 1915-1970.

Sure.

 

[subshakerz]

Cricket objectively changed more in 1970-2025 than in 1915-1970.

Explain

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I think it was somewhat of a different sport back then but I don’t have a problem with guys with great statistics from that era being rated highly

 

[Coronis]

For me, Barnes is either the best bowler ever or he should not be compared to modern day greats

For me Barnes is either a mean old git or he should not be compared to modern day gits.

 

[akilana]

If something is good, you can borrow it

Except Don, I find it hard to compare pre war cricketers to modern day greats

To be honest Don shouldn’t be an exception but people would get too emotional for that conversation.

 

[subshakerz]

To be honest Don shouldn’t be an exception but people would get too emotional for that conversation.

Don has video footage and is such an outlier that his case becomes undeniable.

 

[Xix2565]

Imran > Warne > Barnes. So easy.

 

[Johan]

Barnes > Warne > Imran. So easy.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran (without Sri Lanka): 316 @ 24.00
Holding (never played Lankans): 249 @ 23.69

Just want to say one thing here.

Its fine to compare overall stats but for me it kind of matters that Holding played a decade of cricket as a pace bowler whereas Imran played twice as long to get his stats.

To me it's simply wrong to think that proper fast bowlers can be expected to play over two decades of cricket and to not expect their stats to take a hit, and it's inherently unfair to compare that with bowlers like Holding, Marshall and Donald with shorter careers centered mostly around their respective peaks/primes and not factor this in.

However I would be interested in the arguments of those who suggest this is simply special pleading and all stats should be treated on the same merit

 

[Johan]

Just want to say one thing here.

Its fine to compare overall stats but for me it kind of matters that Holding played a decade of cricket as a pace bowler whereas Imran played twice as long to get his stats.

To me it's simply wrong to think that proper fast bowlers can be expected to play over two decades of cricket and to not expect their stats to take a hit, and it's inherently unfair to compare that with bowlers like Holding, Marshall and Donald with shorter careers centered mostly around their respective peaks/primes and not factor this in.

However I would be interested in the arguments of those who suggest this is simply special pleading and all stats should be treated on the same merit

Yeah I agree, that's why I'd suggest we only do 74 to 88 for Imran's bowling, he returned to bowling in 74 and more or less faded from bowling in 1988, this contains Holding's career.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/40560.html?class=1;spanmax1=02+Jan+1989;spanmin1=03+Jan+1974;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

65 matches, 288 wickets @ 22.94.

Holding's career

60 matches, 249 wickets @ 23.69