Sorry, disagree for the reasons mentioned earlier, and for the fact that in trying to winnow out who is or is not a minnow the door is opened to too much subjectivity (leaving aside the contention that objectivity is at all possible). In this case, Sri Lanka were a new test side with good test class batsmen a good number of whom averaged over 30, and scored a few test hundreds and half centuries. Come to that, if they really were all that crap does that mean that their runs are worth more than that of others, or that the bowling attacks they scored runs against must, logically, be crap. Jeez, Roy Dias scored a lovely half century against Bob Willis and co in his first test - I should tell them both of that conclusion.
Why would Dias' runs be worth more? Because it takes an inferior batsman more effort than a great batsman to score runs against a tough bowler? Well, if that's so...that is the whole point. A better batsman is more capable of dealing with better bowlers. That's why he is a better batsman. The same is not said of the other side of the spectrum when judging strong bowlers against weaker batsman, for example.
Really, it is more objective to consider various variables that may have given advantage to a batsman/bowler over another batsman/bowler. If you really can prove and show that there is a glaring difference, then that is not being subjective.
Your other point about them scoring more runs off attacks must be crap is not valid. If that bowling attack was weak all-over, then yes. But just because, for example, X bowler was smashed by Dias but did well against everyone else doesn't make him crap just because Dias scored runs against him. What we are considering is overall records, this really didn't need explaining.
But the argument falls down even statistically speaking.
These are Imran's career figures against all countries.
It looks like Imran has benefited by playing Sri Lanka 10 times (in which incidentally, he only bowled in seven of them). But this does not take into account the fact that Imran's bowling against Sri Lanka coincided with his peak as a bowler. I therefore reran the stats from when Sri Lanka entered the test arena in 1982, around the same time Imran began hitting his straps as a bowler. Imrans record from 82 - 92 is below.
Well, if he only bowled in 7 of them, then that is 3 less tests overall too. Let's look at his peak then.
Code:
Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
unfiltered 1971-1992 88 142 - 727 8258 362 8/58 14/116 22.81 2.54 53.7 23 6 Profile
filtered 1982-1992 52 78 1708.1 424 4177 218 8/58 14/116 19.16 2.44 47.0 15 5
The period in question where Imran plays 52 tests, 10 of them are against Sri Lanka. His record is inflated somewhat because of Sri Lanka. Although it may not be as strong as the above, it's still strong and his record against the Windies are a reason why many rate him as one of the greatest ever.
Code:
Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
v Australia 1982-1990 8 10 173.2 51 338 17 4/35 8/80 19.88 1.95 61.1 0 0
v England 1982-1987 8 13 346.3 81 845 42 7/40 10/77 20.11 2.43 49.5 4 1
v India 1982-1989 15 24 531.5 136 1454 61 8/60 11/79 23.83 2.73 52.3 4 2
v New Zealand 1989-1989 2 4 103.2 36 198 7 3/34 6/109 28.28 1.91 88.5 0 0
[B]v Sri Lanka 1982-1992 10 14 298.0 76 673 46 8/58 14/116 14.63 2.25 38.8 3 1[/B]
[B]v West Indies 1986-1990 9 13 255.1 44 669 45 7/80 11/121 14.86 2.62 34.0 4 1[/B]
You will note that his record against Sri Lanka is more or less the same as his record against the West Indies. Now, according to your measure, do we suddenly drop Imran's figures against the West Indies because they 'inflate' his record? Clearly not, but if we accept your logic we would have to which, as I said, would lead to all sorts of complications and, with all respect, laughable conclusions.
Imran owned the WIndies. There is no disagreement on that. That's half of the reason Imran is 'Imran'. But you have gotten my measure totally wrong if you think my measure is to drop his figures against the Windies. The whole point to Imran's record being great against the Windies meaning something is that the Windies routinely crushed most others and were the best team of the era. That's not the same as Sri Lanka who were the poorest team of the era. Two completely different ways of thought and, again, I didn't expect that this needed much explaining.
Sri Lanka, for a side that had just begun playing tests, with a poor first class structure (its the Colombo school structure that delivered Sri Lanka's early/middle period batsmen) did pretty damn well for themselves. Certainly more than enough to have their worth as test batsmen and as test wickets recognised for what they are, adequate and more at test level.
Whether they were test level or not is not my contention. They were a poor team compared to the sides of the time and a large chunk of Imran's overall figures come from Sri Lanka. Now Imran has periods in his career where he was at his peak or not a complete bowler...what have you.... but overall his figures are more than helped because of the frequency and success he had against Sri Lanka. This shouldn't be a talking point. The only contention I can see, and thankfully no one has put forth, is if someone actually thought Sri Lanka were better than some other teams at the same time. Otherwise, the rest stands strongly on it's own logic and is not contradictory or troublesome as you suggested.
Moreover, I have made these statements in the context that I find it hard to swallow that people say Imran and Wasim are that separable as bowlers. They're in the same class.
